COOPERATIVE LEARNING REVIEW OF LITERATURE
1
Can Cooperative Learning achieve the four learning outcomes of physical education?:
A Review of Literature
Abstract (150 words)
Physical, cognitive, social, and affective learning are positioned as the legitimate learning
outcomes of physical education It has been argued that these four learning outcomes go some
way to facilitating students’ engagement with the physically active life (Bailey et al., 2009;
Kirk, 2013). With Cooperative Learning positioned as a pedagogical model capable of
supporting these four learning outcomes (Dyson & Casey, 2012), the purpose of this review
was to explore ‘how has the empirical research in the use of Cooperative Learning in physical
education reported on the achievement of learning in the physical, cognitive, social, and
affective domains (or their equivalents)?’ The review found that while learning occurred in
all four domains, the predominant outcomes were reported in the physical, cognitive, and
social domains. Affective learning was reported anecdotally and it became clear that more
work is required in this area. The paper concludes by suggesting that research into the
outcomes of this, and other pedagogical models, needs to focus on learning beyond the initial
unit and over a period of years and not just weeks.
Keywords: Peer-assisted learning, group work, competitive, individualistic learning
COOPERATIVE LEARNING REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2
Can Cooperative Learning achieve the four learning outcomes of physical education?: A
Review of Literature
If physical education is to sustain its valued cultural and moral position within education,
Kirk (2013) argued that we should focus on how best to promote the “educationally
beneficial outcomes for students, across a range of domains” (p. 6). Drawing on Bailey et
al.’s (2009) discussions on educationally beneficial learning outcomes in physical education,
Kirk (2010, 2012, 2013), among others (c.f. Haerens, Kirk, Cardon, & De Bourdeaudhuij,
2011; Metzler, 2011), has argued that we should comprehensively and cohesively address
learning in the physical, cognitive, social and affective domains. Indeed, for physical
education to be capable of promoting the physically active life, Kirk (2012) positioned these
four learning domains as the legitimate learning outcomes of physical education. However,
given that Bailey et al. (2009) felt that learning in these domains can only occur “given the
right social, contextual and pedagogical circumstances” (p.16) how do we ‘know’ if
legitimate learning is occurring?
One way in which the pedagogical circumstances, the legitimate learning outcomes of
physical education, and a socio-cultural perspective to learning can be considered is through
models (O’Sullivan, 2013), and more specifically pedagogical models (Kirk, 2013). There is
an increasing level of advocacy for the use of pedagogical models, and at the forefront of this
argument are Kirk (2012, 2013) and Metzler (2011). Kirk (2012) claims that for physical
education to achieve cultural legitimacy in the medium (~10 years) and long term future (~20
years) physical education should adopt a models-based approach. In other words, curricula
should be organized around pedagogical models rather than the multi-activity approach.
Pedagogical models, nor curriculum or instructional models as Jewett and Bain (1985)
and Metzler (2011) have respectively called them, are not new but some have received more
attention than others. Certainly, while models including Sport Education and Teaching
COOPERATIVE LEARNING REVIEW OF LITERATURE
3
Games for Understanding were constructed and developed in the 1980s by researchers in the
field of physical education and sport pedagogy, Cooperative Learning only began to gain
momentum in physical education during the early part of the 21st Century and emerged from
its use in other curriculum subjects such as English, Math, and Science (Dyson & Casey,
2012; Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Such has been the enduring presence of Sport Education
and Teaching Games for Understanding that both have been the subjects of review of
literatures of their own (for the two latest examples see: Harvey & Jarrett, 2013; Hastie, de
Ojeda, & Lucquin, 2011). In contrast, Cooperative Learning has hitherto been clustered with
Peer-Assisted Learning (PAL) in any systematic reviews in this area (see Ward & Lee, 2005).
Given the emergence of Cooperative Learning as a legitimate pedagogical model in physical
education (Dyson & Casey, 2012; Metzler 2011) it seems appropriate, at this time, to review
the developing body of literature published in this area; especially if we are to better
understand if the model is capable of facilitating learning in the four domains positioned by
Kirk (2012) as the legitimate learning outcomes of physical education.
Cooperative Learning as a pedagogical model
Cooperative Learning was developed in the 1970s amidst concerns that students
rarely had the opportunity to develop or even use their interpersonal skills in the traditional
competitive and individual learning environments (Johnson & Johnson, 2009; Kagan &
Kagan, 2009; Slavin, 1995, 1996). Through combining social and academic learning,
Cooperative Learning was seen as a method of promoting students’ interpersonal skills and
their ability to interact and achieve in an ever changing economic and social society (Kagan
& Kagan, 2009). Since its initial development Cooperative Learning has been researched
extensively. The separate meta-analyses (Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, & Nelson, 1981;
Johnson, Johnson, & Stanne, 2000; Kyndt et al., 2013; Stanne, Johnson, & Johnson, 1991),
and the reviews of literature (Johnson & Johnson, 1974; Slavin, 1983) suggest that
COOPERATIVE LEARNING REVIEW OF LITERATURE
4
Cooperative Learning brings about significant gains to students’ learning and furthers their
development as young people. Indeed, the reported learning outcomes of Cooperative
Learning from these analyses and reviews can be summarized as academic achievement (an
ability to apply and understand content), interpersonal skill development and relations
(communication skills and/or peer relations), enhanced participation (engagement with
learning tasks), and an improvement in young people’s psychological health (self-esteem
and/or motivation).
These reported learning outcomes have great synergy with the aspired learning
outcomes of physical education that were identified by Bailey et al. (2009) and later re-
enforced by Kirk (2013). Certainly, in his positioning of Cooperative Learning as a model of
physical education, Metzler (2011) drew on the work of Hilke (1990) to argue that
Cooperative Learning was an achievement-orientated and process-orientated model. In other
words, and when applying the learning outcomes of Cooperative Learning to physical
education, the model is designed to foster gains in physical performance and cognitive
understanding (i.e. academic achievement), to happen in coherence with the development and
use of students’ interpersonal skills and their meaningful participation in learning (i.e. social
learning), and to help students increased motivation, self-esteem or self-confidence to learn
(i.e. affective learning) (Bailey et al., 2009; Casey & Dyson, 2009; Hilke, 1990; Metzler,
2011). Taking this stance, and by drawing on the extensive empirical evidence in general
education, Cooperative Learning is a model that could be said to effectively promote the
achievement of student learning in the physical, cognitive, social and affective domains – at
least in general education. The question that concerns this review of literature is can
Cooperative Learning achieve these selfsame learning outcomes in physical education?
Since the early empirical work in physical education by Dyson and Strachan (2000),
there has been an increase in the international breadth and scope of research in this area.
COOPERATIVE LEARNING REVIEW OF LITERATURE
5
Drawing on research from eight international countries, and the subsequent conclusions made
from pedagogical research in the last decade, Casey and Dyson (2012) believed that
Cooperative Learning considers human movement to be “something which is undertaken
within a cooperative relationship with others” (p. 173). In contrast to traditional pedagogical
practices, Cooperative Learning acknowledges that “teaching as telling is no longer
appropriate” (Lieberman & Pointer-Mace, 2008, p. 226) and that movement and learning
about movement does not occur in isolation from the cognitive, social, or affective domains
(Casey & Dyson, 2012; Dyson, 2001; Lafont, Proeres, & Vallet, 2007). Through Cooperative
Learning young people learn about movement in physical activity contexts and understand
how their experiences are relevant, meaningful, and transferable, by working together to learn
without direct instruction from the teacher (Bähr & Wilbowo, 2012). Students are encouraged
to interact with each other and learn from the experiences that they create (Dyson, Griffin, &
Hastie, 2004).
Moving Metzler’s (2011) interpretation of Cooperative Learning forwards, Casey and
Dyson (2012) recently positioned Cooperative Learning as a pedagogical model due to its
ability to meet the legitimate learning outcomes of physical education by exploring the
interrelation between teaching, learning, content, and context. Reinforcing Dyson and
Grineski (2001) and Dyson and Rubin’s (2003) earlier arguments, Casey and Dyson (2012)
considered learning in the physical, social, cognitive, and affective domains, and the
interrelation of the four concepts of pedagogy, to occur as a result of teachers’ use of five
fundamental elements (positive interdependence, individual accountability, group processing,
promotive face-to-face interaction and small group and interpersonal skills). While
Cooperative Learning was developed along four separate lines in education by its
protagonists Johnson and Johnson, Slavin, Kagan, and Cohen (who all hold differing
perspectives as to what elements and structures support group work and enhance