The essential elements of cooperation

As demonstrated in research findings (and explored earlier in Chapter 2), group work is not always effective, and in higher education especially, simply telling students to work together in groups is fraught with problems (Herrmann, 2013; Johnson et al., 2007). Furthermore not all group work is cooperative (Gillies, 2014; Johnson & Johnson, 1999; 2009). However, Johnson et al. (2013) argue that wherever there is interaction between individuals there exists the potential for cooperation – what is needed are the right conditions. According to SIT, those conditions include five essential elements:

1. positive interdependence; 2. individual accountability; 3. promotive interaction; 4. social skills; and

5. group processing (Johnson & Johnson, 1989a; 2005a; 2009). 3.4.3.1 Positive interdependence

As discussed earlier and shown in Figure 3.3, the first key element, positive interdependence, is the over-arching perception that the actions of individuals are inevitably linked to the attainment of joint goals. Furthermore, research evidence suggests that perceptions of positive interdependence are more important than simply identifying with group membership or interpersonal interactions within a group (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Numerous meta-analyses consistently agree that positive interdependence leads to better achievement and productivity outcomes than competitive or individualistic structures (Johnson & Johnson, 1989a; 2005a; Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson & Skon, 1981; Kyndt et al., 2013; Roseth, Johnson & Johnson, 2008; Slavin, 1996; Springer, Stanne & Donovan, 1999).

3.4.3.2 Individual accountability

Early theorising suggested that clearly perceived positive interdependence also promoted recognition of a personal responsibility to others and to achieving group goals (Deutsch,

66 1949; Johnson & Johnson, 1989a; Slavin, 1988), creating feelings of accountability and the need to facilitate the work of fellow group members. Individual accountability was therefore identified as an important second element to cooperation. Interestingly however, Johnson and Johnson (2004, 2005a, 2009, 2015) use a summative structured definition of individual accountability and suggest that it exists ‘when the performance of each individual member is assessed and the results are given back to the individual and the group to compare against a standard of performance’ (Johnson & Johnson, 2009, p. 368). Furthermore they suggest that free-riding and social loafing are more likely to occur if individual contributions are difficult to measure, which tends to happen as the group size increases and/or if there is no formal identification of individual effort. This separation of terms is deliberate. Johnson and Johnson (2013, p. 106) propose that ‘the lack of individual accountability may reduce feelings of personal responsibility’. Slavin (1983b) similarly refers to individual accountability in terms of the quantifiable performance of each group member and suggests that single group based rewards are alone inadequate to motivate all members. This assessable conceptualisation of accountability is synonymous with the cooperative learning literature (Johnson & Johnson, 2004; Mesch, 1991; Slavin, 1995), and extends to the concept of group accountability in which the group is assessed overall. It is argued that the purpose of the cooperative learning group is to work together to make each member stronger and improve the performance of the individual (Johnson & Johnson, 2004), hence the focus on measuring contribution.

3.4.3.3 Promotive interaction

Promotive interaction is the third key element necessary for success in a cooperative environment. It is the direct result of positive goal interdependence and is defined as ‘individuals encouraging and facilitating each other’s efforts to achieve, complete tasks, and produce in order to reach the group’s goals’ (Johnson & Johnson, 1989a, p. 63). As illustrated in Figure 3.3, there are two important aspects of promotive interaction: (1) quality relationships, in the form of personal support systems in which positive interpersonal dynamics result, and the academic support system which promotes productivity and performance; and (2) psychological health. Characteristics of promotive interaction include: a willingness to help each other; accepting the ideas of others; sharing of resources; communicating; mutually encouraging and influencing effort; striving for mutual benefit; interpersonal trust; and low anxiety and stress levels (Johnson & Johnson,

67 1989a; 2009). Personal attraction, cohesion, and emotional bonding, also have a profound effect on promotive interaction (Johnson & Johnson, 2004).

3.4.3.4 Social skills

Skilled teamwork, based on the effective and efficient use of social skills, is the fourth requirement for successful group work outcomes. Social skills refer to group dynamics variables such as effective communication, building and maintaining trust, leadership, decision making, and constructive conflict management. These interpersonal skills represent the social competency outcomes illustrated in Figure 3.2. Whilst social skills are clearly embedded in each of the other compulsory elements of cooperative learning, Johnson and Johnson (2003; 2004; 2009) list them as a separate requirement because they maintain that social skills for small group work must be taught ‘just as purposefully and precisely as do academic skills’ (Johnson & Johnson, 2004, p. 33).

3.4.3.5 Group processing

The final essential element of cooperative learning is group processing. The key component of group processing is reflection. Johnson and Johnson (2009, p. 369) explain that group processing happens when group members ‘(a) reflect on which member actions were helpful and unhelpful and (b) make decisions about which actions to continue or change’. The purpose is to monitor and improve the effectiveness of group processes and functioning in pursuit of the group’s goals. To this end respect is critical. Respect for fellow group members’ contributions, efforts, and feelings during group processing increases self-esteem, commitment, and collective identity (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Theoretically this element parallels the collective efficacy and collective agency components of social cognitive theory. Johnson and Johnson (2013) argue that the process of ‘group processing’ promotes individual self-monitoring and self-efficacy. However, like social skills, group processing is a competency that should be taught within educational institutions utilising group work and cooperative learning activities.

The concept of group processing however warrants further analysis given the potential for confusion with the terms ‘processing’ and ‘processes’. Within the SIT framework ‘group processing’ is broadly described from a purely reflective position, and appears to differ from the multidimensional nature of ‘group processes’ which encompasses a plethora of theoretical models for explaining teamwork interactions. For example, earlier in this chapter at section 3.1.2, the process concept was discussed in

68 terms of the teaching and learning literature and Bigg’s (2003) 3P model (presage, process and product). From the perspective of students’ approaches to learning, process was described as the combination of motive and strategy (Duff & McKinstry, 2007). In relation to self-managed learning groups in university, Lizzio and Wilson (2005) identified two main categories of group processes. The first category called ‘within-group dynamics’ highlighted the way in which social skills are operationalised within a group work framework and included such concepts as equity, workload distribution, conflict resolution, diversity and cohesiveness. The second category, group context, included ecological factors such as task design, rewards, authoritative structures, and environment, which influence how groups are formed and operate. Notably within SIT, category one is presented as social skills, and category two is listed as separate types of interdependence i.e. means and outcome interdependency (see Figure 3.3). However, when conducting a meta-analysis of teamwork processes, LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu and Saul (2008) found that the literature has not successfully defined or differentiated between similar concepts, resulting in unclear and broadly defined terms causing confusion.

A comparison of Johnson and Johnson’s (1989; 2005a; 2009) definition of group processing with the taxonomy of organisational team processes provided by Marks, Mathieu and Zaccaro (2001) helps to clarify the terms ‘group processing’ and ‘group processes’. Centred on the basic input, process, output model, group (or team) processes are defined as ‘members’ interdependent acts that convert inputs to outcomes through cognitive, verbal, and behavioural activities directed toward organizing taskwork to achieve collective goals’ (Marks et al., 2001, p. 357), in other words it is how members work together, the means they utilise, rather than what they are doing in relation to the task itself (Marks et al., 2001). A key concept in this definition is that process activities are directed towards the organisation of actions.

Marks et al. (2001) argue that the type of organisation required differs across project time-lines. Therefore different types of processes are performed at different phases of a task. They refer to temporal cycles of goal-directed activity as ‘episodes’ and describe three types of processes: action processes; transition processes; and interpersonal processes. Action phase processes include coordination and the monitoring of team performance, progress, and systems that occur during episodes of productive work. Transition processes include planning, goal specification and strategy formulation, which

69 occur between episodes. The third category, interpersonal processes, such as conflict management, motivation and confidence building, occur during and/or between episodes. This notion of time mediated team processes highlights the underlying key concept of all processes, that is, ongoing evaluation. According to Marks et al’s (2001) framework it is apparent that at every phase, ‘process’ refers to some form of planning, monitoring, evaluating, analysing, reviewing, and/or reflecting on the interdependent nature of working together to effectively achieve group/team goals. This is consistent with Johnson and Johnson’s (2013, p. 107) definition that ‘a process is an identifiable sequence of events taking place over time’ and their view that ‘group processing’ is ‘a form of team reflexivity, the extent to which group members overtly reflect upon and modify their functioning’ (p. 109).