The effects of Phlebotomus fever on sustained performance and muscular output

An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning

“…The smaller the size of the group, therefore, the greater tends to be the individual accountability (Messick & Brewer, 1983). Morgan, Coates, and Rebbin (1970) found that group performance actually improved when one member was missing from five-person groups, perhaps because members believed that their contributions were more necessary.…”

“…Motivation to achieve is based on the perceived likelihood of being able to achieve a challenging goal (Atkinson, 1964). Those who believe they cannot win will not try, will cheat, will avoid challenge, will use superficial and effort-minimizing strategies, will engage in impaired problem solving, will use other self-handicapping strategies, and will have less interest in and enjoyment of the experience (Anderman, Griesinger, & Westerfield, 1998; Butler, 1987; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Graham & Golan, 1991; Halisch & Heckhauser, 1977; Hurlock, 1927; Lepley, 1937; Matthews, 1979; Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988; Nolen, 1988; Pintrich, 1989; Utman, 1997). There are clear and specific rules, procedures, and criteria for winning.…”

Aptitude by Treatment Interactions and Matthew Effects in Graduate-Level Cooperative-Learning Groups

“…Debate exists at all levels about how to compose cooperative teams. With respect to the size of cooperative-learning groups, Johnson and Johnson (2000) cautioned that (a) as the size of the group increases, resources needed for the group to be successful subsequently increase; (b) the shorter the period of time available to complete the task, the smaller the learning group should be; (c) the larger the group, the easier it is for students to avoid contributing their share of work (i.e., social loafing; Stephan & Mishler, 1952); (d) the larger the group, the less likely it is that members will perceive their contribution to the group as being important to the group's chances of success (Kerr, 1989;Olson, 1965); (e) the larger the group, the less individual accountability will occur (Messick & Brewer, 1983;Morgan, Coates, & Rebbin, 1970); (f) the larger the group, the more skillful the group members must be; (g) the larger the group, the less interaction and communication will exist among members (Gerard, Wilhelmy, & Conolley, 1968;Indik, 1965); (h) the group size is dependent on the materials available and the specific nature of the task; (i) the larger the group, the more difficult it is to identify any difficulties students have in collaborating with group members (Fox, 1985); (i) the larger the group, the more likely students are to strive collectively for unanimity that overshadows members' motivation to examine all perspectives in a critical manner (i.e., "groupthink"; Bales & Strodtbeck, 1951;Janis, 1972); and (k) the larger the group, the stronger the positive interdependence among the members must be. Johnson and Johnson (2000) also noted that groups will be less effective (a) the larger the discrepancy between the functional group size, (b) the less group members perceive their individual efforts as being crucial for group success, (c) the less the effort is expended by each member, (d) the more complex the group structure, (e) the more time it takes for the group to coordinate efforts, (f) the less the members identify with the group, and (g) the less members follow the group's norms.…”