Journal of Behavioral Education

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 167–188

Individual Accountability in Cooperative Learning Groups at the College Level: Differential Effects on High, Average, and Low Exam Performers

Article

Abstract

Over a three-semester period in a large undergraduate human development course, students were assigned to 5–7 member groups to work together in preparing for an exam in one of the five content units in the course. Their exam performance was tracked over three units: a baseline unit in which students worked only individually, a unit in which they worked in cooperative teams, and a follow-up unit in which the formal cooperative team structure was removed. Three different bonus-credit contingencies were used in the cooperative learning unit across the three semesters: (a) awarding full bonus credit to each individual in the group if the group as a whole improved its exam performance by the specified amount, (b) awarding partial bonus credit to each individual in the group if the group as a whole improved it exam performance by the specified amount and full bonus credit to each individual who also improved by the specified amount, and (c) awarding full bonus credit to an individual in the group if both the group and the individual improved exam performance by the specified amount. The three contingencies produced somewhat similar patterns of change for low and average performers, but the high performers fared better under the last two contingencies than under the group-only contingency.

Keywords

cooperative learning group contingencies bonus credit college students 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Hampton, D. R., & Grudnitski, G. (1996). Does cooperative learning mean equal learning? Journal of Education for Business, 7, 5–17.Google Scholar
  2. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  3. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1992, October). What to say to advocates for the gifted. Educational Leadership, 50, 44–47.Google Scholar
  4. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college. Change, 30(4), 26–35.Google Scholar
  5. Kagan, S. (1985). Dimensions of cooperative classroom structures. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn(pp. 67–96). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  6. Kennett, D. J., & Young, A. M. (1999). Is cooperative learning effective for high achieving entrance students? Implications for policy and teaching resources. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 33, 27–35.Google Scholar
  7. Lloyd, J. W., Eberhardt, M. J., & Drake, G. P. (1996). Group versus individual reinforcement contingencies within the context of group study conditions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 189–200.Google Scholar
  8. Litow, L., & Pumroy, D. K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 341–347.Google Scholar
  9. Popkin, J., & Skinner, C. H. (2003). Enhancing academic performance in a classroom serving students with serious emotional disturbance: Interdependent group contingencies with randomly selected components. School Psychology Review, 32, 282–295.Google Scholar
  10. Skinner, C. H., Williams, R. L., & Neddenriep, C. (2004). Using interdependent group-oriented reinforcement to enhance academic performance in general education classrooms. School Psychology Review, 33, 383–397.Google Scholar
  11. Slavin, R. E. (1987). Cooperative learning: Where behavioral and humanistic approaches to classroom motivation meet. The Elementary School Journal, 88, 29–37.Google Scholar
  12. Slavin, R. E. (1987). Developmental and motivational perspectives on cooperative learning: A reconciliation. Child Development, 58, 1161–1167.Google Scholar
  13. Slavin, R. E. (1991, February). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 5, 71–82.Google Scholar
  14. Slavin, R. E. (1996a). Cooperative learning in middle and secondary schools. The Clearing House, 4, 200–210.Google Scholar
  15. Slavin, R. E. (1996b). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43–69.Google Scholar
  16. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice(2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  17. Speltz, M. L., Shimamura, J. W., & McReynolds, W. T. (1982). Procedural variations in group contingencies: Effects on children’s academic and social behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 533–544.Google Scholar
  18. Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 21–51.Google Scholar
  19. Stockdale, S. L., & Williams, R. L. (2004). Cooperative learning groups at the college level: Differential effects on high, average, and low exam performers. Journal of Behavioral Education, 13, 37–50.Google Scholar
  20. Wallace, M. A., & Williams, R. L. (2003). Multiple-choice exams: Explanations for student choices. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 136–138.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert L. Williams
    • 1
    • 3
  • Erin Carroll
    • 2
  • Briana Hautau
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Educational Psychology and CounselingThe University of TennesseeKnoxville
  2. 2.Doctoral student in School Psychology, Department of Educational Psychology and CounselingThe University of TennesseeKnoxville
  3. 3.Department of Educational Psychology and CounselingThe University of Tennessee, College of EHHSKnoxville

Personalised recommendations