Education and Information Technologies 10:1/2, 49–63, 2005.
c© 2005 Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. Manufactured in The Netherlands.
Effects of Collaborative and Individual Learning
in a Blended Learning Environment
PIERRE J. VAN EIJL
IVLOS, Institute of Education, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
E-mail: p.j.vaneijl@ivlos.uu.nl
ALBERT PILOT
IVLOS, Institute of Education and Faculty of Chemistry, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
E-mail: a.pilot@ivlos.uu.nl
PETER DE VOOGD
Faculty of Arts, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
E-mail: Peter.deVoogd@let.uu.nl
Abstract
In courses using a virtual learning environment (VLE), some students like to work together, and some do not. If
we give students the opportunity to choose either teamwork or individual study, how does this affect their marks
and their appraisal and assessment of the course?
This question has been investigated in the context of an English Literature course at the University of Utrecht.
In this course, students work intensively with a VLE, and attend lectures: a blended learning environment. Previous
research has shown that the pedagogical design used provides a powerful learning environment. This time, students
had the choice of working on the course assignments in small teams (2–4 students), or individually. Both groups
were compared based on their study results, and the answers to a questionnaire. Students valued the choice.
Mainly those students with high marks for a previous course, which had a similar pedagogical design, preferred
collaboration. Statistical analysis showed that collaboration resulted in significantly better marks.
Keywords: virtual learning environment, higher education, pedagogical design, collaborative learning, blended
learning
1. Start of the Research
In the department of English, during the past five years, second year (sophomore) students
studied 18th century English literature in a setting combining Face-to-Face (F2F) with a
virtual learning environment (VLE). This course turned out to be very successful. Both
students and teacher liked the course (Van Eijl et al., 2000). Originally, the course had been
Address for correspondence: Drs. P. J. van Eijl, Utrecht University, IVLOS, P.O. Box 80127, 3508 TC Utrecht,
The Netherlands.

50 VAN EIJL ET AL.
composed of a series of lectures and tutorials, a reading list, and a final exam. Many students
had tended to postpone the reading, and the completion rate at the exam had only been 60%.
In the new version of this 18th century literature course based on F2F and the VLE,
students in its first half worked in small teams of 3 students, and then in the second half
individually. The VLE provided the students with extra content to enrich their learning,
self control tests, weekly graded quizzes, and assignments. The grades for the quizzes and
the assignments replaced the final exam. Each week had a theme, with a book to read, its
author, a literary subject, and social, cultural and historical background information. For the
completion of the quizzes and the assignments, the students had to study the books of their
reading list. Each week, a session was planned during which students could work in teams,
with computers available, and a possibility to pose questions to their teacher. Questions
could also be placed on the discussion forum (Bulletin Board) of the VLE, where fellow
students and the teacher could respond to them. Each week, the assignments had to be sent
in before a deadline. The evaluation results showed a great deal of appreciation and effort
on the part of the students (and the teacher), a rise of the completion rate from 60% to more
than 90% (also after 4 years).
The evaluation also showed that some students preferred to work in teams and other
students did not. In a following course, 19th century English Literature, with the same
pedagogical design, this was turned into a topic for the research described in this paper:
what is the effect on the learning results and the appreciation for the course of being able
to choose either team or individual study?
2. Factors of Interest for Collaborative Learning
2.1. Factors for collaborative learning
Within learning psychology and pedagogy, different theories have been developed on collab-
orative learning. This refers probably to the great interest of many people in the learning po-
tential of students working together. Collaborative learning can be considered (Dillenbourg
et al., 1996; Roschelle and Teasley, 1995) to involve the “mutual engagement of partici-
pants in a coordinated effort to solve the problem together”. Social-constructive theories
(Woolfolk, 2001), emphasize the importance to the learning process of social interaction.
This interaction during the learning process should promote the achievement of higher
cognitive goals. The theory about co-operative learning of Johnson and Johnson (1994) em-
phasizes the importance of its organisation in order to make it meaningful and effective. In
areview about collaborative learning, Van der Linden and Haenen (1999) mention that the
cognitive learning results in different subject areas and tasks are better than, or at least just
as good as in individual or competitive learning situations. Later on, also motivation, self-
confidence, and relations between students are promoted. The authors conclude, however,
that the results concerning the cognitive, social, and motivational level do not always point
to the same conclusions, and are sometimes contradictory. They say that many researchers
consider group goals, and the responsibility of the individual team member, as necessary