Reward Contingencies and Student Interactions that Contribute to the Success of Cooperative Learning Groups

This study was conducted with students taking the EDPY 210 course in the Fall Semester of 2017 (total N = 142, range of ns in the six sections of the course = 16-30). The purpose of the study was two-fold: (a) examine changes in exam scores and earned bonus credit for exam performance under two cooperative reward contingencies (i.e., group only contingency versus individual plus group contingency) and (b) two different sequences of implementing these contingencies. Additionally, the research team examined the effects of the two independent variables on the nature and frequency of communication in cooperative study sessions. Participants used a free messaging tool (i.e., GroupMe) to interact with group members. Several two-way mixed designs first determined the significance of differences in exam scores and extra credit earned under the two cooperative contingencies and the sequence in which those contingencies were presented. Results indicated significant interactions for both exam performance and extra credit under the two independent variables. The significant interaction (p < 0.00) and follow up simple effects showed that students who experienced the group only contingency after the individual plus group contingency scored significantly higher on both exams and extra credit than those who experienced the group only contingency before the individual plus group contingency. Furthermore, students under the individual plus group contingency did not differ significantly under the two treatment sequences. The pattern of significance for the communication scores (i.e., planning. social, and on-ask communication) showed the interaction effects to be somewhat different from those obtained for exam scores and extra credit. Planning (p = 0.001) and social (p = 0.013) communication was greater when the individual plus group contingency came before the group only contingency. Overall, the effects of the two contingencies depended on the sequence in which those contingencies were implemented.