Abstract:

Learning to work collaboratively is highly beneficial for both students and future professionals. Group work can teach students problem-solving and critical-thinking skills (Jackson, & Williams, 1985). Group work can even improve peer relations, group cohesion, and leadership skills (Sorrentino & Sheppard, 1978). However, collaborative work may also lead to potential pitfalls. For example, social loafing refers to a tendency to exert less task-related effort within a group context than within an individual context (Latané, 1981; Jackson & Harkins, 1985). Consequently, students often report feeling cheated by members who fail to contribute to collective group tasks, and tend to exhibit less motivation in the presence of social-loafers (Shepperd, 1993). Therefore, it is imperative to establish a fair means of evaluation within a collaborative context, so that deleterious motivational consequences may be avoided.

The current research incorporated social loafing safeguards within group activities, so that individual levels of motivation could be sustained throughout the collaborative process. In the experimental condition (i.e., with social loafing safeguards), 10 groups (each consisting of 3 members) were instructed to complete a group research project. Students were informed that upon project completion each group member would evaluate (in grade form) his/her personal contribution (i.e., personal evaluation), and the contribution of each group member (i.e., peer evaluation). Students were then informed that each group would also receive a grade based on the instructor’s evaluation, and that the final group grade would be based on an average of self, peer, and instructor ratings. In the control condition (i.e., no social loafing safeguards), 10 groups (each consisting of 3 members) were also instructed to complete a group research project. However, students in this condition were only informed that each group would receive a grade based on the instructor’s evaluation of the overall project. Results showed that students in the experimental (i.e., “Safeguarded”) condition performed significantly better on the project than those students in the control condition.

This research holds myriad promising implications for the education literature. Firstly, performance rating systems should ideally involve both personal and peer evaluations. This provides each member with an opportunity to voice concerns about potential loafers. Additionally, when conducting group work it is suggested to assign an overall group grade based on the instructor’s evaluation, and an average of self/peer-ratings. Students often complain about inequities of effort within group work settings. This grading system deters potential social-loafers, and encourages other group members to expend full effort under the premise that those efforts will be rewarded accordingly. Finally, by making it known to students beforehand that each evaluation (i.e., self, peer, and instructor) will be weighted and documented, each group member knows that his/her individual efforts will be assessed. Clearly identifying the unique contributions of each member may increase student incentive to produce higher quality work at the project onset (Williams, Harkins, & Latané, 1981; Williams, Nida, Baca, & Latané, 1989).

Keywords:

social loafing, motivation, safeguards, student performance.