Foundations of Group Behavior

Article 1

CURRENT RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Volume 7 , Number 17

Submitted : July 16 , 2002

First Revision : August 13 , 2002

Second Revision : August 13 , 2002

Accepted : August 13 , 2002

Publication date : August 14 , 2002

EFFECTS OF SOCIAL COHESIVENESS AND COOPERATIVE INCENTIVES ON SMALL GROUP LEARNING OUTCOMES

Elaine Chapman

The University of Sydney

ABSTRACT

Research into the effects of cooperative learning on academic performance has produced conflicting results . This study aimed to assess whether these effects varied with the incentive structure under which groups worked

and with the level of social cohesiveness between group members . Eighty-nine 5th and 6th grade students were assigned randomly to one of four conditions in a 2 (incentive ) by 2 (cohesiveness factorial design . Results indicated that students who received rewards based on their individual contributions to an overall group product outperformed those who received rewards based on an overall group product alone . Students in the former condition also made significantly greater pre-post increases on a sociometric scale . In contrast students who worked in groups that were high in social cohesiveness performed marginally worse than those who worked in low cohesive groups Implications of these results for theory and practice in the area are discussed

[293]

---------------

[294]

Cooperative learning strategies are now widely advocated as a means by which schools can improve students ' social integration (e .g , Pettigrew 1998 . Despite this , recent surveys suggest that structured small group methods have not found widespread application in classroom settings (Autil , et al , 1998 . Despite their positive effects on social and personal outcomes , research into the effects of these methods on academic performance has produced conflicting results (Slavin , 1996 Reduced effects of cooperative learning have often been ascribed to motivational losses that occur in the group process . Examples of such losses include "free-rider " effects , in which some members allow other members to do all the work (e .g , Kerr Brunn , 1983 , and "sucker effects , where high-achieving members reduce their efforts to avoid having to do all the work (Kerr , 1983

Slavin (1996 ) has argued that in to have positive effects on student achievement , cooperative learning should incorporate two key components : Group rewards and individual accountability . In this view members of cooperative groups should receive rewards based on the performance of their groups as a whole . Slavin argued that without this component , students would not be motivated to interact effectively on their assigned tasks . Slavin further stipulated , however , that group rewards would not be effective in motivating all students unless the performance of groups was explicitly determined by the individual achievements of group members . Slavin posed that without the latter component , the positive effects of the group reward system on member motivation would be lost through diffusion of responsibility amongst group members and resulting "free rider " and "sucker " effects

These propositions have been supported through a recent meta-analysis of cooperative learning evaluations . Slavin (1996 ) cumulated the effects of 99 studies that compared the achievement effects of cooperative learning and more traditional individualistic or competitive instructional approaches . When the approaches...