GRADO EN ESTUDIOS INGLESES

UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRID

COOPERATIVE LEARNING: DIFFICULTIES OF

IMPLEMENTATION IN MADRID

TRABAJO DE FIN DE GRADO CURSO 2014-1015

APELLIDOS Y NOMBRE: BENÍTEZ SOLDEVILLA, PABLO

DNI: 53847406J

TUTORA: DRA. JELENA BÒBKINA

CONVOCATORIA: JUNIO 2015

To my TFG tutor, Dr. Jelena

Bòbkina, and to the whole lot of

teachers, to whom I owe everything I

know.

To my family, for all the support,

always existent, and for the moments

of silence, inexistent otherwise.

To my friends, for their amelioration

and unconditional love.

To my colleagues, for the day-to-day

smiles.

Table of contents

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Antecedents ................................................................................................................... 2

1.2. Statement of the problem: failure within schools .......................................................... 3

1.3. What Cooperative Learning is ....................................................................................... 3

2. Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 5

3. Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 5

3.1. Research questions and initial hypothesis ..................................................................... 5

3.2. Questionnaires ............................................................................................................... 7

3.3. Passive observation ....................................................................................................... 8

4. Results ................................................................................................................................... 8

4.1. Teachers’ perception of Cooperative Learning questionnaire ....................................... 9

4.2. Teachers’ experience on Cooperative Learning questionnaire ................................... 11

4.3. Passive observation ..................................................................................................... 13

4.3.1. Fourth grade Maths I ........................................................................................... 14

4.3.2. Fourth grade Maths II .......................................................................................... 16

4.3.3. Fifth grade Spanish I ........................................................................................... 17

4.3.4. Fifth grade Spanish II .......................................................................................... 19

5. Discussion of results and conclusions ................................................................................. 19

5.1. Discussion ................................................................................................................... 19

5.2. Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 22

6. Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 22

7. Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 24

8. Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 26

8.1. Appendix I: Questionnaire I: Teachers perception of Cooperative Learning ............. 26

8.2. Appendix II: Questionnaire II: Teachers level of formation and experience with

Cooperative Learning .............................................................................................................. 27

8.3. Appendix III: Table: Passive observation ................................................................... 28

8.4. Appendix IV: Graphs I: Results of questionnaire I ..................................................... 29

8.5. Appendix V: Graphs II: Results of questionnaire II .................................................... 31

1

Abstract

This monograph revisits the notion of Cooperative Learning and tackles the contrast

existing between its promising outcomes and its rather low frequency of adoption. In the

understanding of this research, such dichotomy resides within the obstacles posed by its

application, which will be taken into special consideration. To do so, this paper draws

on insights from practical contexts, such as teachers’ perception of or experience when

adopting such learning methodology, aiming thus at the thorough understanding of any

possible setback that might be experienced.

Key words: cooperative learning, difficulties, implementation, teacher perception,

passive observation.

1. Introduction

There is continued, relatively intense debate around the issue of what pedagogical

approach is the one that fits our system the best, being more efficient when it comes to

the issue of making the most out of primary as well as higher stages of education. This

debate has traditionally brought about two different schools of thought. There are, first

of all, the moderates, that is, the ones who consider that there is little room in our

educational system –if any at all– for innovations, embracing, this way, more

conservative-like approaches. On the other side of the road, the reactionaries stand; the

ones who move away from these traditional methods. Far from being pejorative, the

term ¨reactionaries¨ makes reference to those who depend on a context and who adapt

themselves to new ideas. They allow evolution and, thereby, betterment. They are

devoted to change and to adaptation. Thus, their pedagogical philosophy is not one of

imposing knowledge and discipline to students, but one that allows them to discover it

themselves (Lasley & Ornstein, 2000) with proper guidance and with adequate

educational goals. By the same token, they remark how actively participating in their

own education allows students to experience a sharp improvement. Stemming from this

is the idea that ¨teaching methods are not an end in themselves, but a means to an end,

they are the vehicle(s) we use to lead our students to particular learning outcomes¨

(Bourner, 1997). In this sense, not only does Cooperative Learning lead students

towards learning in several ways, but also does it ensure that weaker students are not

2

left behind and that stronger students realize they themselves also have gaps of

knowledge.

1.1. Antecedents

It is widely known that the notion of Cooperative Learning is not something new within

the greater field of Linguistics. Throughout the history of education, further cooperative

conceptions, such as Freire’s that one of education (1993) –thought of as the ideal way

of personal development–, Freire’s dialogic learning or even Dewey’s concept of

experience (1938) –regarded as the exchange of an individual with their physical and

social surroundings– are very commonly found.

These are, however, only a few of the shining examples of philosophers and

psychologists who, not only noted the existing unevenness between traditional learning

and society exigencies, but also dared to defend cooperation, dialogue and meaningful

interaction as essential tools of change and betterment.

It would need to be realized how research proposals accounting for this cooperation-

related field should aim –and have in fact aimed– at analysing the various learning

approaches that worked successfully during a certain historical period, taking into

consideration what the major inconveniences to their own success were. This would

allow –and, again, has indeed allowed– the successful development of competent and

plausible learning strategies. Thus, it seems only fair to concede, as many well-known

scholars (Torrego, J., & Negro, A, 2012; Slavin, R. E, 1999; Skon, L., Johnson, D., &

Johnson, R., 1981; Pujolàs, P, 2008; Ovejero, A, 1990) assert that researchers are not

quite in square one, when it comes down to the area of Cooperative Learning.

In relation to this field, it seems vital to note how, these days, this learning methodology

is, in fact, on the most highly regarded within psycholinguists, teachers and further

members of the learning community. It seems only fair to acknowledge, therefore, that,

once it is adequately controlled and properly applied within a classroom context,

Cooperative Learning is, by all accounts, one of the best ways to proceed when it comes

down to teaching and learning environments. To be able to state this, scholars such as

Felder (1994, cited in Keritha, 2009) have first conducted studies on the effectiveness of

Cooperative Learning and been able to conclude that it indeed has the desired impact in

students’ work.

3

Fortunately enough, the widespread as well as the increasing use of Cooperative

Learning has gotten to be one story with quite a promising outlook within the fields of

social an educational psychology. As acknowledged by Johnson & Johnson (2009), ¨its

success largely rests on the relationships among theory, research and practice.¨

1.2. Statement of the problem: failure within schools

This notwithstanding, and in spite of the fact that countless investigations do report on

the positive and promising outcomes of the proper application of Cooperative Learning

(Johnson, Johnson, Johnson & Anderson, 1976; Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson

& Skon, 1981; Qin, Johnson & Johnson, 1995; Skon, Johnson & Johnson, 1981),

teachers seem to hold themselves to rather rooted, traditional learning methodologies.

A plausible initial explanation for this could be that these somewhat conventional

approaches to teaching are more simplistic, that is to say, they do not require as much

knowledge, organization, nor effort as Cooperative Learning does. Thus, it appears to be

the case, at least initially, that these teaching methods put teachers to much less

inconveniences than Cooperative Learning would.

It seems only fair to concede, on the other hand, that Cooperative Learning is thought to

be one of the most complicated methodologies to adopt and apply successfully. Thus,

despite its effectiveness, a rather significant number of the teaching community agree

that this cooperative-like approach is not easy to conduct as naturally and contentedly as

it would be expected. A priori, it is to note that, since the theoretical grounds have been

clarified and detailed, the problem would seem to reside somewhere on the practical

context. This notwithstanding, the actual factors that make the paths towards

Cooperative Learning so arduous remain, regrettably, obscure. Emerging from this gap

in knowledge is, thereby, the need for a research study on the subject.

1.3. What Cooperative Learning is

Before this discussion goes further on, it is important to provide a contextualizing

description of what Cooperative Learning is as well as to clarify some notions around it.

On account of its importance within the fields of Applied Linguistics and education,

many have aimed at giving a proper definition of Cooperative Learning.

Cooperation implies working together, liaising with each other to fulfil a mutual

objective, aiming at outcomes that are beneficial from both an individual as well as

4

group perspective. These aspects imply a common goal, a reward for the effort,

knowing and controlling the academic materials and a proper teacher management,

amongst other elements that will be outlined in following lines.

Finding its grounds on these ideas, and albeit common and quite repeated over this sort

of studies, the most canonical definition of Cooperative Learning is that one offered by

Johnson, Johnson and Smith (1991), who have provided us with an enormous amount of

research mileage and a breadth of insights into the phenomenon of Cooperative

Learning. Without it, we probably would not be in the position to consider it as we do

nowadays. Hence, they understand this methodology as the instruction that involves

students working in teams to accomplish a common goal, under conditions that include

five elements. These have been registered in the Johnson and Johnson model (1999),

whose theory has towered above most others and has served as a guiding beacon for

those scholars interested in Cooperative Learning. The elements are, in the words of

Johnson and Johnson (1999):

i. Positive interdependence: members understand that they must learn

together to accomplish the goal; they need each other for support,

explanations, and guidance.

ii. Individual accountability: the performance of each group member is

assessed against a standard, and members are held responsible for their

contribution to achieving goals.

iii. Promotive interaction: students interact face-to-face and close together, not

across the room.

iv. Group processing: groups reflect on their collaborative efforts and decide

on ways to improve effectiveness.

v. Development of small- group interpersonal skills: these skills, such as

giving constructive feedback, reaching consensus, and involving every

member, are necessary for effective group functioning. They must be

taught and practiced before the groups tackle a learning task.

Central to the notion of Cooperative Learning is the philosophy behind it. Belonging to

the greater field of constructivism, Cooperative Learning runs under the assumption that

learners are at the same time their own teachers, being they themselves direct

participants of their own learning process. Hence, the constructivist perspective of

5

Cooperative Learning gives rise to the idea that learning is an active construction of

subjects present in a sociocultural environment.

2. Objectives

This paper, hence, sets out to outline as well as to comment upon the aspects and factors

that are most problematic when carrying out Cooperative Learning. Central to this aim

will be the issue of teachers’ perception of Cooperative Learning.

Further comments will be made in relation to what it would take to implant the method

as the major learning approach within elementary schools as well as upper stages of

education.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research questions and initial hypothesis

After tracing an outline of the theoretical background existing around Cooperative

Learning, after the handing out of questionnaires and after the conducting of a one-

month observation, certain perceptions were gained.

It was thus detected that teachers acknowledge the fact that Cooperative Learning is a

most productive learning technique and yet admit that they feel intimidated by the

difficulties it poses or even unable to make it come to fruition successfully.

Amongst the likely causes that would account for the existing reticence to adopt

Cooperative Learning is the complexity that resides within the process of managing

classroom variety as well as the challenging task of applying it adequately enough to

comply with the educational curriculum that is required. This would put to manifest the

fact that it might be obliged for teachers to undergo adequate and complete training on

Cooperative Learning, its teaching techniques and deeper issues in relation to them.

Complementary to this expected outcome is the idea that students might also need to

undergo a certain process of training before they are put to do cooperative work. It is

claimed that this would prevent them from having problems with hierarchy perception

and from believing that their teachers are delegating their duties to them. Consequently,

it could be anticipated that, ideally, students would need to develop certain social skills

6

that will be key, firstly, to a successful peer interaction and, secondly, to the acquisition

of academic notions.

This latter idea, however, might not be plausible in real life since training courses imply

using money and time in a way that is not always possible for schools, especially when

upsides to come are not perceived immediately.

A further possible outcome is that teachers turn out to not being convinced of the fact

that carrying out this methodology on their own is adequate for students in the long

term. It is not to forget, after all, that Cooperative Learning would need to be conducted

not just by one or even a few teachers within a school, but by the whole of the

instructing community. Plus, it is to say that Cooperative Learning would need to be run

throughout the whole educative process, not just through one academic year.

In the light of these results, this monograph fields the following research questions:

1. What is the importance of conducting training courses prior to the actual

implementation of Cooperative Learning?

2. How is the issue of continuity relevant to the successful adoption of such

learning methodology? Is it plausible to adopt Cooperative Learning in every

subject?

3. Is Cooperative Learning suitable for the fully compliance of the curriculum

imposed by vertically upper educational authorities?

Hence, some initial hypotheses can be drawn:

1. Prior training is a prime requirement for the adequate conducting of Cooperative

Learning

2. For Cooperative Leaning to be as successful as possible, it needs to be adopted

consistently.

3. The upsides of Cooperative Learning are fiercely undeniable, both in socio-

relational as well as in academic terms.

In order to provide an answer to these questions, research methodology needs to be

clear, concise and concrete. Thus, two paths have been chosen for extracting the data.

To begin with, it is to say that both primary and secondary data are of key importance

when conducting researches. To our purposes, secondary data coming from teachers or

7

instructors are vital. Consequently, questionnaires containing questions in relation to

several aspects in relation to the notion of Cooperative Learning per se will be handed

out to actual elementary as well as secondary school teachers. Additionally, passive

observation of Cooperative Learning lessons will also be performed. The collection of

primary data in such way will be fundamental to the thorough understanding of the

major setbacks experienced when conducting Cooperative Learning.

3.2. Questionnaires

In order to extract precise information from teachers, two questionnaires –both of which

tackle several issues in relation to Cooperative Learning, to its study and to its

application within classrooms– have been drawn up. An outline of the two of them is

here provided:

3.2.1. The first questionnaire (SEE APPENDIX I) accounts for the teachers’

attitude towards Cooperative Learning and for the regard they have of it.

This way, it counts on a structure with close format questions. Respondents

will thereby face a set of rated answers to choose from. This of course

means that the questions need to be highly precise.

It is widely known how teachers approach learning from a whole set of different

perspectives. This questionnaire therefore aims at outlining the motivations that

lead teachers to put into effect, or not, Cooperative Learning. Vital to the

understanding of these is the opinion, not only of teachers already adopting

Cooperative Learning, but also of those who are not. Both perspectives and

attitude will be critical to the proper understanding of their perception and

experience.

3.2.2. The second questionnaire (SEE APPENDIX II) accounts for the level of

formation and the experience teachers have on the field of Cooperative

Learning. Thus, it counts on a slightly different structure, containing close

format questions, all of which are multiple-response like, all of which are

rated; it also contains two open format questions, allowing the respondents

to openly express themselves –always in relation to the issues that are put

to manifest by the question. Consequently, it would seem logic that this

questionnaire is handed out to teachers who actually carry out Cooperative

Learning methodologies.

8

After answers are collected, amassed and organised, a content analysis consisting on a

proper evaluation of the results will be carried out. In this stage of the methodology,

tabulation and graphics will be designed accordingly to the extracted data.

3.3. Passive observation

Additional to the questionnaires, which will give us a general idea of how Cooperative

Learning is regarded and experienced by the teachers, further methodology needs to be

conducted.

Cooperative Learning is ¨widely recognized as a teaching strategy that promotes

socialization and learning among students from kindergarten through college and across

different subject areas¨ (Cohen, 1994, cited in Gillies, 2007). Consequently, it seems

only fair that passive observation is carried out along intermediate stages of education,

with the hope that it might confirm whether the results provided with the inquiries

comply with the reality of Cooperative learning or not.

Concerning passive observation on itself, it is to say that it was done externally: as the

observer, I was present when Cooperative Learning lessons were conducted but did not

play a part anywhere in the learning process. The overriding objective of this is to

analyse the performance of the class –both teachers and students–, paying special

attention to factors such as positive interdependence, promotive interaction, individual

accountability, social skills or group processing, all of which are most trivial when

undertaking Cooperative Learning.

As it was made with the secondary data extracted from the questionnaires, an analysis

of the extracted results will also be carried out, this time taking into account that the

nature of the data is slightly different. To evaluate the performance of both the teacher

and the students as well as the effectiveness of Cooperative Learning, a table (SEE

APPENDIX III) was developed with individualized items related to the learning

approach per se. Every aspect that was analysed is present within it.

4. Results

Once the questionnaires have been responded to, passive observation, conducted, and

both sets of data properly registered and analysed, an outline on them is to be provided.

Thus, this section aims at displaying the results provided by such methodology.

9

4.1. Teachers’ perception of Cooperative Learning questionnaire

It seems only fair to clarify, first, that this questionnaire was passed along in three

different schools to teachers who do not use Cooperative Learning. As mentioned in

previous sections of this paper, to count on their perspective is of vital importance when

aiming at the identification of reasons for which teachers decide to conduct or not to

conduct Cooperative Learning within their classrooms. Because all of them are rather

big institutions –especially School A, which has seven different schools in Madrid; and

School B– 60 questionnaires were properly filled in and returned back.

After the questionnaires were returned, the data contained within them was amassed and

organised. Its organisation was something that needed to be done with utmost order and

systematization. Consequently, pertinent data tables and adequate meta-graphs were

drawn on Microsoft Excel.

It is to say, in relation to the results of this particular questionnaire, that it meets the

initial expectations, at least partially. Some realisations are especially relevant to the

purposes of this research.

Hence, all contestants –most of which had scarce formation on Cooperative Learning

(see figure 1. 2. and 1. 3.)– agreed that adequate formation –both of teacher’s (see figure

1. 4.) and students’– is a must for the proper conducting of such methodology and that

continuity is of vital importance for the successful application of it (see figure 1. 6.).

Figure 1. 1 Item 2: Level of dominance Figure 1. 3. Item 3: Level of formation

20%

40%

20%

18% 2%

1 2 3 4 56%

17%

30% 32%

15%

1 2 3 4 5

10

Figure 1. 4. Item 4: Formation relevance Figure 1. 6. Item 6: Consistency

awareness

By the same token, most contestants seemed to coincide that adopting Cooperative

Learning would imply considerable disciplinary issues (see figure 1. 18.), derive in

academically insufficient formation (see figure 1. 19.) and challenge the fulfilment of

the imposed curriculum (see figure 1. 20.) on account the fact that it might be time-

consuming (see 1. 21.)

Figure 1. 18. Item 18: Disciplinary issues Figure 1. 19. Item 19: Academic

insufficiencies

Figure 1. 20. Item 20: Curriculum impossibility Figure 1. 21. Item 21: Time-

consuming

These results show how teachers who have not undergone training on Cooperative

Learning perceive such learning methodology as one posing certain problems within the

class. This does of course not mean they do not acknowledge its upsides. However, it is

0% 0% 2%

38%

60%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 5%

22%

30%

43%

1 2 3 4 5

10%

15%

27%

36%

12%

1 2 3 4 5

8%

34%

20%

33%

5% 1 2 3 4 5

3% 15%

23%

44%

15%

1 2 3 4 5

7% 20%

27%

41%

5%

1 2 3 4 5

11

fairly true that, when making a decision, downsides are usually given considerably high

importance.

4.2. Teachers’ experience on Cooperative Learning questionnaire

Despite the fact that the notion of Cooperative Learning has centuries of history and

despite its promising upsides, its adoption and its application are quite recent within

modern schools in our society. As rightfully stated by Slavin (1999, cited in Gillies,

2007), ¨it is one of the greatest educational innovations of recent times¨. Finding schools

where Cooperative Leaning is fully and adequately applied is, consequently, a

somewhat difficult task. However, access could be granted to two different schools in

the outskirts of Madrid. Both of them conduct Cooperative Learning at least throughout

the early stages of education –that is, Primary education. These were School A, which

also applied Cooperative Learning in Secondary, and School C.

Even though they both adopt Cooperative Learning methodologies, the number of

trained teachers who are able to do so is not the highest. On account of this, a sum of 30

questionnaires were handed back on time. Just as done with the previous set of

questionnaires, the organization and the analysis of the data contained in this second set

was made by means of Microsoft Excel data tables and meta-graphs.

Once again, it would seem that the initial expectations were quite accurate in some of its

claims.

Going along and further with the thoughts of the contestants of the previous

questionnaire, contestants of this one –who have indeed undergone formation (see

figure 2. 2.)– strongly believe that formation –both teachers’ (see figures 2. 3. and 2. 4.)

and students’– and consistency of appliance (see figure 2. 6.) are absolute requirements

for the successful undertaking of Cooperative Learning. The fact that they comply with

these items even more strongly than contestants of the previous questionnaires points to

foregone conclusions.

12

Figure 2. 2. Item 2: Level of dominance Figure 2. 3. Item 3: Level of

formation

Figure 2. 4. Item 4: Formation relevance Figure 2. 6. Item 6: Consistency

awareness

On the other hand, it is noticeable how results of certain items contrast with the

corresponding results extracted from the previous questionnaire, leaving some

interesting conclusions. A shining example of these contrasts is the fact that contestants

of this questionnaire diverge with the previous contestants in the statements aiming at

the presumptuous downsides of Cooperative Learning. It could be therefore argued that

they approached the issues of discipline (see figure 2. 18.), academic insufficiency (see

figure 2. 19.), curriculum fulfilment impossibility (see figure 1. 20.) and time-

consuming setback (see 1. 21.), quite oppositely.

Figure 2. 18. Item 18: Disciplinary issues Figure 2. 19. Item 19: Academic

insufficiencies

0% 0% 10%

60%

30%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 0% 3%

44% 53%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 0% 0% 27%

73%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 0% 0%

57%

43%

1 2 3 4 5

13%

40% 23%

17%

7%

1 2 3 4 5

13%

30%

40%

17% 0%

1 2 3 4 5

13

Figure 2. 20. Item 20: Curriculum impossibility Figure 2. 21. Item 21: Time-

consuming

Opposite to the data extracted from the previous questionnaire, this set of data shows

how teachers who are already acquainted with Cooperative Learning consider this

aspects of it non-problematic and are actually able to deal with them in a successful

manner.

4.3. Passive observation

As a mere task of observing, without interfering with the course of the lessons, passive

observation was carried out in four different classes of School A. It is to note that this

methodology covered two different instrumental subjects –that is, Maths and Spanish–

along two different courses, which were fourth and fifth of Primary Education.

Because passive observation was carried out within the same school and because all

primary teachers are led by the same coordination, the application of Cooperative

Learning towards the different subjects and along the grades had little variance. This

way, it would be interesting to provide an overall description of how they preceded with

cooperatives techniques first and a more detailed description of the differences

afterwards.

Their organisation of the sessions was akin for every lesson and grade. They allow

themselves an initial thirty-minute session to provide the students with the main notions

they would need to work on and to inform them in advance about how upcoming classes

would run on the grounds of Cooperative Learning. Sessions are all organised equally:

five groups of four to five people will be made, just as desks will be put together

conforming five thematic corners. Thus, each corner will be devoted to one activity

straightforwardly related to the lesson itself; in this case, Maths and Spanish. Students

will have to deal with every each activity working cooperatively with the colleagues of

their group. By the end of each lesson, which usually lasts two days, –occasionally

three– students should have undergone and resolved all of the corners, writing the

27%

46%

17%

7% 3%

1 2 3 4 5

17%

33% 40%

10% 0%

1 2 3 4 5

14

conclusions they are asked to on their notebooks. Liaising with other groups will be

allowed only when co-workers are incapable of providing any help; by the same token,

asking the teacher will only be allowed when none of the groups can help. When the

corner sessions are over, there will be one more session in which a test will be made.

Concerning the grades, they will be given following a certain set of criteria, which was

stablished a priori. Fundamentally, these criteria are built taking into account the

correctness of the test answers as well as the suitable fulfilling of all the skills stemming

from the Cooperative Learning theoretical background, namely, positive

interdependence, individual accountability, promotive interaction, group processing and

the development of small-group interpersonal skills. In order to grade these in a

successful manner, they had, at least, two teachers per class, which allowed strict and

close monitoring of the various activities. Added to these two teachers, and provided

that there was a special-need student (SPNS) in the class, they counted on a therapeutic

teacher as well. Their objective was to ensure that the SPNS performed adequately and

to prevent, should necessary, outburst of rage or sadness. This was due to the fact that,

in some of the cases, special-need students can be quite unstable, emotionally speaking.

This issue will be furtherly tackled in upcoming sections of this paper.

After providing an overall outline of their procedure, it would be interesting to provide a

more detailed explanation for each class.

4.3.1. Fourth grade Maths I

This class consisted of twenty five ten-year-old children. The content they were being

taught was measures, weight and height. The way they functioned was following the

aforementioned system of five corners, which, in this case, were called ¨Balance it¨,

¨Measure it¨, ¨Solve it¨, ¨Resolve it¨ and ¨Google it¨. The first minutes of the class were

for the teacher to explain what the new corners consisted in to the students.

Additionally, the teacher would tell the students what they were supposed to achieve by

the end of the lesson. After the explanation, students would take the lead of their own

learning.

When in the Balance it corner, students counted with an actual regulated balance and

with weights. Making good use of it, they had to weight up personal objects, such as

pencil cases, rubbers, watches and so on. Plus, they had to write down the results and

order them from the highest to the lowest, comparing theirs with their colleagues.

15

When facing the Measure it corner, their task was to measure their height, their peers’

and one of the teachers’; to do so, they were provided with a metric tape. Last of all,

they had to write down the results and to organise them from the highest to the lowest.

The Resolve it corner consisted in the solving of a certain mathematic operation,

namely, a square root or a fraction operation. The had to work in conjunction with each

other, explaining the steps by which the operation had to be solved and writing down

the solutions they would get.

The Solve it corner was very close-related to the Resolve it one, since it consisted of a

problem that was posed to the students, who had to work along with their peers in order

to solve it. However, as it happened with the previous corner, they also ought to

collaborate with each other, showing the logic, steps and operation behind the

problematic itself to each other.

The last corner was the Tablet it corner. Within this corner, tablets were available and

distributed among each of the group members. Hence, students needed to experience the

notions they had learnt –weight, height, data comparison, shapes and so on– by means

of a practical activity. Albeit theoretical in the sense that math content was aimed at,

this corner was, by all accounts, the most entertaining, since they played short games

available at official, educational websites.

Once they had finished, they made sure everything was properly allocated so that the

next group would find it as clean and organised as they did, showing tremendous care

for their colleagues process of learning.

Here, the results of the tabulation lay:

Table 1. Fourth grade of Primary: Maths class I.

Fourth grade of Primary - Maths class I

Identifier Balance

it Measure it

Resolve

it Solve it Tablet it

Positive interdependence 5 5 5 5 5

Individual accountability 5 5 5 5 5

Promotive interaction 5 4 5 5 5

Group processing 5 4 4 4 5

Development of interpersonal skills 5 4 4 4 5

Noise 4 3 5 5 4

Time 4 5 5 5 5

16

The data extracted from the table shows that this class functioned outstandingly in all

evaluated aspects of Cooperative Learning.

When it came down to the academic realisations, however, students were, at least

initially, a bit at a loss. It was evident that the task was difficult for all of them, and yet

every each individual proved to care about their learning; they all felt the need to

contribute to the group and to help their friends; all of them felt an intrinsic motivation

in both the task and the cooperation itself; they all made an effort to get along better

than they already did in order to solve the problematic and, most importantly, they all

took the task seriously and wrote down consequent, pertinent solutions.

Of outstanding importance is the fact that, within this class, there was a SPNS who

needed partial curricular adaptation. His problem had the grounds on a Pervasive

Developmental Disorder (PDD) and prevented him from socializing and from

communicating naturally or successfully. More particularly, he suffered from a

relatively high level of autism, finding it tremendously difficult to experience any sort

interpersonal interaction. This notwithstanding, his performance, and their colleagues’

towards him, was stunning in the sense that he would be an indispensable part of the

group: he collaborated, contributed and experienced positive socialization.

4.3.2. Fourth grade Maths II

As for the second group –also a fourth year of Maths–, the outline bears much

resemblance. It is to realize that the activities and the overall procedure of applying

Cooperative Learning were the same. This notwithstanding, finding two groups which

react equally to the same learning methodology is, at the very least, unlikely. These two,

albeit similar, are no exception.

Regarding the skills most directly related to Cooperative Learning, it needs to be

mentioned that their performance was most satisfactory. On this line of thinking, it

should be taken into fair consideration how students had a vested interest in the

development of their own learning, getting immerse into every factor connected to it.

This way, they genuinely felt the need to contribute to their group individually, to help

their partners, to negotiate contents. All this was made with utmost sympathy and good

manners. This can be observed in the data table:

17

Table 2. Fourth grade of Primary: Maths class II.

Fourth grade of Primary - Maths class II

Identifier Balance it Measure

it Resolve it Solve it

Tablet

it

Positive interdependence 5 5 5 5 5

Individual accountability 5 3 5 5 4

Promotive interaction 5 4 5 5 5

Group processing 5 4 4 3 5

Development of interpersonal skills 5 4 3 3 5

Noise 3 4 5 5 5

Time 5 5 4 4 5

Of special importance is the presence of a SPNS. The nature of this student’s problem,

however, was quite different: he had his Somatic Nervous System damaged for a long

period of his scholar life, which not only brought about social problems with his

classmates and friends, but also learning as well as focusing difficulties. Consequently,

blending was truly challenging for him. Added to this, lack of concentration in any

academic activity posed a huge setback for him. As it happened with the previous case,

these students felt outstandingly reinforced by his colleagues, who helped him,

encouraged him and were by his side without hesitation.

4.3.3. Fifth grade Spanish I

When it comes to the running of Cooperative Learning methodology along a Spanish

class, it is always important to note how, although the procedure is a lot like in the case

of maths, some variances can be observed, especially on the academic area.

To begin with, it is important to clarify the corners of this subject as well as the way

students had to proceed with them. Quite as necessary as it was with Maths, five corners

were developed for Spanish. These were: ¨Write it¨, ¨Assemble it¨, ¨Analyse it¨, ¨Find

it¨ and ¨Tablet it¨.

The Write it corner consisted in writing a short argumentative text of about eighty

words, arguing for or against a given topic. Needless to say, this had to be done

cooperatively.

Also aiming at developing language skills, the Assemble it corner challenges the

students to put the paragraphs of a long text in order. To do that, each of the five

students of the group was given two or three paragraphs. Hence, they will have to read

18

them out loud and hear to their colleagues’ readings, so that they all, in conjunction with

each other, assembled it in order to conform the original text.

As for the Analyse it corner, it is interesting how students had to fulfil the task of

writing down a complete linguistic analysis of a given text, namely an article, an essay

or a story.

Concerning the Find it corner, it is to note how, developing their own linguistic ability,

students had to identify the text paragraphs fulfilling the different functions they were

given on a piece of paper.

The last corner was the Tablet it corner, where students had to use their tablets, just as

they did in Maths, to access the official websites their teachers had told them to in order

to do syntax, textual-organization or grammar exercises, fundamentally.

The data extracted from the experiment of observation indicates that the development of

Cooperative Learning features, namely, the five elements described by Johnson and

Johnson (1999), was an utter success. Hence, members of the group understood that

they had to learn together to accomplish the goal; they need each other for support,

explanations, and guidance. Additionally, they understood how each of them was held

responsible for their contribution to achieving goals and had to decide how to improve

their effectiveness. All this reflects on the pertinent table, drawn when conducting the

passive observation.

Table 3. Fifth grade of Primary. Spanish class I.

Fifth grade of Primary - Spanish class I

Identifier Write it Assemble

it Analyse it Find it

Tablet

it

Positive interdependence 5 5 5 5 5

Individual accountability 5 5 5 5 5

Promotive interaction 5 5 5 5 5

Group processing 5 5 5 5 4

Development of interpersonal skills 5 5 5 5 5

Noise 5 5 5 5 4

Time 4 5 5 5 5

When it comes to the academic realisations, it is to remark that students performed

superbly. It is widely known how Cooperative Learning have been used successfully to

19

promote ¨reading and writing achievements among middle school students,

understanding in science classes and problem solving in mathematics¨, to name just a

few (Gillies, 2007). However, it might as well be stated that Cooperative Learning

works better in language-like subjects. It seems only fair, after all, that interpersonal

skills are achieved better within subjects where communication is not only a means, but

also an end.

4.3.4. Fifth grade Spanish II

Being conducted equally upon a Spanish class, the outcomes of Cooperative Learning

seems to have little variance throughout different groups. This notwithstanding, no

group is alike. As a result of this, certain differences can be noted:

Table 4. Fifth grade of Primary. Spanish class II.

Fifth grade of Primary - Spanish class II

Identifier Write it Assemble

it Analyse it Find it Tablet it

Positive interdependence 5 5 5 5 5

Individual accountability 5 5 5 5 5

Promotive interaction 5 5 5 5 4

Group processing 5 4 3 4 3

Development of interpersonal skills 5 4 4 4 5

Noise 5 4 3 5 4

Time 4 5 5 5 4

Albeit positive, the results obtained in this class were not as shining as in the previous

one. Thus, some corners, such as the Analyse it one or the Tablet it one, showed a lower

level of success when it came down to students’ performance in relation to group

processing. The first of these corners also showed a level of noise that could be hardly

deaden by the professor’s attempts.

Apart from that, the performance of students was most promising in terms of both

academic and interpersonal skills.

5. Discussion of results and conclusions

5.1. Discussion

By seeing Cooperative Learning as a part of the relational work inherent in school social

interaction, the present paper has chosen to take a different perspective on this

20

methodology from those merely theoretical. Stemming from this is the idea that

Cooperative Learning needs to be analysed also inductively –that is, drawing

conclusions based on context-related data extracted from valid, relevant circumstances

in which Cooperative Learning is conducted.

Taking all this into fair consideration, it seems to be the case, at least initially, that the

key to the success of Cooperative Learning resides on its inclusive philosophy, in

addition to its practice. It is of course not a claim of this paper that its application or any

factor connected to it –such as teachers’ level of formation or learning tools– have little

importance. Both aspects build a continuum and there is certainly a grey area in the

middle where it is not possible to separate the two of them.

It could be maintained, on the same subject, that it is only by means of revisiting these

aspects in the pertinent context, that the difficulties of appliance experienced when

conducting Cooperative Learning will be entirely identified and outlined. After diving

deep into all the issues surrounding the aforementioned aspects, conclusions can be

drawn in relation to these difficulties. Thus, the data extracted from both questionnaires

and from the passive observation reflect various kinds of realisations.

To begin with, they first confirmation stemming from them is that teacher training

needs to be conducted prior to the application of Cooperative Learning per se. Teachers

themselves –with or without formation on such learning methodology– acknowledge

that they cannot afford to carry out such methodology without previous formation

courses (see figures 1. 2., 1. 3., 1. 4., and 2. 2., 2. 3., 2. 4).

Indeed, it is particularly interesting to realise how teachers who have no formation at all

show themselves to be rather sceptical about certain aspects of Cooperative Learning.

Thus, they seem to believe that its application would lead to certain noise and

behavioural consequences (see figure 1. 18). This notwithstanding, when it comes to the

opinion of trained teachers’ who have actually adopted the methodology, it can be

observed that this sort of problems are not as such or can be perfectly dealt with (see

figure 2. 18.).

The initial complexity of carrying out Cooperative Learning admittedly requires a sort

of knowledge that cannot be improvised. It is such level of complexion that accounts for

the teachers’ request that courses should be designed where dynamic teamwork

21

strategies, cooperative work, dialogue, participation and respect towards other’s opinion

are enhanced and put to practice (Pérez, 1999).

However, teachers’ training will be much more effective, if they actually show

willingness to the idea of adopting Cooperative Learning. Complying with the

educational times they lived, a considerably high number of teachers have received a

more individualistic education. Like them, most of the parents have undergone similar

educational contexts, so they probably share the same unevenness. This might account

for their reticence to adopt and accept, respectively, such innovative methodologies as

Cooperative Learning (Pérez, 1999). To deal with such reservations, it is compulsory

that the educational community as a whole keeps an open mind and raises awareness on

the promising outcomes of such methodology. A shift on the perspective is all it takes.

Of equal importance is the training of students, whose performance is straightforwardly

connected to the level of success of Cooperative Learning. This was demonstrated by

the passive observation, which showed a marked contrast between experienced students

and students who had hardly undergone this learning methodology.

Adopting cooperative learning methodologies successfully is, by all accounts, not an

easy task and has many inconveniences along the whole process. However, it is

maintained that, along with an adequate formation, many of these setbacks can become

strengths, quite paradoxically. Thus, the results of this study have proved how the lack

of social skills can be translated into the outstandingly positive development of certain

skills, such as positive interdependence or promotive interaction. By the same token, as

asserted by teachers in the open ended section of the second questionnaire, despite the

fact that student diversity or class management are two of the most challenging aspects

of Cooperative Learning, a proper formation would allow the teacher to handle both of

them with utmost adequacy. It can be asserted, thereby, that the dichotomy lying behind

the notion of Cooperative Learning is nothing but promising.

It is also asserted that, for Cooperative Learning to be successful, continuity –not only

throughout different subjects, but also along the different stages of education– is another

mandatory requirement (see figures 1. 6. and 2. 6.) It appears to be the case, at least

initially, that the satisfactory outcomes of the methodology –most evidently tangible at

the end of each educational stage– have a good lot of things to do with the adequate and

constant application of it.

22

When it comes down to the academic competences, it seems that Cooperative Learning

allows students to be a direct part of their own learning process and to reap the harvest

of their own effort. Hence, all students appeared to understand the notions gradually

over time, applying them correctly and with absolute determination. Central to this

achievement is the philosophy lying behind Cooperative Learning. It seems to be the

inclusive side of it that allows students to get involved, to grow and to develop

themselves in a whole set of different manners. As acknowledged by Johnson & R.

Johnson (2003), ¨cooperative learning creates a group ethos where students realize that

members will work to help and support their endeavours, and it is the sense of group

cohesion that develops that enhances students’ motivation to achieve both their own and

the group’s goals¨.

5.2. Conclusions

Taking all this into consideration, and being aware of the limitations of this study, the

fact that some aspects of Cooperative Learning are regarded as challenging cannot be

undermined. In relation these aspects, the foregone conclusion would seem to be that

there is an existing need of specific training or formation that has to be addressed. It is

precisely the satisfaction of this need that would make Cooperative Learning much

more accessible for teachers and, most importantly, for students. It appears to be the

case that, after this initial difficulty is overcome, downsides will become upsides and

the implementation of such learning methodology will be much easier. Albeit difficult

to implement, the inescapable truth seems to be, therefore, that Cooperative Learning is

a positive methodological approach to learning.

Hence, not only are the results extracted from the questionnaires most favourable to

these claims, but also an expansion as well as a confirmation of them. Thus, despite the

reticence observed in some members of the educational community, Cooperative

Learning is nothing but a story of success. It is the philosophy lying behind it that needs

to be underpinned, espoused and, most importantly, embraced.

6. Limitations

One first limitation would be the fact that none of the questionnaires has been officially

validated. Although both were designed specifically to meet the purposes of this study

and aim at relevant issues connected to it, they are most likely flawed. Indeed, Item 5

23

(SEE APENDIX II) turned out to be a bit problematic, as some contestants remarked on

the fact that, even though their colleagues had formation on Cooperative Learning, they

did not apply it correctly or, rather, correspondingly to their formation. Thus, that

particular question could be reformulated.

Another apparent limitation is that his monograph draws on data extracted from the

observation as well as the handing in of questionnaires within a few schools throughout

Madrid. Consequently, it would seem unethical to dispute the fact that the relevance of

the sample might not be completely reliable. To confirm the possible conclusions, a

follow-up research would need to be carried out.

24

7. Bibliography

Bisquerra, R. (2009). Metodología de la invesigación educativa. Madrid: Editorial

Muralla.

Bourner, T. (1997). Teaching methods for learning outcomes. Education and Training,

345.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.

Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Gavilán, P., & Alario, R. (2010). Aprendizaje cooperativo. Una metodología con futuro.

Principios y aplicaciones. . Madrid: CCS.

Gillies, R. M. (2007). Cooperative Learning. Integrating. Theory and Practice. Los

Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Hennessey, Á., & Dionigi, R. (2013). Implementing cooperative learning in Australian

primary schools: Generalist teachers' perspectives. Issues in Educational

Research., 52-68.

Imbernón, F. (2007). 10 ideas clave. La formación permanente del profesorado. Nuevas

ideas para formaren la innovación y el cambio. Barcelona: Grao.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Anderson, D. (1976). Effects of Cooperative versus

Individualized Instruction on Student Prosodical Behavior. Attitude towards

Learning and Achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 446-452.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative Learning:

Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity. Washington D. C.: ERIC.

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1999). Learning together and alone. Cooperative,

competitive and individualistic learning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2003). Student motivation in cooperative groups: Social

interdependence theory. In R. Gillies, & A. Ashman, Cooperative learning: The

social and intelectual outcomes of learning in groups (pp. 136-176). London:

RoutledegeFalmer.

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An Educational Psychology Success story: Social

Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning.

Johnson, D., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of

Cooperative, Competitive and Individualistic Goal Structures on Achievement:

A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 47-62.

25

Johnson, R., & Roseth, C. (2008). Promoting Early Adolescents' Acheivement and Peer

Relationships: The Effects of Cooperative, and Individualistic Goal Structures.

American Psychological Association, 223-246.

Keritha , M. (2009). Attitude of Students Towards Cooperative Learning Methods at

Knox Community. Jamaica.

Kewley, L. (1998). Peer collaboration versus teacher directed instruction: how two

methodologies engage students in the learning process. Journal of Research in

Childhood Education, 27-32.

Lasley, T. J., & Omstein, A. C. (2000). Strategies for effective teaching. McGraw-Hill.

León del Barco, B. (2002). Elementos mediadores en la eficacia del aprendizaje

cooperativo: entrenamientos en habilidades sociales y dinámica del grupo.

Cáceres.

Ovejero, A. (1990). El aprendizaje cooperativo. Una alternativa eficaz a la enseñanza

tradicional. Barcelona: PPU.

Pérez , M. (1999). ¿Qué necesidades de formación perciben los profesores? Tendencias

pedagógicas, 7-24.

Pujolàs, P. (2001). Atención a la diversidad y aprendizaje cooperativo en la educación

obligatoria. . Archidona: Ediciones Arjibe.

Pujolàs, P. (2002). Enseñar juntos a alumnos diferentes. La atención a la diversidad y

la calidad en educación. Zaragoza: Psicopedagogía de la Universidad de Vic.

Pujolàs, P. (2008). 9 ideas clave. El aprendizaje cooperativo. Barcelona: Grao.

Qin, Z., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and

problem solving. Review of Educational Research Summer, 129-143.

Skon, L., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1981). Cooperative Peer Interaction Versus

Individual Competition and Individualistic Effort: Effects on the Acquisition of

Cognitive Reasoning Strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83-92.

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning. Theory, research and practice. Boston:

Allyn & Bacon.

Smith, K., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1981). Can Conflic Be Constructive?

Controversy Versus Concurrence Seeking in Learning Groups. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 651-663.

Torrego, J., & Negro, A. (2012). Aprendizaje cooperativo en las aulas. Fundamentos y

recursos para su implantación. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.

26

8. Appendices

8.1.Appendix I: Questionnaire I: Teachers perception of Cooperative Learning

Cuestionario sobre la percepción del profesorado del Aprendizaje Cooperativo

A continuación, le presentamos unas afirmaciones en relación a la aplicación de métodos de enseñanza de trabajo cooperativo dentro del

aula. Exprese su grado de conformidad con tales afirmaciones, señalando con un círculo uno de los valores, siendo:

1=No estoy nada de acuerdo; 2= No estoy de acuerdo; 3=No estoy ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo; 4=Estoy de acuerdo; 5=Estoy muy de

acuerdo

Nº Ítem Puntuación

1 Considero muy interesante la idea de adoptar metodologías de enseñanza basadas en el trabajo cooperativo. 1 2 3 4 5

2 Entiendo y controlo las técnicas del Aprendizaje Cooperativo suficientemente bien como para aplicarlas de

forma exitosa. 1 2 3 4 5

3 He recibido cursos de formación sobre el Aprendizaje Cooperativo. 1 2 3 4 5

4 Creo que, para implementar de forma exitosa metodologías de enseñanza basadas en el trabajo

cooperativo, sería útil o necesario recibir primero formación al respecto. 1 2 3 4 5

5 Mis compañeros han recibido cursos de formación o controlan las técnicas del Aprendizaje Cooperativo

suficientemente bien como para aplicarlas de forma exitosa. 1 2 3 4 5

6 Entiendo la importancia de que dichas metodologías se lleven a cabo de forma consistente en las distintas

etapas formativas que aborda mi centro educativo. 1 2 3 4 5

7 Estoy convencido de que todos podemos aprender de todos. 1 2 3 4 5

8 El Aprendizaje Cooperativo es una metodología muy bien valorada por la comunicad educativa y que

promete buenos resultados dentro del ámbito de la enseñanza. 1 2 3 4 5

9 Aplicar técnicas de aprendizaje basadas en el trabajo cooperativo fomenta de forma positiva la actitud de

los estudiantes hacia su aprendizaje. 1 2 3 4 5

10 Si mis alumnos trabajaran de forma cooperativa, las relaciones interpersonales entre ellos mejorarían. 1 2 3 4 5

11 Considero que adoptar técnicas de aprendizaje basadas en el trabajo cooperativo favorecería a la

integración en la clase de alumnos con necesidades especiales. 1 2 3 4 5

12 Considero que adoptar técnicas de aprendizaje basadas en el trabajo cooperativo convertiría a mis alumnos

en estudiantes más ambiciosos. 1 2 3 4 5

13 Considero que adoptar técnicas de aprendizaje basadas en el trabajo cooperativo fomentaría que mis

alumnos desarrollasen un sentido de corresponsabilidad de cara a sus compañeros. 1 2 3 4 5

14 Considero que adoptar técnicas de aprendizaje basadas en el trabajo cooperativo supondría el desarrollo

de capacidades sociales e interpersonales. 1 2 3 4 5

15

Considero que adoptar técnicas de aprendizaje basadas en el trabajo cooperativo ayudaría a mis estudiantes

a desarrollar o mejorar ciertas habilidades como la de colaborar, argumentar o resolver conflictos grupales,

entre otras.

1 2 3 4 5

16 Considero que adoptar técnicas de aprendizaje basadas en el trabajo cooperativo aportaría nuevas ideas y

perspectivas a todos los alumnos. 1 2 3 4 5

17 Hablando en términos generales, el trabajo cooperativo tiene más ventajas que el meramente individual. 1 2 3 4 5

18 Considero que utilizar técnicas del trabajo cooperativo conllevaría ciertos problemas de disciplina dentro

del aula. 1 2 3 4 5

19 Considero que el trabajo cooperativo le da demasiada importancia a las habilidades sociales, dejando

menos espacio para las competencias académicas. 1 2 3 4 5

20 Considero que utilizar técnicas de aprendizaje basadas en el trabajo cooperativo de forma consistente a lo

largo del curso no permitiría cubrir todo temario que se me requiere. 1 2 3 4 5

21 Aplicar Aprendizaje Cooperativo lleva demasiado tiempo de clase. 1 2 3 4 5

22 Aplicar Aprendizaje Cooperativo en mi asignatura sería más difícil de conseguir que en otras.

(En caso positivo, especifique asignatura________________________________) 1 2 3 4 5

23 Llevar a cabo Aprendizaje Cooperativo supone más esfuerzo que aplicar otras metodologías de enseñanza

más tradicionales. 1 2 3 4 5

24 El Aprendizaje Cooperativo es menos eficaz que aplicar otras metodologías de enseñanza más

tradicionales. 1 2 3 4 5

25 Considero que realizar estudios y análisis sobre estrategias de aprendizaje tan innovativas como el

Aprendizaje Cooperativo es relevante para la comunidad educativa. 1 2 3 4 5

27

8.2. Appendix II: Questionnaire II: Teachers level of formation and experience with Cooperative Learning

Cuestionario sobre la formación y la experiencia del profesorado con el Aprendizaje Cooperativo

A continuación, le presentamos unas afirmaciones en relación a la aplicación de métodos de enseñanza de trabajo cooperativo dentro del

aula. Exprese su grado de conformidad con tales afirmaciones, señalando con un círculo uno de los valores, siendo:

1=No estoy nada de acuerdo; 2= No estoy de acuerdo; 3=No estoy ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo; 4=Estoy de acuerdo; 5=Estoy muy de

acuerdo

Nº Ítem Puntuación

1 Considero muy interesante la idea de adoptar metodologías de enseñanza basadas en el trabajo

cooperativo. 1 2 3 4 5

2 Entiendo y controlo las técnicas del Aprendizaje Cooperativo suficientemente bien como para aplicarlas

de forma exitosa. 1 2 3 4 5

3 He recibido cursos de formación sobre el Aprendizaje Cooperativo. 1 2 3 4 5

4 Creo que, para implementar de forma exitosa metodologías de enseñanza basadas en el trabajo

cooperativo, es útil o necesario recibir primero formación al respecto. 1 2 3 4 5

5 Mis compañeros han recibido cursos de formación o controlan las técnicas del Aprendizaje Cooperativo

suficientemente bien como para aplicarlas de forma exitosa. 1 2 3 4 5

6 Entiendo la importancia de que dichas metodologías se lleven a cabo de forma consistente en las distintas

etapas formativas que aborda mi centro educativo. 1 2 3 4 5

7 Estoy convencido de que todos podemos aprender de todos. 1 2 3 4 5

8 El Aprendizaje Cooperativo es una metodología muy bien valorada por la comunicad educativa y que

promete buenos resultados dentro del ámbito de la enseñanza. 1 2 3 4 5

9 Aplicar Aprendizaje Cooperativo fomenta de forma positiva la actitud de los estudiantes hacia su

aprendizaje. 1 2 3 4 5

10 Cuando mis alumnos trabajan de forma cooperativa, las relaciones interpersonales entre ellos mejoran. 1 2 3 4 5

11 Considero que llevar a cabo Aprendizaje Cooperativo favorece a la integración en la clase de alumnos con

necesidades especiales. 1 2 3 4 5

12 Considero que implementar Aprendizaje Cooperativo convierte a mis alumnos en estudiantes más

ambiciosos. 1 2 3 4 5

13 Considero que implementar Aprendizaje Cooperativo fomenta que mis alumnos desarrollen un sentido de

corresponsabilidad de cara a sus compañeros. 1 2 3 4 5

14 Considero que llevar a cabo Aprendizaje Cooperativo supone el desarrollo de capacidades sociales e

interpersonales. 1 2 3 4 5

15 Considero que implementar Aprendizaje Cooperativo ayuda a mis estudiantes a desarrollar o mejorar

ciertas habilidades como la de colaborar, argumentar o resolver conflictos grupales, entre otras. 1 2 3 4 5

16 Considero que adoptar técnicas de aprendizaje basadas en el trabajo cooperativo aporta nuevas ideas y

perspectivas a todos los alumnos. 1 2 3 4 5

17 Hablando en términos generales, el Aprendizaje Cooperativo tiene más ventajas que el meramente

individual. 1 2 3 4 5

18 Considero que el Aprendizaje Cooperativo conlleva ciertos problemas de disciplina dentro del aula. 1 2 3 4 5

19 Considero que el Aprendizaje Cooperativo le da demasiada importancia a las habilidades sociales,

dejando menos espacio para las competencias académicas. 1 2 3 4 5

20 Considero que utilizar Aprendizaje Cooperativo de forma consistente a lo largo del curso no permitiría

cubrir todo temario que se me requiere. 1 2 3 4 5

21 Aplicar Aprendizaje Cooperativo lleva demasiado tiempo de clase. 1 2 3 4 5

22 Aplicar Aprendizaje Cooperativo en mi asignatura es más difícil de conseguir que en otras.

(En caso positivo, especifique asignatura________________________________) 1 2 3 4 5

23 Llevar a cabo Aprendizaje Cooperativo supone más esfuerzo que aplicar otras metodologías de enseñanza

más tradicionales. 1 2 3 4 5

24 El Aprendizaje Cooperativo es menos eficaz que aplicar otras metodologías de enseñanza más

tradicionales. 1 2 3 4 5

25 Considero que realizar estudios y análisis sobre estrategias de aprendizaje tan innovativas como el

Aprendizaje Cooperativo es relevante para la comunidad educativa. 1 2 3 4 5

¿Cuál cree que es la mayor fortaleza de esta metodología de aprendizaje? De igual manera, ¿cuál cree que es su mayor limitación?

¿Hay algún aspecto del Aprendizaje Cooperativo que considere que necesita especial formación o todos los aspectos requieren más o menos

la misma?

28

8.3.Appendix III: Table: Passive observation

Grade - Subject

Identifier Write it Assemble

it Analyse it Find it Tablet it

Positive interdependence Qualifier 1-5 Qualifier 1-5 Qualifier 1-5 Qualifier 1-5 Qualifier 1-5

Individual accountability Qualifier 1-5 Qualifier 1-5 Qualifier 1-5 Qualifier 1-5 Qualifier 1-5

Promotive interaction Qualifier 1-5 Qualifier 1-5 Qualifier 1-5 Qualifier 1-5 Qualifier 1-5

Group processing Qualifier 1-5 Qualifier 1-5 Qualifier 1-5 Qualifier 1-5 Qualifier 1-5

Development of interpersonal skills Qualifier 1-5 Qualifier 1-5 Qualifier 1-5 Qualifier 1-5 Qualifier 1-5

Noise Qualifier 1-5 Qualifier 1-5 Qualifier 1-5 Qualifier 1-5 Qualifier 1-5

Time Qualifier 1-5 Qualifier 1-5 Qualifier 1-5 Qualifier 1-5 Qualifier 1-5

29

8.4. Appendix IV: Graphs I: Results of questionnaire I

Figure 1. 1. Item 1: Interested in CL Figure 1. 2. Item 2: Level of dominance Figure 1. 3. Item 3: Level of formation

Figure 1. 4. Item 4: Formation relevance Figure 1. 5. Item 5: Peer formation Figure 1. 6. Item 6: Consistency relevance

Figure 1. 7. Item 7: Philosophy I Figure 1. 8. Item 8: Perception of CL Figure 1. 9. Item 9: Student attitude

Figure 1. 10. Item 10: Interpersonal relationships Figure 1. 11. Item 11: SPNS integration Figure 1. 12. Item 12: Increasing ambition

0% 0% 0%

45% 55%

1 2 3 4 5

20%

40% 20%

18% 2%

1 2 3 4 5

6%

17%

30% 32%

15%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 0% 2%

38% 60%

1 2 3 4 5

11%

32% 27%

18%

12%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 5%

22%

30%

43%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 0% 0%

30%

70%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 0% 15%

40%

45%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 2% 3%

45% 50%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 2% 10%

41%

47%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 0%

5%

18%

77%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 3%

30%

44%

23%

1 2 3 4 5

30

Figure 1. 13. Item 13: Corresponsability Figure 1. 14. Item 14: Social skills betterment Figure 1. 15. Item 15

Figure 1. 16. Item 16: New perspective s Figure 1. 17. Item 17: Philosophy II Figure 1. 18. Item 18: Disciplinary issues

Figure 1. 19. Item 19: Academic insufficiencies Figure 1. 20. Item 20: Curriculum impossibility Figure 1. 21. Item 21: Time-consuming

Figure 1. 22. Item 22: Subject individuality Figure 1. 23. Item 23: Difficulty of adoption Figure 1. 24. Item 24: Less effective

Figure 1. 25. Item 25: Relevance of study .

0% 0% 3%

47% 50%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 0% 2%

41% 57%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 0% 2%

38% 60%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 0% 10%

43%

47%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 0% 12%

40%

48%

1 2 3 4 5

10%

15%

27% 36%

12%

1 2 3 4 5

8%

34%

20%

33%

5%

1 2 3 4 5

3% 15%

23% 44%

15%

1 2 3 4 5

7%

20%

27% 41%

5%

1 2 3 4 5

8%

36% 31%

15%

10%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 0% 5%

42% 53%

1 2 3 4 5

27%

48%

20%

2% 3%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 0% 5%

42% 53%

1 2 3 4 5

31

8.5. Appendix V: Graphs II: Results of questionnaire II

Figure 2. 1. Item 1: Interested in CL Figure 2. 2. Item 2: Level of dominance Figure 2. 3. Item 3: Level of formation

Figure 2. 4. Item 4: Formation relevance Figure 2. 5. Item 5: Peer formation Figure 2. 6. Item 6: Consistency relevance

Figure 2. 7. Item 7: Philosophy I Figure 2. 8. Item 8: Perception of CL Figure 2. 9. Item 9: Student attitude

Figure 2. 10. Item 10: Interpersonal relationships Figure 2. 11. Item 11: SPNS integration Figure 2. 12. Item 12: Increasing ambition

0% 0% 0%

57%

43%

1 2 3 4 5

0%

0%

10%

60%

30%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 0% 3%

44% 53%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 0% 0% 27%

73%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 0% 10%

50%

40%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 0% 0%

57%

43%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 0% 0%

30%

70%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 0% 10%

43%

47%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 0% 10%

43%

47%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 0% 13%

40%

47%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 0% 0%

67%

33%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 3% 17%

43%

37%

1 2 3 4 5

32

Figure 2. 13. Item 13: Corresponsability Figure 2. 14. Item 14: Social skills betterment Figure 2. 15. Item 15

Figure 2. 16. Item 16: New perspective s Figure 2. 17. Item 17: Philosophy II Figure 2. 18. Item 18: Disciplinary issues

Figure 2. 19. Item 19: Academic insufficiencies Figure 2. 20. Item 20: Curriculum impossibility Figure 2. 21. Item 21: Time-consuming

Figure 2. 22. Item 22: Subject individuality Figure 2. 23. Item 23: Difficulty of adoption Figure 2. 24. Item 24: Less effective

Figure 2. 25. Item 25: Relevance of study

0% 0% 3%

37%

60%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 0% 13%

37%

50%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 3% 13%

34% 50%

1 2 3 4 5

3% 10%

30%

30%

27%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 0% 17%

43%

40%

1 2 3 4 5

13%

30%

40%

17% 0%

1 2 3 4 5

13%

40% 23%

17% 7%

1 2 3 4 5

27%

46%

17%

7% 3%

1 2 3 4 5

17%

33% 40%

10% 0%

1 2 3 4 5

17%

30%

20%

30%

3%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 7% 17%

33%

43%

1 2 3 4 5

27%

53%

20% 0% 0%

1 2 3 4 5

0% 0% 6%

27%

67%

1 2 3 4 5