After spending countless hours on researching this question I have come to the conclusion that a good portion of those researching this topic have found that a competitive class room environment is bad and that a cooperative classroom is good. The problem with this is that its not black and white. Competition is clearly a motivator so it can’t be completely bad. When I drill down into the research and create some bridges from one area to the other I think there is a different approach.
Its about balance! Its about creating a balance between a cooperative classroom and the motivational factors of competition. Its about using competition in a cooperative classroom. We need to build the cooperative classroom, using Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) and engaging the students. We need to build a space that students find welcoming, friendly and above all safe. It is within this type of environment that we can introduce competition. We need to then create the understanding that the competition is enjoyable. Its not about winning or losing –it is about competing.
How we go about implementing this is not simple, but I have a few idea’s.
Firstly, we need to make competition a group focus rather than an individual focus. This way we don’t have individuals competing against each other, so we don’t create individual rivalries. We also avoid individual winners and losers. That way no one person is the best and by contrast no one person can be singled out as the worst. We also have an advantage in groups of giving everyone the belief they can win. By creating balanced team no one team will have a clear advantage and thus everyone will be more likely to participate as they feel their team can win. Where as individual competiton often discourages people who feel they can not win this strategies makes it so that they belong to a team that as a whole is just as good as any other team in the class. Therefore all participants feel like they have a chance at winning. Good and Brophy (2008) “suggest that competitive classroom activities may be appropriate if all students have a chance to win, and that when a team approach is used rather than individually based evaluations. These practices may reduce the likelihood that the same students are always the winners and losers.” This goes directly to the heart of the inquiry in that we now create multiple winners and losers. In essence, we are producing no distinct losers! If everyone wins 1 and loses 3 then no one team or individual is anymore of a loser then the next.
Secondly, we need to start focusing the competitions in our classrooms on the change in improvement rather then the sum of our grades. This gets students to focus on the material and education rather than the outcome. “have students compete against themselves rather than against other students. By evaluating students on the basis of their own personal gains, we can give everyone an opportunity to succeed. In fact, since the weakest students have the most room for improvement, this procedure can even give an advantage to the very students who are usually at a disadvantage.”(Vockell, 2011)
What was found is that if you use these two methods together you get a very unique situation. (Khon2003) Say you take 3 students, a top end 90% student, a middle of the road 75% student and a lower percentage 50% student. Lets assume that none of these individuals has a learning disorder or disability. When you put them into a group and tell them that winning will be based on improvement what happens is that the top end student realizes that the best he can do is contribute 10 % to the team. If however he teaches the 75% student some short cuts, some study idea’s or explains a few concepts they will have a much easier time moving to 85% or 87%, while at the same time they along with the 75% student will be working with the third student to bring them from a 50% to a 70%. This benefits everyone, even if the 90% student doesn’t improve his level of understanding has. He has gone from understanding and applying the material learned to synthesizing the material. (blooms taxonomy)
There are other ways to incorporate competition in the classroom:
“TGT- Students work together in four- or five- member heterogeneously composed teams to help one another master content and prepare for competitions against other teams. The teacher first presents the material to be learned, then team members work together filling out worksheets. They discuss the material, tutor one another and quiz one another to assess mastery. These forms of cooperative learning continue throughout the week in preparation for tournaments held of Fridays.
For the tournaments, students are assigned to three person tables composed of students from different teams who are similar achievement level. The three students compete at academic games covering the content taught that week and practiced during team meetings. Most of these games are simply number questions on a handout. Students can earn points by responding to questions correctly or by successfully challenging and correcting the answers of the other two students at the table. These points are later summed to determine each teams score, and the teacher prepares a newsletter that recognizes successful teams. Prior to the next tournament, the teacher may assign certain students to different groups or tables in order to keep the competition at each table as even as possible. (Brophy 2004)
“STAD- Student –Achievement Divisions is a simplification of TGT. STAD follows the same heterogeneous grouping and cooperative learning procedures as TGT but replaces the games and tournaments with a quiz. Quiz scores are translated into team competition points based on how much students have improved their performance over the past averages. Both TGT and STAD combine cooperative learning with team competition and use group rewards for cumulative individual performance. However, STAD depersonalizes the competition. Rather than compete face to face against classmates at tournament tables, students in STAD classrooms try their best on quizzes taken individually.” (Brophy 2004)
“TAI – Team Assisted Individualization (TAI) is a adaptation of individualized mathematics instruction that introduces cooperative learning methods and team competition with group reward, as in STAD. TAI combines direct instruction by the teacher (to small, homogeneously formed groups) follow-up practice using programmed instructional materials, and a student team learning approach to seatwork management.
Student team learning methods consistently show positive effects on achievement. These achievement benefits are related to the use of group rewards based on team scores computed by adding the team members individual performance scores. Methods that ensure the accountability of individual group members to their group mates produce higher achievement than methods that allow one or two students to do the work while the others take more passive roles. The highest achievement outcomes result from methods that combine group goals with individual accountability. “(Shepperd & Taylor, 1999: Slavin, 1995) From (Brophy 2004)
With these example I think we show and can understand that competition in the classroom can be used effectively in the right environment. That by creating a good classroom culture you can then use competition as a strong motivated and limit if not exclude it as a demotivating tool.