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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ames, G. J., & Murray, F. B. (1982). When two wrongs make a right: Promoting cognitive change by social conflict.Developmental Psychology, 18, 894–897.
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978).The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
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.
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.
Burns, M. (1981, September). Groups of four: Solving the management problem.Learning, 46–51.
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.
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.
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.
Glasser, W. (1988).Control theory in the classroom. New York: Harper & Row.
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.
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.
Hayes, L. (1976). The use of group contingencies for behavioral control: A review.Psychological Bulletin, 83, 628–648.
Huber, G. L., Bogatzki, W., & Winter, M. (1982).Kooperation als Ziel schulischen Lehrens und Lehrens. Tubingen, West Germany: Arbeitsbereich Padagogische Psychologie der Universitat Tubingen.
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.
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.
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).
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987).Learning together and alone (2nd Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
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.
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.
Litow, L., & Pumroy, D. K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 341–347.
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.
Mattingly, R. M., & VanSickle, R. L. (1990).Jigsaw II in secondary social studies: An experiment. Athens, GA: University of Georgia.
Mugny, G., & Doise, W. (1978). Socio-cognitive conflict and structurization of individual and collective performances.European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 181–192.
Murray, F. B. (1982). Teaching through social conflict.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 7, 257–271.
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.
Sharan, S., & Shachar, H. (1988).Language and learning in the cooperative classroom. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Slavin, R. E. (1977). Classroom reward structure: An analytic and practical review.Review of Educational Research, 47, 633–650.
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.
Slavin, R. E. (1983b). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement?Psychological Bulletin, 94, 429–445.
Slavin, R. E. (1986).Educational psychology: Theory into practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Slavin, R. E. (1987a). Cooperative learning: Where behavioral and humanistic approaches to classroom motivation meet.Elementary School Journal, 88, 29–37.
Slavin, R. E. (1987b). Developmental and motivational perspectives on cooperative learning: A reconciliation.Child Development, 58, 1161–1167.
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.
Slavin, R. E. (1990).Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
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.
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.
Van Houten, R. (1980).Learning through feedback: A systematic approach for improving academic performance. New York: Human Sciences Press.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Slavin, R.E. Cooperative learning and group contingencies. J Behav Educ 1, 105–115 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00956756
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00956756