Group Learning: Note on Undivided vs Equally Divided Task Information.

Summary.-Two-person groups were compared under conditions of undivided vs divided task information, to test the hypothesis that a group advantage exists (in pooled individual scores vs group scores comparison) due to the group's ability to divide a cask among group members. While evldence was shown that individual group members work on different task areas, no support was obtained for the basic hypothesis. An equal energy hypothesis was suggested to account for the apparent equality of performance. In the comparison of individual vs group learning of the same task, one of the advantages that appears to accrue to groups is seen in the divisible task, such as a requirement to memorize a lisr of 10 nonsense words. If the list is div~ded Into five words each, then it seems reasonable char a two-person group could reproduce the total list with less time and energy than either of two separate individuals each of whom concentrates on the whole list. The effect of task division may thus be studied by the comparison of individuals learning a list of words compared to groups instructed (or allowed) to divide such a list. A problem does arise in that if the group shows better, it could be due to division of rhe list, "groupness," or a combination of the two. If no significant difference is produced between individuals and groups (even though the group was instructed to divide the list), it could be argued that the time required to reassemble the two parts of the fragmented list simply balanced any gain due to the division of labor, with a net change of zero. Another approach to the division problem, and the one used in the present study, is to compare (two-man) groups. In one condition each group member could he exposed to the total stimulus pattern, while in the other, each group member could be exposed to different parts of the same stimulus pattern. In other words, the two group members could each be exposed either to the same (total) stimulus pattern or to a different half. The question is whether group performance over repeated trials (group learning) would show a significant difference between undivided and equally divided task information and (presumably) task performance. The divisible task used in the present study was a picture puzzle which could be assembled from 12 cubes into a recognizable picture from a well-known fairy tale and reported elsewhere as an individual vs group learning task by Napier (1968). The task is complicated by the fact that, since each cube has six sides, six picture parterns are possible. It has the advantage that a diagram can be provided showing 12 spaces (three rows by four columns) upon which the cubes are arranged and a rapid count made of the number of cubes correctly placed. Scores could range from 0 to 12 squares completed, or a total of 0 to 96 for eight trials. Method.-Ss were 48 volunteer male students enrolled in various summer courses at the University of Arkansas. Ss reported in groups of four and were randomly assigned to Undivided (UD) and Equally Divided (ED) task information group sessions and ro positions A (left) and B (right). Order of sessions was randomly determined. Group members (n = 2) in each session were positioned on either side of a table upon which 12 cubes comprising the picture puzzle were placed. Instructions were read which explained derails of the procedure to be used in the task solution and the "alternate