Cooperative learning and approach goals in physical educationThe discriminant role of individual accountability

  1. Sergio Rivera Pérez 1
  2. Benito León del Barco 1
  3. Jerónimo González Bernal 2
  4. Damián Iglesias Gallego 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Extremadura

    Universidad de Extremadura

    Badajoz, España


  2. 2 Universidad de Burgos

    Universidad de Burgos

    Burgos, España


Revista de psicodidáctica

ISSN: 1136-1034

Year of publication: 2021

Volume: 26

Issue: 1

Pages: 78-85

Type: Article

DOI: 10.1016/J.PSICOE.2020.11.001 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor


The aim of the present study is two-fold: (a) to analyze whether the cooperative learning (CL) factors discriminate the different approach goals of the 3 × 2 achievement goals model and, consequently, (b) to assess the role that can play educational stage. A total of 1292 students participate (660 men and 632 women) belonging to the educational stages of primary (580), secondary (531) and baccalaureate (181), with ages between 10 and 19 years (M = 13.05, SD = 2.45). The CAC and CML 3 × 2-EF questionnaires are administered as data collection instruments. The results of the discriminant analysis have shown that the cooperative learning factors are predictors of the approach goals, highlighting the individual responsibility factor for the task-approach goals (TAG) and self-approach goals (SAG), this being the least discriminant for the other-approach goals (OAG). In addition, the results of the decision tree analysis indicate that in primary education, secondary education and baccalaureate, the students with the highest level in TAG and SAG are those that score the highest in individual responsibility. These findings reflect the importance of individual responsibility so that physical education students show more adaptive patterns such as TAG and SAG.

Bibliographic References

  • 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), 241–249.
  • Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structure, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271. 10.1037%2F0022-0663.84.3.261
  • Belando, N., Férriz-Morel, R., Rivas, S., Almagro, B., Sáenz-López, P., Cervelló, E., y Moreno-Murcia, J. A. (2015). Sport commitment in adolescent soccer players. Motricidade, 11(4), 3–14.
  • Bores-García, D., Hortigüela-Alcalá, D., Fernández-Rio, J., González-Calvo, G., y Barba-Martín, R. (2020). Research on cooperative learning in physical education. Systematic review of the last five years. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 1–10.
  • Carbonero, M. A., Martín-Antón, L. J., Monsalvo, E., y Valdivieso, J. A. (2015). School performance and personal attitudes and social responsibility in preadolescent students. Anales de Psicología, 31(3), 990–999.
  • Casey, A., Goodyear, V., y Dyson, B. (2015). Model fidelity and students’ responses to an authenticated unit of cooperative learning. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 34(4), 642–660.
  • Cecchini, J. A., Fernández-Rio, J., Méndez-Giménez, A., González, C., SánchezMartínez, B., y Carriedo, A. (2020). High versus low-structured cooperative learning. Effects on prospective teachers’ regulation dominance, motivation, content knowledge and responsibility. European Journal of Teacher Education, 1–16.
  • Conroy, D. E., Kaye, M. P., y Coatsworth, J. D. (2006). Coaching climates and the destructive effects of mastery-avoidance achievement goals on situational motivation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 28, 69–92.
  • Darnis, F., y 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), 459–473.
  • Declaración de Helsinki de la Asamblea Médica Mundial. Principios éticos para las investigaciones médicas en seres humanos. 64.a Asamblea General, Fortaleza, Brasil. (2013).
  • Diseth, A. (2015). The advantages of task-based and other-based achievement goals as standards of competence. International Journal of Educational Research, 72, 59–69.
  • Dyson, B. P., Colby, R., y Barrat, M. (2016). The co-construction of cooperative learning in physical education with elementary classroom teachers. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 35, 370–380.
  • Elliot, A. J., y Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 461–475.
  • Elliot, A. J., Murayama, K., y Pekrun, R. (2011). A 3 × 2 achievement goal model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 632–648.
  • Fernandez-Rio, J., y Casey, A. (2020). Sport education as a cooperative learning endeavour. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 1–13.
  • Fernandez-Rio, J., Cecchini, J. A., Méndez-Giménez, A., Méndez-Alonso, D., y Prieto, J. A. (2017). Diseño y validación de un cuestionario de medición del aprendizaje cooperativo en contextos educativos. Anales de Psicología, 33(3), 680–688.
  • Fernández-Rio, J., Cecchini, J. A., Merino-Barrero, J. A., y Valero-Valenzuela, A. (2019). Perceived Classroom Responsibility Climate Questionnaire: A new scale. Psicothema, 31(4), 475–481.
  • Fernández-Rio, J., Sanz, N., Fernández-Cando, J., y Santos, L. (2017). Impact of a sustained cooperative learning intervention on student motivation. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 22(1), 89–105.
  • Gorucu, A. (2016). The investigation of the effects of physical education lessons planned in accordance with cooperative learning approach on secondary school students’ problem solving skills. Educational Research and Reviews, 11(10), 998–1007.
  • Johnson, D. W., y Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Interaction Book Company.
  • Johnson, D. W., y Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning. Allyn & Bacon.
  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., y Holubec, E. J. (1999). Los nuevos círculos del aprendizaje. La cooperación en el aula y la escuela. Aique.
  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., y Holubec, E. J. (2013). Cooperation in the classroom (9th edition). Interaction Book Company.
  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., y Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. University of Minnesota.
  • Kyndt, E., Raes, E., Lismont, B., Timmers, F., Cascallar, E., y 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, 133–149.
  • Manzano, D., y Valero-Valenzuela, A. (2019). El modelo de responsabilidad personal y social (MRPS) en las diferentes materias de la Educación Primaria y su repercusión en la responsabilidad, autonomía, motivación, autoconcepto y clima social. Journal of Sport & Health Research, 11(3), 273–288.
  • Méndez-Giménez, A., Cecchini-Estrada, J. A., y Fernandez-Rio, J. (2014). Examinando el modelo de metas de logro 3 × 2 en el contexto de la Educación Física. Cuadernos de Psicología del Deporte, 14(3), 157–168.
  • Méndez-Giménez, A., Cecchini, J. A., Fernández-Rio, J., Méndez-Alonso, D., y PrietoSaborit, J. A. (2017). Metas de logro 3 × 2, motivación autodeterminada y satisfacción con la vida en Educación Secundaria. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 22(2), 150–156.
  • Méndez-Giménez, A., Cecchini, J. A., Méndez-Alonso, D., Prieto, J. A., y Fernández-Río, J. (2018). Efecto de las metas de logro y las estructuras de metas de clase 3 × 2 en la motivación autodeterminada: un análisis multinivel en educación secundaria. Anales de Psicología, 34(1), 52–62.
  • Méndez-Giménez, A., Fernández-Rio, J., y Cecchini-Estrada, J. A. (2012). Análisis de un modelo multiteórico de metas de logro, metas de amistad y autodeterminación en educación física. Estudios de Psicología, 33(3), 325–336.
  • Méndez-Giménez, A., García-Romero, C., y Cecchini-Estrada, J. A. (2018). Metas de logro 3 × 2, amistad y afecto en Educación Física: diferencias edad-sexo. Revista Internacional de Medicina y Ciencias de la Actividad Física y el Deporte, 18(72), 637–653.
  • Menéndez, J. I., y Fernández-Rio, J. (2017). Responsabilidad social, necesidades psicológicas básicas, motivación intrínseca y metas de amistad en educación física. Retos. Nuevas Tendencias en Educación Física, Deportes y Recreación, 32, 134–139.
  • Merino-Barrero, J. A., Valero-Valenzuela, A., y Belando, N. (2019). Self-determinated psychosocial consequences through the promotion of responsibility in physical education. Revista Internacional de Medicina y Ciencias de la Actividad Física y el Deporte, 19(75), 415–430.
  • Moreno-Murcia, J. A., Huéscar, E., y Cervelló, E. (2012). Prediction of adolescents doing physical activity after completing secondary education. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 90–100. sjop.2012.v15.n1.37288
  • Nicholls, J. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Harvard University Press.
  • O’Leary, N., Wattison, N., Edwards, T., y Bryan, K. (2015). Closing the theorypractice gap: Physical education students’ use of jigsaw learning in a secondary school. European Physical Education Review, 21(2), 176–194.
  • Ruiz-Juan, F., y Baena-Extremera, A. (2015). Predicción de las metas de logro en Educación Física a partir de la satisfacción, la motivación y las creencias de éxito en el deporte. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología del Ejercicio y el Deporte, 10(2), 193–203.
  • Sánchez-Hernández, N., Martos-García, D., Soler, S., y Flintoff, A. (2018). Challenging gender relations in physical education through cooperative learning and critical reflection. Sport, Education and Society, 23(8), 812–823.
  • Slavin, R. E. (1990). Point-counterpoint: Ability grouping, cooperative learning and the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14(1), 3–8.
  • Smith, M., Duda, J. L., Allen, J., y Hall, H. K. (2002). Contemporary measures of approach and avoidance goal orientations: Similarities and differences. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 155–190.
  • Wallhead, T., y Dyson, B. (2017). A didactic analysis of content development during cooperative learning in primary physical education. European Physical Education Review, 23(3), 311–326.