View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Sport Education as a Cooperative Learning Endeavour

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Sport Education as a Cooperative Learning Endeavour
Language: English
Authors: Fernandez-Rio, Javier (ORCID 0000-0002-1368-3723), Casey, Ashley (ORCID 0000-0002-8232-5727)
Source: Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2021 26(4):375-387.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2021
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: High Schools
Secondary Education
Elementary Education
Grade 8
Junior High Schools
Middle Schools
Descriptors: Athletics, Physical Education, Cooperative Learning, Teaching Methods, High School Students, Grade 8, Team Sports, Conventional Instruction, Instructional Effectiveness, Student Attitudes, Interpersonal Competence, Group Dynamics, Interaction, Accountability, Cooperation, Foreign Countries
Geographic Terms: Spain
DOI: 10.1080/17408989.2020.1810220
ISSN: 1740-8989
Abstract: Background: A number of studies have contemplated aspects of cooperative learning that might emerge from a unit of sport education [Dyson, B., L. L. Griffin, and P. Hastie. 2004. "Sport Education, Tactical Games, and Cooperative Learning: Theoretical and Pedagogical Considerations." "Quest" 56 (2): 226-240; Dyson, B. P., N. R. Linehan, and P. A. Hastie. 2010. "The Ecology of Cooperative Learning in Elementary Physical Education Classes." "Journal of Teaching in Physical Education" 29 (2): 113-130]. None to date, however, has looked empirically at the influence sport education may have on individual team member accountability and other critical elements of cooperative learning. Purpose: The aim of this study was to present evidence that cooperative learning (or at least its critical elements) is a potential side effect of using sport education. Participants and settings: A total of 90 students (47 boys, 43 girls, 12.42 ± 0.56 years), enrolled in the same high school in Spain agreed to participate in the study. The school administration randomly distributed the students among four different year eight classes, and the research team randomly allocated two classes to the experimental group (n = 48), and two (n = 42) to the control (comparison) group. The experiment was conducted in a non-manipulated (i.e. intact) educational context. Prior to the mid-term break, both study groups experienced the same Football learning unit conducted using sport education. After the break, both groups experienced a Basketball learning unit. However, the teacher continued to use sport education with the experimental group (group A) and adopted a traditional instructional approach with the comparison group (group B). Therefore, students in group A experienced 24 consecutive sport education lessons, while those in group B experienced 12 sport education lessons followed by 12 traditional lessons. Research design: The study followed a pre-test, post-test, quasi-experimental, comparison group design. Data collection: All participants completed a previously designed and validated cooperative learning questionnaire. Data analysis: The statistical package SPSS (version 22.0) was used. Descriptive and inferential analyses were conducted. Findings: Results showed that group A enhanced their perceptions of Interpersonal Skills, Group Processing, Positive Interdependence, Promotive Interaction, Individual Accountability, and Global Cooperation significantly more than group B. Conclusions: Cooperative learning (or at least its critical elements including global cooperation) is a side effect of using sport education. As Casey and Quennerstedt [2020. "Cooperative Learning in Physical Education Encountering Dewey's Educational Theory." "European Physical Education Review"] argued, cooperation is not learnt but is practiced over successive lessons and units. Given the real-world importance of cooperative learning and given calls to broaden the pedagogical experiences of young people [Metzler, M. W. 2011. "Instructional Models for Physical Education." 3rd ed. Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway], it seems important to have different approaches to help young people become more cooperative.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2021
Accession Number: EJ1302368
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwH8IeGcLcIDNivM5DFTIjLkAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBxU2sV09ZCNEya7zgIBEICBm8yO35s0oQ_jhinVD3pfMgzGhP3xBG-Ey2MpWjGMS7Hyz6j9noBSwSDldRkGnHzmWoMOywmcIVdKNJASEBhIjUIJ0T9FTj-Hvu5khF98tXg1mjObxIEkJXJUJU24FHKVORRey0jPrh2nOzBqF5qDyeJNsWGYHCjMg5hnAlnpmDdwCdR1i-xdrktIsCMCh764eBul7YA6KEXCZX2b
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0151174259;z3x01jul.21;2021Jul02.02:43;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0151174259-1">Sport education as a cooperative learning endeavour </title> <p>Background: A number of studies have contemplated aspects of cooperative learning that might emerge from a unit of sport education [Dyson, B., L. L. Griffin, and P. Hastie. 2004. "Sport Education, Tactical Games, and Cooperative Learning: Theoretical and Pedagogical Considerations." Quest 56 (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref1">2</reflink>): 226–240; Dyson, B. P., N. R. Linehan, and P. A. Hastie. 2010. "The Ecology of Cooperative Learning in Elementary Physical Education Classes." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 29 (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>): 113–130]. None to date, however, has looked empirically at the influence sport education may have on individual team member accountability and other critical elements of cooperative learning. Purpose: The aim of this study was to present evidence that cooperative learning (or at least its critical elements) is a potential side effect of using sport education. Participants and settings: A total of 90 students (47 boys, 43 girls, 12.42 ±.56 years), enrolled in the same high school in Spain agreed to participate in the study. The school administration randomly distributed the students among four different year eight classes, and the research team randomly allocated two classes to the experimental group (n = 48), and two (n = 42) to the control (comparison) group. The experiment was conducted in a non-manipulated (i.e. intact) educational context. Prior to the mid-term break, both study groups experienced the same Football learning unit conducted using sport education. After the break, both groups experienced a Basketball learning unit. However, the teacher continued to use sport education with the experimental group (group A) and adopted a traditional instructional approach with the comparison group (group B). Therefore, students in group A experienced 24 consecutive sport education lessons, while those in group B experienced 12 sport education lessons followed by 12 traditional lessons. Research design: The study followed a pre-test, post-test, quasi-experimental, comparison group design. Data collection: All participants completed a previously designed and validated cooperative learning questionnaire. Data analysis: The statistical package SPSS (version 22.0) was used. Descriptive and inferential analyses were conducted. Findings: Results showed that group A enhanced their perceptions of Interpersonal Skills, Group Processing, Positive Interdependence, Promotive Interaction, Individual Accountability, and Global Cooperation significantly more than group B. Conclusions: Cooperative learning (or at least its critical elements including global cooperation) is a side effect of using sport education. As Casey and Quennerstedt [2020. "Cooperative Learning in Physical Education Encountering Dewey's Educational Theory." European Physical Education Review] argued, cooperation is not learnt but is practiced over successive lessons and units. Given the real-world importance of cooperative learning and given calls to broaden the pedagogical experiences of young people [Metzler, M. W. 2011. Instructional Models for Physical Education. 3rd ed. Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway], it seems important to have different approaches to help young people become more cooperative.</p> <p>Keywords: Models-based practice; secondary education; pedagogical models</p> <p>The small group learning that is central to Sport Education requires that team members cooperate on a number of tasks; thus, the model is consistent with various forms of cooperative learning. And as in successful cooperative learning models, although team performance is an important outcome, each individual team member is held accountable for her or his contributions. Siedentop, Hastie, and van Der Mars ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref3">47</reflink>], 18)</p> <p>Cooperation is internationally recognised as a key component and expected outcome of physical education in national school curricula and national standards (see, for example, Department for Education [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref4">9</reflink>]; MECD [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref5">36</reflink>]; SHAPE America [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref6">50</reflink>]). It is important, therefore, that we better understand the capacity of different pedagogical approaches to achieve such cooperative goals. Despite Siedentop et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref7">48</reflink>]) assertion, and sport education's rich history of research and practice (Hastie and Wallhead [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref8">26</reflink>]), the model's apparent capacity to mimic the student learning gains attributed to cooperative learning has yet to be explored. A number of studies considered the cooperative 'effects' that might emerge from a unit of sport education (Dyson, Griffin, and Hastie [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref9">12</reflink>]; Dyson, Linehan, and Hastie [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref10">13</reflink>]; Hastie and Sharpe [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref11">25</reflink>]; Kim et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref12">30</reflink>]; Pope and Grant [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref13">40</reflink>]; Siedentop, Hastie, and van Der Mars [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref14">47</reflink>]). None to date, however, has looked empirically at the impact sport education has on individual team member accountability and other critical elements of cooperative learning. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to present evidence that cooperative learning (or at least the critical elements [Casey and Kirk, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref15">4</reflink>]]) is a potential and desirable side effect of using sport education.</p> <p>The physical education and sport pedagogy community is increasingly being encouraged to adopt student-centred approaches. Both Oliver and Kirk ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref16">38</reflink>]), in their work on an activist approach to research and advocacy for girls and physical education, and Hastie and Mesquita ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref17">24</reflink>]), in their work on sports-based physical education, serve as recent examples of the promotion of such approaches. By centring our focus on the student (Oliver and Kirk [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref18">38</reflink>]) it is widely believed that the physical education and sport pedagogy community is better able to challenge what Pope and O'Sullivan ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref19">41</reflink>]) saw as the privileging of aggression and competitiveness at the expense of cooperation. There are a number of ways in which we might increase the cooperative interactions between students as we strive for pedagogies more centred on their needs. In this paper, we have chosen to explore the notion that sport education is one of the approaches we might use to increase positive and promotive student interactions. Before we do that, it is important to provide a description of the five critical elements of cooperative learning.</p> <p>Casey and Quennerstedt ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref20">5</reflink>]) traced the development of cooperative learning in physical education since its first use in the 1980s. One of the findings was that 'Johnson and Johnson – through their five elements – are the key theorists underpinning cooperative learning in physical education' (Casey and Quennerstedt [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref21">5</reflink>], 10). These elements (Table 1) are used in the remainder of the paper to align the cooperative learning side effects with sport education. For a fuller understanding of cooperative learning, we refer the reader to Dyson and Casey ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref22">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 1. Five elements of cooperative learning in physical education (Dyson and Casey [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref23">11</reflink>]).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody><tr><td>Positive interdependence</td><td>Students rely on each other to complete the pre-designed task. Success can only be achieved when students work together.</td></tr><tr><td>Promotive face-to-face interaction</td><td>Students in their groups should be literally head-to-head, toe-to-toe, knee-to-knee and provide positive comments and engage in positive and supportive dialogue.</td></tr><tr><td>Individual accountability</td><td>Students taking responsibility for completing their part of their task for their group.</td></tr><tr><td>Interpersonal and small group skills</td><td>Student behaviours that allow comfortable and relaxed communication: listening, sharing decisions making, taking responsibility, giving and receiving feedback, leading, following and encouraging each other.</td></tr><tr><td>Group processing</td><td>A reflective, guided discussion that is student-centred i.e. is guided by students rather than driven by the teacher.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0151174259-2">Sport education as a cooperative endeavour</hd> <p>Dyson, Griffin, and Hastie ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref24">12</reflink>]) observed five areas of overlap between sport education and cooperative learning: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref25">1</reflink>) students do not take part in the class as isolated beings, instead they are considered part of a 'holistic learning enterprise'; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref26">2</reflink>) the proposed activities favour the inclusion of social, physical and cognitive learning outcomes; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref27">3</reflink>) students work in small groups and need each other to complete the task properly; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref28">4</reflink>) individual accountability is present in the different learning activities; and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref29">5</reflink>) cooperative learning structures can help students learn to cooperate in tasks and game play and, consequently, compete more effectively by working as a team.</p> <p>Sport education is one of the most widely researched pedagogical models. However, much of the research has focused on students' interpersonal interactions, including social development and inclusive participation (Hastie and Wallhead [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref30">26</reflink>]) but not cooperation. Such a focus may be a consequence of concerns that the model favours unequal participation as a result of the emphasis on competition (Curnow and Macdonald [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref31">7</reflink>]). The focus of this fear (i.e. unequal participation) resides in skill level and gender, because those students with higher status dominated social interactions, with boys tending to occupy those positions (Ennis [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref32">14</reflink>]). As a result, new studies began to focus on the analysis and promotion of positive interpersonal relationships. Researchers introduced elements which encouraged positive student interdependence (Hastie and Sharpe [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref33">25</reflink>]) through, in some cases, a close association with other pedagogical models (Ennis [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref34">14</reflink>]; Hastie and Buchanan [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref35">21</reflink>]) such as cooperative learning (Dyson, Griffin, and Hastie [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref36">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>In their work exploring the use of cooperative learning, Polvi and Telama ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref37">39</reflink>]) used experimental and control groups to explore the capacity of the model to act as a social enhancer. They systematically re-paired students in the experimental group every three weeks while providing no information or guidance to the control group. They found that students in the experimental group were more willing and motivated to help and support their peers. They also found, from results with the control group, that working with the same person for extended periods of time did not promote social development as they expected. What is interesting, for the purposes of this study, is the positive impact on social enhancement brought about by the close proximity of small groups of students in their teams without the limitations imposed by rigid pairings, something that the use of persistent teams in sport education replicates.</p> <p>These results complement those reported by Lafont, Proeres, and Vallet ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref38">32</reflink>]) when they examined verbal exchanges and their effect on both interpersonal relationships and basketball shooting and skill level. Working over a period of 10 physical education lessons and using a basketball-like game with adapted rules as their sport, Lafont, Proeres, and Vallet ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref39">32</reflink>]) found that cooperative situations had a positive effect on motor skills. They also found that verbal discussions among peers in the experimental group (i.e. those who experienced cooperative learning) had a positive impact on motor and tactical skills, on off-the-ball and on-the-ball skills, and on shooting rate. As a consequence of using cooperative learning, Lafont, Proeres, and Vallet ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref40">32</reflink>]) concluded that verbal exchanges between peers allowed teams to make better tactical choices. The authors recommended using heterogeneous teams and peer discussions as a way of increasing the impact of verbal exchanges on team play.</p> <hd id="AN0151174259-3">The five elements of cooperative learning in sport education</hd> <p>Drawing on their extensive work in sport education, Siedentop, Hastie, and van Der Mars ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref41">47</reflink>]) set out some of the different ways in which the model might encourage cooperation among participants. For example, they suggested that 'early scrimmages and practice games should focus on keeping the ball in play through cooperative scoring, where the two teams try to keep the ball going over the net as many times as possible' (<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref42">32</reflink>). This argument is supported by Kim et al. ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref43">30</reflink>]), who held that <emph>interpersonal and small group skills</emph> are one of the elements of cooperative learning to be promoted when conducting sport education intervention programmes. Similarly, Hastie and Sharpe ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref44">25</reflink>]) found that a sport education season served to improve the interpersonal skills of students at risk.</p> <p>The capacity to develop such skills is exemplified by the work undertaken by Siedentop ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref45">46</reflink>]) who believed that the use of permanent small groups allowed students to take advantage of the social development opportunities that come from membership of those groups. The early work in New Zealand by Pope and Grant ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref46">40</reflink>], 111) states that, 'being involved in a small group over an extended period of time served as a catalyst to encourage team members to take on responsibility' and so enhances their social development. Further evidence of a possible connection between cooperative learning elements and sport education can be found in the seminal work of Siedentop ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref47">44</reflink>]) and the longitudinal study of Dyson, Linehan, and Hastie ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref48">13</reflink>]), where students' roles were signalled as a key element in promoting positive interdependence or individual accountability. For his part, Hastie ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref49">19</reflink>]) found that the accountability system built into sport education helped pupils adhere to their roles and duties and promoted individual accountability. Similarly, Dyson, Linehan, and Hastie ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref50">13</reflink>]) reported that students enjoyed taking on the teacher's responsibilities when they performed some of the roles included in a sport education intervention programme.</p> <p>One of the earliest empirical examples of research into sport education was undertaken in New Zealand (Grant [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref51">18</reflink>]). This study, which reported on the implementation of the model by a group of teachers, described increases in the levels of interaction and cooperation between students (Grant [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref52">18</reflink>]). Such increases may be attributable to the use of enduring teams throughout the unit of sport education. Indeed, Siedentop, Hastie, and van Der Mars ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref53">47</reflink>]) noted that students are required to work inside their teams, which, in turn, helps in creating positive bonds and affiliation. This is not always the case however, and an individual student's status has been shown to have an influence on whose opinions count and whose voices are heard, with low-status students feeling silenced (Brock, Rovegno, and Oliver [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref54">2</reflink>]). Given the importance of both <emph>individual accountability</emph> and <emph>positive interdependence</emph> in cooperative learning (see below), such outcomes in a sport education unit might mitigate against such silencing. In her consideration of sport education as a means of weakening existing power hierarchies in physical education, Brunton ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref55">3</reflink>]) recommended that teachers should help students learn to perform different roles efficiently and encourage team support. Such adaptations, it could be argued, would be aided by the development of students' <emph>individual accountability</emph> and <emph>positive interdependence</emph> respectively.</p> <p>The longevity of teams and seasons, coupled with facets of <emph>group processing</emph> (Lafont, Proeres, and Vallet [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref56">32</reflink>]; Polvi and Telama [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref57">39</reflink>]), support Siedentop's ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref58">45</reflink>]) argument that in enduring teams, students have to deal with differences and put up with the consequences of their agreements. Therefore, students must learn to discuss and reach agreements. The long-term team affiliation inherent in sport education, coupled with opportunities to engage in reflective discussion, do much to align the model with the types of outcomes associated with cooperative learning. In an ecological analysis of Sport Education, Hastie ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref59">20</reflink>]) found students playing in a team and positively interacting with other students. In a similar vein, Pope and Grant ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref60">40</reflink>]) found that long-lasting learning units built multiple connections among group members. Such student-student connectivity hints at the desirability of <emph>positive interdependence</emph> in sport education.</p> <p>Other aspects, what Author (forthcoming) refer to as learning aspiration, signal the connections that exist between both pedagogical models. Team affiliation and inclusion, which are important in any cooperative learning framework, are two of the most prominent features of sport education (Wallhead and O'Sullivan [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref61">53</reflink>]). Kinchin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref62">31</reflink>]) and Ka and Cruz ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref63">28</reflink>]) independently determined that levels of team inclusion increased, and students recognised the team as a key factor in improving their performance after experiencing sport education. Comparably, MacPhail et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref64">33</reflink>]) and Sinelnikov and Hastie ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref65">49</reflink>]) found that students' perceptions of fun and success changed from an individualistic to a group perspective after one sport education season. In their review of the sport education literature, Wallhead and O'Sullivan ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref66">53</reflink>]) explained that students, after a long period working in the same group, become enthusiastic about achieving their group's goals, and, consequently, learn to cooperate. Over the last decade, research has continually, and independently, accentuated the need to bolster the cooperative aspects of sport education (Farias, Hastie, and Mesquita [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref67">15</reflink>]). Brock, Rovegno, and Oliver ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref68">2</reflink>]) believed that there is a need to study ways to create environments in which students can learn through equitable interaction and participation.</p> <p>Based on the aforementioned, the aim of this paper is to present evidence that cooperative learning (or at least its critical elements) is a potential and desirable side effect of using sport education.</p> <hd id="AN0151174259-4">Materials and method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0151174259-5">Participants</hd> <p>A total of 90 students (47 boys, 43 girls, 12.42 ±.56 years), from the same high school in Spain, agreed to participate. The school administration randomly distributed the students among four different year eight classes, and the research team randomly allocated two classes to the experimental group (group A) (<emph>n</emph> = 48), and two classes (<emph>n</emph> = 42) to the control (comparison) group (group B). The goal was to conduct the experiment in a non-manipulated (intact) educational context. Convenience sampling was used. Researchers had access to the school and the classes (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref69">6</reflink>]). Both groups experienced sport education prior to the mid-term break, but in the following learning unit the group A continued with sport education, while group B shifted to a traditional instructional approach.</p> <hd id="AN0151174259-6">Design and procedure</hd> <p>The study followed a pre-test, post-test, quasi-experimental, comparison group design. The intervention programme (sport education vs traditional approach) was the independent variable, while the dependent variables were the students' perceptions of the five elements of cooperative learning (see Table 1) and a global cooperation factor. These perceptions were assessed using a validated questionnaire introduced later in the data collection section.</p> <p>Initially, permission from the first author's university ethics committee was obtained. Second, the whole project was explained to the participating school's administration, physical education teachers and students' parents, and informed written consent was obtained from all of them prior to the beginning of data collection. The study respected the ethical values required in research conducted with human beings: informed consent, right to information, protection of personal data, guarantees of confidentiality, non-discrimination, gratuity, and possibility to leave the study in any of its phases (McMillan and Schumacher [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref70">35</reflink>]). The research protocol was approved by the first author's University Review Board for Human Subjects Research.</p> <p>Prior to the mid-term break, both study groups experienced the same Football learning unit conducted using sport education (12 sessions). After the break pre-tests were conducted, and both groups experienced a Basketball learning unit (12 sessions). However, while the teacher continued to use sport education with group A, he adopted a traditional, teacher-led instructional approach with group B. Therefore, students in the group A experienced 24 consecutive sport education lessons, while those in group B experienced 12 sport education lessons followed by 12 traditional ones. At the end of both units, post-tests were conducted. Data were not collected prior to the beginning of the first learning unit (Football) because the research aim, to assess sport education as a cooperative learning endeavour, pivoted on the implementation of the second learning unit (Basketball). Additionally, we wanted to avoid participants' becoming tired through repeated questionnaire administration over a short period of time (Díaz [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref71">10</reflink>]). Therefore, data were collected immediately prior to the beginning of the second unit (pre-test), and at its end (post-test).</p> <hd id="AN0151174259-7">Data collection</hd> <p>The <emph>Cooperative Learning Questionnaire</emph> (Fernandez-Rio et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref72">16</reflink>]) was used to assess the effects of both intervention programmes. This is an internationally validated questionnaire to assess cooperative learning in school children ages 11–18 (Fernandez-Rio et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref73">17</reflink>]). It includes 20 items grouped (five items each) to represent the five basic elements of cooperative learning (Johnson and Johnson [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref74">27</reflink>]). Each one is introduced with an item to show the connection between each basic element and the questionnaire and Cronbach's alphas, obtained at pre and post-test in the present study, are also included to show its reliability: interpersonal skills: 'We work on discussing, debating, and listening to others',.759 and.770, group processing: 'Groupmates debate ideas and opinions',.727 and.712, promotive interaction: 'Groupmates relate with each other and interact during the tasks',.683 and.764, positive interdependence: 'My groupmates' help is very important to complete the tasks',.787 and.798, and individual accountability: 'Every group member has to participate in the group's tasks',.698 and.757. All items were preceded by the stem: 'In your Physical Education class ....'. Participants answered in a 5-point Likert scale from 1: 'totally disagree' to 5: 'totally agree'. The same instrument was validated to produce a global cooperation factor when all the items are grouped in a single variable. Cronbach's alphas obtained were.896 at pre and.921 at post-test. They all could be considered acceptable, and they showed the questionnaire's high internal consistency (Vincent [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref75">52</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0151174259-8">Intervention programmes</hd> <p>Hastie and Casey ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref76">23</reflink>], 423) highlighted that to establish the fidelity of a model's implementation it is necessary to provide: '(a) a rich description of the curricular elements of the unit, (b) a detailed validation of model implementation, and (c) a detailed description of the program context'. All of these conditions have been met in this project.</p> <hd id="AN0151174259-9">Sport education</hd> <p>The basic design of all the units conducted using this pedagogical model (Football in both study groups, and Basketball only in group A) followed the model's critical elements (Siedentop, Hastie, and van Der Mars [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref77">47</reflink>]): (a) <emph>Season</emph>: each learning unit (Football and Basketball) was organized during a 12-session season; (b) <emph>Formal competition</emph>: within each season, there were two formal competitions: the first one based on individual skills: dribbling, passing and shooting (lessons 2–6), and the second one based on modified team games (lessons 7–11); (c) <emph>Affiliation</emph>: students were grouped in teams of 5–6 members for the whole unit; each team had to design a shirt, a flag, a cheer, a mascot, and self-made medals for the culminating event; (d) <emph>Record keeping</emph>: points were awarded in each competition (two points for the win, one and a half for the tie, one for the loss), but also daily for bringing the team's apparel, for fair play, for performing the roles correctly ... ; (e) <emph>Culminating event</emph>: in the last lesson (<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref78">12</reflink>), a final tournament was organized, and all teams exchanged their self-made medals; and (f) <emph>Festivity</emph>: all the previously mentioned elements helped create a festive atmosphere. Additionally, all students performed different roles during the unit: Player, coach, conditioning coach, captain, referee, and equipment manager. We followed Siedentop, Hastie, and van Der Mars's ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref79">47</reflink>], 31) idea that 'technique development practice should be as game-like as possible' in order to develop games sense: 'a combination of learning appropriate techniques, applying tactics and understanding rules' (<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref80">28</reflink>). Basic technical (i.e. dribbling, shooting, passing) and tactical skills (i.e. intercepting, balance, positioning, fakes, fast-break) were integrated to provide challenging tasks. Cooperative learning was used to 'reduce' the competitive atmosphere and promote a class mastery climate. Its five critical elements were embedded in the lessons: (a) interpersonal skills: groups were awarded points for positive attitudes within the group (i.e. encouraging and helping each other) and between groups (i.e. sharing equipment and fair play); (b) group processing: strategies used included cooperative scoring where students had to solve a challenge as a group (i.e. make as many shots to the basket as possible in 30 s); (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref81">3</reflink>) promotive interaction: students worked throughout the whole unit in small, heterogeneous groups, this encouraged them to support each other to achieve the best result (i.e. each group member had to participate in the individual skill competition, so they helped each other get ready to perform at their best); (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref82">4</reflink>) positive interdependence: each student performed one role daily, which was essential for the group's normal functioning (i.e. the equipment manager was in charge of providing the needed equipment); and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref83">5</reflink>) individual accountability: students had the possibility to earn points for their teams (i.e. bringing the teams' apparel and performing their role).</p> <hd id="AN0151174259-10">Traditional instructional approach</hd> <p>The design of the unit conducted using this methodology (Basketball only in group B) followed a traditional framework. Lessons 1–4: teaching and learning of basic technical skills (i.e. dribbling, shooting, passing) through the use of drills. Lessons 5–8: the teacher moved to teach basic offensive-defensive skills (i.e. intercepting, balance, positioning, fakes, fast-break) and, during the last lessons of the unit (9–12), adult-size games and a final assessment performing isolated skills were used. Content selection, management, task presentation and structure, instructional interaction, pacing, and evaluation were controlled by the teacher (Metzler [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref84">37</reflink>]). Groups were selected by the teacher and changed from session to session. Each session was divided into three parts: warm up, main part, and ending. The first few sessions focused on basic technical elements, but they also included games to make it more appealing for the students, while the last sessions focused on basic offensive-defensive skills and games (Table 2).</p> <p>Table 2. Main features of both instructional approaches.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Instructional feature</td><td>Sport education</td><td>Traditional approach</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Grade</td><td>8th</td><td>8th</td></tr><tr><td>Units implemented</td><td>Football and Basketball</td><td>Basketball</td></tr><tr><td>Unit length</td><td>12 lessons</td><td>12 lessons</td></tr><tr><td>Number of lessons</td><td>Two per week (55 min each)</td><td>Two per week (55 min each)</td></tr><tr><td>Team formation</td><td>Heterogeneous in terms of gender, ethnicity and skill; lasted the whole unit</td><td>Randomly selected; changed from day to day</td></tr><tr><td>Students' roles</td><td>Player, coach, conditioning coach, captain, referee, and equipment manager</td><td>Player</td></tr><tr><td>Games' rules</td><td>Rules, team size and playing area were modified to make them developmentally appropriate</td><td>Rules, team size and playing area reflected the adult-size game</td></tr><tr><td>Game play</td><td>Modified games were used during the whole unit</td><td>Regular-size games were used during the whole unit</td></tr><tr><td>Formal competition</td><td>Pre-season, season and post-season culminating event were organized. Record keeping and publicity of results</td><td>Games scores were not kept officially</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>In order to validate the instructional approach implemented, all sessions were videotaped. Ten were randomly selected and sent to two independent researchers who were experts on instructional designs. They were asked to verify both intervention programmes. A checklist with benchmarks, adapted from Hastie et al. ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref85">22</reflink>]), was designed to assess the basic elements of both sport education and the traditional approach (Figure 1). Both observers scored 30 points on each instructional approach (100% fidelity) and reached 100% inter-observer agreement. In presenting this percentage, we do not argue that sport education was used in its textbook form. Instead, we hold that all critical elements of the model were present in the locally adapted approach used with these children in this school.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Checklist. Note: Items 1, 2, 6 represent sport education; items 3, 4, 5 represent traditional approach.</p> <p>The same physical education teacher, with more than 10 years of teaching experience, taught both study groups (all four classes). Prior to this study, the teacher had always followed a traditional instructional approach in his classes. Given that he was new to sport education, a 40-hour training programme (15 h theory, 25 h practice) on this pedagogical model was designed. Different schemes (i.e. seminars, pre-designed sessions, video analysis and feedback cycles) were used to provide training and support to the teacher prior to and during the implementation programme (Braithwaite, Spray, and Warburton [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref86">1</reflink>]). The programme included games, tasks, and pre-designed sessions to practice, to analyse and to develop the final version of the learning units implemented. One member of the research team (a Sport Pedagogy expert with more than 10 years of theory and practice on pedagogical models) conducted the training programme and carefully supervised all learning units.</p> <hd id="AN0151174259-11">Data analysis</hd> <p>All data were analysed using SPSS 24.0 (IBM, Chicago, IL). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), selecting Levene's test (<emph>p</emph> >.05), was used to assess initial homogeneity between the two study groups at pre-test (Martin and Bridgmon [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref87">34</reflink>]). Pre and post-tests descriptive statistics were also calculated. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to assess intragroup pre-post-test differences. Finally, covariance analyses with the post-test scores (post-test MANCOVA and ANCOVAs) with the pre-test as covariate were conducted, which allowed verification of the impact of the programme. Effect size (Cohen's d) was also assessed (small <.5; moderate.50–.79; large ≥.80) (Vacha-Haase and Thompson [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref88">51</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0151174259-12">Results</hd> <p>Results from the pre-test ANOVA showed no statistically significant differences between group A and group B before the intervention programme: Wilks' Lambda =.908, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref89">5</reflink>, 63) = 1.274, <emph>p</emph> <.286, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> =.092. Univariate ANOVAs also indicated no statistically significant differences between the groups in any of the variables assessed. Therefore, both groups could be considered homogenous at the beginning of data collection.</p> <p>The repeated measures MANOVA showed that there were pre-test post-test significant differences among groups: Wilks' Lambda =.436, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref90">9</reflink>, 58) = 8.328, <emph>p</emph> <.001. Subsequent univariate ANOVAS showed statistically significant differences favouring the EG in interpersonal skills: <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref91">1</reflink>, 67) = 36.863, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <emph>η<sups>2</sups></emph><sups></sups>=.358, group processing: <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref92">1</reflink>, 67) = 24.794, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <emph>η<sups>2</sups></emph><sups></sups>=.278, positive interdependence: <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref93">1</reflink>, 67) = 40.501, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <emph>η<sups>2</sups></emph><sups></sups>=.382, promotive interaction: <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref94">1</reflink>, 67) = 16.076, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <emph>η<sups>2</sups></emph><sups></sups>=.193, individual accountability: <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref95">1</reflink>, 67) = 42.423, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <emph>η<sups>2</sups></emph><sups></sups>=.386, and global cooperation: <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref96">1</reflink>, 67) = 57.806, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <emph>η<sups>2</sups></emph><sups></sups>=.461. Effect sizes were small.</p> <p>Finally, results of the MANCOVA conducted with the post-test scores showed statistically significant differences between those participants who experienced the experimental and the control conditions at the end of the intervention programme, showing that the EG reached higher scores (Table 3): Wilks' Lambda =.263, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref97">5</reflink>, 57) = 31.943, <emph>p</emph> <.000, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> =.737. Subsequent univariate ANCOVAs showed significant differences in all the variables assessed favouring the EG: interpersonal skills: <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref98">1</reflink>, 10.55) = 47.721, <emph>p</emph> <.000, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> =.439, group processing: <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref99">1</reflink>, 7.9) = 59.473, <emph>p</emph> <.000, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> =.494, positive interdependence: <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref100">1</reflink>, 10.14) = 81.427, <emph>p</emph> <.000, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> =.572, promotive interaction: <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref101">1</reflink>, 6.78) = 41.584, <emph>p</emph> <.000, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> =.439, individual accountability: <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref102">1</reflink>, 9.47) = 91.631, <emph>p</emph> <.000, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> =.600, and global cooperation: <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref103">1</reflink>, 8.91) = 139.452, <emph>p</emph> <.000, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> =.696. Effect sizes ranged from small to moderate.</p> <p>Table 3. Intragroup pre-post-test differences and intergroup post-test differences.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Pre</td><td>Post</td><td>Post-tests difference</td><td>Pre-post difference</td></tr><tr><td /><td>EG</td><td>CG</td><td>EG</td><td>CG</td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td><italic>η</italic><sup>2</sup></td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td><italic>η</italic><sup>2</sup></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Interpersonal skills</td><td char="(">3.85 (.86)</td><td char="(">4.13 (.62)</td><td>4.38<sup>a</sup>* (.49)</td><td char="(">3.58 (.64)</td><td char=".">.001</td><td char=".">.43</td><td char=".">.001</td><td char=".">.35</td></tr><tr><td>Group processing</td><td char="(">4.06 (.78)</td><td char="(">4.14 (.51)</td><td>4.43<sup>a</sup>* (.49)</td><td char="(">3.73 (.42)</td><td char=".">.001</td><td char=".">.49</td><td char=".">.001</td><td char=".">.27</td></tr><tr><td>Positive interdependence</td><td char="(">4.31 (.69)</td><td char="(">4.46 (.49)</td><td>4.69<sup>a</sup>* (.40)</td><td char="(">3.86 (.44)</td><td char=".">.001</td><td char=".">.57</td><td char=".">.001</td><td char=".">.38</td></tr><tr><td>Promotive interaction</td><td char="(">4.32 (.61)</td><td char="(">4.25 (.72)</td><td>4.58<sup>a</sup>* (.45)</td><td char="(">3.83 (.45)</td><td char=".">.001</td><td char=".">.40</td><td char=".">.001</td><td char=".">.19</td></tr><tr><td>Individual accountability</td><td char="(">4.68 (.40)</td><td char="(">4.59 (.46)</td><td>4.79<sup>a</sup>* (.30)</td><td char="(">3.93 (.45)</td><td char=".">.001</td><td char=".">.60</td><td char=".">.001</td><td char=".">.38</td></tr><tr><td>Global cooperation</td><td char="(">4.24 (.54)</td><td char="(">4.31 (.45)</td><td>4.58<sup>a</sup>* (.34)</td><td char="(">3.78 (.32)</td><td char=".">.001</td><td char=".">.69</td><td char=".">.001</td><td char=".">.46</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note: Mean (Standard Deviation); CG: Comparison group; EG: Experimental group; *intergroup post-test difference; <emph>p</emph> ≤.001; <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups>: effect size; <sups>a</sups>Intragroup pre-post difference.</p> <hd id="AN0151174259-13">Discussion</hd> <p>The aim of this study was to present evidence that the critical elements of cooperative learning are a potential, and we would argue desirable, side effect of using sport education. Results showed that students in group A evaluated their interpersonal skills, group processing, positive interdependence, promotive interaction, individual accountability, and global cooperation significantly higher than group B. Moreover, group A was the only group that showed an increase in these variables along the study.</p> <p>Regarding the study's aim, results showed that sport education can have a positive impact on students' development of the five critical elements of cooperative learning. All elements were shown to significantly increase from the beginning to the end of the intervention programmes in group A. Moreover, the final scores were also significantly higher. Both results indicate that students in group A improved their perceptions of the critical elements of cooperative learning and reached higher levels at the end of the intervention programme. Previous research has considered the secondary effects of cooperative learning that might emerge from sport education (Dyson, Griffin, and Hastie [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref104">12</reflink>]; Dyson, Linehan, and Hastie [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref105">13</reflink>]; Hastie and Sharpe [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref106">25</reflink>]; Kim et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref107">30</reflink>]; Pope and Grant [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref108">40</reflink>]; Siedentop, Hastie, and van Der Mars [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref109">47</reflink>]), but this is the first investigation that has empirically demonstrated this to be the case. Given this finding, sport education could be considered to be a pedagogical model capable of promoting cooperation among students. Whilst further research is needed to better understand the elements that cooperative learning and sport education share, there is a case for promoting sport education's propensity to create positive classroom climates.</p> <p>Beginning with promotive (face-to-face) interaction, results from the present study showed that it reached significantly higher scores from pre to post-test in group A, and the students' final perception was also significantly higher in this group. Grant ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref110">18</reflink>]) described increases in the levels of interaction and cooperation between students when experiencing sport education. The fact that students are grouped in teams that remain stable during the complete learning unit (season), where they are required to work together, can help expand the interactions among them, and could explain the development of positive bonds between group members (Siedentop, Hastie, and van Der Mars [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref111">47</reflink>]). This is important from a socio-constructivist point of view, as opportunities for interactions within a group are seen to be essential in the construct of meaning, and consequently, learning (Rovegno and Dolly [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref112">42</reflink>]; Lafont, Proeres, and Vallet [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref113">32</reflink>]). Results from the present study showed that the sport education framework can promote students' promotive interaction and, consequently, cooperative learning skills that have been shown to help them learn. Educators should therefore be aware of these positive connections when planning to implement similar programmes.</p> <p>The second critical element of cooperative learning is positive interdependence. Results showed that it had increased significantly in group A and reached higher levels. Hastie ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref114">20</reflink>]) found that students in a sport education team positively interacted with other students. Moreover, Pope and Grant ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref115">40</reflink>]) observed perceptible changes in group dynamics and described this as a positive connection created between students as a result of the framework that sport education provides. One reason for this could be the presence of specific student roles, since they have been signalled as promoters of positive interdependence (Dyson, Linehan, and Hastie [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref116">13</reflink>]). However, previous research has also warned against possible unequal participation fostered by the competitive side of sport education (Curnow and Macdonald [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref117">7</reflink>]) and unequal social interactions (Ennis [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref118">14</reflink>]), which could harm students' connections. However, results from the present study showed that the positive association between students improved after experiencing the model. The call for teachers to promote team support to all members (Brunton [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref119">3</reflink>]), regardless of skill level or gender, or the idea of integrating a cooperative learning spirit within sport education (Dyson, Griffin, and Hastie [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref120">12</reflink>]) could have helped the experimental group's positive interdependence. The development of positive interdependence is very important if teachers want their students to feel part of their teams and experience a positive climate in which they can socialize and learn. Consequently, the importance of environments that promote and support positive interdependence should be a priority for sport education users if they wish to maximise the development of all students.</p> <p>Pope and Grant ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref121">40</reflink>]) claimed that being in a small group over a long period of time (one of the main features of sport education) can help students develop personal responsibility. Results from the present study supported this finding as the students that continued experiencing sport education increased their individual accountability, reaching higher scores than those who also experienced a traditional approach. In other words, being in groups during the learning units helped students develop their individual accountability. The use of roles helps students adhere to their duties, and it has been highlighted as a significant element in promoting students' accountability (Siedentop [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref122">44</reflink>]). Previous research found that students enjoy performing some of the duties (roles) traditionally conducted by the teacher (Dyson, Linehan, and Hastie [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref123">13</reflink>]), and this, in turn, helped develop their individual accountability. Brunton ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref124">3</reflink>]) recommended that teachers show students how to perform jobs within the class to further promote this type of responsibility. It is important to use specific roles in class. They help make visible some students who may, under more traditional circumstances and for different reasons (i.e. skill level, gender, ethnicity), play secondary roles and do not feel part of the class. This can lead to isolation and to educational, social, and behavioural concerns that may, in the long term, lead to disaffection and poor student outcomes (Curran and Standage [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref125">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>The fourth critical element of cooperative learning is group processing. Results showed that individuals who continued experiencing sport education increased their group processing more that those who stopped, and perceived themselves to have reached higher levels. Within the enduring, small teams inherent in sport education, students have the opportunity to face difficulties, discuss their functioning, and find solutions based on mutual agreement (Siedentop [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref126">45</reflink>]). All these outcomes can be facilitated through group processing and the results in this study showed that, among the cooperative learning critical elements, group processing significantly increased more in group A. Enduring groups provide students with many opportunities to interact, as they may be involved in deep, constructive discussion (Polvi and Telama [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref127">39</reflink>]; Lafont, Proeres, and Vallet [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref128">32</reflink>]). Nevertheless, educators should be aware that group processing can be unbalanced if some students control the meetings (Salonen, Vauras, and Efklides [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref129">43</reflink>]). Consequently, teachers need to provide opportunities for everyone to participate if students are to profit from the claimed benefits.</p> <p>The fifth and final critical element of cooperative learning is interpersonal and small group skills. Results from the present study showed that these skills were augmented in the students that experienced only sport education. This connection was also observed by Hastie and Sharpe ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref130">25</reflink>]) in a group of students at risk. The use of permanent, small groups, where students must interact constantly and discuss, debate, help each other (Siedentop [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref131">46</reflink>]) is arguably one of the key elements of sport education that fosters personal development, because it allows students to thrive in modern society. This is important in a society where individuals constantly interact. Such interactions are important, and can be made more positive, if young people have experience of developing and maintaining positive relationships with their peers (Kao [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref132">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>The impact of sport education on the cooperative learning elements was also observed in a novel indicator: global cooperation, which significantly increased only in group A, who perceived themselves to have obtained higher levels at the end of the programme. Previous research has shown this factor to be a valid, reliable measure in different contexts (Fernandez-Rio et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref133">16</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref134">17</reflink>]). Therefore, it serves to further the positive links between sport education and cooperative learning. In turn, global cooperation constitutes a novel approach to assess cooperation in educational contexts.</p> <p>The present study has some limitations. The first being that participants were not assessed prior to the start of the first learning unit (Football), which was taught using sport education. Our aim was to focus on the second learning unit implemented (Basketball) and avoid participants' fatigue through repeated questionnaire administration in a short period of time. Pre-tests showed that there were no significant differences between groups A and B and that post-test results could only be derived from the second learning unit. The second limitation was the number of participants. Four classes in one school could be considered limited, and similar studies should be conducted involving more schools and students and across more time points. The third limitation refers to the number of data sources (just one questionnaire). Two or more data sources to obtain information from the teacher, external observers or the students through a different instrument (i.e. focus groups) would have provided a 'wider picture'. The fourth and final limitation has to do with difficulties in determining the presence of the five critical elements of cooperative learning in a sport education unit. That said, one conclusion can be drawn from the present study: sport education can have a positive impact on the five critical elements of cooperative learning and on Global Cooperation. Given the real-world importance of cooperative learning and given calls to broaden the pedagogical experiences of young people (Metzler [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref135">37</reflink>]), it seems important to have different approaches to helping young people in becoming cooperative.</p> <hd id="AN0151174259-14">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0151174259-15"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref25" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Braithwaite, R., C. M. Spray, and V. E. Warburton. 2011. " Motivational Climate Interventions in Physical Education: A Meta-Analysis." Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12 (6): 628 – 638. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.06.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref1" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Brock, S. J., I. Rovegno, and K. L. Oliver. 2009. " The Influence of Student Status on Student Interactions and Experiences During a Sport Education Unit." Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 14 (4): 355 – 375. doi: 10.1080/17408980802400494</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref27" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Brunton, J. A. 2010. " Changing Hierarchies of Power in Physical Education Using Sport Education." European Physical Education Review 9 (3): 267 – 284. doi: 10.1177/1356336X030093005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref15" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Casey, A., and D. Kirk. in press. Models-Based Practice in Physical Education. London : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref20" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Casey, A., and M. Quennerstedt. 2020. " Cooperative Learning in Physical Education Encountering Dewey's Educational Theory." European Physical Education Review.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref69" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2011. Research Methods in Education. London : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref31" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Curnow, J., and D. Macdonald. 1995. " Can Sport Education be Gender Inclusive: A Case Study in an Upper Primary School." ACHPER Healthy Lifestyles Journal 42 : 9 – 11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref125" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Curran, T., and M. Standage. 2017. " Psychological Needs and the Quality of Student Engagement in Physical Education: Teachers as Key Facilitators." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 36 (3): 262 – 276. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.2017-0065.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref4" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Department for Education. 2013. National Curriculum in England: Physical Education Programmes of Study. Accessed May 12, 2020. https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-physical-education-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-physical-education-programmes-of-study">www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-physical-education-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-physical-education-programmes-of-study</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Díaz, V. 2007. " "Tipos de encuestas considerando la dimension temporal." [Types of Questionnaires Considering the Time Dimension]." Revista de Sociología 86 : 131 – 145. doi: 10.5565/rev/papers/v86n0.814</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dyson, B., and A. Casey. 2016. Cooperative Learning in Physical Education: A Practical Introduction. London : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dyson, B., L. L. Griffin, and P. Hastie. 2004. " Sport Education, Tactical Games, and Cooperative Learning: Theoretical and Pedagogical Considerations." Quest 56 (2): 226 – 240. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2004.10491823</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dyson, B. P., N. R. Linehan, and P. A. Hastie. 2010. " The Ecology of Cooperative Learning in Elementary Physical Education Classes." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 29 (2): 113 – 130. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.29.2.113</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ennis, C. D. 2000. " Canaries in the Coal Mine: Responding to Disengaged Students Using Theme-Based Curricula." Quest 52 (2): 119 – 130. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2000.10491705</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farias, C., P. A. Hastie, and I. Mesquita. 2015. " Towards a More Equitable and Inclusive Learning Environment in Sport Education: Results of an Action Research Based Intervention." Sport Education and Society 22 (4): 460 – 476. doi: 10.1080/13573322.2015.1040752</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fernandez-Rio, J., J. A. Cecchini, A. Mendez-Gimenez, D. Mendez-Alonso, and J. A. Prieto. 2017. " Design and Validation of a Questionnaire to Assess Cooperative Learning in Educational Contexts." Anales de Psicología 33 (3): 680 – 688. doi: 10.6018/analesps.33.3.251321</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fernandez-Rio, J., J. A. Cecchini, K. Morgan, A. Mendez-Gimenez, and R. Lloyd. 2020. " Validation of the Cooperative Learning Scale and Cooperation Global Factor Using Bifactor Structural Equation Modelling." Psicología Educativa.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grant, B. C. 1992. " Integrating Sport Into the Physical Education Curriculum in New Zealand Secondary Schools." Quest 44 (3): 304 – 316. doi: 10.1080/00336297.1992.10484057</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hastie, PA. 1996. " Student Role Involvement during a Unit of Sport Education." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 16 (1): 88 – 103. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.16.1.88</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hastie, P. A. 2000. " An Ecological Analysis of a Sport Education Season." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 19 (3): 355 – 373. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.19.3.355</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hastie, P. A., and A. M. Buchanan. 2000. " Teaching Responsibility Through Sport Education: Prospects of a Coalition." Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 71 (1): 25 – 35. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2000.10608877</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hastie, P. A., A. Calderón, R. J. Rolim, and A. J. Guarino. 2013. " The Development of Skill and Knowledge During a Sport Education Season of Track and Field Athletics." Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 84 (3): 336 – 344. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2013.812001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hastie, P. A., and A. Casey. 2014. " Fidelity in Models-Based Practice Research in Sport Pedagogy: A Guide for Future Investigations." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 33 (3): 422 – 431. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.2013-0141</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hastie, P, and I Mesquita. 2016. Routledge Handbook of Physical Education Pedagogies. London : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hastie, P. A., and T. Sharpe. 1999. " Effects of a Sport Education Curriculum on the Positive Social Behavior of at-Risk Rural Adolescent Boys." Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 4 (4): 417 – 430. doi: 10.1207/s15327671espr0404_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hastie, P. A., and T. Wallhead. 2016. " Models-based Practice in Physical Education: The Case for Sport Education." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 35 (4): 390 – 399. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.2016-0092</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, D. W., and R. T. Johnson. 1991. Learning Together and Alone. Boston, MA : Allyn and Bacon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ka, L. C., and A. Cruz. 2006. " The Effect of Sport Education on Secondary six Students' Learning Interest and Collaboration in Football Lessons." Journal of Physical Education and Recreation 12 (2): 13 – 22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kao, C.-C. 2019. " Development of Team Cohesion and Sustained Collaboration Skills with the Sport Education Model." Sustainability 11 (8): 2348. doi: 10.3390/su11082348.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, J., D. Penney, M. Cho, and H. Choi. 2006. " 'Not Business as Usual': Sport Education Pedagogy in Practice." European Physical Education Review 12 (3): 361 – 379. doi: 10.1177/1356336X06071469</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kinchin, G. D., C. Wardle, S. Roderick, and A. Sprosen. 2004. " A Survey of Year 9 Boys' Perceptions of Sport Education in one English Secondary School." Bulletin of Physical Education 40 (1): 27 – 40.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lafont, L., M. Proeres, and C. Vallet. 2007. " Cooperative Group Learning in a Team Game: Role of Verbal Exchanges among Peers." Social Psychology of Education 10 : 93 – 113. doi: 10.1007/s11218-006-9006-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacPhail, A., T. Gorely, D. Kirk, and G. Kinchin. 2008. " Children's Experiences of Fun and Enjoyment During a Season of Sport Education." Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 79 (3): 344 – 355. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2008.10599498</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, W. E., and K. D. Bridgmon. 2012. Quantitative and Statistical Research Methods: From Hypothesis to Results. San Francisco, CA : John Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McMillan, J. H., and S. Schumacher. 2001. Research in Education. A Conceptual Introduction. New York, NY : Longman.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MECD (Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte). 2013. " Ley Orgánica para la Mejora de la Calidad Educativa [Organic Law for the Improvement of the Quality of Education]." Boletín Oficial del Estado 295.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Metzler, M. W. 2011. Instructional Models for Physical Education. 3rd ed. Scottsdale, AZ : Holcomb Hathaway.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oliver, KL, and D Kirk. 2016. " Towards an activist approach to research and advocacy for girls and physical education." Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 21 (3): 313 – 327. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2014.895803</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Polvi, S., and R. Telama. 2000. " The Use of Cooperative Learning as a Social Enhancer in Physical Education." Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 44 (1): 105 – 115. doi: 10.1080/713696660.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pope, C. C., and B. C. Grant. 1996. " Student Experiences in Sport Education." Waikato Journal of Education 2 : 103 – 118.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pope, C, and M O'sullivan. 2003. " Darwinism in the gym." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 22 (3): 311 – 327. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.22.3.311</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rovegno, I., and J. P. Dolly. 2006. " Constructivist Perspectives on Learning." In The Handbook of Physical Education, edited by D. Kirk, D. Macdonald, and M. O'Sullivan, 242 – 261. London : Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salonen, P., M. Vauras, and A. Efklides. 2005. " Social Interaction-What Can It Tell Us About Metacognition and Coregulation in Learning? " European Psychologist 10 : 199 – 208. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.10.3.199.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siedentop, D. 1994. Sport Education: Quality PE Through Positive Sport Experiences. Champaign, IL : Human Kinetics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siedentop, D. 1995. " Improving Sport Education." Australian Council for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation Healthy Lifestyles Journal 42 : 22 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siedentop, D. 1998. " What is Sport Education and How Does it Work? " Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 69 (4): 18 – 20. doi: 10.1080/07303084.1998.10605528</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siedentop, D., P. A. Hastie, and H. van Der Mars. 2011. Complete Guide to Sport Education. 2nd ed. Champaign, IL : Human Kinetics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siedentop, D, PA Hastie, and H Van Der Mars. 2011. Complete Guide to Sport Education. Champaign, IL : Human Kinetics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sinelnikov, O., and P. Hastie. 2008. " Teaching Sport Education to Russian Students: An Ecological Analysis." European Physical Education Review 14 (2): 203 – 222. doi: 10.1177/1356336X08090706</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Society for Health and Physical Educators (SHAPE America). 2020. " National Physical Education Standards." Accessed May 12, 2020. https://<ulink href="http://www.shapeamerica.org/standards/pe/">www.shapeamerica.org/standards/pe/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vacha-Haase, T., and B. Thompson. 2004. " How to Estimate and Interpret Various Effect Sizes." Journal of Counseling Psychology 51 (4): 473 – 481. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.51.4.473</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vincent, W. J. 2005. Statistics in Kinesiology. Champaign, IL : Human Kinetics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wallhead, T., and M. O'Sullivan. 2005. " Sport Education: Physical Education for the New Millennium? " Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 10 (2): 181 – 210. doi: 10.1080/17408980500105098</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Javier Fernandez-Rio and Ashley Casey</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref132"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1302368
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Sport Education as a Cooperative Learning Endeavour
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fernandez-Rio%2C+Javier%22">Fernandez-Rio, Javier</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1368-3723">0000-0002-1368-3723</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Casey%2C+Ashley%22">Casey, Ashley</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8232-5727">0000-0002-8232-5727</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Physical+Education+and+Sport+Pedagogy%22"><i>Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy</i></searchLink>. 2021 26(4):375-387.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22High+Schools%22">High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+8%22">Grade 8</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Junior+High+Schools%22">Junior High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Athletics%22">Athletics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Education%22">Physical Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cooperative+Learning%22">Cooperative Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22High+School+Students%22">High School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+8%22">Grade 8</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Team+Sports%22">Team Sports</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Conventional+Instruction%22">Conventional Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Effectiveness%22">Instructional Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interpersonal+Competence%22">Interpersonal Competence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Group+Dynamics%22">Group Dynamics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interaction%22">Interaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Accountability%22">Accountability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cooperation%22">Cooperation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Spain%22">Spain</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/17408989.2020.1810220
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1740-8989
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: A number of studies have contemplated aspects of cooperative learning that might emerge from a unit of sport education [Dyson, B., L. L. Griffin, and P. Hastie. 2004. "Sport Education, Tactical Games, and Cooperative Learning: Theoretical and Pedagogical Considerations." "Quest" 56 (2): 226-240; Dyson, B. P., N. R. Linehan, and P. A. Hastie. 2010. "The Ecology of Cooperative Learning in Elementary Physical Education Classes." "Journal of Teaching in Physical Education" 29 (2): 113-130]. None to date, however, has looked empirically at the influence sport education may have on individual team member accountability and other critical elements of cooperative learning. Purpose: The aim of this study was to present evidence that cooperative learning (or at least its critical elements) is a potential side effect of using sport education. Participants and settings: A total of 90 students (47 boys, 43 girls, 12.42 ± 0.56 years), enrolled in the same high school in Spain agreed to participate in the study. The school administration randomly distributed the students among four different year eight classes, and the research team randomly allocated two classes to the experimental group (n = 48), and two (n = 42) to the control (comparison) group. The experiment was conducted in a non-manipulated (i.e. intact) educational context. Prior to the mid-term break, both study groups experienced the same Football learning unit conducted using sport education. After the break, both groups experienced a Basketball learning unit. However, the teacher continued to use sport education with the experimental group (group A) and adopted a traditional instructional approach with the comparison group (group B). Therefore, students in group A experienced 24 consecutive sport education lessons, while those in group B experienced 12 sport education lessons followed by 12 traditional lessons. Research design: The study followed a pre-test, post-test, quasi-experimental, comparison group design. Data collection: All participants completed a previously designed and validated cooperative learning questionnaire. Data analysis: The statistical package SPSS (version 22.0) was used. Descriptive and inferential analyses were conducted. Findings: Results showed that group A enhanced their perceptions of Interpersonal Skills, Group Processing, Positive Interdependence, Promotive Interaction, Individual Accountability, and Global Cooperation significantly more than group B. Conclusions: Cooperative learning (or at least its critical elements including global cooperation) is a side effect of using sport education. As Casey and Quennerstedt [2020. "Cooperative Learning in Physical Education Encountering Dewey's Educational Theory." "European Physical Education Review"] argued, cooperation is not learnt but is practiced over successive lessons and units. Given the real-world importance of cooperative learning and given calls to broaden the pedagogical experiences of young people [Metzler, M. W. 2011. "Instructional Models for Physical Education." 3rd ed. Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway], it seems important to have different approaches to help young people become more cooperative.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1302368
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1302368
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/17408989.2020.1810220
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 375
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Athletics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cooperative Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: High School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 8
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Team Sports
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Conventional Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interpersonal Competence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Group Dynamics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interaction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Accountability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cooperation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Spain
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Sport Education as a Cooperative Learning Endeavour
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fernandez-Rio, Javier
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Casey, Ashley
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1740-8989
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 26
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy
              Type: main
ResultId 1