Use of Group Activities and Team Rewards to Increase Individual Classroom Productivity

A Brief Review of Classroom Group‐oriented Contingencies

“…Graubard (1969) stated that in the battle between peer and school values, the delinquent group "must consciously legitimize learning so that the individuals in the group do not have to concern themselves with loss of status for learning [p. 271]". In her work with low-achieving adolescent Hawaiian boys, Sloggett (1971) cited evidence by Gallimore and Howard (1968) indicating that Hawaiians are motivated primarily by peer pressure, affiliation, and avoidance of social disapproval. Sloggett (1971) further cited an example in which Hawaiian school children refused to accept material rewards such as cokes or candy for high grades or successful competition unless the rewards could be shared with their friends.…”

“…In her work with low-achieving adolescent Hawaiian boys, Sloggett (1971) cited evidence by Gallimore and Howard (1968) indicating that Hawaiians are motivated primarily by peer pressure, affiliation, and avoidance of social disapproval. Sloggett (1971) further cited an example in which Hawaiian school children refused to accept material rewards such as cokes or candy for high grades or successful competition unless the rewards could be shared with their friends. In order to increase the classroom productivity of lowachieving Hawaiian adolescent boys, Sloggett (1971) developed a program in which teams successfully utilized the natural pressures of peer groups "rather than force the boys into the mold of an educational system that typically emphasized competition and individual achievement [p. 64]".…”

“…Sloggett (1971) further cited an example in which Hawaiian school children refused to accept material rewards such as cokes or candy for high grades or successful competition unless the rewards could be shared with their friends. In order to increase the classroom productivity of lowachieving Hawaiian adolescent boys, Sloggett (1971) developed a program in which teams successfully utilized the natural pressures of peer groups "rather than force the boys into the mold of an educational system that typically emphasized competition and individual achievement [p. 64]". Hamblin, Hathaway, and Wodarski (1971) reported data indicating that certain group reinforcement contingencies accelerate learning more than individual reinforcement.…”

“…Some studies have focused on the whole class as the group (Andrews, 1970;Dietz and Repp, 1973;Eleftherios, Shoudt, and Strang, 1972;Gallagher, Sulzbacher, and Shores, 1967;Glynn, Thomas, and Shee, 1973;Graubard, 1969;Graubard, Lanier, Weisert, and Miller, 1970;Hall, Fox, Willard, Goldsmith, Emerson, Owen, Davis, and Porcia, 1971;Hall, Panyan, Rabon, and Broden, 1968;Hotchkiss, 1966;Jacobs, 1970;McNamara, 1971;Packard, 1970;Prentice, 1970;Schmidt and Ulrich, 1969;Sulzbacher and Houser, 1968;Turknett, 1971;Walker and Hops, 1973;Willis and Crowder, 1972;Wilson, 1971;Wilson and Hopkins, 1973). Other studies have focused on dividing the class into small groups or teams that are either competitive (Barrish, Saunders, and Wolf, 1969;Maloney and Hopkins, 1973;Robertshaw and Hiebert, 1973) or noncompetitive (Harris and Sherman, 1973;Koch and Breyer, 1974;Medland and Stachnik, 1972;Quesenbery, 1971;Simmons and Wasik, 1973;Sloggett, 1971;Wilson and Williams, 1973;Witte, 1971).…”

Blending Crowdvoting in Modern e-Learning Environments

“…This should not be neglected and rewards should be chosen carefully. Although prizes are only a part of what encouraged the students to participate in the competition, a reward system must be designed to have a positive impact on students (Sloggett, 1971).…”