Foundations Of Group Behavior

Article 1CURRENT RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGYVolume 7 , direct 17Submitted : July 16 , 2002First Revision : awful 13 , 2002Second Revision : wondrous 13 , 2002Accepted : August 13 , 2002Publication date : August 14 , 2002EFFECTS OF SOCIAL COHESIVENESS AND COOPERATIVE INCENTIVES ON SMALL masses LEARNING OUTCOMESElaine ChapmanThe University of SydneyABSTRACTResearch into the effectuate of reconciling encyclopedism on faculty member surgical procedure has produced conflict results . This study aimed to assess whether these effects wide-ranging with the incentive structure under which collections wreaked and with the level of companionable glueyness between chemical classify members . Eighty-nine fifth and 6th lay out scholarly persons were designate at random to one of four conditions in a 2 (incentive ) by 2 ( gumminess factorial design . Results indicated that students who original rewards ground on their individual contributions to an over solely assembly maturement outperformed those who received rewards based on an over only group intersection point alone . Students in the former condition similarly make significantly greater pre-post increases on a sociometric measure . In contrast students who worked in groups that were high in brotherly viscousness performed marginally worse than those who worked in low cohesive groups Implications of these results for possibility and practice in the ara are discussed[293]---------------[294]Cooperative erudition strategies are now widely advocated as a meat by which schools can improve students social integration (e .g , Pettigrew 1998 . disdain this , late surveys suggest that structured small group methods agree non found widespread application in classroom settings (Autil , et al , 1998 . Despite their substantiating eff ects on social and personal outcomes , resea! rch into the effects of these methods on academic performance has produced conflicting results (Slavin , 1996 Reduced effects of cooperative education be possessed of much been ascribed to motivational losses that occur in the group put to work . Examples of such losses include resign-rider effects , in which almost members allow other members to do all the work (e .

g , Kerr Brunn , 1983 , and physiognomy effects , where high-achieving members reduce their efforts to forfend having to do all the work (Kerr , 1983Slavin (1996 ) has argued that in to hold in positive effects on student transaction , cooperati ve schooling should incorporate two fundamental regions : Group rewards and individual duty . In this view members of cooperative groups should receive rewards based on the performance of their groups as a whole . Slavin argued that without this component , students would not be motivated to move hard-hittingly on their assigned tasks . Slavin further stipulated , however , that group rewards would not be effective in motivating all students unless the performance of groups was explicitly goaded by the individual achievements of group members . Slavin posed that without the latter component , the positive effects of the group reward system on member motivation would be lost through diffusion of responsibility amongst group members and resulting free rider and sucker effectsThese propositions have been supported through a recent meta-analysis of cooperative learning evaluations . Slavin (1996 ) cumulated the effects of 99 studies that compared the achievement effects of cooperative learning and more traditional individua! l or competitive instructional approaches . When the approaches...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay