No Contest: The Case Against Competition

by Alfie Kohn

  The problem with this solution is that it assumes “accountable for learning” means accountable to an external authority.48 It is taken for granted that the best—indeed, in many educators’ minds, the only—way to make sure that children apply themselves to a task is, in effect, to threaten them with a poor grade or public humiliation if they do not pull their weight. These assumptions, in turn, reflect a set of beliefs about the nature of learning and human motivation that show up even more starkly in considering the basic issue of how to get students to work together.

  POSITIVE INTERDEPENDENCE: We want members of a team to turn to one another for help, to exchange ideas, to feel a measure of group unity. One way to make this happen is to provide tasks that require students to work together toward a common goal. (By contrast, giving children individualized assignments and sitting them at a table with an admonition to help each other does not provide a group objective.) Another way to draw students together is to give a team only one copy of a story or assignment sheet and only one pencil.

  These methods are not particularly objectionable, as far as they go. Two other approaches, however, seem to me more problematic, even though they are widely used by CL teachers. The first is to assign a different role to each member of a group, so that one student writes down all the ideas generated, another checks to make sure that everyone is participating and keeping up, someone else offers words of encouragement, and so on. While there are times this might be useful—such as when CL is still new to students—roles may quickly come to be experienced as confining. Spontaneous, cooperative interaction in the process of engaging with ideas is likely to be frustrated by a child’s coming to perceive herself principally as the recorder or checker, a perception facilitated by teachers who have children wear badges to remind them of their responsibility. In truth, a student’s primary responsibility is simply to learn in concert with others; anything that could eclipse that process ought to be used with extreme caution. In a study of thirty-three classrooms using CL, researchers at the University of Missouri observed that

  in many cases, the designation of students as leaders, recorders, or materials managers seemed artificial. Students tended to switch roles when necessary and, unless the teacher reminded them, often abandoned roles altogether. Further, teachers often spent as much time reminding students of their roles as they did teaching a concept.49

  The last method of creating positive interdependence is to use grades, certificates, gold stars, or other extrinsic rewards to induce students to work together. Thus, a team may earn a prize for a specified level of performance on a quiz, or part of one student’s grade may be based on the improvement of someone else in the group. Models of CL can be divided into three categories with respect to this issue.

  1. Some—notably the “student team learning” methods developed by Robert Slavin and his colleagues—are fundamentally and explicitly driven by the use of extrinsic motivators. For Slavin, the very idea of a “group goal” means “working to earn certificates or other recognition, to receive a few minutes extra of recess, or to earn bonus points on their grades.”50

  2. Other approaches seem to reflect some ambivalence about the use of rewards, accepting them for promoting interdependence or boosting motivation, on the one hand, but expressing reservations, or at least not insisting on their use, on the other. The Johnsons endorse the strategic use of grades to ensure effective teamwork, calling this “one of the ways in which students are given the message, ‘We sink or swim together.’” This, however, follows by a few pages their suggestion that extrinsic motivators “should probably be removed as soon as the intrinsic motivation inherent in cooperative learning groups becomes apparent.”51

  3. Finally, some models explicitly repudiate (or at least pointedly avoid) the use of extrinsic incentives on the grounds that they are manipulative, destructive, unnecessary, or all three. Included in this category are the Group Investigation method devised by Shlomo Sharan and his associates,52 the version of CL used in programs implemented by the Developmental Studies Center in California,53 various models that grow out of a “constructivist” model of learning (see below) such as the collaborative learning approach favored in English-speaking countries other than the United States,54 the work of Nancy Schniedewind and Mara Sapon-Shevin,55 and my own writings.56

  As I have already mentioned, a substantial amount of research in social psychology has established that when students see themselves as performing a task in order to receive a reward, their interest in that task is likely to decline, as is the quality of their performance over the long haul (particularly, but not exclusively, when creativity is required). Recall that one of the chief reasons that competition tends to be counterproductive is precisely its status as an extrinsic motivator; to use other such motivators for groups would seem ill advised, to say the least.

  But let us put aside for a moment the relatively straightforward empirical question of what long-term consequences the use of classroom incentives brings about. The belief that incentives are necessary to promote interdependence and therefore learning*—apart from relying on some very questionable assumptions57—reveals a rumbling under the surface of discussions about CL. It is here that a great crevice between opposing approaches to learning itself is laid bare. Because CL has such potential to transform education and society—the power to let a new generation experience firsthand the possibility of achieving one’s goals with others instead of against them—this division is worth exploring carefully.

  On one side are those whose philosophy of learning is indistinguishable from that of mainstream U.S. educators except for the fact that traditional techniques and theories are applied at the level of the group instead of the individual. For them, cooperation is really a package of isolatable behaviors that are taught through the use of reinforcements. CL is a set of strategies that the teacher implements in prescribed ways58 to improve children’s performance on whatever curriculum is already being taught. (The curriculum often amounts to a collection of information bits that are transmitted by way of primers, basal readers, and worksheets; the effectiveness of that transmission is then assessed by way of standardized tests.) It is taken for granted in this view, once the layers of assumption are peeled back, that human beings are inclined to learn and to care about each other only when they are given extrinsic incentives for doing so. These beliefs and practices are separable, of course, but for convenience I refer to this whole constellation as the behaviorist position.

  On the other side are those who see CL as part of a broader movement in education that represents a profound shift in how we construe and promote learning. Here children are seen not as passive receptacles for facts but as beings who actively struggle to make sense of themselves and the world around them. This they do, in large part, by talking to others. Group discussion is not a “bull session” during which students react to what they have already learned; this is where much of the learning occurs.

  The teacher’s role is to stimulate a child’s curiosity, to facilitate the process of playing with ideas and constructing meaning, and to aid in the development of intellectual and social skills. The goal is to get the student to develop an intrinsic, enduring commitment to this process (and to working successfully with others), to take responsibility for her learning and her behavior. For this reason, children are given far more responsibility, separately and as a class, for making decisions and solving problems than is the case in most U.S. schools. I refer to this approach as the constructivist position.

  The basic distinction I am drawing has been around for decades, but rarely is it brought to bear on the question of CL. It is not the only schema that can be used to distinguish various models in the field of cooperative learning, but it is a division of monumental importance. The fact is that some CL proponents differ from one another with respect to fundamental ideas about the purpose of schools.

  Anyone who evaluates the behaviorist view must immediately concede that a sufficiently attractive re
inforcement can get students to do almost anything in the short term. (This concept fascinates children, judging by the tendency to entertain themselves by speculating on how much they would have to be paid to perform various unappetizing feats.) What we care about, though, is the effect on motivation in the long term, once reinforcements are no longer present. Consider just one of many studies that speak to this issue: preschoolers who were praised or promised movie tickets for drinking an unfamiliar beverage did indeed drink more of it than those who expected nothing. But a week later, when the latter group liked the beverage just as much as, if not more than, they had earlier, the children who had been rewarded for drinking it no longer wanted to touch the stuff .59

  Similarly, when children see schoolwork as a way, individually or collectively, to snag a good grade, avert a bad grade, receive a certificate, earn a popcorn party, win a contest,* or secure the approval of a teacher or parent, they have been given no reason to continue learning (or cooperating) when these rewards are no longer available. In fact, the continuous presentation of rewards to students helps to explain the very absence of interest in learning that is then cited as the reason teachers have no choice but to use rewards. Much like competing in order to feel good about oneself (see [>], n32), offering students extrinsic motivators to get them interested in a task is like giving them salt water to quench their thirst.

  THE THREE C’s OF COOPERATION

  Someone who accepts the premises of behaviorism would argue that CL, like anything else, is dependent for its success on extrinsic motivators. Speaking from within the constructivist tradition, I want to indicate, by way of response, how CL can work effectively in the absence of these incentives. I will focus on three interlocking domains to which we must attend in order to maximize the benefits of CL—or, for that matter, any learning environment. Let us call them control, curriculum, and community.

  CONTROL: Adults who are routinely told exactly what they have to do at work and how they have to do it are likely to become victims of what is known as burnout, a vivid metaphor that suggests an extinguished candle or a dark bulb. Some become actively resentful while others just go through the motions of working in order to pick up their paychecks. Teachers, who know this syndrome well, do not always seem to realize that students are subject to it, too. Conversely, when students (or other people) feel a sense of control over what they are engaged in, they are more likely to find it engaging. Autonomy, then, is not simply an alternative to extrinsic motivators: it is far more effective than any such inducement could be at producing interest in learning, cooperative or otherwise. After all, it is the absence of felt control that, on some accounts, explains why rewards cause intrinsic interest to evaporate in the first place.

  Teachers need to do more than minimize the use and salience of extrinsic motivators; they should affirmatively help students to become responsible for their own learning and relationships. When children were allowed to pick their own materials in one study, they produced more creative art projects than did those who used exactly the same materials, but had them handed to them.61 A child who can make (teacher-guided) choices about what happens in his or her classroom is a child who will be less likely to require artificial inducements to learn and more likely to get hooked on learning.

  One model of CL that takes the idea of autonomy seriously is Group Investigation. Here, students form inquiry groups based on what they want to know about a given topic and then make decisions together about how they will divide up the labor and conduct their investigation. Each group collects information and analyzes it, then prepares and shares a final report or innovative presentation that reflects what has been learned. Finally, each group contributes to the evaluation process, perhaps making up the questions on their unit that will be included in a classwide test, if there is to be one. The point is to “incorporate the evaluation into the learning process.”62

  At both the elementary and secondary levels, this model has been associated with a higher level of academic achievement (along with other advantages) precisely because “it gives students more control over their learning.”63 Elsewhere, Shlomo Sharan, its cocreator, has described CL itself as exemplifying the best of the constructivist tradition:

  Cooperative learning . . . gives students an active role in deciding about, planning, directing and controlling the content and pace of their learning activities. It changes the students’ role from recipients of information to seekers, analyzers and synthesizers of information. It transforms pupils from listeners into talkers and doers, from powerless pawns into participant citizens empowered to influence decisions about what they must do in school.64

  This is, to be precise, a description of what CL can be and should be, but not, alas, what it always is.

  CURRICULUM: Many books have been filled with prescriptions for improving the curriculum used in various subjects at various age levels. I would therefore make only three points. First, when children are given assignments that stir their natural curiosity and are neither so difficult as to be anxiety producing nor so easy as to be boring, they generally do not require extrinsic motivators in order to approach them.65 (The corollary to this principle is that if students are required to fill in the missing words in an endless series of unrelated sentences or memorize the kings and queens of England, they may have to be bribed to do so.)

  Second, a meaningful curriculum is a necessary and perhaps even sufficient way to draw children into CL without the use of rewards. “If the task is challenging and interesting, and if students’ are sufficiently prepared for skills in group process, students will experience the process of groupwork itself as highly rewarding,” according to Stanford University’s Elizabeth Cohen.66

  Third, if we do not address curricular issues in the context of CL, we may doom it to failure—or, put differently, we may doom it to success according to the wholly inadequate educational standards we have increasingly come to accept. Apart from the use of rewards, one of the most telling questions that anyone considering the use of CL can ask is what children are learning in their groups. Some models are advertised as being adaptable to any curriculum.67 The soothing message here is not only that CL will work regardless of what is being taught, but that educators need not reflect on how challenging or valuable their material may be because students will benefit from learning whatever is presented as long as they do it in groups. Sapon-Shevin has wryly referred to this approach as the “Hamburger Helper” model of cooperative learning.68

  If CL is not to become a technique for dressing up ground beef—and if schools are not to become outlets of a Mclnformation chain, as it were—teachers will need to provide groups with stimulating, personally relevant material that pushes them to engage together in higher-order thinking. Even the partisans of some extrinsically based models of CL concede that these methods are most appropriate for dealing with problems that have one right answer.69 The question, then, is whether we resign ourselves to the continued reliance on such tasks or instead use the potential heuristic power of CL as an opportunity to find things more worthy of our children’s (and teachers’) time.

  Using cooperative techniques to have students cover the same boring, inconsequential, or biased material or to have them “get through” worksheets with more efficiency doesn’t demonstrate the approach’s full potential for changing what goes on in schools.70

  Likewise, the potential of CL is lost if it is geared toward improving scores on standardized tests—or promoted and sold on that basis. The worshipful regard for these tests—and if this were not discouraging enough, the proposal to have schools compete to see who can get more students to blacken the correct bubbles with their No. 2 pencils—comes chiefly from people who are uninformed about pedagogical or motivational issues. Most educators, by contrast, know that these measures fail to capture what is meaningful about learning and have the effect of pressuring teachers to “teach to the tests,” forgoing potentially innovative lessons in order to prepare children for exams. Anyone who wa
nted to destroy what is left of rich, creative teaching—or children’s love of learning—could do no better than to increase our reliance on standardized tests.71

  Of course, all educators ought to insist on a curriculum of quality and attempt to resist and reverse the diminution of schooling. But those who are associated with a reform as exciting as CL have a special responsibility to provide content worthy of the method.

  COMMUNITY: The assumption that students will work together only on the basis of self-interest and, specifically, only in the hope of receiving a reward for doing so—the assumption, that is, that no classroom environment could possibly develop norms leading naturally to cooperation—betrays a profoundly cynical view of “human nature.” Happily, it is a view that enjoys very little empirical support. Given the right circumstances, caring for others is no less natural than caring for oneself.72

  A classroom that emphasizes and promotes the value of community—that has, in fact, been transformed into a caring community—allows positive interdependence to take hold. CL can thus become successful without promising each student extra points for helping someone else. This is one of the guiding premises of the Child Development Project in San Ramon, California, a comprehensive, long-term elementary school program that has achieved significant success in helping children to become more caring and responsible.73 Drawing in part from the work of that project, I have elsewhere sketched an approach that all teachers can use to promote a sense of community, the idea being to provide an environment that does not offer incentives for helping or sharing but encourages children to ask “What kind of classroom do we want to have?”74

  Once again, an exploration of this topic takes us beyond its role as an alternative to the use of extrinsic motivators in CL. In this case, it propels us clear beyond cooperative learning (at least in the way the concept is usually understood) and into the realm of what we might call the cooperative classroom. Anyone who needs to be convinced to make such a shift should consider the predicament of the teacher who confessed that “she caught herself yelling at a group of students, ‘Stop helping each other; we’re not doing cooperative learning now!’”75