Journal of Behavioral Education

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 105–115 | Cite as

Cooperative learning and group contingencies

  • Robert E. Slavin
Article

Abstract

This paper discusses the similarities and differences between cooperative learning and group contingencies. Cooperative learning refers to any methods in which students work together to help one another learn, while group contingencies refer to rewarding students based on the performance of a group. Research on the achievement effects of cooperative learning finds that these methods are effective primarily when they incorporate group contingencies, when groups are rewarded based on the average of their members' individual learning performances. The use of group contingencies within cooperative learning is hypothesized to motivate students to do a good job of explaining concepts and skills to their groupmates, and elaborated explanation is the principal behavior found to account for achievement gains in cooperative learning.

Key words

cooperative learning group contingencies achievement gains motivation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ames, G. J., & Murray, F. B. (1982). When two wrongs make a right: Promoting cognitive change by social conflict.Developmental Psychology, 18, 894–897.Google Scholar
  2. Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978).The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Axelrod, S., & Paluska, J. (1975). A component analysis of the effects of a classroom game on spelling performance. In E. Ramp & G. Semb (Eds.),Behavior analysis: Areas of research and application. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. M. (1969). Good behavior game: Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 119–124.Google Scholar
  5. Burns, M. (1981, September). Groups of four: Solving the management problem.Learning, 46–51.Google Scholar
  6. Cavanagh, B. R. (1984).Effects of interdependent group contingencies on the achievement of elementary school children. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, 1984).Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 1558.Google Scholar
  7. Dansereau, D. F. (1988). Cooperative learning strategies. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.),Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation (pp. 103–120). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. De Vries, D. L., & Slavin, R. E. (1978). Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT): Review of ten classroom experiments.Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12, 28–38.Google Scholar
  9. Glasser, W. (1988).Control theory in the classroom. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  10. Greenwood, C. R., Dinwiddie, G., Terry, B., Wade, L., Stanley, S., Thibadeau, S., & Delaquadri, J. (1984). Teacher versus peer-mediated instruction: An ecobehavioral analysis.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 521–538.Google Scholar
  11. Hamblin, R. L., Hathaway, C., & Wodarski, J. S. (1971). Group contingencies, peer tutoring, and accelerating academic achievement. In E. Ramp & W. Hopkins (Eds.),A new direction for education: Behavior analysis (pp. 41–53). Lawrence: University of Kansas.Google Scholar
  12. Hayes, L. (1976). The use of group contingencies for behavioral control: A review.Psychological Bulletin, 83, 628–648.Google Scholar
  13. Huber, G. L., Bogatzki, W., & Winter, M. (1982).Kooperation als Ziel schulischen Lehrens und Lehrens. Tubingen, West Germany: Arbeitsbereich Padagogische Psychologie der Universitat Tubingen.Google Scholar
  14. Hulten, B. H., & De Vries, D. L. (1976).Team competition and group practice: Effects on student achievement and attitudes (Report No. 212). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Social Organization of Schools.Google Scholar
  15. Humphreys, B., Johnson, R., & Johnson, D. W. (1982). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning on students' achievement in science class.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, 351–356.Google Scholar
  16. Jacobs, J. F. (1970).A comparison of group and individual rewards in teaching reading to slow learners. Unpublished paper, University of Florida (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 044 265).Google Scholar
  17. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987).Learning together and alone (2nd Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Scott, L. (1978). The effects of cooperative and individualized instruction on student attitudes and achievement.Journal of Social Psychology, 104, 207–216.Google Scholar
  19. Johnson, L. C., & Waxman, H. C. (1985, March).Evaluating the effects of the “groups of four” program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  20. Litow, L., & Pumroy, D. K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 341–347.Google Scholar
  21. Lovitt, T. C., Guppy, T. E., & Blattner, J. E. (1969). The use of a free-time contingency to increase spelling accuracy.Behavior Research and Therapy, 7, 151–156.Google Scholar
  22. Mattingly, R. M., & VanSickle, R. L. (1990).Jigsaw II in secondary social studies: An experiment. Athens, GA: University of Georgia.Google Scholar
  23. Mugny, G., & Doise, W. (1978). Socio-cognitive conflict and structurization of individual and collective performances.European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 181–192.Google Scholar
  24. Murray, F. B. (1982). Teaching through social conflict.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 7, 257–271.Google Scholar
  25. Peterson, P. L., & Janicki, T. C. (1979). Individual characteristics and children's learning in large-group and small-group approaches.Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 677–687.Google Scholar
  26. Sharan, S., & Shachar, H. (1988).Language and learning in the cooperative classroom. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  27. Slavin, R. E. (1977). Classroom reward structure: An analytic and practical review.Review of Educational Research, 47, 633–650.Google Scholar
  28. Slavin, R. E. (1980b). Effects of student teams and peer tutoring on academic achievement and time-on-task.Journal of Experimental Education, 48, 252–257.Google Scholar
  29. Slavin, R. E. (1983b). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement?Psychological Bulletin, 94, 429–445.Google Scholar
  30. Slavin, R. E. (1986).Educational psychology: Theory into practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  31. Slavin, R. E. (1987a). Cooperative learning: Where behavioral and humanistic approaches to classroom motivation meet.Elementary School Journal, 88, 29–37.Google Scholar
  32. Slavin, R. E. (1987b). Developmental and motivational perspectives on cooperative learning: A reconciliation.Child Development, 58, 1161–1167.Google Scholar
  33. Slavin, R. E. (1989). Cooperative learning and student achievement: Six theoretical perspectives. In M. L. Maehr & C. Ames (Eds.),Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 6) (pp. 161–178). Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
  34. Slavin, R. E. (1990).Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  35. Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., & Leavey, M. (1984). Effects of Team Assisted Individualization on the mathematics achievement of academically handicapped students and nonhandicapped students.Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 813–819.Google Scholar
  36. Stevens, R. J., Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., & Famish, A. M. (1987). Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition: Two field experiments.Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 433–454.Google Scholar
  37. Van Houten, R. (1980).Learning through feedback: A systematic approach for improving academic performance. New York: Human Sciences Press.Google Scholar
  38. Webb, N. (1985). Student interaction and learning in small groups: A research summary. In R. E. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.),Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 147–172). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  39. Yager, S., Johnson, R. T., Johnson, D. W., & Snider, B. (1986). The impact of group processing on achievement in cooperative learning.Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 389–397.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert E. Slavin
    • 1
  1. 1.Elementary School Program, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged StudentsThe Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimore

Personalised recommendations