ArticlePDF AvailableLiterature Review

Abstract and Figures

Purpose: A systematic review of the research conducted on Cooperative Learning in Physical Education in the last 5 years (2014–2019). Method: Seven databases were used to select those articles that included information on the implementation of Cooperative Learning in the different educational stages. After the exclusion criteria, 15 articles were fully assessed based on eight criteria: (1) year and author; (2) country; (3) number of participants, educational level, and duration of implementation; (4) type of research; (5) curricular content; (6) purpose of the research; (7) most relevant results; and (8) learning environment. Results: Results showed how research focused more on secondary education, mainly in short-term interventions. Most studies used qualitative and/or mixed methods, and dealt evenly with sports, motor skills, and physical abilities, leaving body expression underrepresented. Regarding the goals of the studies, social learning was the most frequently assessed, focusing on motivation, group climate, and teacher–student interaction. Criticisms regarding the shortness of the experiences and their fragmentation can still be considered valid. Conclusion: This review can help researchers and practitioners conduct Cooperative Learning intervention programs in primary and secondary Physical Education. They must be rigorous when they claim that they implement this pedagogical model in schools.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage:
Research on Cooperative Learning in Physical
Education: Systematic Review of the Last Five
Daniel Bores-García , David Hortigüela-Alcalá , Francisco Javier Fernandez-
Rio , Gustavo González-Calvo & Raúl Barba-Martín
To cite this article: Daniel Bores-García , David Hortigüela-Alcalá , Francisco Javier Fernandez-
Rio , Gustavo González-Calvo & Raúl Barba-Martín (2021) Research on Cooperative Learning in
Physical Education: Systematic Review of the Last Five Years, Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 92:1, 146-155, DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2020.1719276
To link to this article:
Published online: 05 Feb 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1258
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 13 View citing articles
Research on Cooperative Learning in Physical Education: Systematic Review of
the Last Five Years
Daniel Bores-García
, David Hortigüela-Alcalá
, Francisco Javier Fernandez-Rio
, Gustavo González-Calvo
and Raúl Barba-Martín
Universidad Rey Juan Carlos;
Universidad de Burgos;
Universidad de Oviedo;
Universidad de Valladolid
Purpose: A systematic review of the research conducted on Cooperative Learning in Physical
Education in the last 5 years (20142019). Method: Seven databases were used to select those
articles that included information on the implementation of Cooperative Learning in the different
educational stages. After the exclusion criteria, 15 articles were fully assessed based on eight
criteria: (1) year and author; (2) country; (3) number of participants, educational level, and duration
of implementation; (4) type of research; (5) curricular content; (6) purpose of the research; (7) most
relevant results; and (8) learning environment. Results: Results showed how research focused
more on secondary education, mainly in short-term interventions. Most studies used qualitative
and/or mixed methods, and dealt evenly with sports, motor skills, and physical abilities, leaving
body expression underrepresented. Regarding the goals of the studies, social learning was the
most frequently assessed, focusing on motivation, group climate, and teacherstudent interaction.
Criticisms regarding the shortness of the experiences and their fragmentation can still be con-
sidered valid. Conclusion: This review can help researchers and practitioners conduct Cooperative
Learning intervention programs in primary and secondary Physical Education. They must be
rigorous when they claim that they implement this pedagogical model in schools.
Received 22 July 2019
Accepted 17 January 2020
Cooperative learning;
pedagogical models;
systematic review;
educational research
There is an ongoing debate about what is the most effective
way to improve the teaching-learning process that takes
place in Physical Education (PE). More than half a century
has passed since the emergence of the Teaching Styles
(Mosston, 1966), and still many teachers view them as
their main instructional approach (Chatoupis, 2018). Since
the 1970s, different pedagogical frameworks have emerged:
Teaching Models (Joyce & Weil, 1972), Curricular Models
(Jewett & Bain, 1985), Instruction Models (Metzler, 2000),
and Pedagogical Models (Haerens, Kirk, Cardon, & De
Bourdeaudhuij, 2011;Kirk,2013). In Models-Based
Teaching, the role of the teacher and the content is reduced,
granting it to the studentsneeds(Casey,2016),thecoreof
the approach. This focus on the students and their singula-
rities, together with the specific attention to the educational
context where the practice develops, are the most signifi-
cant contributions of Pedagogical Models (Aggerholm,
Standal, Barker, & Larsson, 2018).
During the last few years, some models have expanded
more than others, due to their extensive implementation in
different educational settings and the research conducted to
assess their effects (Barker, Aggerholm, Standal, & Larsson,
2018). Whereas models such as Teaching Games for
Understanding or Sport Education have been the matter of
a great deal of scientific research in a variety of contents and
contexts, others such as Cooperative Learning have appeared
somewhat later in the academic panorama of Physical
Education, arriving earlier in other curricular areas such as
Science, Math, or English (Johnson & Johnson, 2009).
Reviews on Cooperative Learning at the beginning of the
twenty-first century grouped this model with Peer-Assisted
Learning (Ward & Lee, 2005), which, focusing specifically on
peer feedback, did not allow the observation of specific
effects of Cooperative Learning implementation. Since then
and to date, several published documents have focused on its
implementation in Physical Education, expanding the fields
of research to social, cognitive, physical, and affective aspects
(Kirk, 2012).
Cooperative learning in physical education: lights
and shadows
Schools have traditionally focused on the development
of instrumental content through individual and com-
petitive tasks (Kagan & Kagan, 2009). In Physical
Education, there has been an emphasis on sports,
tests, and performance, leaving aside other contents
and not questioning which type of learning was being
CONTACT Daniel Bores-García Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain
2021, VOL. 92, NO. 1, 146155
© 2020 SHAPE America
generated in the students (Fyall & Metzler, 2019). Faced
with this issue, more open and participative models,
which consider dialogue, consensus, and reflection
essential for any motor and/or psychological develop-
ment in children, had slowly become more widespread,
like Cooperative Learning (Jung & Choi, 2016). It was
during the 1970s when the idea of cooperative work
began to develop as a method of promoting social and
relational skills within the classroom. Scientific research
indicated that studentsimprovements in learning, aca-
demic, social, and psychological have been observed
(Kyndt et al., 2013). Metzler (2011) indicated that the
interpersonal relationships created by the Cooperative
Learning framework between the students helped
increase their physical, academic, social, and affective
skills. The individual loses strength in the face of the
collective, seeking a common result of greater quality
and higher satisfaction (Orlick, 1982).
Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec (2013) pointed out
five fundamental elements in this pedagogical model:
positive interdependence, promotive interaction, indi-
vidual responsibility, group processing, and interperso-
nal skills. Unfortunately, many interventions do not
follow all of them and they only focus on the affective
domain (Walker & Johnson, 2018). Only if a model is
correctly implemented, its effects can be assessed, com-
pared, and replicated (Casey, Goodyear, & Dyson,
2015). Researchers believe that the true power of
Cooperative Learning lies in its hybridization with
other models (Casey & McPhail, 2018), while some
teachers are reluctant to use it because they consider
that the motor component of Physical Education will
be lost and it is necessary to align the academic objec-
tives of the subject with its social scope (Casey, Dyson,
& Campbell, 2009). The consequence is the reproduc-
tion of approaches based on the students individual
performance, without considering the generation of
positive experiences for everyone through motor skills,
which can positively affect studentsperception of the
subject (Li, Chen, & Baker, 2014), and more important,
in their lives, since dialogue, consensus, and teamwork
(promoted in Cooperative Learning settings) are con-
sidered cross-cutting competences in todays society
(Jacobs, 2016).
Over the last 20 years, a few reviews and meta-analysis
have been conducted on Cooperative learning, but they
have focused on curricular subjects like Math or learning
in general (Capar & Tarin, 2015; Gillies, 2014;Kyndt
et al., 2013). To our knowledge, Casey and Goodyear
(2015) conducted the only review on Cooperative
Learning implementation in Physical Education. Since
then, the great dissemination of the model has been
reflected in many educational experiences, but scholars
and educators demand a review to assess their efficacy.
Based on the aforementioned, the main goal of this
study was to review the scientific literature published in
the last 5 years on Cooperative Learning implementa-
tion in Physical Education, updating and expanding
previous analyses to help teachers and researchers.
Search sources
A systematic review of the literature published over the
last 5 years on Cooperative Learning in Physical
Education was conducted. In order to find existing pub-
lications between January 2014 and March 2019,
a search was initiated in seven electronic databases:
ERIC, Google Scholar, SPORTDiscus, SCOPUS,
Medline, EBSCO host, and Web of Science. The descrip-
tors Cooperative Learning,Collaborative Learning,
Pedagogical Models, and Physical Educationwere
used with the search operator AND.
Exclusion criteria
The exclusion criteria used were as follows: (1)
Duplicated articles, (2) Articles not published in jour-
nals indexed in the Journal Citation Report (JCR) or
the Scimago Journal Rank (SJR), (3) Articles in lan-
guages other than English or Spanish, (4) Articles
where Cooperative Learning is not implemented in
schools, (5) Articles that did not explicitly allude to
Cooperative Learning, but to cooperative work meth-
odologies that do not match the previously mentioned
basic characteristics of the model (Johnson et al., 2013),
and (6) Articles where Cooperative Learning was hybri-
dized or complemented with other pedagogical models.
Search limits
The search was conducted following the Preferred Reporting
Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)
guidelines (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman, 2009),
including the PICO strategy: Participants (e.g., primary, sec-
ondary, country), Intervention (e.g., units, lessons, type of
research (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed)), Comparators
(e.g., Physical Education,Cooperative Learning), and
Outcomes (e.g., cognitive, social, affective, motor). The
search finished on September 14, 2019.
Initially, 372 publications were found using the above-
mentioned descriptors: ERIC: 67 articles, Google
Scholar: 148, SPORTDiscus: 15, SCOPUS: 49, Medline:
4, EBSCO host: 31, Web of Science: 58. After following
the exclusion criteria, only 15 articles were left. Most of
the discarded items (177) did not deal with Cooperative
Learning implementation in schools. One-hundred nine
items appeared in more than one database. Forty-nine
articles included Cooperative Learning hybridizations or
complemented with other models or methodological
procedures and were also discarded from the study.
Some articles (37) referred to cooperation processes,
which are not the Cooperative Learning model itself.
Table 2 was built with the 15 final articles selected,
where each one was described based on the following
categories: (1) Author and year of publication: this field
provides information not only on the authors but also
on the distribution over the last 5 years, (2) Country of
model implementation: this provides information on the
countries where the research was conducted in recent
years, (3) Number of participants, age, and duration of
the experience: this category includes information on the
variability in the sample used, both in the number of
participants and the educational level, as well as the
duration of the implementation, (4) Type of research:
it details if the study used quantitative, qualitative or
mixed methods, (5) Content: it provides information
on the curricular content used, (6) Purpose of the
study: the objective/goal of the study, (7) Results of the
study: the most outstanding outcomes are presented,
their contributions to the literature, and the possibilities
of replication, and (8) Learning outcome: information of
the impact of the implementation in the different learn-
ing domains (social, affective, motor, and cognitive).
Quality assessment and level of evidence
First, the quality of the review process was assessed and
included in the PROSPERO register, which is an inter-
national database of prospectively registered systematic
reviews. Key features of the review protocol are recorded
and maintained on the database permanently. Second,
the PRISMA guidelines (Moher et al., 2009)wereusedto
assess the quality of this systematic review. This evalua-
tion tool includes an evidence-based set of items to
report the quality of systematic reviews and meta-
analysis. In addition, the AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal
tool for systematic reviews was used (Shea et al., 2017),
and the rating overall confidence in the results of the
review could be considered moderate: the systematic
review had more than one weakness, but no critical
flaws. It may provide an accurate summary of the results
of the available studies that were included in the review
(p. 6). Third, the criteria for assessing the quality of the
selected studies were based on the Checklist for
Measuring Study Quality (e.g., is the hypothesis/aim of
the study clearly described?; Downs & Black, 1998), the
Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies
Statement (e.g., is it possible to use the design in other
studies?; Von-Elm et al., 2008), and the Consolidated
Standards of Reporting Trials Statement (e.g., the studys
blinding and quality assessment; Moher, Schulz, &
Altman, 2001). Fourth, previous studies (Araújo,
Mesquita, & Hastie, 2014; Chu & Zhang, 2018;Hastie
& Casey, 2014)wereusedtoensuretheattainmentof
relevant articles and obtain a quality score on each
investigation, and it was based on the following criteria:
(a) description of the program; (b) JCR/SJR journal; (c)
detailed methodological description; (d) sample or num-
ber of participants; and (e) length of the implementation.
Each item was scored from 0 to 2 using the criteria
described in Table 1. A total quality score for each one
of the selected publications was calculated by adding all
the scores. Finally, studies were classified as: (a) low
quality: score lower than 3; (b) moderate quality: score
between 4 and 6; and (c) high quality: score of 7 or
more. Four experts on Physical Education performed
this process independently. Based on previous reviews
(González-Vilora et al., 2018), the selection criteria to be
considered an expert were: (1) PhD in Physical
Education and Sport; (2) Be involved in at least one
funded research project during the last 5 years (2015-
2019), (3) Have published five articles indexed in the
JCR or SJR in the last 5 years (20152019), and (4) 10
years of minimum professional experience linked to
Physical Education.
Results and discussion
Results are discussed regarding the eight elements used
in the categorization of the 13 articles published between
January 2014 and September 2019 presented in Table 2.
The year is not included in the discussion, as all articles
are from the last five years, and the purpose and results
obtained have been grouped in the same section.
Results showed a wide variety of countries where the
Cooperative Learning pedagogical model has been imple-
mented in Physical Education. In addition to Great
Britain, New Zealand, the United States of America and
Spain, with authors such as Dyson, Casey, Goodyear, or
Fernández-Río, who have been working on this
pedagogical approach for years, new countries have
emerged: Turkey (Altinkok, 2017;Gorucu,2016), France
(Darnis & Lafont, 2015), Sweden (Barker &
Quennerstedt, 2017), and Taiwan (Lee, 2014). It reflects
the growth of the use of Cooperative Learning at the
international level, which indicates its positive scientific
and pedagogical impact. As far as the topics addressed, it
was not possible to observe a trend by country, as the
approaches were varied. This reflects that Cooperative
Learning is a global pedagogical model, where the cogni-
tive, social, relational, and affective spheres are linked to
the transversal aspects that regulate physical activity all
over the world. This variety, both in countries and con-
tents, reinforced the idea of its applicability in a diversity
of learning contexts and scenarios.
Number of participants, grade, and duration
An analysis of the duration of the Cooperative
Learning model implementation indicated that, as
Casey and Goodyear (2015) pointed out, they tend
to last a very short period of time. Seven of the 15
articles were based on research conducted in a single
didactic unit of 8 to 12 sessions. They highlighted the
effects of the implementation of the students, but the
number of sessions do not seem enough to conclude
that the cause of the observed effects was only this
short-term implementation. On the other hand, other
researches did dedicate more time to the implementa-
tion: Altinkok (2017) 12 weeks, Wallhead and Dyson
(2017) 3 months, Gorucu (2016) 10 weeks, or
Fernández-Río, Sanz, Fernandez-Cando, and Santos
(2017) 3 consecutive didactic units. Due to the large
number of factors and elements, Cooperative Learning
needs a large number of sessions to be fully developed,
especially when the students and/or faculty do not
have extensive previous experience (Legrain, Escalié,
Lafont, & Chaliès, 2019).
With regards to the number of participants, they
varied greatly, ranging from three students and the
teacher (Wallhead & Dyson, 2017), a single group
(Altinkok, 2017), two groups (Casey et al., 2015;
Gorucu, 2016) or several groups: reaching samples of
125 students (Sánchez-Hernández, Martos-García,
Soler, & Flintoff, 2018), or even 249 (Fernández-Río
et al., 2017). Developing Cooperative Learning in large
groups is of real interest, as it entails a large number of
variables to control in many participants and results
can be generalized. In addition, Cooperative Learning
bears a more positive impact when it is implemented in
several subgroups that join in larger groups, which also
helps promote studentsautonomy and responsibility
(Agbuga, Xiang, McBride, & Su, 2016). This is also
linked to the increase in the existing relations between
the students andwhat is more relevant in many cases
how the teacher interacts with them in the proposed
learning tasks (Girard & Lemoyne, 2018).
Finally, there is also a variety of research depend-
ing on the educational stage where the model was
implemented. Results showed that it was distributed
almost equally between Primary and Secondary
Education. Previous experiences in the primary
stage showed positive effects on studentsbehavior,
respect for others and the rules, using games as
a tool for exploration, investigation, and learning
(Barney et al., 2016). In Secondary Education,
where studentsautonomy is greater, improvements
have been found in the creation of social bonds and
in their reflections on the learning integrated into
Physical Education.
Table 1. Investigation quality score checklist.
Research Program description JCR/SJR inclusion Methodology Sample Length Total score Quality level
Goodyear et al. (2014) 2 2 2 0 1 7 HQS
Lee (2014) 2 2 2 2 1 9 HQS
Casey et al. (2015) 2 2 2 1 1 8 HQS
Darnis and Lafont (2015) 2 2 2 1 1 8 HQS
OLeary et al. (2015) 2 2 2 1 1 8 HQS
Dyson, Colby, and Barrat (2016) 2 2 2 2 1 9 HQS
Gorucu (2016) 1 2 1 1 2 7 HQS
Altinkok (2017) 2 2 1 1 2 8 HQS
Barker and Quennerstedt (2017) 2 2 2 2 0 8 HQS
Bodsworth and Goodyear (2017) 2 2 2 1 1 8 HQS
Fernández-Río et al. (2017) 2 2 2 2 2 10 HQS
Wallhead and Dyson (2017) 2 2 2 0 2 8 HQS
Sánchez-Hernández et al. (2018) 2 2 2 2 1 9 HQS
Fernandez-Argüelles and Gonzalez (2018) 2 2 2 1 1 8 HQS
Nopembri et al. (2019) 2 2 1 2 1 8 HQS
Program description (did the research offer a detailed description of the program?): 0ʹ: not included, 1ʹ: brief and undetailed description, and 2ʹ: detailed
description; JCR/SJR inclusion (was the study published in a journal indexed on the JCR or SJR?): 0ʹ: not indexed, 1ʹ: indexed on SJR, and 2ʹ: indexed on
JCR; methodology (did the paper report in detail the methodological process used?): 0ʹ: not reported, 1ʹ: reported but imprecise (not completely), and 2ʹ:
exhaustive description reported; sample (number of participants): 0ʹ: fewer than 10 participants, 1ʹ: from 10 to 50 participants, and 2ʹ: more than 50
participants; length (duration): 0ʹ:less than eight lessons, 1ʹ: from nine to 14 lessons, and 2ʹ: more than 15 lessons; JCR, Journal Citation Report; SJR,
Scimago Journal Rank; HQS: high-quality study, MQS: moderate quality study.
Table 2. Summary of cooperative learning articles published between 2014 and 2019.
and year Country
Number of participants
grade and duration Type of research Content Purpose Results
et al. (2014)
2 teenage girls classes
8 sessions
Qualitative: researchers diary, post-
session teachers analysis tool, students
interviews and analysis of the films
recorded by the students
Basketball To increase girlsin-class
Most of the girls increased their participation mainly
by taking on the roles of trainer or cameraman
Lee (2014) Taiwan Sixty 7th8th grade
8 sessions
Mixed: Physical skills test, semi-
structured interviews
To evaluate the effectiveness on
studentsphysical condition
Development of studentsbasic physical capabilities
was greater with the use of the CL model. The
teachers extrinsic motivation is a decisive factor
Casey et al.
2 Secondary Education
12 lessons
Mixed: teacher journal, Cooperative
Learning Validation Tool (CLVT)
Track and Field To confirm the validity of the
model implementation tool
More rigor is needed when implementing Cooperative
Darnis and
France 1: 17 boys, 13 girls
3rd- 4th grade
2: Two groups of girls
(age 1112)
Quantitative: video recording and
observation sheet
1: Basketball in
2: Handball in
To study verbal exchanges in play
situations in sports
Peer discussions about the games goal and strategies
helped develop studentstactical and motor skills.
Pairs with asymmetric skills benefited more from the
oral exchange than pairs with symmetric skills
OLeary et al.
75 Secondary
Education students
(age 15)
8 sessions
Qualitative: reflective diaries, external
observation and letters
To assess the impact of the
The use of Jigsawhad a positive effect on the
studentssocial relations and motor skills
Dyson et al.
12 Primary Education
generalist teachers
Qualitative: teacher post-lesson
reflections, researcher journals, field
notes, e-mails, documents (lesson plans,
programs, meeting transcripts), and
locomotor and
To assess teachersphysical
education preparation, Social skills
needed for Cooperative Learning,
understanding of Cooperative
A Professional Learning Group can help generalist
teachers learn to teach Cooperative Learning in their
physical education classes.
Teacher professional
learning should be hands-on and be embedded in
teachersown school context
Gorucu (2016) Turkey 48 Secondary
Education students
10 weeks
Quantitative: pre and posttest Volleyball,
table tennis
and football
To assess the effects on students
problem-solving skills
Cooperative Learning contributed to the development
of studentsproblem-solving skills
Turkey One 1stgrade group
12 weeks
Quantitative: basic motor skills test Basic motor
To assess the impact on students
basic motor skills
Improvement of studentsbasic motor skills Motor
Barker and Quennerstedt
Sweden 3 Secondary
1 session
Qualitative: interviews before and
after the session
Choreography To explore
relationships in
group work
Power relationships are not
created solely between
group members, nor is
there a strong
correlation between
skill level and power in
the group
Thirty-six students
(age 1112)
1 unit
Qualitative: discussion groups,
researchers diary and external
Track and Field To study the barriers and
facilitators of technology
Only teachers who intentionally integrate technology
into Physical Education can enable students to
experience reflective learning that improves their
motor practices
et al. (2017)
Spain 249 students (age
3 consecutive units
Mixed: open-ended question,
Condition and
To assess studentsmotivation,
perceptions of the classroom
climate and feelings
Increased intrinsic motivation and greater perception
of a cooperative learning environment. Increased
perception of cooperation, relationship, enjoyment,
and novelty
(Continued )
Type of research
Qualitative (46.1%), quantitative (30.7%) and mixed
(22.2%) methods have been used. In qualitative studies,
discussion groups, researcher and participantsdiaries,
external systematic observations, studentsinterviews,
video analysis, and student-written documents were
used. In quantitative studies, protocols such as Joint
Action Studies in Didactics (JASD), validated tools such
as the Cooperative Learning Validation Tool (CLVT), and
pre- and post-implementation skill testing were used.
Mixed studies used some of the data collection techniques
mentioned, both qualitative and quantitative, seeking the
connection between both methodologies. There is a trend
in the use of qualitative methods in those investigations
that seek to know more relational, social, and behavioral
aspects, whereas the use of quantitative methods is greater
in investigations where physical-motor development is
assessed. Qualitative methodological approaches within
the implementation of pedagogical models are recom-
mended to become aware of studentsspecific actions
and the reasons that lead them to act in a certain way.
This becomes even more valuable in Cooperative
Learning, where active listening and the transversality of
values can transform social realities, improve the class
climate, and promote studentscoexistence and inclusion
(Klavina, Jerlinder, Kristén, Hammar, & Soulie, 2014).
However, more quantitative studies have focused on mea-
suring the global effects of the intervention and control-
ling the different phases of execution (Fernández-Río
et al., 2017). A key element in the implementation of
pedagogical models in Physical Education is to validate
designs that allow educators and researcher to detect
errors and redirect the process (Fletcher, Ní Chróinín,
Price, & Francis, 2018).
Results showed a great variety of curricular contents
implemented using Cooperative Learning: sports such
as football, basketball, handball, and table tennis, as
well as contents related to health and basic motor skills.
In sports, teachers used heterogeneous groups with dif-
ferentiated roles that alternated along the sessions of the
learning unit, with a predominance of noncompetitive
contexts where all students participated in pursuit of
a shared goal. As González and Fernández-Río (2003)
pointed out, Cooperative Learning makes possible sports
teaching in such a way that students who traditionally
have felt excluded can enjoy, learn, and even adhere to
sport practice in their free time. On the other hand,
contents related to health and physical condition, as
well as basic motor skills, are based on recreational
Table 2. (Continued).
and year Country
Number of participants
grade and duration Type of research Content Purpose Results
Wallhead and
Three 5-year-olds and
their teacher
3 months (3 units)
Quantitative: Joint Action Studies in
Didactics (JASD) protocol
pitches and
To use the JASD protocol to
understand how knowledge is
constructed through teacher-pupil
Cooperative learning tasks created a pedagogical
structure where student interactions were aligned
with the didactic intentions of the tasks
et al. (2018)
Spain 125 primary education
1 unit
Qualitative: critical ethnography Football To provide a climate of
understanding and respect for the
opposite sex and to challenge
students to be critical with gender
The explicit inclusion of pretests to make students
reflect on gender is fundamental, especially the
creation of spaces for girls to express themselves
freely and be heard by boys. Girls felt more valued
throughout the process
Spain 31 3rd grade primary
education students
10 sessions
Mixed: questionnaire, open-ended
To assess studentsmotivation and
Decreased amotivation and satisfaction with
cooperative games
et al. (2019)
Indonesia 810 fourth through
sixth-grade students
Quantitative: ad hoc questionnaires Sports To assess childrens stress coping
and problem-solving skills
Significant improvements in childrens stress coping
skills and problem-solving skills
activities and motivation developed in a group context.
It showed how cooperation does not limit the work on
physical fitness in the classroom, and it can also serve as
a platform to promote physical activity practice in the
leisure time due to the pleasant learning experiences and
the perception of achievement generated in the Physical
Education classroom. Only one study was conducted
using dance. This content, rhythm and body expression,
needs more research to assess its connection with
Cooperative Learning, as the bodyexpressive manifesta-
tions are relevant for autonomy development in our
children (Sevil, Abós, Aibar, Julián, & García-González,
2016). Results showed that content is not a problem
when using Cooperative Learning, and any, in both
elementary and secondary education, can be taught
using this pedagogical approach.
Purpose and results
The great heterogeneity indicated in previous categories
was also reflected in the studiespurposes and their
results. Some aimed at obtaining information on the
validity of model implementation (Casey et al., 2015),
suggesting the need for greater rigor. Other articles tried
to assess relational and/or motivational aspects (Barker
& Quennerstedt, 2017; Fernández-Río et al., 2017;
OLeary, Wattison, Edwards, & Bryan, 2015), gender
(Goodyear, Casey, & Kirk, 2014; Sánchez-Hernández
et al., 2018), the development of motor skills (Altinkok,
2017), physical skills (Lee, 2014), problem-solving skills
(Gorucu, 2016), teacherpupil relationships (Wallhead &
Dyson, 2017) or the use of new technologies in the
model (Bodsworth & Goodyear, 2017). An improvement
in the studentsrelational and motivational climate was
found after implementing Cooperative Learning (Barker
& Quennerstedt, 2017), as well as greater understanding
and respect for the opposite sex (Sánchez-Hernández
et al., 2018). Other studies revealed a greater develop-
ment of basic motor skills and physical capabilities using
Cooperative learning than traditional instructional mod-
els, allowing students to cope with stressful situations
(Nopembri, Sugiyama, Saryono, & Rithaudin, 2019).
These findings weaken one of the Physical Education
teachersexcuses for not using Cooperative learning in
their classes: studentsactive learning time is diminished
and their motor performance is harmed. As for the use
of technology, only one article focused on this topic
(Bodsworth & Goodyear, 2017). There is a plea for an
intentional and premeditated use of it to influence stu-
dentsreflective learning. Unfortunately, no information
on the conditions that enabled these positive outcomes
was provided and, therefore, it is not possible to know
which variables teachers should focus on. On the other
hand, Lee (2014) evaluated the effectiveness of the model
to develop contents linked to the studentsphysical con-
dition, while Casey et al. (2015) focused on assessing the
validity of the model implementation, emphasizing that
not all that include cooperative elements can be consid-
ered within Cooperative Learning pedagogical model as
such. Some teachers, overwhelmed by the large number
of elements involved, do not follow all the guidelines,
which leads to pedagogical confusion on how to imple-
ment Cooperative Learning.
Learning domains
Considering the different learning domains (Kirk, 2012),
most articles claimed that Cooperative Learning pro-
moted learning in more than one, which is consistent
with Casey and Goodyearsreview(2015). The most fre-
quently cited was the social domain, indicating the posi-
tive interdependence promoted by constant group work
and the development of social skills produced by the
dialogical process inherent to the model (Johnson &
Johnson, 2009; Velázquez, 2012). Sánchez-Hernández
et al. (2018) and Wallhead and Dyson (2017) reported
similar results in experiences based on group and coop-
erative activities were competition was eliminated and
sought the participation of all students, as well as the
improvement of interpersonal relations through debates
and common goals. The social domain is an essential
pillar of Cooperative Learning, as long as the whole
group of students has the perception of competence and
active learning throughout the process (Lund, 2013). In
several articles, the social domain was linked to the cog-
nitive domain (Fernandez-Argüelles & Gonzalez, 2018;
Goodyear et al., 2014) or the motor domain (Darnis &
Lafont, 2015;OLeary et al., 2015). This was considered
the sole outcome in two studies, which focused on differ-
ent skills: basic motor skills (Altinkok, 2017)andphysical
abilities (Lee, 2014). Both included tasks with a high psy-
chomotor component and large physiological demand.
The increase in motor skills was achieved when tasks
were presented as challenges and the students were free
to perform the skills according to his or her capacities
(Lynott & Bittner, 2016). Finally, cognitive development
was considered essentially in Gorucus(2016)study,
where problem-solving activities were an integral part of
Cooperative Learning, and in Bodsworth and Goodyears
(2017) study, through the creation of reflective situations
mediated by the use of new technologies. Within
Cooperative Learning, this domain is especially relevant,
since the reflective component of the tasks is very high
and the student must solve problemsby being active agent
of the process.
The present review on Cooperative Learning showed
a paradoxical differentiation with respect to its abundant
dissemination and promotion. The fact that only 15 arti-
cles have been published in the last 5 years seemed to
indicate the need to translate theory into educational
practice and, hence, to promote consistent research that
can generate new knowledge about the real possibilities of
Cooperative Learning implementation in Physical
Education. Results showed a diversity of analysis (qualita-
tive, quantitative, and mixed) conducted on diverse con-
tents, with very scarce contribution to those related to
body expression. Most of the investigations did not detail
in their designs the implementation phases and the main
elements of the intervention program. Of the four learning
domains, the social one was the most frequently assessed,
particularly motivation and relationships between students
and teachers. Casey and Goodyear (2015)criticisms
regarding the shortness of the experiences and their frag-
mentation are still valid, and longitudinal research must be
carried out to explore what is happening beyond one
learning unit, as there is still a clear mismatch between
the dissemination and use of the model and the number of
articles based on implementations in the school context.
Moreover, much of the research found in the review still
lacks rigor: it does not match the previously mentioned
basic characteristics of the model (Johnson et al., 2013).
Therefore, researchers and scholars must be rigorous
when they claim that they implement Cooperative
Learning intervention programs in schools.
The present review has made two main contributions.
First, it provides an update of the literature on
Cooperative Learning implementation from
2014. Second, it increased the number of categories
assessed; thus extending the spectrum of action of
Cooperative Learning. Future research should review
hybridizations between this pedagogical model and the
others,aswellascontrastitsimplementation in Physical
Education and extracurricular contexts. This article may
be of special interest to teachers interested in improving
their teaching practice. Likewise, it could be considered
relevant for those responsible of Physical Education
Teacher Education programs and the development of
Physical Educations curricula, to help them understand
that motor development can be enhanced through social
interactions and group responsibility. It is necessary to
continue researching more about Cooperative Learning
implementation and its effects, as in todayssociety,ele-
ments such as social relations, dialogue, and respect, as
well as physical activity and sports, are essential.
What does this article add?
This article provides the existing literature with an exhaus-
tive review of the research that has implemented the coop-
erative learning model in educational contexts over the past
5 years, since the review of Casey and Goodyear (2015). In
addition, the categories of analysis have been broadened to
include author and year of publication, country of imple-
mentation, participantsage and gender, type of research,
content, study results and learning outcomes.
Daniel Bores-García
David Hortigüela-Alcalá
Francisco Javier Fernandez-Rio
Gustavo González-Calvo
Raúl Barba-Martín
Agbuga, B., Xiang, P., McBride, R. E., & Su, X. (2016).
Student perceptions of instructional choices in middle
school physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education,35(2), 138148. doi:10.1123/jtpe.2015-0010
Aggerholm, K., Standal, O., Barker, D. M., & Larsson, H. (2018).
On practising in physical education: Outline for a pedagogical
model. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,23(2),
197208. doi:10.1080/17408989.2017.1372408
Altinkok, M. (2017). The effect of movement education based
on cooperative learning method on the development of
basic motor skills of primary school 1st grade learners.
Journal of Baltic Science Education,16(2), 241249.
Araújo, R., Mesquita, I., & Hastie, P. A. (2014). Review of the
status of learning in research on sport education: Future
research and practice. Journal of Sports Science and
Medicine,13(4), 846858.
Barker, D. M., Aggerholm, K., Standal, O., & Larsson, H.
(2018). Developing the practising model in physical educa-
tion: An expository outline focusing on movement
capability. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,23(2),
209221. doi:10.1080/17408989.2017.1371685
Barker, D. M., & Quennerstedt, M. (2017). Power and group
work in physical education: A Foucauldian perspective.
European Physical Education Review,23(3), 339353.
Barney, D., Pleban, F. T., Fullmer, M., Griffiths, R.,
Higginson, K., & Whaley, D. (2016). Appropriate or inap-
propriate practice: Exercise as punishment in physical
education class. Physical Educator,73(1), 5973.
Bodsworth,H.,&Goodyear,V.(2017). Barriers and facilitators to
using digital technologies in the cooperative learning model in
physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,22
(6), 563579. doi:10.1080/17408989.2017.1294672
Capar, G., & Tarin, K. (2015). Efficacy of the cooperative
learning method on mathematics achievement: A
meta-analysis research. Educational Sciences: Theory &
Practice,15(2), 552559. doi:10.12738/estp.2015.2.2098
Casey, A. (2016). Models-based practice. In C. D. Ennis (Ed.),
Routledge handbook of physical education pedagogies (pp.
5467). London, UK: Routledge.
Casey, A., Dyson, B., & Campbell, A. (2009). Action research
in physical education: Focusing beyond myself through
cooperative learning. Educational Action Research,17(3),
407423. doi:10.1080/09650790903093508
Casey, A., & Goodyear, V. (2015). Can cooperative learning
achieve the four learning outcomes of physical education?
A review of literature. Quest,67(1), 5672. doi:10.1080/
Casey, A., Goodyear, V., & Dyson, B. (2015). Model fidelity
and studentsresponses to an authenticated unit of coop-
erative learning. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,
34(4), 642660. doi:10.1123/jtpe.2013-0227
Casey, A., & McPhail, A. (2018). Adopting a models-based
approach to teaching physical education. Physical
Education and Sport Pedagogy,23(3), 294310. doi:10.108
Chatoupis, C. C. (2018). Physical education teachersuse of
Mosston and Ashworths teaching styles: A literature
review. Physical Educator,75(5), 880900. doi:10.18666/
Chu, T. L., & Zhang, T. (2018). Motivational processes in
sport education programs among high school students:
A systematic review. European Physical Education Review,
24(3), 372394. doi:10.1177/1356336X17751231
Darnis, F., & Lafont, L. (2015). Cooperative learning and
dyadic interactions: Two modes of knowledge construction
in socio-constructivist settings for team-sport teaching.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,20(5), 459473.
Downs, S. H., & Black, N. (1998). The feasibility of creating
a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality
both of randomized and non-randomized studies of health
care interventions. Journal of Epidemiology Community
Health,52, 377384. doi:10.1136/jech.52.6.377
Dyson, B. P., Colby, R., & Barrat, M. (2016). The
co-construction of cooperative learning in physical educa-
tion with elementary classroom teachers. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education,35, 370380. doi:10.1123/
Fernandez-Argüelles, D., & Gonzalez, C. (2018). Physical edu-
cation and cooperative learning: A practical experience.
Journal of Sport and Health Research,10(1), 4364.
Fernández-Río, J., Sanz, N., Fernandez-Cando, J., & Santos, L.
(2017). Impact of a sustained cooperative learning intervention
on student motivation. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,
22(1), 89105. doi:10.1080/17408989.2015.1123238
Fletcher, T., Ní Chróinín, D., Price, C., & Francis, N. (2018).
Teacher educatorsenactment of pedagogies that prioritize
learning about meaningful physical education. Curriculum
Studies in Health and Physical Education,9(1), 7689.
Fyall, G., & Metzler, M. W. (2019). Aligning critical physical
education teacher education and models-based practice.
Physical Educator,76(1), 2456. doi:10.18666/TPE-2019-
Gillies, R. M. (2014). Developments in cooperative learning:
Review of research. Annals of Psychology,30(3), 792801.
Girard, S., & Lemoyne, J. (2018). Analyzing the contribution of
student-perceived motivational climate to predict student
goal adoption in physical education: Testing invariance rela-
tive to teacher-induced climate. Physical Educator,75(4),
701724. doi:10.18666/TPE-2018-V75-I4-8197
González, C., & Fernández-Río, J. (2003). La enseñanza del
deporte desde una metodología cooperativa [Teaching
sport using a cooperative framework]. Tándem,10,3544.
González-Vilora, S., Evangelio, C., Sierra-Díaz, J., &
Fernández-Río, J. (2018). Hybridizing pedagogical models:
A systematic review. European Physical Education Review.
Goodyear, V., Casey, A., & Kirk, D. (2014). Hiding behind
the camera: Social learning within the cooperative learning
model to engage girls in physical education. Sport,
Education and Society,19(6), 712734. doi:10.1080/
Gorucu, A. (2016). The investigation of the effects of physical
education lessons planned in accordance with cooperative
learning approach on secondary school studentsproblem
solving skills. Educational Research and Reviews,11(10),
9981007. doi:10.5897/ERR2016.2756
Haerens, L., Kirk, D., Cardon, G., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I.
(2011). Toward the development of a pedagogical model
for health-based physical education. Quest,63, 321338.
Hastie, P. A., & Casey, A. (2014). Fidelity in models-based
practice research in sport pedagogy: A guide for future
investigations. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,
33, 422431. doi:10.1123/jtpe.2013-0141
Jacobs, G. (2016). Ten strengths of how teachers do coopera-
tive learning. Beyond Words,4(1), 1017.
Jewett, A. E., & Bain, L. L. (1985). The curriculum process in
physical education.Dubuque, IA: William. C. Brown.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, F. (2009). Joining together: Group
theory and group skills. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (2013).
Cooperation in the classroom (9th ed.). Edina, MN:
Interaction Book Company.
Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1972). Models of teaching. London, UK:
Prentice-Hall International.
Jung, H., & Choi, E. (2016). The importance of indirect
teaching behaviour and its educational effects in physical
education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,21(2),
121136. doi:10.1080/17408989.2014.923990
Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (2009). Kagan cooperative learning.
San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing.
Kirk,D.(2012). What is the future for physical education in the
21st century? In S. Capel & M. Whitehead (Eds.), Debates in
physical education (pp. 220231). London, UK: Routledge.
Kirk, D. (2013). Educational value and models-based practice
in physical education. Educational Theory and Philosophy,
45(9), 973986. doi:10.1080/00131857.2013.785352
(2014). Cooperative oriented learning in inclusive physical
education. European Journal of Special Needs Education,29
(2), 119134. doi:10.1080/08856257.2013.859818
Kyndt, E., Raes, E., Lismont, B., Timmers, F., Cascallar, E., &
Dochy, F. (2013). A meta-analysis of the effects of face-to-
face cooperative learning. Do recent studies falsify or verify
earlier findings? Educational Research Review,10, 133149.
Lee, T.-E. (2014). Effects of a cooperative learning strategy on
the effectiveness of physical fitness teaching and constraining
factors. Mathematical Problems in Engineering,2014,16.
Legrain, P., Escalié, G., Lafont, L., & Chaliès, S. (2019).
Cooperative learning: A relevant instructional model for
physical education pre-service teacher training? Physical
Education and Sport Pedagogy,24(1), 7386. doi:10.1080/
Li, F., Chen, J., & Baker, M. (2014). University students
attitudes toward physical education teaching. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education,33(2), 186212.
Lund, J. (2013). Activity in physical education: Process or
product? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation &
Dance,84(7), 1617. doi:10.1080/07303084.2013.817897
Lynott, F. J., & Bittner, G. L. (2016). Moving toward developing
inquiry skills: Inquiry-based learning in physical education.
Strategies: A Journal for Physical and Sport Educators,32(2),
3238. doi:10.1080/08924562.2018.1560135
Metzler, M. (2000). Instructional models for physical educa-
tion. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Metzler, M. (2011). Instructional models for physical educa-
tion (3rd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G.; PRISMA
Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic
reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS
Medicine,6(7), 339. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Moher,D.,Schulz,K.F.,&Altman,D.(2001). The CONSORT
statement: Revised recommendations for improving the qual-
ity of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA, 285
(15), 19871991. doi:10.1001/jama.285.15.1987
Mosston, M. (1966). Teaching physical education: From com-
mand to discovery. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
Improving stress coping and problem-solving skills of children
in disaster-prone area through cooperative physical education
and sports lesson. Journal of Human Sport and Exercise,14(1),
185194. doi:10.14198/jhse.2019.141.15
OLeary, N., Wattison, N., Edwards, T., & Bryan, K. (2015).
Closing the theory-practice gap: Physical education
studentsuse of jigsaw learning in a secondary school.
European Physical Education Review,21(2), 176194.
Orlick, T. (1982). The second cooperative sports and games
book. New York, NY: Pantheon.
Sánchez-Hernández, N., Martos-García, D., Soler, S., &
Flintoff, A. (2018). Challenging gender relations in physi-
cal education through cooperative learning and critical
reflection. Sport, Education and Society,23(8), 812823.
Sevil, J., Abós, A., Aibar, A., Julián, J. A., & García-González, L.
(2016). Gender and corporal expression activity in physical
education: Effect of an intervention on studentsmotivational
processes. European Physical Education Review,22(3),
372389. doi:10.1177/1356336X15613463
Moran, J., Henry, D. (2017). AMSTAR 2: A critical
appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include rando-
mised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interven-
tions, or both. British Medical Journal,358.doi:10.1136/
Velázquez, C. (2012). Analysis of the effects of the imple-
mentation of cooperative learning in physical education.
Qualitative Research in Education,1(1), 80105. doi:10.
Von-Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J.,
Gotzsch, P. C., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2008). The
strengthening the reporting of observational studies in
epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for report-
ing observational studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,
61, 344349. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008
Walker,E.,&Johnson,I.L.(2018). Using best practices when
implementing the cooperative-learning theory in secondary
physical education programs. Strategies: A Journal for
Physical and Sport Educators,31(4), 511. doi:10.1080/
Wallhead, T., & Dyson, B. (2017). A didactic analysis of
content development during cooperative learning in
primary physical education. European Physical
Education Review,23(3), 311326. doi:10.1177/
Ward, P., & Lee, M. (2005). Peer-assisted learning in physical
education: A review of theory and research. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education,24(3), 205225. doi:10.11
... Over the last 20 years, few reviews and metaanalysis have been conducted on cooperative learning, but they have focused on curricular subjects like Mathematics or learning in general [6][7][8]. Reviews including cooperative learning in PE classes were limited to studies in the last five years and were related more to the didactic implementation of cooperative learning and did not measure quality of included studies or focused on only one outcome [5,[9][10][11]. For example, the study from Fernández-Espínola researched the effect of cooperative learning on intrinsic motivation in PE [11]. Furthermore, the reviews did not present a lucid summary of the effects of cooperative learning. ...
Full-text available
One possibility of successfully dealing with the increasing heterogeneity of students is cooperative learning. However, this learning structure is still rarely used in physical education. To substantiate positive effects of cooperative learning in physical education and to support the commitment of pedagogical staff, the aim of this research was to evaluate physical, social, behavioral and psychological effects of interventions implementing cooperative learning structures in physical education lessons. The current systematic review was designed based on the PRISMA guidelines. Five databases were used to select articles that evaluated effects of cooperative learning in physical education of children and adolescents with an average age within the range of five to 19 years in August 2022. Studies had to report quantitative measured outcomes of cooperative learning. Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility and assessed risk of bias. Descriptive analyses were conducted to evaluate intervention effects. In total, 23 articles reporting 36 outcomes were included in the analysis with an overall sample size of 3699 children and adolescents aged between 6.5 and 17.5 years. Summarized 71% of all reported outcomes resulted in significant positive effects on cooperative learning compared to traditional teaching styles with most positive effects on social outcomes (92%). It is recommended to integrate different teaching styles, e.g. cooperative learning, to improve children's development and to engage them in lifelong physical activity. Furthermore, interdisciplinary cooperation (e.g. between researchers and pedagogical school staff) should be sought in order to develop pedagogical approaches that consider the needs and prerequisites of students.
... Through interaction, students share ideas, expose common limitations, establish comparisons, negotiate meanings, ask questions that contribute to individual understanding, make decisions together, listen, and carefully observe each other for mutual group adjustment [2,44]. Thus, there is strong empirical support for the social domain as an essential pillar of learning, as long as all the students demonstrate competence and active learning throughout the process [45]. ...
Full-text available
Constructivism is used as a powerful theoretical outlook to support teaching, learning, and curriculum in physical education and sport. The Constructivist Teaching Practices Inventory in Elementary Physical Education (CTPI-EPE) is a valid instrument for assessing in-service teachers. However, there is a need to translate constructivist teaching practices for PE into other languages. This study examined the validity of the Portuguese version of the adapted CTPI-EPE for Brazilian physical education preservice teachers (PST). The sample comprised of 869 physical education PSTs from Brazil. Data were collected through an online form. Aiken's V was used to examine content validity, and Bayesian methods used for exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The results showed adequate content and internal structure of the translated and adapted questionnaire. This study highlighted the validity of the Portuguese version of the CTPI-EPE, which could be considered an important instrument for self-reflection by PSTs, and provide information for improved training in higher education toward constructivist teaching.
... The students emphasized the contribution of a collaborative learning space, peer learning and the continual sharing of the BC throughout the learning process. This sharing is contrary to traditional methods of content development through individual assignments as is manifested in most education institutions (Bores-García et al., 2021). In most cases, students in academic settings are not exposed to their peers' final products, not to mention their learning process throughout the stages of the course. ...
... Por tanto, para lograr el desarrollo de las emociones se necesita de la socialización planificada y sistematizada y para ello se espera que el individuo establezca una relación interactiva con otras personas a través de situaciones que pueden ser simuladas mediante la dramatización. (Bores-García et al, 2020). ...
Full-text available
Resumen El presente trabajo tuvo como propósito estudiar la dramatización pedagógica para optimizar el estadio cognoscitivo-emocional en estudiantes de Educación Física del Instituto Superior de Formación Docente Salomé Ureña (ISFODOSU), el cual se desarrolló durante el cuatrimestre 3-2021. La metodología aplicada fue un enfoque descriptivo transversal, basado en un componente de carácter cualitativo. La técnica de recolección de datos utilizada fue el cuestionario y como instrumento se aplicó el Test de Inteligencia Emocional y el Test de Desarrollo Emocional. La población considerada fue de 289 estudiantes y la muestra fue de 14 estudiantes, todos de la Licenciatura en Educación Física. La organización y discriminación de la información fue realizada a través del programa Atlas. Ti. Los resultados obtenidos de los cuestionarios indican que los estudiantes mostraron ciertas debilidades en lo cognitivo y en el manejo de las emociones en las actividades regulares de clases, cuya superación fue fortalecida en el desarrollo de la aplicación de la herramienta de dramatización. Se concluyó, mediante una caracterización de los hallazgos, que la dramatización constituye un recurso pedagógico adecuado para lograr el desarrollo del estadio emocional-cognitivo, en las diferentes dimensiones abordadas. Es una posibilidad didáctica y de acompañamiento en los procesos formativos. Palabras clave: Actividad sensomotriz, Educación Física, Estrategias educativas, Motivación, Sistema educativo. Abstract The purpose of this work was to study the pedagogical dramatization to optimize the cognitive-emotional stage in Physical Education students of the Instituto Superior de Formación Docente Salomé Ureña (ISFODOSU), which was developed during the term 3- 2021. The methodology applied was a cross-sectional descriptive approach, based on a qualitative component. The data collection technique used was the questionnaire and the Emotional Intelligence Test and the Emotional Development Test were applied as instruments. The population considered was 289 students and the sample consisted of 14 students, all from the Bachelor's Degree in Physical Education. The organization and discrimination of the information was carried out through the Atlas. Ti. The results obtained from the questionnaires indicate that the students showed certain weaknesses in cognitive and emotional management in regular class activities, whose overcoming was strengthened in the development of the application of the dramatization tool. It was concluded, through a characterization of the findings, that dramatization constitutes an adequate pedagogical resource to achieve the development of the emotional-cognitive stage, in the different dimensions addressed. It is a didactic and accompaniment possibility in the formative processes. Keywords: Sensory-motor activity, Physical education, Educational strategies, Motivation, Educational system.
... Second, to guarantee the selection of relevant articles and obtain a quality score on each study, a checklist used in a recent review on CL in educational contexts was used (Bores-García et al., 2021). It was based on the following criteria: (a) description of the program; (b) JCR/SJR journal; (c) detailed methodological description; (d) sample or number of participants; and (e) length of the implementation. ...
The use of cooperative learning as a pedagogical framework in teacher-training colleges and universities has gained special relevance in the last decade. What do we know about the impact of cooperative learning-based interventions on future teachers so far? The purpose was to provide a contemporary picture on cooperative learning interventions in teacher education students conducting a systematic review. More specifically, this paper aimed to answer the following research questions: (1) What was the focus of studies investigating the benefits of cooperative learning in future teachers? (2) Which learning outcomes have been observed? (3) What were the main effects in student-teachers? Several electronic literature databases were involved in the process (Web of Science, EBSCO host, Scopus, ERIC, PsycINFO, SciELO). Quantitative, qualitative or mixed intervention studies were assessed. Nineteen eligible articles, involving 1944 teacher education students, were included to evaluate, organize and produce a high-level synthesis of evidence of this methodological approach. A comprehensive literature review is presented on its effects and learning outcomes. Findings showed that this teaching strategy can be useful for teacher education students’ global development: content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, personal, inter-personal and transversal skills, and professional skills and competencies. Unfortunately, these improvements are not linear and they need time and high-structured experiences. Cooperative learning has been found a positive framework in teacher education programs worldwide to train future teachers. Formative implications and future research are discussed.
Purpose : The purpose of this study was to investigate teacher and students’ perspectives on their experiences within three consecutive hybrid sport education and cooperative learning pedagogical model units. Method : Fifty elementary school students ( M age = 10.52; SD age = 0.39) and a 36-year-old male teacher participated in three consecutive hybrid cooperative learning/sport education units (24 lessons). Semistructured interviews were conducted to gather data and gain a rich, insiders’ perspective of their experiences. Results : Three main themes (including several subthemes) were generated from the data analysis: students’ enthusiasm and involvement (autonomy support, motivation, and engagement); students’ learning (technical–tactical learning, cooperative skills, and social learning); and teacher challenges. Conclusions : Findings from the current study showed that a teacher’s use of three consecutive hybrid sport education/cooperative learning pedagogical model units promoted a learning environment where students were involved in authentic sport experiences that fostered the development of students’ learning across all domains.
Full-text available
Tujuan dari tinjauan literatur ini adalah untuk meninjau literatur ilmiah tentang penelitian pembelajaran kooperatif dalam pendidikan jasmani di Indonesia. Dua database (Scopus dan Web of Science) digunakan untuk memilih artikel-artikel yang memuat informasi tentang pembelajaran kooperatif dalam pendidikan jasmani. Pencarian dilakukan dengan mengikuti pedoman Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Setelah kriteria eksklusi, hanya 7 artikel yang masuk kategori. Hasil menunjukkan jenis penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian pembelajaran kooperatif di Indonesia beragam yaitu; kuantitatif, penelitian campuran (kuantitatif dan kualitatif), dan pengembangan. Rata-rata pada penelitian menggunakan kuesioner dan wawancara dalam pengambilan data. Penelitian pembelajaran kooperatif di Indonesia juga dibagi dalam tiga kelompok, (i) model pembelajaran kooperatif berbasis kearifan lokal dan kartu keterampilan dasar (FS), (ii) model pembelajaran kooperatif tipe TGT, STAD, dan Jigsaw dalam olahraga dan pembelajaran online, (iii) model pembelajaran kooperatif dalam menanamkan rasa percaya diri, kerjasama dan nilai moral. Beberapa keterbatasan yang melekat dalam tinjauan telah dicatat, dan perlu terus dilakukan kajian ini lebih lanjut secara global dengan tinjauan litaratur atau studi pemetaan (bibliometric dan scientometric), dan perlu juga dilakukan tentang penerapan pembelajaran kooperatif dan dampaknya, karena dalam masyarakat saat ini, unsur-unsur seperti hubungan sosial, dialog, dan rasa hormat, serta aktivitas fisik dan olahraga, sangat penting. Kata Kunci: Pembelajaran kooperatif; pendidikan jasmani; review The purpose of this literature review is to review the scientific literature on cooperative learning research in physical education in Indonesia. Two databases (Scopus and Web of Science) were used to select articles containing information on cooperative learning in physical education. The search was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. After the exclusion criteria, only 7 articles were included in the category. The results show that the types of research used in cooperative learning research in Indonesia vary, namely; quantitative, mixed research (quantitative and qualitative), and development. On average in the study using questionnaires and interviews in data collection. Cooperative learning research in Indonesia is also divided into three groups, (i) cooperative learning models based on local wisdom and basic skills cards (FS), (ii) cooperative learning models of TGT, STAD, and Jigsaw types in sports and online learning, (iii) cooperative learning model in instilling self-confidence, cooperation and moral values. Several limitations inherent in the review have been noted, and it is necessary to carry out further studies of this globally with literature reviews or mapping studies (bibliometric and scientometric), and it is also necessary to do about the application of cooperative learning and its impact, because in today's society, elements of elements such as social relationships, dialogue, and respect, as well as physical activity and sport, are very important.
Full-text available
La presente tesis doctoral trata de estudiar los factores de eficacia del aprendizaje cooperativo en Educación Física. Es una investigación centrada en la figura del docente y, más concretamente, en las dificultades que se encuentra al implementar el modelo pedagógico, y las estrategias que se pueden aplicar para mejorar su eficacia. Se trata de un estudio que tiene un alcance descriptivo-correlacional, a través de un enfoque mixto, pues se han triangulado técnicas cuantitativas y cualitativas en dos fases diferentes. En la primera fase, la fase cuantitativa, se diseñó, validó y aplicó el cuestionario CIACEF, sobre las dificultades que se encuentran los docentes al aplicar el aprendizaje cooperativo en sus clases de Educación Física, qué estrategias utilizan para aplicarlo de manera eficaz y cómo llevan a cabo los procesos de evaluación. Para su diseño se llevó a cabo una revisión de la literatura especializada y se entrevistó a cuatro referentes teóricos del aprendizaje cooperativo en Educación Física. Tras su aplicación, se obtuvo una muestra de 204 docentes que aplican la cooperación en sus clases de Educación Física. En la segunda fase de la investigación, la fase cualitativa, se entrevistó a 10 docentes que previamente habían contestado al cuestionario y se realizó un análisis de contenido longitudinal por códigos. Los resultados del estudio muestran que la competitividad es la principal dificultad sobre la que se ha de intervenir al aplicar el modelo pedagógico en la asignatura de Educación Física. Previamente, es necesario crear unas condiciones favorecedoras a la cooperación, a través de intervenciones dirigidas a crear un ambiente social de aula más cooperativo y al desarrollo de las habilidades interpersonales y comunicativas del alumnado. Los procesos de evaluación formativa y compartida se configuran como estrategias didácticas para ello, cuando se aplican de forma continua e intencionada para este fin. Sin embargo, los resultados también reflejan que aún no se ha dado el salto definitivo a los modelos alternativos de evaluación centrados en el aprendizaje, por lo que aún hay un largo camino que recorrer en este sentido. En relación a la eficacia de la cooperación, la frecuencia con la que se aplica va a ser determinante para el buen funcionamiento de los procesos cooperativos.
Background: Research on pedagogical models in physical education has exponentially increased over the last two decades [Casey, A., and D. Kirk. 2020. Models-Based Practice in Physical Education. London: Routledge]. Moreover, several literature reviews on the effectiveness of the different pedagogical models have been conducted. Due to the large amount of research conducted on pedagogical models, there seems to be a need to organize and evaluate the existing evidence to assimilate the main ideas, produce higher-level synthesis of evidence and provide a more solid identification of strengths, weaknesses and gaps of this methodological approach. Purpose: To critically examine what is currently known on pedagogical models to provide a broader and contemporary picture on their implementation conducting an umbrella review. This paper aimed to answer the following research questions: (RQ1) Which pedagogical models have been systematically reviewed? (RQ2) Which strengths have been observed? (RQ3) Which weaknesses have been perceived? (RQ4) Finally, which research gaps have been identified? Method: The protocol was registered at the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (INPLASY) with the number 202130025 and the DOI number 10.37766/ inplasy2021.3.0025. Review studies met the following inclusion criteria: (1) Peer-reviewed journal articles (Journal Citation Reports) published and written in English before 31 December 2020, (2) included participants from elementary, middle and/or high school, (3) conducted in the physical education context, and (4) interventions studies implementing one, several or combined pedagogical models. Exclusion criteria were (1) Not review studies, and (2) Not about pedagogical models' implementation. Findings and conclusion: Seventeen review articles were identified, involving 22,109 students (elementary, middle, high school), 1050 teachers and 171 preservice teachers. Two hundred and nine studies involved Sport Education, 84 Games-Centred Approach, 74 Cooperative Learning, 48 Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility, and 23 hybridizations among pedagogical models. A comprehensive literature synthesis is presented on the different pedagogical models and their learning outcomes. Findings showed strong evidence supporting the effectiveness of pedagogical models' implementation to improve students' learning in the different domains (cognitive, social, physical, affective). Nevertheless, some weaknesses were also uncovered by the umbrella review: length of the implementation, time for skilful play,
Full-text available
The present study examined the effect of cooperative games in physical education (PE) and sports classes on the stress coping and problem-solving skills. The fifteen elementary schools in the volcano disaster area assigned to the intervention and two control groups. The intervention group received PE and sports lessons with cooperative games while the control groups completed PE and sports lessons consistent with each school's existing curriculum over 28 weeks. The stress coping and problem-solving skills scales, previously developed for use with students, was implemented before and after the program. Two- and one-way analysis of variance and paired sample t-tests used to compare the three groups, and a Pearson correlation analysis used to examine the relationship between skills at pre- and post-test. The analysis showed a significant increase in stress coping and problem-solving skills in the intervention group over two control groups. The PE and sports lessons with cooperative games could effectively promote both students' stress coping and problem-solving skills.
Full-text available
Research continues to highlight how gender is reproduced through pedagogical practice in Physical Education (PE), but there has been much less focus on how it might be challenged. This paper reports on an intervention that used cooperative learning and critical reflection to challenge gender relations in PE, using football, in a school in Valencia, Spain. The intervention was specifically constructed as a form of critical pedagogy to create an inclusive learning environment, a safe space talk about sexism, and help students question and move beyond traditional notions of gendered embodiment. The paper responds to the call for research on the use of models based pedagogy for challenging sexism in PE. Through a critical ethnography, research findings showed how the explicit inclusion of critical pretexts engaging students in reflecting on gender was important to the success of the intervention, particularly the provision of a space for girls to reflect on their experiences of football and sexism in PE, and for boys to listen and hear this. The change to cooperative learning led to a shift in the class climate between students, with most of the girls reporting feeling more valued and included. The improved class climate resulted in better engagement in the classes from students. While some of the boys exhibited more positive attitudes towards girls and their football abilities, some of the more able boys were critical of the approach for its relative lack of engagement with the development of football, beyond skills and techniques. These findings point to both the possibilities and ongoing work necessary to challenge gender relations through a critical pedagogy in PE.
Educational researchers suggest that physical education can not only address the physical fitness of students but can also provide students with unique opportunities to actively engage in learning and the development of cognitive capacities. The contemporary teaching technique, inquiry-based learning, is identified as an active, engaging and effective student-centered teaching approach that can be used in the context of physical education. In this article, the authors identify, examine and demonstrate how physical educators can effectively use inquiry-based learning to foster motor skills, cognitive skills, and the development of a more relative meaningful understanding of the importance of physical education in their lives.
Background One of the key questions of physical education teacher educators (PETE) programmes refers to whether future teachers are prepared to build knowledge and skills to feel self-efficacious in teaching physical education (PE). This issue concerns the instructional model of teaching used to help PE pre-service teachers to master both pedagogical knowledge and motor skills. According to this twofold challenge, the direct instruction (DI) is mainly used for pre-service teacher training. Beyond this traditional model, other instructional models as cooperative learning (CL) approach arise in the initial PE teacher education. Nevertheless, surrounding attempts at innovation, little information related to the instructor’s role. Under the social cognitive perspective of self-efficacy and instructional competency building, more information is currently expected with regard to the strategies the instructor uses to scaffold the mastery of skills for PE pre-service teachers’ effective teaching. Purpose The purpose of this article is to consider whether PE pre-service teachers are trained during short training sessions aimed to discover new physical activities. We examine the influence of a scaffolding procedure (CLS design) on PE pre-service teachers’ knowledge, skills and self-efficacy in comparison to a CL and a DI experience. This leads to consider to what extent this instructional support provided by the instructor would help pre-service teachers to perceive themselves as self-efficacious to teach contents in PE. Participants and design After a pre-test, sixty-nine PE pre-service teachers were randomly assigned to one of the three following conditions: CL (14 males and 7 females); CLS (20 males and 8 females) or direct instruction condition (DI; 12 males and 8 females). For the training session a selected CL procedure (Jigsaw) [Aronson, Elliot, and Shelley Patnoe. 1997. The Jigsaw Classroom: Building Cooperation in the Classroom. 2nd ed. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley Educational]) was used to split CL and CLS participants into mixed-sex teams, whereas DI participants practiced the same exercises in dyads. According to the training conditions, the same instructor provided different information to participants along the three 2-hour instructional sessions with regard to: (a) warm-up (DI), (b) CL organization (CL), and (c) scaffolding integrated into a CL implementation (CLS). Data collection A Pre-test/post-test design was used to consider PE pre-service teacher’s motor skill, knowledge for practice, and self-efficacy improvements. The post-test also examined participants’ pedagogical knowledge. Findings The results showed that the participants in the three conditions progressed on performance, knowledge for practice, knowledge for teaching, and self-efficacy. Although no difference was found in self-efficacy between the three training conditions over time, significant differences appeared on pedagogical knowledge or/and motor skills with an advantage for the CL and CLS participants, respectively. Conclusion Although short training sessions dedicated to discovering new sports stay problematic for teacher professional development, implementing CL pre-service teacher training designs would be a relevant alternative. Instructional knowledge would be developed mainly when they have explicitly access to information concerning the teacher intervention. Nevertheless, such a scaffolding procedure integrated into CL training designs would need to be applied repeatedly to various physical activities to have an impact on pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy.
The goal of this study was to assess hybridizations conducted among pedagogical models (PMs) from 1st to 12th grade (six–18 years) in physical education (PE). Research articles selected were found through Web of Science, Medline, Scopus, SportDiscus (EBSCO), ERIC (ProQuest) and Google Scholar databases. The keywords associated with PMs (e.g. models-based practice and sport education (SE), hybridization (e.g. hybrid), PE and educational levels (e.g. middle school) were used in different combinations. The articles were selected using the following criteria: (a) peer-reviewed studies in international journals indexed in JCR/Scopus; (b) PM hybridizations; (c) quantitative and/or qualitative methods and findings; (d) school context research; and (e) published in English or Spanish. 20 articles were identified as being of moderate/high quality. Results showed that the PMs used in the hybridizations determined the outcomes, and these were grouped in two major categories: (a) game-related skills (physical/motor and cognitive domains), which included game understanding and tactical–technical skills; and (b) psychosocial variables (social and affective domains), which included psychological, social and personal development. The combination of SE and sport initiation models favoured the first category, while the hybrid models which included cooperative learning and/or teaching for personal and social responsibility favoured the second one. There seems to be an advantage for hybrid over isolated PM implementation, because the former can promote outcomes in many different domains, overcoming the constraints of single PMs. Teachers’ commitment, training and experience of PMs were key features for a successful hybridization.
Cooperative learning activities are a staple in many physical education programs. Teachers often use team building and trust activities at the beginning of the school year to get to know their students. However, many physical education teachers focus solely on the affective domain. The purpose of this article is to provide physical education teachers with a deeper knowledge base of the cooperative-learning (CL) instructional model and provide samples of how to include cognitive concepts during these activities. The article describes and explains the five key elements of CL and provides concrete examples of how to use and implement a variety of CL activities. Each of the sample activities are linked to specific SHAPE America National Standards and grade-level outcomes. The authors also provide some sample assessments for each CL activity.
This article shows a research project related to the Cooperative Learning Model, which has been conducted in the area of Physical Education in a public school in northern Spain. Specifically, the study proposal, aimed at third year of primary education [experimental group (n=15) and control group (n=16)], was based on a didactic unit on handling and interaction with moving objects. In the experimental group, the contents have revolved around the development of cooperative games and exercises lacking of competition, while in the control group, the lessons were held with a more traditional methodology based in competitive games. The results obtained have indicated a decline in the lack of motivation of students in the experimental group. At the same time, this group has shown a high rate of satisfaction with the practice of cooperative games, exactly 100% among women and 60% among men.