Journal of Behavioral Education

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 191–202

Cooperative Learning Contingencies: Unrelated versus Related Individual and Group Contingencies

Original Paper

Abstract

College students operating under related cooperative contingencies (students had to earn individual credit before being considered for group credit) showed more consistent individual and group improvement on exam performance than students operating under unrelated contingencies (individual credit and group credit were independently determined). A balanced ratio between individual and group credit proved to be the most productive ratio under the related contingency, whereas a ratio favoring group credit over individual credit proved most productive under the unrelated contingency. In general, a ratio favoring individual credit over group credit was the least productive in promoting both individual and group improvement under both unrelated and related contingencies. The findings showed less difference in improvement of exam scores for students of different performance levels than had been evident in previous research.

Keywords

Cooperative learning Individual contingencies Group contingencies 

References

  1. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. Ebert-May, D., Brewer, C., & Allred, S. (1997). Innovation in large lectures: Teaching for active learning. Bioscience, 47, 601–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ferguson, G. A., & Takane, Y. (1989). Statistical analysis in psychology and education (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  4. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 38, 67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works? Change, 30, 26–35.Google Scholar
  6. Slavin, R. E. (1987). Developmental and motivational perspectives on cooperative learning: A reconciliation. Child Development, 55, 1131–1137.Google Scholar
  7. Slavin, R. E. (1991, February). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, pp. 72–81.Google Scholar
  8. Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Stockdale, S. L., & Williams, R. L. (2004). Cooperative Learning at the college level: Differential effects on high, average, and low performers. Journal of Behavioral Education, 13, 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Williams, R. L., Carroll, E., & Hautau, B. (2005). Individual accountability in cooperative learning groups at the college level: Differential effects on high, average, and low performers. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14, 167–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erin Carroll
    • 1
  • Robert L. Williams
    • 1
  • Briana Hautau
    • 1
  1. 1.Educational Psychology and CounselingThe University of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations