This study compared three groups of adult learners in a church education environment in order to determine the effectiveness of using lecture/demonstration plus cooperative learning elements with or without group processing (LCL) as compared to the use of lecture/demonstration plus individualistic learning elements (LIL) with the Inductive Bible Study Method (IBSM) as the common subject for all groups. While group A experienced highly structured cooperative learning without having group processing, group B experienced highly structured cooperative learning with an emphasis on group processing. Group C served as a control group. This study took place with a total of five class hours. For measuring student cognitive achievement, the subjects were administered a written pretest and posttest in the form of a "use-of-IBSM measure." For measuring students' attitude toward Bible interpretation (as promoted by IBSM), the students responded to an "attitude-toward-Bible-interpretation measure" at pretest and posttest. For measuring students' affective reactions, the students responded to a posttest-only "students'-satisfaction-with-the-learning-experience measure". Students' attitude toward the philosophy behind IBSM was measured by using an "attitude-toward-IBSM" instrument at posttest. In addition, teachers and students were interviewed orally at posttest to ascertain their affective reactions to the instructional approach they experienced. Connections between demographic data and students' use and/or attitude toward ISBM, as well as their satisfaction with the learning experience and attitude toward cooperative versus individualistic instructional methodology were also explored. The data from the use-of IBSM as well as attutide-toward-Bible-interpretation measures were analyzed by analysis of covariance. Other posttest-only tests were analyzed by a priori comparisons. Three major findings of this study were: (1) LCL did not produce any significant impact on learners' use of IBSM, attitude toward IBSM, or satisfaction with the learning experiences compared to LIL; (2) Group processing did not enhance the achievement effects of the experimental group B when compared to other contrast groups; and (3) LCL promoted students' affective outcomes in the areas of consensus building and intragroup dynamics.