Rewarded and unrewarded competition in a CSCL environment
This study examined how learning processes unfold and vary when rewards are provided or not provided to groups on a competitive basis in hopes of informing the improvement of incentive systems in collaborative settings. It employed the idea of coopetition by integrating rewarded and unrewarded competition with collaboration to form two coopetition designs: social-comparison coopetition (unrewarded competition) and zero-sum coopetition (rewarded competition). Interrelationships among self-efficacy, social support, self-regulated learning, motivation for achievement, and critical thinking, which hold significance for collaborative learning and education, were used to model learning processes with PLS-SEM. Sixty-three university students joined the study. Data sources included survey data and students' academic scores. The findings indicated that social-comparison coopetition (unrewarded competition) demonstrated advantages over zero-sum coopetition (rewarded competition) in facilitating students' collaboration. Self-efficacy exerted distinct influences over self-regulated learning in the two coopetition designs. It significantly predicted student's motivation for achievement in social-comparison coopetition while not in zero-sum coopetition. Motivation for achievement significantly predicted the development of critical thinking in social-comparison coopetition but not in zero-sum coopetition. Surprisingly, social support did not contribute significantly to self-regulated learning in either coopetition design. This paper concludes with implications for refining incentive systems in collaborative learning settings. Unrewarded competition surpasses rewarded competition in collaborative settings.Self-efficacy predicts motivation for achievement in SC but not in ZS.Motivation for achievement predicts critical thinking in SC while not in ZS.Self-efficacy predicts self-regulation differently in the two coopetition designs.Social support does not predict self-regulation in the two coopetition designs.