Purpose
The purpose of this study is to describe and define constructive competition as a pedagogical phenomenon in different learning contexts. Competition in learning contexts can be both destructive competition, if it is an attempt to advance at the expense of others, and constructive competition, which the authors associate with motivation, but which this study aims to define.
Result
The study shows that constructive competition has at least six dimensions, and children and child carers can compete within all these dimensions. The dimensions are: (1) being neither winners nor losers, (2) social comparison of competences, (3) constructive motivation, (4) mutual guidance, (5) winning and (6) exceeding beyond one’s own expected potential. The nature of the competition that takes place depends on whether the dimensions are process-oriented or result-oriented, and on whether one or more person(s) are perceived as competitors. The authors conclude that competition is a motivating force for collaboration, and that collaboration is one of the most important conditions for constructive competition. The willingness to learn is another important precondition for developing constructive competition, at the same time as constructive competition motivates learning.
Design
The study comprises a total of 78 children aged 5 to 18 years and 29child carers and teachers from daycare facilities, basicschools and upper secondary education. Twelve five-year-old children and six child carers were interviewed through semi-structured interviews based on photographs that illustrate different types of competitive situations. The interviews focused on competition, motivation, learning and external conditions in learning contexts. The material was subsequently analysed to describe how the children and child carers express and perceive competition in different situations.
References
Sheridan, S. & Williams, P. (2011). “Developing Individual Goals, Shared Goals, and the Goals of Others: Dimensions of Constructive Competition in Learning Contexts”. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55(2), 145–164.
Financed by
Not disclosed