See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260596923

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2013). The impact of cooperative, competitive,

and individualistic learning environments on achievement. In J. Hattie & E.
Anderman (Eds.), Intern...

Chapter · January 2013

CITATIONS READS
6 30,642

1 author:

David W Johnson
University of Minnesota Twin Cities
357 PUBLICATIONS   43,106 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by David W Johnson on 04 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

© Johnson & Johnson

The Impact of Cooperative, Competitive, and

Individualistic Learning Environments on Academic
Achievement
David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson
University of Minnesota
60 Peik Hall
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435

September, 2010
Hattie, J., & Anderman, E. (Eds.). (in press). International handbook of student achievement.

1
© Johnson & Johnson

The Impact of Cooperative and Competitive Learning

Environments on Academic Achievement
David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson

Introduction
Learning environments reflect the overall structure of the learning goals, which in turn
largely determines the daily routines, the social and emotional atmosphere, and the moment-to-
moment interaction among the teacher and students and among the students themselves. There
are three ways in which the learning goals may be structured—cooperatively, competitively, and
individualistically. Cooperative learning is the instructional use of small groups so that
students work together to maximize their own and each other's learning. Within cooperative
situations, individuals seek outcomes that are beneficial to themselves and beneficial to all other
group members. Competitive learning is students working against each other to achieve an
academic goal such as a grade of "A" that only one or a few students can attain. Within
competitive situations, individuals seek outcomes that are beneficial to themselves but
detrimental to all other group members. Individualistic learning is students working by
themselves to accomplish learning goals unrelated to those of the other students. In
individualistic situations, individuals seek outcomes that are beneficial to themselves, ignoring as
irrelevant the others of others. In cooperative and individualistic learning, teachers evaluate
student efforts on a criteria-referenced basis while in competitive learning teachers grade
students on a norm-referenced basis. While there are limitations on when and where teachers
may use competitive and individualistic learning appropriately, teachers may structure any
learning task in any subject area with any curriculum cooperatively.
There are three types of cooperative learning: formal cooperative learning, informal
cooperative learning, and cooperative base groups (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 2008).
Formal cooperative learning consists of students working together, for one class period to

2
© Johnson & Johnson

several weeks, to achieve shared learning goals and complete jointly specific tasks and
assignments (such as problem solving, completing a curriculum unit, writing a report, conducting
an experiment, or having a dialogue about assigned text material). Any course requirement or
assignment may be structured to be cooperative. Informal cooperative learning consists of
having students work together to achieve a joint learning goal in temporary, ad-hoc groups that
last from a few minutes to one class period. Students engage in quick dialogues or activities in
temporary, ad-hoc groups in response to a limited number of questions about what is being
learned. Cooperative base groups are long-term, heterogeneous cooperative learning groups
with stable membership whose primary responsibilities are to provide support, encouragement,
and assistance to make academic progress and develop cognitively and socially in healthy ways
as well as holding each other accountable for striving to learn.
Cooperative learning has powerful effects on academic achievement. It is directly based on
social interdependence theory, there are hundreds of research studies validating its effectiveness,
and there are clear operational procedures for educators to use. In this chapter, therefore, the
nature of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning will be briefly defined, the nature
of social interdependent theory will be discussed, and the research demonstrating the impact of
cooperative learning on achievement will be presented.

Research Evidence

History of Social Interdependence Theory

Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning have their roots in social
interdependence theory (Deutsch, 1949, 1962; Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 2005). Theorizing on
social interdependence began in the early 1900s, when one of the founders of the Gestalt
School of Psychology, Kurt Koffka (1935), proposed that groups were dynamic wholes in which
the interdependence among members could vary. One of his colleagues, Kurt Lewin (1935)
refined Koffka's notions in the 1920s and 1930s while stating that (a) the essence of a group is

3
© Johnson & Johnson

the interdependence among members (created by common goals) which results in the group
being a "dynamic whole" so that a change in the state of any member or subgroup changes the
state of any other member or subgroup, and (b) an intrinsic state of tension within group
members motivates movement toward the accomplishment of the desired common goals. For
interdependence to exist, there must be more than one person or entity involved, and the persons
or entities must have impact on each other in that a change in the state of one causes a change in
the state of the others.
In the late 1940s, Morton Deutsch, extended Lewin's reasoning about social interdependence
and formulated a theory of cooperation and competition (Deutsch, 1949, 1962). Deutsch
conceptualized two types of social interdependence—positive and negative. Deutsch's basic
premise was that the type of interdependence structured in a situation determines how
individuals interact with each other which, in turn, largely determines outcomes. Positive
interdependence tends to result in promotive interaction and negative interdependence tends to
result in oppositional interaction. No interdependence tends to result in an absence of
interaction. The relationships between the type of social interdependence and the interaction
pattern it elicits is assumed to be bidirectional. Each may cause the other. Deutsch's theory has
served as a major conceptual structure for this area of inquiry since 1949.

Essential Elements Of Cooperation

Simply placing students in groups and telling them to work together does not in and
of itself create effective cooperation. There are many ways in which group efforts can go
wrong (Johnson & F. Johnson, 2009). The barriers to effective cooperative learning are

avoided when it is properly structured. Effective cooperative learning is dependent on

five basic elements being structured in each cooperative lesson (Johnson, Johnson, &
Holubec, 2008). The first and most important element is positive interdependence. Positive
interdependence exists when group members perceive that they are linked with each other in a
way that one cannot succeed unless everyone succeeds (Deutsch, 1962). If one fails, all fail.

4
© Johnson & Johnson

The second essential element of cooperative learning is individual and group accountability. The
group must be accountable for achieving its goals. Each member must be accountable for
contributing his or her share of the work (which ensures that no one "hitch-hikes" on the work of
others). The third essential component is promotive interaction. Promotive interaction occurs
when members share resources and help, support, encourage, and praise each other's efforts to
learn. Cooperative learning groups are both an academic support system (every student has
someone who is committed to helping him or her learn) and a personal support system (every
student has someone who is committed to him or her as a person). The fourth essential element
of cooperative learning is teaching students the required interpersonal and small group skills. In
cooperative learning groups students are required to learn academic subject matter (taskwork)
and also to learn the interpersonal and small group skills required to function as part of a group
(teamwork), such as leadership, decision-making, trust-building, communication, and conflict-
management (Johnson, 2009; Johnson & F. Johnson, 2009). The fifth essential component of
cooperative learning is group processing. Group processing exists when group members discuss
how well they are achieving their goals and maintaining effective working relationships. Groups
need to describe what member actions are helpful and unhelpful and make decisions about what
behaviors to continue or change.

Social Interdependence And Achievement

A meta-analysis of all relevant studies found that the average person cooperating performed
at about 2/3 a standard deviation above the average person performing within a competitive
(effect size = 0.67) or individualistic situation (effect size = 0.64). When only studies with high
internal validity were included in the analysis, the effect sizes were 0.88 and 0.61, respectively.
Individuals from high, medium, and low ability levels achieved higher in cooperative situations
than they did in competitive or individualistic situations. No significant differences in
achievement were found for males and females. Both perform higher in cooperative than in
competitive or individualistic situations. In addition, no significant differences were found

5
© Johnson & Johnson

among studies for (a) published and unpublished studies, (b) size of the group, (c) academic
subject area, (d) socioeconomic class of participants, (e) age of subject, (f) sample size, (g)
ethnic and cultural background of participants, (h) duration of the study, (i) type of reward
(symbolic or tangible), and (j) the setting in which the research took place (i.e., research
laboratory or field settings).
When mixtures of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic elements are compared with
interpersonal competition, an effect size of 0.37 is found for the mixed operationalizations of
cooperation while an effect size of 0.71 was found for the "pure" ones, t(117)=1.43, p<0.07. In
the cooperative vs. individualistic comparisons, mixed operationalizations had an effect size of
0.42 while the "pure" operationalizations had an effect size of 0.65, t(171) = 0.96.
An important aspect of school life is engagement in learning. One indication of engagement
in learning is time on task. Cooperators spent considerably more time on task than did
competitors (effect size = 0.76) or students working individualistically (effect size = 1.17).
Competitors tended to spent more time on task than participants working individualistically
(effect size = 0.64). In addition, students working cooperatively tended to be more involved in
activities and tasks, attach greater importance to success, and engage in more on-task behavior
and less apathetic, off-task, disruptive behaviors. Finally, cooperative experiences, compared
with competitive and individualistic ones, have been found to promote more positive attitudes
toward the task and the experience of working on the task (effect-sizes = 0.57 and 0.42
respectively).
A number of studies have examined the quality of reasoning strategies used while
completing tasks and making decisions. Cooperative experiences promoted more frequent
insight into and use of higher-level cognitive and moral reasoning strategies than did competitive
(effect size = 0.93) or individualistic efforts effect size = 0.97). Cooperation also tends to
promote more accurate perspective taking than do competitive (effect size = 0.61) or
individualistic (effect size = 0.44) efforts.

6
© Johnson & Johnson

Another component of achievement is process gain. Process gain occurs when new ideas,
solutions, or efforts are generated through group interaction that are not generated when persons
work alone. Process gain (as opposed to process loss) and collective induction tend to occur
more frequently in cooperative than in competitive or individualistic efforts (Johnson & Johnson,
1989, 2005).
Several studies have examined transfer of learning. Group-to-individual transfer occurs
when individuals demonstrate mastery of the material studied in a subsequent task done
individually. The evidence generally indicates that cooperative efforts result in greater transfer
to new tasks than do competitive or individualistic efforts (Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 2005). In
other words, group-to-individual transfer tends to be greater than individual-to-individual
transfer.
Finally, the more students participated in cooperative learning experiences, and the more
cooperatively they perceived their classes, the more they believed that everyone who tried had an
equal chance to succeed in class, that students got the grades they deserved, and that the grading
system was fair (Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 2005).

Competitiveness And Achievement

Negative interdependence is theorized to result in oppositional interaction which, in turn,
promotes relatively reduced productivity and achievement. There are conditions, however, under
which competition may be constructive (Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 1999, 2005; Stanne, Johnson,
& Johnson, 1999; Tjosvold, Johnson, Johnson, & Sun, 2009). First, negative goal
interdependence must exist in the current situation. Second, competition must take place within
a cooperative context that clearly specifies the specifics of the competition, including where it is
to take place, its boundaries (when it begins and ends), the criteria for winning, the rules of
conduct, and the judges. Third, the task should be practicing well-learned skills, reviewing well-
learned material, or performing simple, unitary/nondivisible, overlearned activities. Fourth,
participants should be homogeneously matched in terms of ability and training. Competitors

7
© Johnson & Johnson

must believe that they have a reasonable chance of winning and losing. Fifth, participants must
be able to audit and monitor progress of competitors to determine who is ahead and who is
behind and how much effort needs to be expended to win. Sixth, it should be relatively
unimportant whether one wins or loses. Seventh, participants should have the social skills to be
good winners and good losers. This means winning with humility, pleasure, and modesty, and
being gracious when you lose. Finally, participants should not overgeneralize the results of the
competition. Winning does not make a person more worthwhile and losing does not make a
person less worthwhile.

Individualistic Efforts And Productivity

No interdependence is theorized to result in no interaction which, in turn, results in
relatively reduced productivity and achievement. There are conditions, however, under which
individualistic efforts may be constructive (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). The conditions include
when unitary, nondivisible, simple tasks need to be completed, the directions for completing the
learning task are clear and specific, the goal is perceived to be important, and individuals expect
to be successful in achieving the goals. Individualistic learning may work best when it is part of
a larger cooperative lesson.

Summary and Recommendation

The implications of this research are clear. Teachers should structure learning situations
cooperatively the majority of the time. Appropriate competitive and individualistic lessons may
be used for fun changes of pace and to provide some variety in instructional situations.

References
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129-152.
Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In M. R. Jones (Ed.),
Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 275-319). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska
Press.

8
 © Johnson & Johnson

Johnson, D. W. (2009). Reaching out: interpersonal effectiveness and self-actualization (10th

Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. (2009). Joining together: group theory and group skills (10th
Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: theory and research.
Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive,
and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (2005). New developments in social interdependence theory.
Psychology Monographs, 131(4), 285-358.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (2008). Cooperation in the classroom (7th ed.).
Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Stanne, M., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1999). Social interdependence and motor
performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(1), 133-154.
Tjosvold, D., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Sun, H. (2003). Can interpersonal competition be
constructive within organizations? Journal of Psychology, 137(1), 63-84.

View publication stats