> Johnson and Johnson report that values underlie choices of goal structures in learning situation. For example, if reaching the goal requires competition, then as part of a "hidden curriculum" students will be learning how to compete, what it takes to compete, the rewards of competition, etc.
The authors report that students are also learning that reaching a goal requires a sense of separateness from others and a sort of triumph of one's individuality over another. On the other hand, the cooperative goal structure is said to provide a sense of identification or oneness among students, a process that facilitates incorporation of internalization of the learning and knowledge levels of all participants in the student team. As Johnson and Johnson (1974) put it, in the cooperative learning situation:
. . . when an individual behaves in such a way as to increase his chances of goal attainment, he increases the chances that the other members with whom he is linked will also achieve their goals . . . The psychological consequences of such a state of affairs are: (l) suitability-the actions of members in a cooperative relationship are interchangeable. . .
(2) positive cathexis-if the actions of one member move the individuals toward their goal, his actions . . . will be favorably evaluated...and (3) inducibility-if the actions of a person in a cooperative relationship move the others toward their goal, the others will be receptive to his attempts to induce them to engage in behavior that will facilitate his actions (Johnson & Johnson, 1974, p. 215).
While cooperation may facilitate learning, the fact of the matter is that most schools frequently rely on competitive methods (e.g. grades, test scores, etc.) as learning strategies and students do learn through these methods. Therefore, a point that needs to be addressed by the cooperative learning model is the role of competition as a learning strategy. Would cooper...