Review by: Brahm, Taiga (2007-08-23)

This article investigates if and how individuals learn in collaborating working groups. The main research questions are: "How does group interaction influence subsequent individual performance? Do individuals learn from having worked in a group, and if so, what processes account for such learning" (p 441). Regarding the main limitations of prior studies which include missing control groups in the re-search design and also inadequate tasks for the investigated question, the authors see the main problem in "the lack of theoretical frameworks for understanding the possible effects of groups on individuals". In order to answer their research questions, they also aim at providing such a framework. The development of the hypotheses for the experimental research is based on literature from both cooperative learning, but also from team work in general which is plausible since they focus on "groups where task performance is the primary objective and learning is incidental" (p 445). Two general perspectives on cooperative learning are identified:

• cognitive factors, above all including the cognitive developmental approaches by Piaget and Vygotsky and the cognitive elaboration approach focusing on the importance of verbal elaboration for the cognitive development
• social factors with the motivational approach which emphasizes the effect of rewards on the motivation of group members, and the social cohesion perspective looking at how cohesion, i. e. a sense of identification among group members, leads to better group results.

Referring to both perspectives, they develop their first, and main hypothesis stating that groups will show superior performance on a transfer task when compared to individuals. In order to examine both cognitive and social factors, they isolate some conditions, for instance whether an individual observing a performing group will show superior results than an individual without this possibility to obeserve others. Finally, the study examines whether group members show more positive attitudes towards a transfer task than individuals working independently. With regard to the research method, experiments with 86 students were conducted where the partici-pants (average age: 20.1 years) were asked to complete so-called brainteaser puzzles. The experiment included four conditions and three trials which are explained in detail in the article. The measures included a performance scoring on trial 3 and the attitudes towards the task (measured with two- resp. three-item-scales on motivation and liking). The authors reported the internal consistency of the scales (Cronbach's Alpha), however, did not provide any other measures regarding the quality of the scales. The hypotheses were tested using ANOVA controlling for non-independence of observations. The results showed that collaboration in groups indeed promotes individual learning. Since the individuals observing other groups but not actually participating in a group showed the same performance as the collaborating groups, the authors argue that the effects of group learning are primarily due to cognitive effects. This result is also linked to other research results concerning the acquisition of problem-solving strategies. Possible explanations for this effect might be the short duration of the experiment so that the group members did not have enough time for the development positive feelings among each other. Lastly, the authors provide implications for groups in organizations. Collaborating work groups can contribute to the learning of the individual and thus lead to longterm benefits for employees and the company. In order to encourage such collaboration, companies can provide space and time. Limitations of this research include the lack of generalizability (especially since it was a laboratory experiment with fairly young students), the short duration, and the missing expectation of further interaction. Future research could focus on the influence of task characteristics on group learning, whether the benefits of group interaction change over time, and on the possible negative consequences of collabo-rating groups. In sum, the article provides insights into team learning, especially with regard to the development of individual competencies. Using a sophisticated research design, it is shown that cognitive development is of importance for team learning. However, the authors do not hold the promise to provide a comprehensive framework for research on collaborating groups. They instead combine existing theoretical approaches but do not review these perspectives in depth. In conclusion, the article touches many issues of relevance for team learning. All in all, the article can only be the start of more research on these issues.