Instructional Goal Structure: Cooperative, Competitive, or Individualistic

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Review of Educational Research. This content downloaded from 128.95.104.66 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 12:13:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHprevalent type of goal structure currently used in instruction, the need for reevaluation of such practices is discussed. Hopefully future research will focus upon specifying the conditions under which each type of goal structure is most effective in facilitating the accomplishment of instructional objectives. DefinitionsThere are two ways in which cooperative, competitive, and individualistic instructional goal structures may be defined: one evolving from the intrinsic motivation viewpoint of Kurt Lewin and the other evolving from the extrinsic motivation viewpoint of behavioral learning theory. Extrinsic and intrinsic approaches to instructional goal structure are not necessarily incompatible; although some extrinsic rewards, such as money, may reduce a person's intrinsic motivation to perform a task in the future, other extrinsic rewards, such as positive feedback, may increase a person's intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1971).Lewin's (1935) theory of motivation postulates that a state of tension within an individual motivates movement toward the accomplishment of desired goals. From Lewin's notions three types of goal states can be conceptualized: one where there is cooperative goal interdependence, one where there is competitive goal interdependence, and one where the person has individualistic goals unrelated to anyone else's. Deutsch (1949b, 1962), in building a field theory of cooperation and competition, defines a cooperative social situation as one where the goals of the separate individuals are so linked together that there is a positive correlation between their goal attainments. Under purely cooperative conditions, an individual can obtain his goal if, and only if, the other person with whom he is linked can obtain his goal. An example of a cooperative relationship is a baseball team: their goal is to win the baseball game and, in such a team sport, if one person accomplishes the goal of winning, every member of the team also accomplishes the goal. In a cooperative situation, the student seeks an outcome that is beneficial to all participants. Deutsch defined a competitive social situation as one where the goals of the separate participants are so linked that there is a negative correlation between their goal attainments. Under purely competitive conditions, an individual can obtain his goal if, and only if, the others with whom he is linked cannot obtain their goals. An example of ...

And the winner is . . . ? Forecasting the outcome of others’ competitive efforts.

“…An ANOVA revealed that participants liked the four logos equally (MSt an = 4.73, SDSt an = 1.47; MCr aig = 4.90, SDCr aig = 1.38; MMar k = 5.22, SDMar k = 1.49; MTi m = 5.06, SDTi m = 1.13, F(3, 197) = 1.20, p = .310). 5 Prior literature finds that people believe that others intend to win (rather than lose) the competitions that they enter (Deutsch, 1949;Huang, Etkin, & Jin, 2017;Johnson & Johnson, 1974). Thus, for ease of exposition, in the remainder of our discussion of Study 1A, we refer to Stan's intended outcome as winning, and Stan's unintended outcome as losing.…”

“…While people who enter a competition generally desire to win (Deutsch, 1949;Huang, Etkin, & Jin, 2017;Johnson & Johnson, 1974), the design of many competitions dictates that only one or a few can achieve their intended outcome, preventing most contestants from achieving their intended outcome. For instance, while over 2,000 Olympic athletes will enter the 2020 Olympics with the intention of earning a medal, only a fraction of them will actually succeed in achieving this intent.…”

Impact of Cooperative-Team Learning on Performance and Retention of Navy Air-Traffic Controller Trainees

“…It is significant that in the first study the instructor was viewed as being more professional than the previous instructors, that the material was viewed as being less difficult, and that they worked harder to complete the uait. There are a number of previous studies that found that instructors are liked better and perceived in more positive ways when individuals learn cooperatively than when they learn competitively or individualistically (Johnson & Johnson, 1974, 1989. The results of this study corroborate these previous findings.…”

Representative Model Of The Learning Process In Virtual Spaces Supported By Ict

“…The connection and belongingness can also be traced from the area of cooperative learning. As reviewed by Johnson and Johnson (1974), cooperative setting promotes intrinsic motivation, which in turn leads to less anxiety, greater task involvement, and more positive emotional tone. Cooperative learning can be set in a small group of students leading to the interdependency among students to teach each other; and thus, makes learning more interesting.…”