Annales Universitatis Apulensis. Series Paedagogica-Psychologica
THE ROLE OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN ENHANCING STUDENT
MOTIVATION
Eugenia Cristina NANU
„1 Decembrie 1918” University of Alba Iulia
Abstract:The aim of the article is to present advantages of cooperative learning
over traditional instructional methods focused on competition, by refering to motivation
theories of achievement. It will be discussed how cooperative learning affects levels of
engagement in intelectual challenges, by looking at the four factors considered relevant by
achievement motivation theorists: differences in competence beliefs, differences in values
associated with success, control beliefs and achievement goal orientation.
Key words: cooperative learning, motivation, achievement, competence beliefs
1. Cooperative learning
Cooperative learning is an instructional strategy focused on learning in
small group activities where students have to interact for reaching a common goal,
by sharing resources and having complementary roles (Slavin, 1980). Researches
shows that the benefits are the development of social competencies, supporting
relationships, positive self-esteem and higher achievement (Johnson, Johnson &
Smith, 1991 cited in Ahles & Contento, 2006). From the social psychology
perspective, the argument is that cooperative learning is a better reflection of the
social world reality, students have to adjust. The theoretical foundations of
cooperative learning lie on Kurt Lewin’s ideas about group interaction and
interdependance of group members that are motivated by a comon goal. Regarding
reinforcement, the specificity of cooperative learning is that students will receive
recognition based on group performance instead of individual performance. This
might lead to „diffusion of responsability” (Slavin, 1980) meaning that some will
do the entire work while the others will assume the results. In teaching practice, the
sharing reward is the most frequently invocate reason against cooperative learning.
Competition and independent learning has the benefits of an individualized
recognition of the effort and performance followed by a more facile evaluation.
Therefore is valued by some teachers and parents. On the other side, researches are
showing evidence that cooperative learning is more effective than competitive
learning and the sharing rewards are a benefit for the students (Martin & Dowson,
2009). They explain these findings by the positivity of common goals, reciprocal
rewards and shared resources. This reciprocal reward structure refers to the
consequences of group performances over one member. In cooperation activities,
these consequences are positive. Each member will asume the group success. In
128
Annales Universitatis Apulensis. Series Paedagogica-Psychologica
competition activities, the interdependence of rewards is negative since one
member’s success means failure for the others. (Michaels, 1977 cited in Slavin,
1980).
2. Achievement motivation
Motivation is a „set of beliefs and emotions that influence and direct
behavior” (Wentzel, 1999; cited in Martin& Dowson, 2009, pp 328). These beliefs
and emotions are related to expectations, self-efficacy, perceived task value,
perception of task difficulty, atribution, etc. Wentzel & Wigfield (1998) in a
review concerning academic and social motivational influences of students
academic performance, mentioned that different levels of engagement are related to
differences in competence beliefs, differences in values associated with success,
control beliefs and achievement goal orientation.
3. Competence beliefs
Studying internal factors that account for academic performance, using the
goal-efficacy framework, Yao, (2007) finds that self-set goals explains 23% of
variation, assign goals explains 17% of variation, self-efficacy 37% and ability
14%.. The concept of competence beliefs is described in Eccles model of
achievement performance and choice (1983) as being formed by beliefs regarding
self-efficacy and perceptions of task difficulty. Self-efficacy is the individual
perceived capability of performing different tasks in order to achieve goals. Selfefficacy influences the choice, the persistence and the performance in a particular
task (Bandura, 1997 cited in Martin & Dowson, 2009). Therefore the concept is
strongly related to expectations. Bandura distinguished two types of expectancy
beliefs: outcome expectations and efficacy expectations. Outcome expectations are
the beliefs that a given action will lead to a given outcome. Efficacy expectations
are personal expectations in relation with that particular outcome, the belief that
one can accomplish a task. In group activities, outcome expectations are related
with perceived group cohesion and positive communication (Martin & Dowson,
2009). Based on the theory of planned behavior, motivation is sustained by both
attitude toward the learning behavior and perceived expectations of significant
others (Ajzen, 1991). Efficacy beliefs are not fixed, they change over time, and this
change is related with social context. Wingfield (1994), in a review, presents how
competence beliefs are modified in the developmental process. At the beginning of
elementary school years, competence beliefs are very high and there is no
correlation between children ratings of their abilities and performance. By the
fourth grade, children ratings of abilities are in accordance with their performance.
The concept becomes differentiated on school domains. Children value less, certain
academic tasks and the rate of refusing to get involve in certain tasks increases.
The explanation of the mechanisms involved, rely on two aspects: the children
understanding of the evaluative feed-back and the increasing complexity of school
129
Annales Universitatis Apulensis. Series Paedagogica-Psychologica
requests. The class setting, the abundance of academic tasks, offers to the students
the possibility to have a constant feed-back regarding their performance. If the
class focuses on competition, children will engage more frequently in social
comparisons with their peers; will became more self-conscious regarding their
performance. Researches show that standardized testing undermines creativity
(Powers & Kaufman, 2004). The focus on evaluation decreases creativity and
spontaneity. Is the school contributing to decrease of self-efficacy? If the school
focuses on standardized testing, the response is affirmative (Powers & Kaufman,
2004). Researches on cooperative learning are showing that cooperation has
positive valences for self-efficacy (Slavin, 1980). Through cooperation,
complementary roles are assigned to each student. They learn that everybody can
have good performances on a specific ability and they do not develop the tendency
to judge their global self-efficacy and label themselves. Trying to avoid for the
student to become aware of his or her abilities should not mean that teachers have
to develop illusions regarding students’ ability beliefs. It is normal for the students
to become more realistic in their ability evaluation but for educative purposes, this
outcome is better to be delayed, because it will interfere with students’ task
involvement and creativity. The children understanding of evaluative feed-back
develop simultaneously with the development of the notion of ability. At five, six
years old, effort, ability and performance are not distinguished in terms of cause
and effect. At seven years old, effort is considered to be the primary cause of
performance. Therefore, the children make the distinction between effort and
ability as causes and performance as an effect. Only at 10, 11 years old, children
differentiate between effort and ability and understand that the presence of ability
requires less effort to obtain a performance and the lack of ability means more
effort for a performance to be obtained (Wingfield, 1994). Only at this point, a
realistic perspective over achievement beliefs is developed.
4. Values associated with success
Based on Eccles’ model of achievement performance and choice, the
perception of task value has the following components: intrinsic value, utility
value, cost, and attainment value. Cooperative learning has, as a core concept, the
concept of sharing. Children share a learning task, resources, and time. They will
obtain a performance that also will be shared. In cooperation, the reciprocal reward
structure is positive. Each member will attribute the group success or failure. If
working well together, they will experience enjoyment, curiosity and pleasure.
These increase the group cohesion and the sense of belonging. These intrinsic
values are the result of an affective evaluation of the activity (Spinath & Steinmayr,
2007). The children perform an activity because they enjoy doing it, not because of
an external reinforcement. Therefore, cooperative learning enhances intrinsic
motivation. In this case, the use of an external reinforcement can have damaging
effects. The theory of self-perception (Daryl, 1972) offers an explanation for this
phenomenon. Based on this theory, we have the tendency to deduct our attitudes
130
Annales Universitatis Apulensis. Series Paedagogica-Psychologica
from the observation of our behavior and the observation of external
circumstances. When the children receive a significant reinforcement for
accomplishing a task, they perceived as interesting and enjoyable, they will start
attributing the enjoyment to the external reward and they will forget that the
activity itself was worth the effort. In the future, intrinsic values will not be enough
to justify the involvement in that type of activity. The second component is utility
value. It refers to how task fits individual future plans. Since these values are not
related directly to the group, the only way cooperative learning could influence
them, is through modeling. The third component, the perceived cost is low for
intrinsic motivation and varies for external rewards. Attainment value refers to the
importance of doing well in a task and is related with performance goals.
5. Children’s control beliefs
Control beliefs are relevant in self-determination and influence
expectations regarding task performance. The perceived control is a significant
determinant of a student intention to accomplish a task. If the failing or success is
attributed to an internal inability or ability, the student will perceive that the
performance has an internal cause, therefore it is controllable. If the performance is
attributed to an external cause, an environment factor, the locus of control will be
external and the cause is perceived as uncontrollable (Weiner, 1986). In groups,
students can learn control from each other. The others explanations regarding
causes of an outcome can shape the student future behavior (Martin & Dowson,
2009) especially if the student receive the feed/back from significant others.
Because in cooperative learning, the motivation is mostly intrinsic, the values
associated with the activity are curiosity, and enjoyment, students are more likely
to develop an internal locus of control and positive attitudes toward school. The
social interaction process associated with peer learning contexts; contribute to
cognitive and social development (Wentzel & Wigfield, 1998). In an experimental
research, Alhers & Contento (2006) studied emotional and behavioral reactions of
students who experienced cooperative learning, having as framing theory, the
Weiners’ model of attribution. Findings showed that participants past experience in
cooperative learning influences helping behavior and responsibility level.
Perceived control causes for a member nonparticipation elicited negative feelings
while perceived uncontrollable cause elicited sympathy and willingness to help.
6. Achievement goal orientation
Nicholls, Cheung, Lauer & Patashnick (1989) cited by Wigfield (1994)
defined two types of goals: ego involved goals and task involved goals. Ego
involved goals are goals related with the need for performance and success.
Students that are guided by this type of goals are interested in looking smart and
doing better then others. If they would be given the possibility to choose the task,
they would focus on activities they are familiar with, in order to have a warranty
131
Annales Universitatis Apulensis. Series Paedagogica-Psychologica
for success. The traditional way of teaching and the competition emphasize, leads
to the development of performance goal orientation type. Task involved goals are
goals focused on discovering and learning new things. In this case, students are
interested in challenging tasks and the process of performing the task not only the
result. The success is a bonus, the real challenge and attractiveness of a task is the
activity itself. This goal type support effort and cooperation with others and is
related with student satisfaction with school because they do not perceive their
colleagues as competitors but as partners. Dweck & Leggett (1988) cited by
Wigfield (1994) argued that the type of goal is related with children perspective
over intelligence. If the intelligence is considered as being fixed, they will set up
ego involved goals because the only purpose will be to confirm their existed
intelligence. If students consider intelligence can be increased, they will set up
learning goals because they will be interested in increasing their abilities (Wigfield,
1994).
References:
Ahles, M. P. & Contento, J. M. (2006) Explaining helping behavior in a
cooperative learning classroom setting using attribution theory, in Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 30, pp 609-626
Ajzen, I. (1991) The Theory of Planned Behavior in Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50, pp 179-211
Martin, A. J & Dowson, M. (2009) Interpersonal Relationship, Motivation,
Engagement, and Achievement: Yields for Theory, Current Issues, and Educational
Practice, in Review of Educational Research, vol 79, issue 1, pp 327-365
Powers, D. E., Kaufman, J. C. (2004) Do standardized tests penalize deep-thinking,
creative, or conscientious students? in Intelligence, vol 32, issue 2
Slavin, R. E. (1980) Cooperative learning, in Review of Educational Research, vol
50, issue 2, 315-342
Wentzel, K. R. & Wigfield, A. (1998) Academic and social influences on students’
academic performance in Educational Psychology Review, vol 10, no 3, pp 155175
Wigfield, A. (1994) Expectancy-value Theory of Achievement Motivation: A
Developmental Perspective in Educational Psychology Review, vol 6, no1
132