Technical Report 704

Cooperative Learning: Effects of Task,

0o Reward, and Group Size on

00 Individual Achievement

Joseph D. Hagman and John F. Hayes

I~m

Scientific Coordination Office, Boise, Idaho I

Training Research Laboratory

_ _ _ _._ .4 =•

DTI-O

-jIELICTEfI

I 0C3 INOV 0 41986 U1

U. S. Army E

C... Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

C=M January 1986

Approved for public release; distribution linlimited.

16 2 j - -- ,*-'s b43 11 - 3

pi
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

KA Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

I' Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WM. DARRYL HENDERSON

EDGAR M. JOHNSON COL, IN Technical Director Commanding

Technical review by

J. Douglas Dressel Accession yor

Stephen Cormier NT16 GRA&I

DDTIC TAB

Unannounced C

JUstirloati

Distribution~/ -

Availability Codes

,,Q"ADist Avail and/or

'*~SP~r Di~t specijal

4 

-

NOTICES

EliALDI2S1TO~eThis Raesarch Poutmay bedestroyed when It Is no longer needed. Please do not

rtrit to thc U.S. Armny ftI*rc intiu o thcB It-or.-I .-. 5Vz=%

F !NOTE This Research Product Is not to be construed as an official Department of the Army document In Its
UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE. (*%on Doat* Enered)

READ INSTRUCTIONS

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

"I. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

ARI Technical Report 704 P.A117 0

4. TITLE (amid Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

COOPERATIVE LEARNING: EFFECTS OF TASK, REWARD, October 1984 - August 1985

AND GROUP SIZE ON INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEIIENT 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(.) .. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(@)

Joseph D. Hagman and John F. Hayes

S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, tASK

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral AREA& WORK UNIT NUMBERS

and Social Sciences 2Q263743A794

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333-5600 332 5320

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral January 1986

and Social Sciences 13. NUMBEROF PAGES

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333-5600 33

5. TMONITORING AGENCY NALE & ADDRIESS(il difient from Cowgwdloing Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (*I th'le report)

Unclassified

1S5. DECLASSI FICATION/DOWNGRAOING

SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of tisf Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the absiract entered In Block 20. If different fron: Report)

I. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19. KEY WORDS (Contirnua or overaoe mide if naemeA. , d ldr vftt-F, b.y b-c. n-., -er)

Training Individual achievement Task structure

Cooperative learning Supply tasks

Team learning Group size

Peer tutoring Reward structure

212 ABSTRACT ("Cenu m - "raeE s ft Ir,•wewy 'd Ideati•y by block number)

-. >This research sought to (a) determine whether cooperative learning can effectively promote individual achievement, and if so, (b) identify specific conditions under .rhich a benefit can be expected. In each of two experiments,

trainee Equipment Recoids and Part Specialists, Military Occupational Specialty

(MOS) 76C, received 15 blocks of instriuction on how to perform specific supplyrelated tasks as part of Advanced Individual Tra 1i ing (AIT). --Blocks 1-7 and

9-14 consisted of lecture-based instruction followed by :I practical exercise

after each block. Blocks 8 and 15 were devoted to te.sting. (Continu.d)

DD , 1473 ED-FION OF I NOV65 IS OBSOLETE UNCLASSIFI.D

If j SECURITY CLASSIFICATIORi OF THIS PAGE (Whe4.n Do•t Entered)
UNCLASS IFI BD

SFCURITY CLASSIFtCATIOH Of THIS PAGE(Wh- DoE. C£A4._ _t_

ARI Technical Report 704

20. (Continued)

'Experiment 1 compared the test performance of 280 trainees after they had

completed practical exercises (PEs) under either cooperative or individual

learning. Under cooperative learning, trainees worked together in groups of

two or four and helpd each other learn. Under individual learning, they

worked alone and obtained help from an instructor rather than from each other.

In addition, group members were rewarded (i.e., allowed to proceed through the

course without attending remedial study halls) either independently or as a

group for their subsequent individual test performance. Results revealed that

(a) cooperative learning improved individual trainee tcst scores but ualy when

uoipled with a group rewa d contingency, and (b) significant benefits occurred

once group size reached four members.'

Experiment 2 employed 80 additional trainees to determine why group reward

was necessary for obtaining enhanced individual achievement under cooperative

learning. Two potential hypotheses were tested: that group reward effects

were caused by increased individual trainee motivation to learn resulting from

"group pressure to perform, or that group reward encouraged groupmates to share

information and that this "peer tutoring" facilitated individual learning.

Test performance results supported the peer tutoring hypothesis.

The significance of these findings for Army training is that individual

achievement gains can be obtained through cooperative learning in four-member

, groups without modifying training materials and without increasing the demand

for training resources.

* .1

I u

"*1

UNCIASSIFIEJD)

jfSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAG~rrWh- , D.r. nf.rvd)

hi. ~- . . . . .. . * '' -
Technical Report 704

Cooperative Learning: Effects of Task,

Reward, and Group Size on

Individual Achievement

Joseph D. Hagman and John F. Hayes

4,t

Scientific Coordination Office, Boise, Idaho

RL th H, Phelps, Chief

Training Research Laboratory

Seward Smith, Acting Director

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE t3EHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

5001 Eisenhowef Avenue, mlexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

January 1986

Army Project Number Education and Training

"2Q263743A794

Approved for public release; dist(lbutlon undlrnited.

Jiii
ARI Resuarch Reports and Technical Reports are intended for sponsors of

R&D tasks and for other research and military agencies. Any findings ready

for implementation at the time of publication are presented in the last part

of the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recommendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

iv

I I II I II I I I I I I I I I I -
FOREWORD

This report examines whether cooperative learning can be used to promote

individual achievement and identifies conditions under which a benefit can be

expected. The research was conducted by the Training and Simulation Technical

Area of the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

(ARI) within the context of the Training Technology Field Activity (TTFA) established at the Quartermaster School, Fort Lee, Virginia. The mission of this

TTFA site and others located at Fort Knox, Kentucky, Fort Rucker, Alabama, and

Gowen Field, Idaho, is to improve Army training by facilitating the transfer

of instructional technology and research findings from the laboratory to the

schoolhouse. T'hese sites serve as test beds for the application and demonstration of the latest in training technology and the conduct of research to identify promising new methods for improving training effectiveness. The results

of the research reported herein suggest that cooperative learning is just such

a method.

EDGAR M. JOHNSON

"Technical Director

4,

S.'

. -M

.iV
COOPERATIVE LEARNING: EFFECTS OF TASK, REWARD, AND GROUP SIZE

ON INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Requirement:

The research sought to determine whether cooperative learning can effectively promote individual achievement and, if so, identify specific conditions

under which achievement gains can be expected.

Procedure:

In each of two experiments, trainee Equipment Records and Parts Special- ists, Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 76C, received 15 blocks of instruction on how to perform specific supply-related tasks as part of Advanced

Individual Training (AIT). Blocks 1-7 and 9-14 consisted of lecture-based

instruction followed by a practical exercise (PE) after each block. Blocks 8

and 15 were devoted to testing.

Experiment I compared test performance of 280 trainees after they had completed PEs under either cooperative or individual learning. Under cooperative

learning, trainees worked together in groups containing two or four members and

were expected to help each other learn. Under individual learning, they worked

alone and were expected to obtain help from an instructor rather than from one

another. Group members were then rewarded (i.e., allowed to proceed through

the course without attending remedial study halls) either independently or as

a group for their subsequent individual test performance.

Experiment 2 employed 80 additional trainees to determine wily group reward

was necessary for obtaining individual achievement benefits under cooperative

learning in Experiment 1. Two hypotheses were examined: that group reward effects were caused by increased indivisual trainee motivation to learn as a result of group pressure to perform, or that group reward encouraged groupmates

to share information while working the FEs and that this "peer :utoring" facilitated individual learning.

Findings:

Experiment I revealed that (a) cooperative learning only promoted individual achievement when coupled with group reward, (b) individual achievement

varied directly with group size under group reward, but inversely with group

size under independent reward, (c) differential effects of reward were substantial when group size reached four members, and (d) trainees preferred to

work cooperatively regardless of group size, provided a group reward contingency was enforced. The results of Experiment 2 revealed that Information Cx--

change among group members is essential for obtaining individual, achievement

vii

,, I~ ý ýý
gains under cooperative learning, and thereby supported the peer tutoring

hypothesis.

Utilization of Findings:

These findings indicate that cooperative learning, when coupled with group

reward, can be an effective way to promote substantial gains in individual

achievement without having to either modify training materials or increase

training resources.

viii

r. W
tk

OOOPERATRiVE LEARNING: EFFECTS OF TASK, REWARD, AND GROUP SIZE ON

INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT

CONTENTS

Page

BACKGROUND ........................ ................ I...............

"EXPERIMENT I ....................................................... I

Me thud ........................................................ 2

subjects ....................... ........... ................ 2

Design ..................................................... 3

Procedure .............................. I................... 3

Results atld L'iscusSiuu ......................... ............... 5

Practical Exercises. ........................................ 5

"T es ts .................. e .................................... 1

(Tuestsoiiui re Responses.......................................... 

8

EXPERIMENT 2 ....................................................... . 1

Method ........................................................ 12

DeLsign, Subjects, arid Procedure ............................. 12

Results ....................................................... 13

"Practical Exercises .......................................... .[3

Tests ...................................................... 13

GENERAL DISCUSSION ................................................. 16

REFERENCES ......................................................... .20

ix

)U
t

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

PAGE

Table I. Class and trainee assignments for each condition ........ 4

Figure L. Mean number of total errors committed

on PE subsets ........................................... 6

2. Mean total completion times for each PE

subset .................................................. 7

3. Mean number of errors committed on each test ............ 9

4. Men test completion times ................................ 10

5. Me•n number of total errora committed on PE subsets

ander each conditton (II - individualistic

task/iindepo.r~dent rewardl IG - individualistic

task/group reward; CI - cooperative task/independent

reward; CG - cooperative task/group

rawa:d) ...... ...................................... . 14

6. hean total completion Limes for PE subsets under

each condition (II - individualistic,

taskiindepend•ant reward; IG - individualistic

task/grcup reward; CI - cooperative

task/independent reward; CG - coceperative

task/group reward) ...................................... 15

7. Mean number of orzors committed )n each test under

the four conditions (1I - individualistic

Lask/inuependent reward; IG = lndividualistic

task/group reward; CI - cooperative

tasklindepeudeat reward; CC - cooperative

ta.sk/group reward) ......................................... 17

8. Mean teuL couiiple^ioii Lime•ji, undur each umi•idLion

(1I - itidividual.ptic task/itdepotdeLt reward; IG

individualistic task/group reward; C =

cooperative task/ independent reward; CC =

cooperatLive taisk/gioup reward) ............................ 18

x

s-..,rC.O'. AO~.. fle - - - - - - - - - - 'VL'V,.4 - - - - 1f 44.
Cooperative Learning: Effects of Task, Reward, and Group Size on

individual Achievement

BACKGROUND

In 1983, the Cowwanding General, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine

Command (TRADOC), estaL'ished the training Technology Activity (TTA) and

charged it with the mission to improve Atmy training by taciliLatinlg the

transfer of instructional technology and research findings from the

laboratory to the schoolhouse. In response, TTA joined efforts with the

U.S. Army Research institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI)

and established Training Technology Field Activities (TTFAs) at the Armor

(Ft. Knox, Kentucky), Aviation (Ft. Rucker, Alabama), and Quartermaster

(Ft. Lee, Virglnia) Schools to serve as test-bed sites for (a) application

arid demonstration of the latest in training technology and (b) the conduct

of research to Identify promising new methods ior improving training

effectiveness. The following report describes ARi's initial IT'A research

effort conducted at the Quartermaster School in the area of cooperative

Learning.

EXPLRIMENT I

Over the past 15 years, there has been growing inLeresLt in thIw

potentital use oi cooperative learning methods for imprtoving training6

effectiveness (see Sharan, 1980; SLavin, 1ý,83; for recent reviews). Under

cooperaLive learning, trainees spend some portion of their class time

working in small groups where they are expected to help one another learn.

This is in contrast to individualistic Learning where trainees are

supposed to learn on their own with help from an instructor rather thavn

from one another.

Considerable evidence indicates that working cooperatively is more

effective than working individualisLticaily on a wide variety of tasks

(Dossert & Ilulvershorn, 1983; lumpihreys, Johnson, & Johinson, 1982;

fluitgeriand, Taylor, & Brennan, 1977; Yager, Johnsou, 6 Johnsou, 1985).

Group productivity, howuver, does not necessarily result in eiihaticcd

individual achievement. Sometimes individuals perform better aiLer having

Learned in a group (Hlumphreys, el al., 1982; Slavin & Karweit, 1981);

other times Lhey perform better after having learned on their own (Beale &

Lemke, 1971). For both theoretical and practical reasons, it is importLanL

to (a) determine whether cooperative learning can be used to promote

individual achievement and, if so, (b) identity sp,!cific conditions under

which achievement gains can be expected.

Slavitn ( 1983) :iugges is that two conditions musLt be neut bulure

cooperative learning will be effectLive. First, each group iiiember m.ust he

held accountable ior his or her individual performance. And second, group

members must be rewarded (e.g., recogniized, praised) as a group. Ili this

case, group reward is contingent uponi demonstration ut SuLccesiul
performance by each group member and differs from independent reward where

group members are rewarded individually on the basis of their own

performance regardless of that of others.

is aExperiment I provides a direct test of the notion that group reward

is a prerequisite for obtaining gains in individual achievement through

cooperative learning, The general approach was to compare the test

performance of individual trainees following cooperative learning under

either an independent or group reward contingency.

The effect of group size on individual ach'evement was also examined

"under each reward contingency. According to Steiner's (1966)

complementary task model, performance should vary directly with group size

because each group member possesses knowledge not possessed by others. The

probability of a correct response, therefore, should increeise as this

knowledge pool expands provided that group members are wi'ling to

communicate and share information with one another.

Generally speaking, overall group performance does improve as group

size increases (Anderson, 1961; Hill, 1962; Klausmeier, Wiersma, & Harris,

1963; Taylor & Faust, 1952). The present question of interest, however,

is whether gains in individual achievement track the overall gains in

group performance brought about by increases in group size. The answer Lo date Iras been no for groups containing at least four members (Laughlin &

Sweeney, 1977; Lemke, Randle, & Robertshaw, 1969). These studies,

however, have not adopted a group reward contingent,'. Group reward should

encourage meaningful within-group communication and as a result promote

individual achievement gains that parallel those found for overall group performance.

The present experiment examined whether effects of group size on

individual achievement are influenced by the kind of reward provided

(i.e., independent vs group). If group reward is effective in promoting

within-group communication, then iudividual achievement should vary

directly with group size. Conversely, individual achievement should not

improve, and perhaps even decline, as group size increases unider

independent reward given the hypothesized lack of incentive for group

members to communicate.

Method

Subjects. Two hundred and eighty wale trainees from the

Quartermaster School at Fort Lee, Virginia, participated in the

experimunt. All had completed basic training an( were undergoing advanced

individual training to receive the 7OC (Equipment Records and Parts

Specialist) Military Occupational Specially.

2I
A.

Design. Upon arrival at the School, trainees were assigned to one of

seven cicases. Each class was assigned randomly to one of six treatment

conditions formed by the between-subjects, factorial combination of two

kinds of reward (independent vs group) and three group sizes (1, 2, and 4

members). Hereafter, group size will be referred to by number, and reward

will be abbreviated "I" for independent and "G" for group. Condition 21,

for example, would refer to pairs learning under independent reward.

Table I shows the six treatment conditions along with the number of

classes and trainees assigned to each. To obtain at least 20 groups per

condition, two classes were assigned to Conditions 41 and 4G while for

Conditions II and IG a single class was divided in two with one half

assigned to each condition. Such a division was possible because no

difference existed between group and independent rewa:zrd when group size

equaled one. Scores for Lwo quads from Condition 4G and one pair from

Condition 21 were discarded randomly to permit equal-n analysis of group

data across conditions. Each class was taught by a different three-member

team of instructors, with both instructor-to-team and team-to-class

assignments made on a random basis.

The experiment was conducted during the Prescribed Load List (PLL)

Annex of the 76C course. This annex extended for II days (79 course hrs)

and contained 15 blocks of highly-structured instruction covering tasks

necessary for maintaining a PLL in support of unit operational

requirements. Example tasks included: identification of repair parts,

preparation of requests for issue and turn-in of parts, receipt and

storage of parts, updating of due-in records, and taking parts invenLory.

Blocks 1-7 and 9-14 consisted of task-specific, lecture-based instruction

followed by a practical exercise (PE) after each block. Each PE was

scored and knowledge of results provided before trainees entered the next

block. blocks 8 and 15 were dedicated to testing. Test performance was

evaluated on a criterion-referenced basis. Trainees had to score at least

85% correct on each test to progress through the course without

interruption. Those not attaining criterion on their first attempt were

allowed to take each test a second time, provided that they a ttended an intervening remedial study hall.

Procedure. Before starting the PLL Annex, separate classes were

divided into groups containihg either 1, 2, or 4 randomly assigned

members. Cooperative learning took place during each PE of au•

instructional block. Group members worked togeLher to arrive at

agreed-upon answers which they recorded in their own individual Pil,

booklets. These bookiets then were scored and knowledge of results

regarding both the speed and accuracy of responding was provided. Each

trainee was tLsted individually at Blocks 8 and [5. both tests required

performance of tasks similar but not identical to those covered in

preceding PEs. Prior to the start of the PLL Annex, trainees were told

they would be working in groups of various sizes during the PEs, tested

later individually, and rewarded either independently or as a group

1M~ I.%" 16F.- 
'44

14-

.4- 00

co .

w U

(1-4
depending on the condition they were in. Trainees were not allowed to

remove training materials from the classroom, and were asked not to

discuss course content after class.

Under independent reward, trainees received either a "GO" or "NOGO"

based on their individual test scores and were rewarded (i.e., allowed to

proceed to the next instructional block without mandatory attendance of a

remedial study hall) independently of one another. Trainees not attaining

criterion had to attend a remedial study hall before making a second

attempt at the test. If successful on the second attempt, the trainee

rejoined his fellow groupmates for the next instructional block. If

unsuccessful, the trainee was either recycled to a later nonexperimental

class or dropped from the course entirely.

Under group reward, groupwates received either a GO or NOGO based on whether or not all attained criterion. If each member was successful,

then all were rewarded (i.e., allowed to proceed as a group without having

to attend the study hall). If one or more members failed to reach

criterion, then all, including those that did reach criterion, returned to

study hall to help the failing member(s) restudy for a second attempt at

the test. For all conditions, only first-attempt test scores were

analyzed.

After completing the PLL Annex, trainees who had worked cooperatively

on the PEs indicated via questionnaire whether they preferred to work

alone or in a group. All had worked individualistically on PEs during a

prior 36-hour annex covering use of the Army Master Data File (AMDF), and

therefore, had experienced both individualistic and cooperative learning

procedures.

Results and Discussion

To determine whether performance differed among conditions at the

start of the PLL Annex, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was

performed on individual trainee error scores obtained at completion of the

preceding AMDF annex. This ANOVA revealed no significant differences, F

< 1, with the rejection region for this and all other analyses set at .05.

Thus, subsequent performance differences among conditions to be reported

were not the result of any differences present before the PLL Annex begain.

Practical Exercises. To evaluate PE performance prior to each test,

total error anid time scores were calculated separately for PL Subsets I-7

and 9-14. Then separate 2 (Reward) X 3 (Size) between-subjects analyses

of variance (ANOVAs) were performed on error and time scores added for

each group within each subset. Mean total error scores for each subset

are shown in Figure 1 while associated mean completion time scores are

shown in Figure 2.

ii5
Errors

111

aOw

IIJ 0

[2

-4

LU si 00

"0 ,.- c

00

c (D

P-4

s JI

n n n n I I I
Minutes

LUN

0U

NN

994nuiy
Analysis of errors revealed significant main effects of group size

for PEs 1-7, F(2, 114) - 16.89, and 9-14, F(2, 114) - 34.09. Performance

of subsequent individual comparisons via the least significant difference

method (Carmer & Swanson, 1973) revealed that errors were inversely

related to group size for both subsets. This relationship is consistent

with that reported elsewhere for other kinds of tasks (Hill, 1982;

Laughlin & Jaccard, 1.975; Taylor & Faust, 1952).

Analysis of time scores for PEs 1-7 revealed significant main effects

of size, F(2, 114) = 32.09, and reward, F(l, 114) - 5.68, along with a

Size X Reward interaction, F(2, 114) - 3.09. Simple effect comparisons

revealed that times increased with each increment in group size under

group reward (IG < 2G < 4G), but flattened out once group size reached two

members under independent reward (Ii < 21 - 41). In addition, pairs and

quads took more time under group reward than their counterparts under

independent reward (2G > 21; 4G > 41). Analysis of time scores foz PEs

9-14 revealed significant main effects of size, F(2, 114) - 30.55, and

reward F(l, 114) - 5.89, but no significant Size X Reward inLeraction.

Although the interaction failed to reach significance, Figure 2 shows that

the effect of reward occurred primarily because pairs and quads took

longer to complete the PEs under group reward than under independent

reward. Presumably, larger g'oups took longer to coordinate their answers

(Fox & Lorge, 1962) under both reward conditions. The additional

increment in time taken under group reward probably was necessary to

provide explanations required to ensure that all group members understood

the underlying rationale for the answers selected.

In summary, analyses of the PE data revealed that (a) groups were

more accurate than individuals, (b) errors were inversely related to group

size, but unrelated to reward, and (c) PEs took longer to complete under

group reward than under independent reward for both pairs and quads.

Tests. Test performance of individual trainees was analyzed to

determine individual achievement under each condition. Mean error and

time scores were computed for each pair and quad. These within-group

means were then compared with the scores from individual trainees in the

single-member groups. This procedure yielded 20 scores for each of the

six conditions. The means of the 20 error scores for Tests I and 2 are

depicted in Figure 3 while the time score means for the two tests are

depicted in Figure 4.

To determine whether overall group performance on the PEs affected

later test scores of individual group members, each dependent variable was

analyzed separately using 2 (Reward) X 3 (Size) factorial ANOVAs identical

to those performed earlier. Analysis of Test I errors revealed a

significant jiain effect of reward, F(l, 114) - 7.57, and a Reward X Size

interaction, F(2, 1 4) 4.31. Analysis of simple effects associated with

the interaction revealed that errors decreased as group size increased

under group reward, but were unrelated to group size under independent

8
NC

0 .

4-4

CC

(D oo

LCI NP La

SJOJJ3

"B'L0
Minutes

2

t.II

-r4

I,-

S• 0

100,

1.

CUcc1 LO0

I;L ah~

- --- --
reward. Differences, however, were not reliable until group size reached

four members (UI - IG; 21 - 2G; 41 > 4G). Analysis of time scores

revealed no significant effects.

Analysis of Test 2 errors also revealed a significant main effect of

reward, F(l, 114) - 9.53, and a Reward X Size interaction, F(2, 114) -

4.82. Analysis of simple effects revealed that errors decreased under

group reward, but increased under independent reward as group size

increased. The mean numbers of errors committed under group reward by the

pair and single-member groups did not differ, but were greater than those

committed by the quad groups (4G < 1G - 2G). The pair and single-member

groups under tndependent reward displayed comparable accuracy, but

committed fewer errors than the quad groups (41 > 21 - 1I). Once again,

only when group size reached four members were reliable performance

differences found between the two kinds of reward.

Analysis of Test 2 times revealed significant main effects of reward,

Fk(1, 114) - 33.71, and size, F(2, 114) - 10.10, along witth a Reward X Size

interaction, F(2, 114) - 7.96. Analyses of the interaction's simple

effects revealed that test completion times decreased as group size

increased under group reward, but remained stable across group sizes under

independent reward. Most of the additional time taken under group reward

occurred as groups increased from singles to pairs, with no further demand

for time occurring as groups increased in size from two to four members

(iG > 2G - 4G). Time differences were also found between reward

conditions for pairs and quads (21 > 2G and 41 > 4G).

Questionnaire Responses. Questionnaire daa obtained from individual

trainees revealed that 72% of those who had worked in pairs and 70% of

those who had worked in quads preferred a cooperative task with no

difference in preference found on the basis of group size, X(l, n - 240) <

1. Percentages almost identical to these have been reported elsewhere

(Dossett & Hulvershorn, 1983; Morrison, in press). There was, however, a

significant relationship found between preference and reward. Ninety-one

percent of the trdinees who had worked under group reward preferred to

work cooperatively compared with only 51% of those who had worked under

independent reward, X(l, n = 240) - 46.47.

In summary, analyseu of the test and questionnaire data revealed that

(a) cooperative learning only promoted individual achievement when coupled

with group reward, (b) individual achievement varied directly with group

size under group reward, but inversely with group size under iUdependiunL

reward, (c) differenLtial effects ef reward were most evident with quads,

although pairs did show sonte time advantage at Test 2, and (d) trainees

preferred to work cooperatively or. the P1s regardless of group size,

provided that a group reward contingency was enforced.

These results reveal the importance of group reward for obtaining

individual achievement gains under cocperative learning. It is unclear,

i.

I Ii
KL I

however, why group reward was so effective. On the one hand, it may have

encouraged effective communication among group members, as suggested

earlier. Results of past research (Slavin, 1980a), having shown that

trainees in cooperative groups help each other substantially more when

they are rewarded as a group than when they were not, support this

argument. On the other hand, group reward may simply motivate individual

group members to learn more on their own because the rest of the group

depends on them to do so. Huulten & DeVries (1976) have found that greater

peer pressure exists for members to do well under group reward than under

independent reward, and along with Slavin (1980a), have shown that group

reward can increase trainee achievement even without an opportunity for within-group communication. Thus, enhanced individual motivation to learn

rather than effective within-group conumunication could have been

responsible fur 'Individual achievement gains found under group reward. If

true, then group reward should promote comparable individual achievement

under both a cooperative task where group members help one another, and an individualistic task where group members work alone and are not allowed to

intercommunicate. If within-group communication is necessary for group

reward to be effective, then greater individual performance gains should

be found with a cooperative task than with an individualistic task because

the latter does not allow within-group communication.

EXPERIMENT 2

Experiment 2 was designed to differentiate between the motivation and

communication hypotheses offered above as possible explanations for the

Leneficial effecLs of group reward on individual achievement under

cooperative learning. Task structure was varied to include both

cooperative and individualistic learning tasks under both group and

independent reward contingencies. Under the ind'vidualistic task,

trainees learned on their own without input from fellow groupmates; under

the cooperative task, within-group communication was allowed. If

increased motivation is the key to enhanced individual achievement, then no performance differences should be found as a function of task because

motivation to learn should be the same under both individualistic and cooperative procedures. If within-group communication is the key, then

individual achievement should be greater when trainees work cooperatively

because only a cooperative task provides the opportunity for

communica tion.

The present experiment also varied reward to include independeut and

Xroup contingencies under both individualistic and cooperative task

conditions. experiment. provided Manipulation an opportunity of both reward to examine and task their within the same relative Importance in

promoting individual achievement.

Method

Design, subjects, and procedure. Four treatment conditions were

formed by the factorial combination of two kinds of reward, i.e.,

independent (1) vs group (G), and two kinds of task, i.e., individualistic

12
(I) vs cooperative (C). These four conditions are designated CG, IG, CI,

and II, with the first letter referring to the kind of task and the second

letter to the kind of reward. Groups contained four members in all

conditions except II where formal grouping was unnecessary. Data from

Conditions 4G, 41, and II of Experiment I were used for Conditions CG, CI,

and II of Experiment 2, because these three conditions were slated to be

treated the same in Experiment 2 as they were in Experiment 1. Eighty

male trainees from two additional 76C classes were divided into quads to

provide the data necessary for Condition IG. Group members in this

condition worked alone on the PEa, but were rewarded as a group for their

individual test performance. Because trainees in Condition IG worked

individualistically on the PEs, their performance scores were averaged

A• within groups and compared with PE scores achieved through mutual

* •agreement in the cooperative learning conditions. Teats scores for all

groups were analyzed the same as in Experiment I. Instructor-to-team and

team-to-class assignments were made on a random basis except for

Conditions CG and IG which were taught by the same team of instructors.

Results

Practical Exercises. A one-way ANOVA performed on individual trainee

error scores obtained at completion of the preceding AHUF Annex revealed

"no differences among conditions prior to the start of the PLL Annex, F <

1. To determine PE performance prior to each test, total error and time

scores were calculated separately for PE Subsets 1-7 and 9-14. Separate 2

(Task) X (Reward) between-subjects ANOVAs then were performed on

within-group error and time scores added separately for each condition

across each subset. Figure 5 shows the resulting mean error scores while

Figure 6 shows the mean time scores.

Analysis of errors revealed significant main effect of task for PEs

1-7, F(l, 76) = 35.13, and 9-14, F(l, 76) - 37.78, with fewer errors

"committed when trainees worked cooperatively. A significant main effect

of reward was also found for PEs 9-14, F(L, 76) - 7.42, revealing that

accuracy was greater under group reward than under independent reward.

Thus, enforcement of a group reward contingency improved the accuracy of

PE performance for both kinds of task, at least for P~s 9-14, but working

"cooperatively produced superior response accuracy regardless ef the reward

,IN• contingency enforced.

Analysis of completion times revealed significant main effects of

task, F(1, 76) = 40.53, and reward, F(l, 76) = 9.38, for PEs 1-7 along

with similar task, F(l, 76) = 35.6, and reward, F(l, 76) = 11.93, effects

for PEs 9-14. For both subsets, completion times were faster when

trainees worked alone and when reward was given on an independent basis.

Tests. 'rest scores were examined to reveal individual trainee

achievement under the tour treatment conditions. Mean error and time

scores for Conditions CI, CG, and IG were derived by computing the mean

within-group scores for each quad. These within-group mean scores were

V1! Wr.Iv 13
Errors

0>

""0 0

CL,

00

5~ 41 -v 0

wH w~

- 0 Ir

o q.4

CO))

-H w o.

4-U 4J

14.
Minutes

9, cU *.4

(5)j

4-j

G 0l 

4.J C~U

V7. U1 "0rq

U4J -4

CL w) It Q .-) U w.

5~. o -0

.441
then included along with the raw scores for individual trainees in

Condition II to yield 20 scores for each condition. Error score means for

Tests I and 2 are shown in Figure 7 while time score means for the two

tests are shown in Figure 8.

Both dependent measures were analyzed via separate 2 (Reward) X 2

(Task) between-subjects ANOVAs identical to those used earlier. Analysis

of Test I errors revealed a significant main effect of reward, F(l, 76) -

16.65, and a signiticant Reward X Task interaction, F(l, 76) - 3.95.

Analysis of simple effects associated with the interaction revealed that

trainees in Condition CG performed best, frcllowed by those in Conditions

IG and 11, which did not differ from one another, with trainees in

Condition CI performing the worst of all (CG < IG - II < CI). Thus group

reward effectiveness was dependent upon task, in that group reward was

only beneficial when trainees learned cooperatively.

Analysis of Test 2 errors also revealed a significant Reward X Task

interaction, F(I, 76) - 5.45, and an ordering of simple effects almost

identical to that found on Test I. The performance differences favoring

Condition CC over IG on both tests suggest that a cooperative task is

necessary for promoting individual achievement under group reward, and

thus provide support for the communication hypothesis. Because motivation

to learn should have been the same under both reward conditions, the

obtained performance differences must have been caused by information

exchange among group members while they learned cooperatively on the PEs.

The lack of a difference between Conditions II and IG indicates that

differential achievement should not be expected under either kind of

reward when trainees must learn on their own.

Analysis of time scores revealed no significant effects for Test 1,

but significant main effects of reward, F(l, 76) - 24.60, and task, F(i,

76) - 10.01, in addition to a Reward X Task interaction, F(l, 76) - 7.2,

for Test 2. AnalysiE of simple effects from the interaction provided

additional support for the communication hypothesis in that faster

completion times were found for Condition CG than for the other three

conditions which did not differ from one another. Thus, trainees in

Condition CG did not only respond more accurately during testing but also

showed faster test completion times than trainees in the other three

conditions.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

This research sought to (a) determine whether cooperative learning

can be used to promote individual achievement, and if so, (b) identify

specific conditions under which a benefit can be expected. The test

results of Experiment I indicate that cooperative learning is no better,

and sometiwds worse, than individualistic learning unless a group reward

contingency is enforced for individual performance. This supports

Slavin's (1983) claim that group reward i5 necessary for cooperative

K i16

I- - - - - - -I I.- .- I..t' I -I I I..I
Errors

00

0i? 0

C: 0

003

0 91.4

o 4 w

0

0 C) 1-4 (0

oo 04-

1⁄4 - S4J 1-P

14-4 ý4 0

0 co 0

0) .-H t-4

LO U .0 La

CM,

JU - 0)0

1744 )0
Minutes

(U

4a ,-4UW

:3 0

*1-4 W-

-V tod ca

SU )

aQ - r.

0- 0 Ii 4) *.4 cc P.

c C: H

tv-4 C

01

4-J-JQ

4 .J

A-) r. co

00

solnui -
learning to be effective. The test results also indicate that individual

achievement varies directly with group size under group reward, with

maximum benefits to be expected with groups containing four members.

Under independent reward, increases in group size have either no effect or

a detrimental effect on individual trainee test scores. Additional

research is ueeded to determine if the group-size effects found here apply

to groups containing more than four members.

Performance on the PEs suggests that an inverse relationship exists

between errors and group size irrespective of reward. This was expected

for two reasons. First, groups generally outperform individuals when a

group product is considered (e.g., Hill, 1982). And second, answer

sharing was ensured to some extent by requiring pairs and quads to provide

agreed-upon answers on the PEs regardless of the reward contingency

applied later for individual test performance.

Completion time scores varied directly with group size and to a

greater extent under group reward than under independent reward.

Presumably, the extra time taken by cooperative groups was necessary to

coordinate answers (Fox & Lorge, 1962) and larger groups required longer

to effect this coordination. This would account for the extra time

required by pairs and quads under independent reward.

Why, however, was even more time taken under group reward?

Presumably, this extra time was used for explaining or elaborating upon

the underlying rationale for selected answers. This added time for

explanation could account for the superior individual achievement found

under group reward. Cognitive processes, such as elaboration and

retrieval, are necessary for deeper understanding and effective storage

of information into memory. These processes occur through dialogue and

interaction with others (Baker, 1979). Although it is tempting to

interpret the superior achievement found under group reward as merely the

result of added time taken on the PEs, this interpretation does not hold

for the finding that independently rewarded pairs and quads also took more

time than single-member groups, and yet failed to display any additional

improvements in individual test performance.

The results of Experiment 2 indicate that group reward benefits are

the result of within-group communication that occurs during cooperative

learning rather than the result of increased motivation to learn on the

part of individual group members as a function of group pressure.

Although it was not possible to record the nature of group interactions

within the operational military classroom, they probably took the form of

peer tutoring. Although peer tutoring is not always 1.eneficial (Slavin,

1983), most of the time its effect on individual learning is positive.

Devin-Shechan (1976) has reported that tutoring, in getteral, elfectively

improves the academic performance of tutees, and in some instances, of

tutors as well. Buckholdt and Wodarski (1978), have argued that receiving

trainee-generated explanati ns is particularly effective for learning,

because trainees tend to use language that other trainees understand and

19

LMAM M
tend to correctly interpret each other's nonverbal cues about whether or

not a concept is understood. Sharan (1980) has shown that cooperative

learning methods that allow peer tutoring are especially effective in

promoting performance of low-luvel cognitive tasks. The kind of

supply-related tasks taught to entry-level soldiers in the present

! research would fall into this category. And lastly, others (Webb, 1982;

1984) have found that the giving and receiving of answers (with

explanations) are the best predictors of individual achievement in

cooperative learning tasks, whereas receiviag no answer or merely a

terminal answer with no explanation is negatively associated with

achievement gains (Lockhead, 1983).

Although the present experiments used group reward to encourage

within-group communication, any cooperative procedure that ensures

meaningful communication among group members should also promote

individual achievement. Thus, group reward may not be necessary when

communication is brought about by other means. Recent research supports

this notion (Dansereau, 1983; Yager, et al., 1985). Dansereau (1983), for

example, has shown that structuring interaction within cooperative groups

by giving members specific assignments to orally summarize and elaborate

upon to-be-learned materials can effectively promote individual

achievement in the absence of group reward. The present research suggests

that if group interaction is left unstructured, then group reward can be

used to encourage the interaction among group members necessary for

promoting individual achievement gains when trainees work cooperatively.

In conclusion, what should be especially encouraging to the

instructor or trainer icbout the results of this research is that

individual achievement gains can be obtained through unstructured

cooperative learning without modifying existing training materials,

compromising the basic goals of criterion-referenced evaluation, or

increasing the demand for training resources. Of course, one important

factor affecting the successful implementation of changes in any

instructional or operational training program is trainee acceptance. In

this regard, preference responses obtained in Experiment I suggest that

cooperative learning will be well received provided it is coupled with

group reward for individual test performance.

REFERENCES

Anderson, N. 1I. (1961). Group performance in an anagram task. Journal of

Social Psychology, 55, 67-75.

Baker, L. (1979). Comprehension monitoring: identifying and coping with

text confusions (Tech. Rep. No. 145). Urbana, IL: University ot

illinois, Center fur the Study of Reading.

20
*1

Beaae, W. E., & Lemke, E. A. (1971). Group variables influencing the

transfer of conceptual behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology,

62, 215-218.

Buckholdt, D. R., & Wodarski, J. S. (1978). The effects of different

reinforcement systems on cooperative behaviors exhibited by children

in classroom contexts. Journal of Research and Development in

Education, 12, 50-68.

Carmer, S. G., & Swanson, M. R. (1973). An evaluation of ten pair-wise

multiple comparison procedures by Monte Carlo methods. Journal of

the American Statistical Association, 68, 66-74.

Dansereau, D. F. (1983). Cooperative learning: Impact on acquisition of

knowledge and skills (Tech. Rep. No. 586). Alexandria, VA: U.S.

Army Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Devin-Sheehau, L., Feldman, R. S., & Allen, V. L. (1976). Research on

children tutoring children: A critical review. Review of

Educational Research, 46, 355-385.

Dossett, D. L. & Hulvershorn, P. (1983). Increasing technical training

via computer assisted instruction. Journal of Applied Psychology,

68, 552-558.

Fox, D. J., & Lorge, I. (1962). The relative quality of decisions by

individuals and by groups as the available time for problem solving

is increased. Journal of Social Psychology, 57, 227-242.

Hill, G. (1982). Group versus individual performance: Are N = I heads

better than one? Psychological Bulletin, 91, 517-539.

Hulten, B. H., & DeVries, D. I. (1976). Team competition and group

practice: Effects on student achievement and attitudes. (Rep. No.

212). Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD: Center of Social

Organization of Schools.

Humphreys, B., Johnson, R. T., & 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.

1⁄4Hunerland, J. E., Taylor, J. E., & Brennan, M. F. (1977). UJtilization

.1 of peer instruction in Air Force technical training (Tech. Rep. No.

77-0020). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.

Kiausukeier, H. J., Wiersma, W., & Harris, C. W. (1963). Efficiency Ot

initial learning and transfer by individuals, pairs, and quads.

Journal of Educational Psycholofy, 54, 160-164.

21.
Laughlin, P. R., & Jaccard, J. J. (1975). Social facilitation and

observational learning of individuals and cooperative pairs. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 873-879.

Laughlin, P. R., & Sweeney, J. D. (1977). Individual to group problem

solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and

Memory, 3, 246-254.

Lamke. D. A., Randle, K., & Robertshaw, C. S. (1969). Effects of degree

of initial acquisition, group size, and general mental ability on

concept learning and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology,

60, 75-7a.

Lockhead, J. (1983). Beyond Emile: Misconceptions of education in the

twenty-first century. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

Education Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

Morrison, J. E. (in press). Group learning methods for computer-based

training (Tech. Rep.). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in amall groups: Recent methods

and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review

of Educational Research, 50, 241-271.

Slavin, R. E. (1980a). Effects of student teams and peer tutoring on

academic achievement and time on-task. Journal of Experimental

Education, 48, 252-257.

Slavin, R. E. (1980b). Cooperative learning in teams: State of the art.

Educational Psychologist, 15, 93-111.

Slavin, R. E. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student

achievement? Psychological Bulletin, 94, 429-445.

Slavin, R. E. & Karweit, N. (1981). Cognitive and affective outcomes of

an intensive student team learning experience. Journal of

Experimental Education, 50, 29-35.

Steiner, I. D. (1966). Models for inferring relationships between group

size and potential group productivity. Behavioral Science, 11,

273-283.

Taylor, D. W., & Faust, W. L. (1952). Twenty questions: Efficiency in

problem solving as a function of size of group. Journal of

Experinental Psychology, 44, 360-368.

Webb, N. M. (1982). Peer interaction and learning in cooperative small

groups. Journal of Educational Psycholoy, 74, 642-655.

22

If

j iJ, ,•'•••'.•• •:%"•••,V,"%%'••- ,,%••7•aJ,4) 'A"•P' 4 ,. , ' .•yt" --
Webb, N. W. (1984). Stability of small group interaction and achievement

over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 211-224.

Yager, S., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1985). Oral Discussion,

group-to-individual transfer, and achievement in cooperative learning

groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 60-66.

3860

I'w

23 861020