The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cooperative versus Competitive Efforts and Problem Solving
Abstract
The impacts of cooperative and competitive efforts on problem solving were compared. In order to resolve the controversy over whether cooperation promotes higher- or lower-quality individual problem solving than does competition, 46 studies, published between 1929 and 1993, were examined. The findings from these studies were classified in 4 categories according to the type of problem solving measured: linguistic (solved through written and oral language), nonlinguistic (solved through symbols, math, motor activities, actions), well-defined (having clearly defined operations and solutions), and ill-defined (lacking clear definitions, operations, and solutions). The 63 relevant findings that resulted were subjected to a meta-analysis for purposes of integration. Members of cooperative teams outperformed individuals competing with each other on all 4 types of problem solving (effect sizes = 0.37, 0.72, 0.52, 0.60, respectively). These results held for individuals of all ages and for studies of high, medium, and low quality. The superiority of cooperation, however, was greater on nonlinguistic than on linguistic problems.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.89.1.47 · Cited by 1,588
Self-citation
Cited by
Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research
Prince, M. (2004) · Journal of Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x · Cited by 7,334
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543069001021 · Cited by 1,943
Albanese, M. (2000) · Medical Education · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00753.x · Cited by 418
Enhancing student motivation and engagement: The effects of a multidimensional intervention
Martin, A. J. (2008) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.11.003 · Cited by 293
Collaborative reasoning: a dialogic approach to group discussions
Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L., Clark, A., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., & Nguyen‐Jahiel, K. (2009) · Cambridge Journal of Education · doi:10.1080/03057640802701952 · Cited by 275
Estimating the Difference Between Published and Unpublished Effect Sizes: A Meta-Review
Polanin, J. R., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Hennessy, E. A. (2016) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654315582067 · Cited by 234
Web-based peer review: the learner as both adapter and reviewer
Liu, E. Z.-F., Lin, S. S. J., Chiu, C.-H., & Yuan, S.-M. (2001) · IEEE Transactions on Education · doi:10.1109/13.940995 · Cited by 196
Reading and writing tasks on different university degree courses: what do the students say they do?
Mateos, M., Villalón, R., de Dios, M. J., & Martín, E. (2007) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075070701476183 · Cited by 58
Artzt, A. F., & Armour-Thomas, E. (1997) · The Journal of Mathematical Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0732-3123(97)90008-0 · Cited by 39
Inquiry and groups: student interactions in cooperative inquiry-based science
Woods-McConney, A., Wosnitza, M., & Sturrock, K. L. (2016) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500693.2016.1169454 · Cited by 33
(1997) · Cited by 23
Rajendram, S. (2019) · Unpublished · doi:10.13140/rg.2.2.31489.61284 · Cited by 11
Emerson, T. L. N., McGoldrick, K., & Wagner, J. (2023) · International Review of Economics Education · doi:10.1016/j.iree.2023.100274 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T.
- Venue
- Review of Educational Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1995
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 129
- ISSN
- 0034-6543 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2163200694
- Cited by
- 488
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 21.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
