Cooperative Learning vs Competitive Learning

[Greenie]

Which do you prefer, and why? Do you prefer the middle path (ie a mix of both)?​

For those who don't know the difference, the definition according to this link-

Competitive vs. Cooperative Classroom: Pros and Cons

Article:

The cooperative classroom

Students are usually divided into small groups and encouraged to work together to maximize their own learning as well as that of each student in the group. Activities can include children reading their work aloud to each other and critiquing and editing each other's writing projects, using flash cards to help each other study spelling words or multiplication tables, and grouping students together to work on a larger project such as a science experiment, a history presentation or the analysis of a social problem.
The pros of the cooperative classroom structure include:

• Children learn important cooperative social skills that they will need later in their working lives.
• Students can actually learn better when they also help teach other students.
• Children who might be left behind in a more competitive environment can be brought up to speed by their peers.

The cons of this kind of classroom are:

• It can be hard for a teacher to accurately evaluate the progress of individual students.
• Students may not be motivated to excel if they know their classmates will do whatever work is needed on a project.
• Students can become frustrated when their individual efforts go unrecognized.

The Competitive Classroom

Sometimes called individualistic learning, the competitive classroom is the more traditional form of learning. Student study alone and complete their own assignments while trying to learn the presented subject matter. Tests and quizzes measure each student's progress. Letter grades or percentages are given for both assignments and tests. The students often compete with each other for the best grades and for the teacher's recognition.
The pros of a competitive classroom structure include:

• Children face the real-world challenge of competition.
• Students are encouraged to do their very best.
• Independent thinking and effort are encouraged and rewarded.
• Children can still work in teams, but compete against other teams: It can be a great way to "enliven the classroom environment."

Some of the cons of this kind of teaching are:

• Some students may become frustrated and even apathetic if they fall too far behind the rest of their classmates.
• Earning high grades and teacher approval may come to be seen as more important than actual learning.
• Getting along with others is de-emphasized.

 

[IntrusivePenDesperateSword]

One thing I know is that I loooove large, white boxes.

I do like group projects in education, as teamwork is a necessary part of work life (I think, everyone seems to say so), but I can also agree to not having individual work appreciated, or even accounted for. I've dealt with my fair share of underparticipating group members.

So perhaps, contrary to my poll choice at first, a combination of the two is for the better.

 

[Kitti]

I need an "I don't enjoy competing but do prefer to work alone at my own pace" option xD

There is a lot of value in learning to work as a member of a group, though, and when people are pulling their weight and making an effort, I think that it's probably the best way to go for normal things and then have periodic individual assessment opportunities. That said, I think that group work among younger participants would benefit greatly from a primer on how to be a good group member and have requirements to ensure that everyone is actively engaging.

It's hard to strike that balance, though, and for myself personally, it's always been easier on me when I can work alone.

 

[PoetLore]

I always function best with an element of competition. Debating and anything where a listed outcome is involved I will do as much extra as I have to to be listed at the top.

I HATE group projects. I always seem to have the unfortunate luck to be with someone who either has no understanding of what the project is, or refuses to do any work at all. SO...I do it myself because I refuse to tank a grade because of someone else.

But I do realize I am likely in the minority, but I prefer to do my work and get credit for what I do.

 

[Kestrel]

Which do you prefer, and why? Do you prefer the middle path (ie a mix of both)?

Cooperative learning is a better baseline. This is because at a young age, it allows children to develop their skills and interests without the individual result being on the foreground. It will also, when they do learn these individual skills, teach them to apply them in a team setting. Additionally, it's easier to manage motivation in a group than an individual because people are, especially when younger, insecure. However, people also feel confident in groups. Motivation, meanwhile, is a key factor to results. If you can empower people, their work will be better.

Cooperative learning has a lot of advantages. However, it should never be that absolute "everyone is responsible for everything together" fallacy of a highschool mindset. Cooperative learning should still incorporate individual tasks and responsibilities. As projects grow more complex, individual tasks and responsibilities grow more important, because it's more efficient for different persons to specialise in different tasks. Cooperative doesn't mean you are a hard carry for your weakest of laziest link, in fact, if you have someone explicitly and consistently holding the team back, the team should take this up with them.

Competition, in an ideal setting, is mostly meta. Company vs. company, instead of everyone versus everyone in the same workplace. This is simply because of how people work on an instinctive level. It comes with it's own dangers, mind you, because those instincts are still dumb and animal, but it provides the right emotional feedback and as such motivation.

 

[Kagayours]

I'd like to echo what a few others have said -- I prefer working alone rather than with groups. I guess that falls more under the "competitive" category, but... I never saw individual work as being competitive. :/ I'm working hard to keep my own grades up. The only thing I'm "competing" against is the grading scale itself.

Group work can be very... frustrating, if you're not lucky enough to get fantastic members. If everyone's good at doing what they should be doing, then that's great. But if you have a weak link, you can't exactly kick them out for the good of the group. Additionally, just trying to arrange time to communicate with group-mates and physically meet up (or even set up an online form of communication) takes up more time and energy that I'd rather spend just doing my own work.

Also, whether it's individual work or group work -- I still have a grade to worry about. But if I'm working individually, then the only person I'm dependent on is myself -- and I can work at my own pace, using my own methods, on my own time. If I'm working in a group, then I have to put extra effort into coordinating the team's efforts and making my schedule work with theirs, and possibly deal with the stress of miscommunications, tension between group members, and the possibility of one or more members slacking off. And I won't be fully in-control of what my own grade turns out to be.

At that point, the choice is easy. It's not about preferring competition -- it's about my comfort levels with controlling my own schedule and workload. Sure, I can make group projects work if I have to, but... it's always good to go with the low-stress option if I can manage it.

 

[Kestrel]

A lot of the arguments I see thrown around against cooperative learning is "Ugh, people."

Why is it that, if you're graded as a group, many don't feel responsible for the morale of the group versus the concern for their individual benefits? Why is the answer immediately, take over work, kick someone out, etc. versus trying to communicate and get people up to speed?

 

[Kagayours]

A lot of the arguments I see thrown around against cooperative learning is "Ugh, people."

Why is it that, if you're graded as a group, many don't feel responsible for the morale of the group versus the concern for their individual benefits? Why is the answer immediately, take over work, kick someone out, etc. versus trying to communicate and get people up to speed?

>.> I said that I'm more comfortable managing my own individual work rather than trying to manage a group. I never said that I despise the other group members and that I'd kick them all to the curb in a heartbeat to preserve my own grade.

I do try to be cooperative and helpful when it comes to group projects. I'm often the first person in the group to start planning out what all our goals are and how to delegate work between ourselves. I don't like to take over the lion's share of the work. In an ideal world, it would be great if we could all figure out how to most efficiently split up the workload in order to get everything done.

But the problem with group projects is that you're usually not in control of who you get grouped with. And sometimes that means getting stuck with people who aren't doing their fair share of the work, or who are just being plain uncooperative and starting drama. And that can be stressful. If someone's confused about their share of the work, then, sure, I'll help them. Or maybe we can even shuffle around roles so that they have something that they're more comfortable with. But if someone's just being lazy, or if someone's understanding of the course material is so poor that we can't think of any role to give them that they'd be good at, or if the person just has terrible people skills and takes offense at being told to proofread their work -- then I think it would be a bit unreasonable to expect me to drop everything and start teaching them how to be a better person, or to expect me to become the tutor that they need. I have other responsibilities. I'm a college student. I'm busy. Myself, and all the other members of the group, just want to get through this project. And if we have to take over a little bit if work from a weak link member, well, that's not fun, but it's better than needing to take the time to teach someone proper work ethic or social skills, especially when we all have deadlines to meet and other classes that we have homework in and it would be nice to squeeze in a little time for sleep somewhere along the line. You can't expect your fellow group-mates to dedicate themselves to helping to fix your personal flaws.

Also, like I said, I have to alter my schedule to fit the needs of the group so that we can all meet up to discuss the project or whatever we need to do -- and that also uses up a few more spoons and sometimes really throws off the flow of my day. I don't make a big deal about it in person because I know it would sound unreasonable to be so inflexible with my schedule, and I want to be a polite and decent person who's willing to bend a little bit to make things eaiser for the rest of the group -- but if I'm being brutally honest, I would be happier if I didn't have to put time and energy into altering my schedule to arrange group meetings.

It's not like group projects are the bane of my existence or anything. I'm just more comfortable working alone, because group projects add little bits of extra stress and effort in quite a few different areas. That said, if forced to do a group project, I can man up and deal with it. I also don't want to be completely unhelpful, and I can help group members out here and there when they're having a bit of trouble understanding something. But, when asked which one I prefer? I will say individual work. Because when my life is busy enough as it is, I don't feel guilty about preferring the path of least resistance -- especially when I don't see a ton of incentive to or a ton to gain from wilfully taking the more difficult path, in this case.

 

[Greenie]

I'm something of an introvert, but suffice it to say, as a child, it was much better for me when I was studying in a cooperative learning environment than the latter. I wasn't one of the brighter kids, at least in maths, so having help with that made sure I didn't fail. Not just that, I learned to function in a group, help my classmates or accept help. There was definitely individual work we had to do, homework, projects, tests, which we were obviously not allowed to do in a group.

I don't like hanging around people for too long, and I am one of those do it myself persons... but as a kid who spent equal time in both learning systems, I have to say I prefer cooperative learning that leans towards individual work as well.

Like the quote below mentions.

There is a lot of value in learning to work as a member of a group, though, and when people are pulling their weight and making an effort, I think that it's probably the best way to go for normal things and then have periodic individual assessment opportunities. That said, I think that group work among younger participants would benefit greatly from a primer on how to be a good group member and have requirements to ensure that everyone is actively engaging.

 

[Kestrel]

I do try to be cooperative and helpful when it comes to group projects. I'm often the first person in the group to start planning out what all our goals are and how to delegate work between ourselves. I don't like to take over the lion's share of the work. In an ideal world, it would be great if we could all figure out how to most efficiently split up the workload in order to get everything done.

I often take the initiative also. However, the big difference I think is, I ask the group what our goals are, how they feel about it, determine the tasks together, then start auctioning of tasks where people can claim them. Assuming our skills and backgrounds are homogenous, that is (I mean, let's roll with the school assignment setting.)

It may seem not too different at first sight, but here's what I believe you're doing wrong. By starting on tasks you are taking control of the project's course. This means you're assuming responsibility. If you have a group member who is either lazy, unskilled or otherwise unmotivated, this very first thing you're doing is giving them an out. "Well, if Kaga wants to plan it so bad, I guess I'll just leave it up to her."

A big reason people in highschool are often not motivated is because they don't give a shit about the tasks they're given. It's not their choice. It's something they have to do because someone else tells them to. However, if people take agency over their own work and can use their own ideas, they become inherently more motivated.

I could quote and answer other parts in specific, but this is really the essence. Yes. Some people are more lazy. Some people are less skilled. Some people take offence to everything. Most of the time, however, this simply can be solved by positively involving them and encourage exploring their ideas. A project will be better if you have a decent idea and excellent morale, than an excellent idea but merely decent morale. If you tell people what to do, they're going to hate it. Negative reinforcement breeds reluctance. If you involve them in deciding what's going to happen, on the other hand, they feel more like they're part of the decision and therefore more motivated and more responsible.

 

[Kagayours]

Also: it just occurred to me that I've been approaching the topic of "group projects" under the assumption that we're talking about homework assignments that myself and the other group members will have to work on largely outside of class, so most of my answer applies mainly only to that.

If we're talking strictly about a classroom setting, doing work that is meant to be completed only in-class, then I really don't mind group work. I understand where Greenie and Kitti are coming from in that it can be really helpful for some people, and I really don't mind offering a bit of help to people in such a setting. I do try to be friendly and keep the "group morale" up in such situations. Really, I try to do the same for outside-of-class group assignments, as well -- but it's much easier to do that for these more casual, in-class bits of group work, because there isn't the stress of worrying about a large grade or trying to figure out how you'll get all of your own work done while also coordinating the rest of the group and adjusting your schedule to do all of that while still taking care of all your other responsibilities.

Honestly, the only complaint I might have about cooperative learning in terms of in-class work is that it sometimes just feels a tad... inefficient? Like, if my group's finished with what we have to do and we're just left sitting around and waiting, and I wish I could be getting other work done. Also, I feel like you can get through a lot more material a lot faster in a more traditional, everyone-take-notes-while-the-professor-lectures approach. But, those are all minor nitpicks. I have no problems working with a group at that point.



Also, I feel like there's a lot to be said about the difference between cooperative learning in an elementary school setting vs a college setting. Like I said before, group work sometimes stresses me out a bit because I'm a busy adult with lots of other responsibilities. But my own personal preference regarding the level of education that I'm in now is rather different than saying, "but what's the best way to teach the kids?" And, I'll be honest, when I was a kid, I despised group work -- but that's mainly because I had a lot of social issues, and anger-management issues, and I cried really easily (which I was really self-conscious about), and I was often bullied for the crying thing. It turned group work into an emotional disaster. If I didn't have those problems, though, maybe I would've enjoyed group work. After all, it's like like I dealt with the same stressors as my adult self back then...

 

[Kagayours]

I often take the initiative also. However, the big difference I think is, I ask the group what our goals are, how they feel about it, determine the tasks together, then start auctioning of tasks where people can claim them. Assuming our skills and backgrounds are homogenous, that is (I mean, let's roll with the school assignment setting.)

It may seem not too different at first sight, but here's what I believe you're doing wrong. By starting on tasks you are taking control of the project's course. This means you're assuming responsibility. If you have a group member who is either lazy, unskilled or otherwise unmotivated, this very first thing you're doing is giving them an out. "Well, if Kaga wants to plan it so bad, I guess I'll just leave it up to her."

I never said that I don't give other people a say in what they want to do. In fact, that's usually the first thing I ask people. I said that I take initiative in dividing up the work, only because, when I don't, I often find that there's a lack of leadership in the group. People sit around awkwardly not knowing what to do. I only try to get the conversation started by asking people what roles they want to take, and taking initiative in assigning a role only when they've given me absolutely nothing to work with and expressed zero preference in doing anything.

This bit here:

I ask the group what our goals are, how they feel about it, determine the tasks together, then start auctioning of tasks where people can claim them.

I do all of this, too. I never said that I didn't. Sorry if I seemed to imply that I assign tasks without first consulting the group members about where their strengths lie and all that. Hell, I usually don't even decide on my own what our project timeline is or what exactly our goals are. I open all of that up for discussion, too. My "leadership role", at that point, simply means guiding that discussion and making sure we take time to think about all these things. Also, if no one expresses any preference in how they want to approach the project, then I'll impose my own ideas on the group -- but only because, if I don't, it can easily turn into an endless loop of "I'm ok with doing anything, which job do you want to do?" from all the group members. And even then, I have no problem changing the roles around again if someone does object to the role I suggested for them.

I only try to get everyone to agree on how to divide up the work, and then do the work that they've volunteered to do. Sometimes people fail to deliver, even when it's the role that they volunteered to do.

And, when did I say that I use "negative reinforcement"? I try to positively involve everyone and listen to their ideas to the best of my ability. At the end of the day, though, I still have plenty of my own troubles to worry about and I can't afford to put 110% effort into helping another person out. But I never assume that people are lazy from the start. I do try to motivate them. But even then, sometimes people still start drama or prove to be uncooperative. And I'd just rather not deal with that extra stress -- therefore, I prefer individual work.

 

[Kestrel]

Really, I try to do the same for outside-of-class group assignments, as well -- but it's much easier to do that for these more casual, in-class bits of group work, because there isn't the stress of worrying about a large grade or trying to figure out how you'll get all of your own work done while also coordinating the rest of the group and adjusting your schedule to do all of that while still taking care of all your other responsibilities.

I don't know. I remember several of my group reports were spell checked on a projector in the evening with kebab and beer as a group activity and that went well. Every X mistakes per chapter meant a shot for the person responsible. It was fun and actually effective. Just meant we needed not to start drinking til we were far though enough.

only try to get everyone to agree on how to divide up the work, and then do the work that they've volunteered to do. Sometimes people fail to deliver, even when it's the role that they volunteered to do.

Well sometimes people fail and you gotta catch 'em. But the only absolutely terrible experiences I had to deal with once I figured the motivation thing out on a semi-decent level was a guy that dropped out and a dude whose health prevented him from putting the time in. Everything else could be salvaged.

 

[Kagayours]

I don't know. I remember several of my group reports were spell checked on a projector in the evening with kebab and beer as a group activity and that went well. Every X mistakes per chapter meant a shot for the person responsible. It was fun and actually effective. Just meant we needed not to start drinking til we were far though enough.

Well, I'm glad that worked well for you, but I just wouldn't be able to handle that working environment. I feel like that would just make me stressed and uncomfortable. If I'm in "work mode", I like to get things done as quickly and efficiently as possible, especially since I probably have lots of other things I want to get done that night before my meds wear off and I crash. And I also really just don't like the idea of drinking while trying to complete an assignment...

But, that's just me. I personally find that group projects are just a bit more stress and effort -- which isn't the end of the world, but I'd rather go for the low-stress option if possible. Even if I did find a session like you just described to be fun and enjoyable, I still might not enjoy working my schedule around it...

Well sometimes people fail and you gotta catch 'em. But the only absolutely terrible experiences I had to deal with once I figured the motivation thing out on a semi-decent level was a guy that dropped out and a dude whose health prevented him from putting the time in. Everything else could be salvaged.

And I never said I've had lots of "absolutely terrible experiences". I just don't like the feeling of not being in-control of my own grades. I help people as much as I can before it becomes an excessive burden for me. I try to keep the group experience positive while still being efficient about it and while I try not to be too controlling. But, if given the choice, I would still prefer to be completely in-control of my own workload and schedule, rather than needing to coordinate that work with a bunch of other people.

But again, that's just my personal preference.

 

[Kestrel]

My specific example might not appael to you, but the point is that it's possible to get stuff done in a less stressful way. I mean I did a finger painting session for a brainstorm. I don't know. However stress is as much in the process as the deadline.

But really what I wanted to know was something you said you don't indulge in. So eh.

 

[Kagayours]

My specific example might not appael to you, but the point is that it's possible to get stuff done in a less stressful way. I mean I did a finger painting session for a brainstorm. I don't know. However stress is as much in the process as the deadline.

I guess we just have different preferences on what the least-stressful ways to get work done are. XD

 

[An Otaku]

Being what one could mildly classify from a distance if they were an unlicensed psychologist as an introvert... I can't help but wonder if more cooperative learning experiences would have helped me. *Shrug*

Fact of the matter is, every group project I've been involved with for the last ten years or so has always been the same. Stuck with lousy partners who would not, or could not, contribute. It tended to be rather embarrassing, the outcome. Usually I was the one doing all the work, so at that point I may as well not be in a group at all. Which is my preference.

I guess you could say I'm for competitive learning, but it seems like "competitive" is more a synonym for "individual" than actual competing. And I'm okay with that save for when people fall behind. I think if a genuine competitive environment were established, where people are trying to outclass each other, it could actually be fun but that's all hypothetical on my end.

 

[Rainjay]

I firmly believe that learning is a group activity and that most of the time, breeding an environment of competition will do no good for over half the students involved. It's really easy for kids (myself included) to fall into the mindset of, "I will never be good enough, so why should I try to be more than I currently am?" just as easy as it is to fall into the, "My groupmates will do the work, so I won't" mindset. But from my experience, it's easier to solve the second category than the first. My teachers used to do things like peer evaluations or would work with each group periodically and ask questions like, "How are you delegating tasks? Who came up with this idea? How did it progress from point A to B?" etc. etc. to give us not only a group grade but an individual grade as well. But on the flip side, grading for exams and individual work is often just on "How correct are you?" not, where did you get your answers, how did you study, did something happen last night to negatively affect your grade? A competitive nature encourages cheating, not collaboration, often memorization, not learning, and demands perfection. Your parent's divorce doesn't matter--you got a 60 because you didn't study, not because you're stressed or anxious.

Of course there are benefits to both but I still believe that learning towards a cooperative nature is probably for the best. Especially since it would help create a collaborative and friendlier environment in the future's workplaces. We already have the Internet. We're in a world of sharing. Why aren't we encouraged to share our knowledge and learning more often?

 

[Jorick]

I haaaaaaaated cooperative learning classes when I was in school. In elementary school level stuff it was fine, no big deal, lets the kids socialize while they work. That was fine and dandy.

Getting into middle school though, I started to despise it. I felt like my own learning was being stifled by the dumbasses I was stuck with. I probably sound like an arrogant jackass, but I was a smart kid and I really should have been in some advanced program rather than getting stuck with average kids. It killed most of my motivation to do well in school: learning the new stuff was simple and I was ready to move on to the next thing when others were still picking it up, so that made for a lot of boredom; group work inevitably went one of two ways: I did all the work myself and the others fucked around the whole time, or I refused to carry their weight and only came in at the end to fix their mistakes to save my own grade; the lack of individual recognition outside of a report card at the middle and end of the year made me feel like there was no point in trying to excel. Then in high school it got a little better because some classes were competitive learning style setups for the most part, but then a mandatory math class that was 100% cooperative, down to the fucking tests, was like half the reason I ended up dropping out of school entirely. Cooperative learning was just the worst possible option for me, but that was what my schools focused on.

That said, I know cooperative learning isn't actually bad. It works really well for a lot of people. I was a special case for whom it was the exact opposite of what I needed to thrive and be successful in school, so I have a negative personal opinion about it but I wouldn't ever want to like hardcore force schools to all use competitive models. The middle ground is probably best in practice, but I voted based on that personal preference.