GRADO EN ESTUDIOS INGLESES

UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRID

COOPERATIVE LEARNING: DIFFICULTIES OF

IMPLEMENTATION IN MADRID

TRABAJO DE FIN DE GRADO

CURSO 2014-1015

APELLIDOS Y NOMBRE: BENTEZ SOLDEVILLA, PABLO

DNI:

53847406J

TUTORA:

DRA. JELENA BBKINA

CONVOCATORIA:

JUNIO 2015

To my TFG tutor, Dr. Jelena

Bbkina, and to the whole lot of
teachers, to whom I owe everything I
know.
To my family, for all the support,
always existent, and for the moments
of silence, inexistent otherwise.
To my friends, for their amelioration
and unconditional love.
To my colleagues, for the day-to-day
smiles.

Table of contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.

Antecedents ................................................................................................................... 2

1.2.

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

1.3.

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

2.

Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 5

3.

Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 5

4.

5.

3.1.

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

3.2.

Questionnaires ............................................................................................................... 7

3.3.

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

Results ................................................................................................................................... 8
4.1.

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

4.2.

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

4.3.

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

4.3.1.

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

4.3.2.

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

4.3.3.

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

4.3.4.

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

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

5.1.

Discussion ................................................................................................................... 19

5.2.

Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 22

6.

Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 22

7.

Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 24

8.

Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 26
8.1.

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

8.2. Appendix II: Questionnaire II: Teachers level of formation and experience with
Cooperative Learning .............................................................................................................. 27
8.3.

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

8.4.

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

8.5.

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

Abstract
This monograph revisits the notion of Cooperative Learning and tackles the contrast
existing between its promising outcomes and its rather low frequency of adoption. In the
understanding of this research, such dichotomy resides within the obstacles posed by its
application, which will be taken into special consideration. To do so, this paper draws
on insights from practical contexts, such as teachers perception of or experience when
adopting such learning methodology, aiming thus at the thorough understanding of any
possible setback that might be experienced.
Key words: cooperative learning, difficulties, implementation, teacher perception,
passive observation.

1. Introduction
There is continued, relatively intense debate around the issue of what pedagogical
approach is the one that fits our system the best, being more efficient when it comes to
the issue of making the most out of primary as well as higher stages of education. This
debate has traditionally brought about two different schools of thought. There are, first
of all, the moderates, that is, the ones who consider that there is little room in our
educational system if any at all for innovations, embracing, this way, more
conservative-like approaches. On the other side of the road, the reactionaries stand; the
ones who move away from these traditional methods. Far from being pejorative, the
term reactionaries makes reference to those who depend on a context and who adapt
themselves to new ideas. They allow evolution and, thereby, betterment. They are
devoted to change and to adaptation. Thus, their pedagogical philosophy is not one of
imposing knowledge and discipline to students, but one that allows them to discover it
themselves (Lasley & Ornstein, 2000) with proper guidance and with adequate
educational goals. By the same token, they remark how actively participating in their
own education allows students to experience a sharp improvement. Stemming from this
is the idea that teaching methods are not an end in themselves, but a means to an end,
they are the vehicle(s) we use to lead our students to particular learning outcomes
(Bourner, 1997). In this sense, not only does Cooperative Learning lead students
towards learning in several ways, but also does it ensure that weaker students are not

left behind and that stronger students realize they themselves also have gaps of
knowledge.
1.1. Antecedents
It is widely known that the notion of Cooperative Learning is not something new within
the greater field of Linguistics. Throughout the history of education, further cooperative
conceptions, such as Freires that one of education (1993) thought of as the ideal way
of personal development, Freires dialogic learning or even Deweys concept of
experience (1938) regarded as the exchange of an individual with their physical and
social surroundings are very commonly found.
These are, however, only a few of the shining examples of philosophers and
psychologists who, not only noted the existing unevenness between traditional learning
and society exigencies, but also dared to defend cooperation, dialogue and meaningful
interaction as essential tools of change and betterment.
It would need to be realized how research proposals accounting for this cooperationrelated field should aim and have in fact aimed at analysing the various learning
approaches that worked successfully during a certain historical period, taking into
consideration what the major inconveniences to their own success were. This would
allow and, again, has indeed allowed the successful development of competent and
plausible learning strategies. Thus, it seems only fair to concede, as many well-known
scholars (Torrego, J., & Negro, A, 2012; Slavin, R. E, 1999; Skon, L., Johnson, D., &
Johnson, R., 1981; Pujols, P, 2008; Ovejero, A, 1990) assert that researchers are not
quite in square one, when it comes down to the area of Cooperative Learning.
In relation to this field, it seems vital to note how, these days, this learning methodology
is, in fact, on the most highly regarded within psycholinguists, teachers and further
members of the learning community. It seems only fair to acknowledge, therefore, that,
once it is adequately controlled and properly applied within a classroom context,
Cooperative Learning is, by all accounts, one of the best ways to proceed when it comes
down to teaching and learning environments. To be able to state this, scholars such as
Felder (1994, cited in Keritha, 2009) have first conducted studies on the effectiveness of
Cooperative Learning and been able to conclude that it indeed has the desired impact in
students work.
2

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

Learning has gotten to be one story with quite a promising outlook within the fields of
social an educational psychology. As acknowledged by Johnson & Johnson (2009), its
success largely rests on the relationships among theory, research and practice.
1.2. Statement of the problem: failure within schools
This notwithstanding, and in spite of the fact that countless investigations do report on
the positive and promising outcomes of the proper application of Cooperative Learning
(Johnson, Johnson, Johnson & Anderson, 1976; Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson
& Skon, 1981; Qin, Johnson & Johnson, 1995; Skon, Johnson & Johnson, 1981),
teachers seem to hold themselves to rather rooted, traditional learning methodologies.
A plausible initial explanation for this could be that these somewhat conventional
approaches to teaching are more simplistic, that is to say, they do not require as much
knowledge, organization, nor effort as Cooperative Learning does. Thus, it appears to be
the case, at least initially, that these teaching methods put teachers to much less
inconveniences than Cooperative Learning would.
It seems only fair to concede, on the other hand, that Cooperative Learning is thought to
be one of the most complicated methodologies to adopt and apply successfully. Thus,
despite its effectiveness, a rather significant number of the teaching community agree
that this cooperative-like approach is not easy to conduct as naturally and contentedly as
it would be expected. A priori, it is to note that, since the theoretical grounds have been
clarified and detailed, the problem would seem to reside somewhere on the practical
context. This notwithstanding, the actual factors that make the paths towards
Cooperative Learning so arduous remain, regrettably, obscure. Emerging from this gap
in knowledge is, thereby, the need for a research study on the subject.
1.3. What Cooperative Learning is
Before this discussion goes further on, it is important to provide a contextualizing
description of what Cooperative Learning is as well as to clarify some notions around it.
On account of its importance within the fields of Applied Linguistics and education,
many have aimed at giving a proper definition of Cooperative Learning.
Cooperation implies working together, liaising with each other to fulfil a mutual
objective, aiming at outcomes that are beneficial from both an individual as well as
3

group perspective. These aspects imply a common goal, a reward for the effort,
knowing and controlling the academic materials and a proper teacher management,
amongst other elements that will be outlined in following lines.
Finding its grounds on these ideas, and albeit common and quite repeated over this sort
of studies, the most canonical definition of Cooperative Learning is that one offered by
Johnson, Johnson and Smith (1991), who have provided us with an enormous amount of
research mileage and a breadth of insights into the phenomenon of Cooperative
Learning. Without it, we probably would not be in the position to consider it as we do
nowadays. Hence, they understand this methodology as the instruction that involves
students working in teams to accomplish a common goal, under conditions that include
five elements. These have been registered in the Johnson and Johnson model (1999),
whose theory has towered above most others and has served as a guiding beacon for
those scholars interested in Cooperative Learning. The elements are, in the words of
Johnson and Johnson (1999):
i.

Positive interdependence: members understand that they must learn

together to accomplish the goal; they need each other for support,
explanations, and guidance.

ii.

Individual accountability: the performance of each group member is

assessed against a standard, and members are held responsible for their
contribution to achieving goals.

iii.

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

across the room.

iv.

Group processing: groups reflect on their collaborative efforts and decide

on ways to improve effectiveness.

v.

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

giving constructive feedback, reaching consensus, and involving every
member, are necessary for effective group functioning. They must be
taught and practiced before the groups tackle a learning task.

Central to the notion of Cooperative Learning is the philosophy behind it. Belonging to
the greater field of constructivism, Cooperative Learning runs under the assumption that
learners are at the same time their own teachers, being they themselves direct
participants of their own learning process. Hence, the constructivist perspective of
4

Cooperative Learning gives rise to the idea that learning is an active construction of
subjects present in a sociocultural environment.

2. Objectives
This paper, hence, sets out to outline as well as to comment upon the aspects and factors
that are most problematic when carrying out Cooperative Learning. Central to this aim
will be the issue of teachers perception of Cooperative Learning.
Further comments will be made in relation to what it would take to implant the method
as the major learning approach within elementary schools as well as upper stages of
education.

3. Methodology
3.1. Research questions and initial hypothesis
After tracing an outline of the theoretical background existing around Cooperative
Learning, after the handing out of questionnaires and after the conducting of a onemonth observation, certain perceptions were gained.
It was thus detected that teachers acknowledge the fact that Cooperative Learning is a
most productive learning technique and yet admit that they feel intimidated by the
difficulties it poses or even unable to make it come to fruition successfully.
Amongst the likely causes that would account for the existing reticence to adopt
Cooperative Learning is the complexity that resides within the process of managing
classroom variety as well as the challenging task of applying it adequately enough to
comply with the educational curriculum that is required. This would put to manifest the
fact that it might be obliged for teachers to undergo adequate and complete training on
Cooperative Learning, its teaching techniques and deeper issues in relation to them.
Complementary to this expected outcome is the idea that students might also need to
undergo a certain process of training before they are put to do cooperative work. It is
claimed that this would prevent them from having problems with hierarchy perception
and from believing that their teachers are delegating their duties to them. Consequently,
it could be anticipated that, ideally, students would need to develop certain social skills
5

that will be key, firstly, to a successful peer interaction and, secondly, to the acquisition
of academic notions.
This latter idea, however, might not be plausible in real life since training courses imply
using money and time in a way that is not always possible for schools, especially when
upsides to come are not perceived immediately.
A further possible outcome is that teachers turn out to not being convinced of the fact
that carrying out this methodology on their own is adequate for students in the long
term. It is not to forget, after all, that Cooperative Learning would need to be conducted
not just by one or even a few teachers within a school, but by the whole of the
instructing community. Plus, it is to say that Cooperative Learning would need to be run
throughout the whole educative process, not just through one academic year.
In the light of these results, this monograph fields the following research questions:
1. What is the importance of conducting training courses prior to the actual
implementation of Cooperative Learning?
2. How is the issue of continuity relevant to the successful adoption of such
learning methodology? Is it plausible to adopt Cooperative Learning in every
subject?
3. Is Cooperative Learning suitable for the fully compliance of the curriculum
imposed by vertically upper educational authorities?
Hence, some initial hypotheses can be drawn:
1. Prior training is a prime requirement for the adequate conducting of Cooperative
Learning
2. For Cooperative Leaning to be as successful as possible, it needs to be adopted
consistently.
3. The upsides of Cooperative Learning are fiercely undeniable, both in sociorelational as well as in academic terms.
In order to provide an answer to these questions, research methodology needs to be
clear, concise and concrete. Thus, two paths have been chosen for extracting the data.
To begin with, it is to say that both primary and secondary data are of key importance
when conducting researches. To our purposes, secondary data coming from teachers or
6

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

several aspects in relation to the notion of Cooperative Learning per se will be handed
out to actual elementary as well as secondary school teachers. Additionally, passive
observation of Cooperative Learning lessons will also be performed. The collection of
primary data in such way will be fundamental to the thorough understanding of the
major setbacks experienced when conducting Cooperative Learning.
3.2. Questionnaires
In order to extract precise information from teachers, two questionnaires both of which
tackle several issues in relation to Cooperative Learning, to its study and to its
application within classrooms have been drawn up. An outline of the two of them is
here provided:
3.2.1. The first questionnaire (SEE APPENDIX I) accounts for the teachers
attitude towards Cooperative Learning and for the regard they have of it.
This way, it counts on a structure with close format questions. Respondents
will thereby face a set of rated answers to choose from. This of course
means that the questions need to be highly precise.
It is widely known how teachers approach learning from a whole set of different
perspectives. This questionnaire therefore aims at outlining the motivations that
lead teachers to put into effect, or not, Cooperative Learning. Vital to the
understanding of these is the opinion, not only of teachers already adopting
Cooperative Learning, but also of those who are not. Both perspectives and
attitude will be critical to the proper understanding of their perception and
experience.
3.2.2. The second questionnaire (SEE APPENDIX II) accounts for the level of
formation and the experience teachers have on the field of Cooperative
Learning. Thus, it counts on a slightly different structure, containing close
format questions, all of which are multiple-response like, all of which are
rated; it also contains two open format questions, allowing the respondents
to openly express themselves always in relation to the issues that are put
to manifest by the question. Consequently, it would seem logic that this
questionnaire is handed out to teachers who actually carry out Cooperative
Learning methodologies.
7

After answers are collected, amassed and organised, a content analysis consisting on a
proper evaluation of the results will be carried out. In this stage of the methodology,
tabulation and graphics will be designed accordingly to the extracted data.
3.3. Passive observation
Additional to the questionnaires, which will give us a general idea of how Cooperative
Learning is regarded and experienced by the teachers, further methodology needs to be
conducted.
Cooperative Learning is widely recognized as a teaching strategy that promotes
socialization and learning among students from kindergarten through college and across
different subject areas (Cohen, 1994, cited in Gillies, 2007). Consequently, it seems
only fair that passive observation is carried out along intermediate stages of education,
with the hope that it might confirm whether the results provided with the inquiries
comply with the reality of Cooperative learning or not.
Concerning passive observation on itself, it is to say that it was done externally: as the
observer, I was present when Cooperative Learning lessons were conducted but did not
play a part anywhere in the learning process. The overriding objective of this is to
analyse the performance of the class both teachers and students, paying special
attention to factors such as positive interdependence, promotive interaction, individual
accountability, social skills or group processing, all of which are most trivial when
undertaking Cooperative Learning.
As it was made with the secondary data extracted from the questionnaires, an analysis
of the extracted results will also be carried out, this time taking into account that the
nature of the data is slightly different. To evaluate the performance of both the teacher
and the students as well as the effectiveness of Cooperative Learning, a table (SEE
APPENDIX III) was developed with individualized items related to the learning
approach per se. Every aspect that was analysed is present within it.

4. Results
Once the questionnaires have been responded to, passive observation, conducted, and
both sets of data properly registered and analysed, an outline on them is to be provided.
Thus, this section aims at displaying the results provided by such methodology.
8

4.1. Teachers perception of Cooperative Learning questionnaire

It seems only fair to clarify, first, that this questionnaire was passed along in three
different schools to teachers who do not use Cooperative Learning. As mentioned in
previous sections of this paper, to count on their perspective is of vital importance when
aiming at the identification of reasons for which teachers decide to conduct or not to
conduct Cooperative Learning within their classrooms. Because all of them are rather
big institutions especially School A, which has seven different schools in Madrid; and
School B 60 questionnaires were properly filled in and returned back.
After the questionnaires were returned, the data contained within them was amassed and
organised. Its organisation was something that needed to be done with utmost order and
systematization. Consequently, pertinent data tables and adequate meta-graphs were
drawn on Microsoft Excel.
It is to say, in relation to the results of this particular questionnaire, that it meets the
initial expectations, at least partially. Some realisations are especially relevant to the
purposes of this research.
Hence, all contestants most of which had scarce formation on Cooperative Learning
(see figure 1. 2. and 1. 3.) agreed that adequate formation both of teachers (see figure
1. 4.) and students is a must for the proper conducting of such methodology and that
continuity is of vital importance for the successful application of it (see figure 1. 6.).

Figure 1. 1 Item 2: Level of dominance

1

Figure 1. 3. Item 3: Level of formation

18% 2% 20%

15%
17%

20%

32%
40%

30%

6%

Figure 1. 4. Item 4: Formation relevance

Figure 1. 6. Item 6: Consistency

awareness
1

2%

0% 0%

0%

5%

22%
38%

43%

60%
30%

By the same token, most contestants seemed to coincide that adopting Cooperative
Learning would imply considerable disciplinary issues (see figure 1. 18.), derive in
academically insufficient formation (see figure 1. 19.) and challenge the fulfilment of
the imposed curriculum (see figure 1. 20.) on account the fact that it might be timeconsuming (see 1. 21.)

Figure 1. 18. Item 18: Disciplinary issues

Figure 1. 19. Item 19: Academic

insufficiencies

5%

10%
15%

12%

8%
33%

36%
27%

34%

20%

Figure 1. 20. Item 20: Curriculum impossibility

Figure

1.

21.

Item

21:

Time-

consuming

15% 3% 15%

5%

7%
20%

41%

23%
44%

27%

These results show how teachers who have not undergone training on Cooperative
Learning perceive such learning methodology as one posing certain problems within the
class. This does of course not mean they do not acknowledge its upsides. However, it is
10

fairly true that, when making a decision, downsides are usually given considerably high
importance.
4.2. Teachers experience on Cooperative Learning questionnaire
Despite the fact that the notion of Cooperative Learning has centuries of history and
despite its promising upsides, its adoption and its application are quite recent within
modern schools in our society. As rightfully stated by Slavin (1999, cited in Gillies,
2007), it is one of the greatest educational innovations of recent times. Finding schools
where Cooperative Leaning is fully and adequately applied is, consequently, a
somewhat difficult task. However, access could be granted to two different schools in
the outskirts of Madrid. Both of them conduct Cooperative Learning at least throughout
the early stages of education that is, Primary education. These were School A, which
also applied Cooperative Learning in Secondary, and School C.
Even though they both adopt Cooperative Learning methodologies, the number of
trained teachers who are able to do so is not the highest. On account of this, a sum of 30
questionnaires were handed back on time. Just as done with the previous set of
questionnaires, the organization and the analysis of the data contained in this second set
was made by means of Microsoft Excel data tables and meta-graphs.
Once again, it would seem that the initial expectations were quite accurate in some of its
claims.
Going along and further with the thoughts of the contestants of the previous
questionnaire, contestants of this one who have indeed undergone formation (see
figure 2. 2.) strongly believe that formation both teachers (see figures 2. 3. and 2. 4.)
and students and consistency of appliance (see figure 2. 6.) are absolute requirements
for the successful undertaking of Cooperative Learning. The fact that they comply with
these items even more strongly than contestants of the previous questionnaires points to
foregone conclusions.

11

Figure 2. 2. Item 2: Level of dominance

Figure 2. 3. Item 3: Level of

formation

5
3%

0% 0%

0% 0% 10%
30%

44%

53%

60%
Figure 2. 4. Item 4: Formation relevance

Figure 2. 6. Item 6: Consistency

awareness

0% 0%0%

0% 0%

27%
43%

57%
73%

On the other hand, it is noticeable how results of certain items contrast with the
corresponding results extracted from the previous questionnaire, leaving some
interesting conclusions. A shining example of these contrasts is the fact that contestants
of this questionnaire diverge with the previous contestants in the statements aiming at
the presumptuous downsides of Cooperative Learning. It could be therefore argued that
they approached the issues of discipline (see figure 2. 18.), academic insufficiency (see
figure 2. 19.), curriculum fulfilment impossibility (see figure 1. 20.) and timeconsuming setback (see 1. 21.), quite oppositely.

Figure 2. 18. Item 18: Disciplinary issues

Figure 2. 19. Item 19: Academic

insufficiencies

7%
17%

17% 0% 13%
30%

23%

40%

12

13%

40%

Figure 2. 20. Item 20: Curriculum impossibility

Figure

2.

21.

Item

21:

Time-

consuming

7%

3%

10% 0%

27%

17%

17%
40%

46%

33%

Opposite to the data extracted from the previous questionnaire, this set of data shows
how teachers who are already acquainted with Cooperative Learning consider this
aspects of it non-problematic and are actually able to deal with them in a successful
manner.
4.3. Passive observation
As a mere task of observing, without interfering with the course of the lessons, passive
observation was carried out in four different classes of School A. It is to note that this
methodology covered two different instrumental subjects that is, Maths and Spanish
along two different courses, which were fourth and fifth of Primary Education.
Because passive observation was carried out within the same school and because all
primary teachers are led by the same coordination, the application of Cooperative
Learning towards the different subjects and along the grades had little variance. This
way, it would be interesting to provide an overall description of how they preceded with
cooperatives techniques first and a more detailed description of the differences
afterwards.
Their organisation of the sessions was akin for every lesson and grade. They allow
themselves an initial thirty-minute session to provide the students with the main notions
they would need to work on and to inform them in advance about how upcoming classes
would run on the grounds of Cooperative Learning. Sessions are all organised equally:
five groups of four to five people will be made, just as desks will be put together
conforming five thematic corners. Thus, each corner will be devoted to one activity
straightforwardly related to the lesson itself; in this case, Maths and Spanish. Students
will have to deal with every each activity working cooperatively with the colleagues of
their group. By the end of each lesson, which usually lasts two days, occasionally
three students should have undergone and resolved all of the corners, writing the
13

conclusions they are asked to on their notebooks. Liaising with other groups will be
allowed only when co-workers are incapable of providing any help; by the same token,
asking the teacher will only be allowed when none of the groups can help. When the
corner sessions are over, there will be one more session in which a test will be made.
Concerning the grades, they will be given following a certain set of criteria, which was
stablished a priori. Fundamentally, these criteria are built taking into account the
correctness of the test answers as well as the suitable fulfilling of all the skills stemming
from

the

Cooperative

Learning

theoretical

background,

namely,

positive

interdependence, individual accountability, promotive interaction, group processing and

the development of small-group interpersonal skills. In order to grade these in a
successful manner, they had, at least, two teachers per class, which allowed strict and
close monitoring of the various activities. Added to these two teachers, and provided
that there was a special-need student (SPNS) in the class, they counted on a therapeutic
teacher as well. Their objective was to ensure that the SPNS performed adequately and
to prevent, should necessary, outburst of rage or sadness. This was due to the fact that,
in some of the cases, special-need students can be quite unstable, emotionally speaking.
This issue will be furtherly tackled in upcoming sections of this paper.
After providing an overall outline of their procedure, it would be interesting to provide a
more detailed explanation for each class.
4.3.1. Fourth grade Maths I
This class consisted of twenty five ten-year-old children. The content they were being
taught was measures, weight and height. The way they functioned was following the
aforementioned system of five corners, which, in this case, were called Balance it,
Measure it, Solve it, Resolve it and Google it. The first minutes of the class were
for the teacher to explain what the new corners consisted in to the students.
Additionally, the teacher would tell the students what they were supposed to achieve by
the end of the lesson. After the explanation, students would take the lead of their own
learning.
When in the Balance it corner, students counted with an actual regulated balance and
with weights. Making good use of it, they had to weight up personal objects, such as
pencil cases, rubbers, watches and so on. Plus, they had to write down the results and
order them from the highest to the lowest, comparing theirs with their colleagues.
14

When facing the Measure it corner, their task was to measure their height, their peers
and one of the teachers; to do so, they were provided with a metric tape. Last of all,
they had to write down the results and to organise them from the highest to the lowest.
The Resolve it corner consisted in the solving of a certain mathematic operation,
namely, a square root or a fraction operation. The had to work in conjunction with each
other, explaining the steps by which the operation had to be solved and writing down
the solutions they would get.
The Solve it corner was very close-related to the Resolve it one, since it consisted of a
problem that was posed to the students, who had to work along with their peers in order
to solve it. However, as it happened with the previous corner, they also ought to
collaborate with each other, showing the logic, steps and operation behind the
problematic itself to each other.
The last corner was the Tablet it corner. Within this corner, tablets were available and
distributed among each of the group members. Hence, students needed to experience the
notions they had learnt weight, height, data comparison, shapes and so on by means
of a practical activity. Albeit theoretical in the sense that math content was aimed at,
this corner was, by all accounts, the most entertaining, since they played short games
available at official, educational websites.
Once they had finished, they made sure everything was properly allocated so that the
next group would find it as clean and organised as they did, showing tremendous care
for their colleagues process of learning.
Here, the results of the tabulation lay:
Table 1. Fourth grade of Primary: Maths class I.

Fourth grade of Primary - Maths class I

Balance
Resolve
Identifier
Measure it
it
it
Positive interdependence
5
5
5
Individual accountability
5
5
5
Promotive interaction
5
4
5
Group processing
5
4
4
Development of interpersonal skills
5
4
4
Noise
4
3
5
Time
4
5
5
15

Solve it

Tablet it

5
5
5
4
4
5
5

5
5
5
5
5
4
5

The data extracted from the table shows that this class functioned outstandingly in all
evaluated aspects of Cooperative Learning.
When it came down to the academic realisations, however, students were, at least
initially, a bit at a loss. It was evident that the task was difficult for all of them, and yet
every each individual proved to care about their learning; they all felt the need to
contribute to the group and to help their friends; all of them felt an intrinsic motivation
in both the task and the cooperation itself; they all made an effort to get along better
than they already did in order to solve the problematic and, most importantly, they all
took the task seriously and wrote down consequent, pertinent solutions.
Of outstanding importance is the fact that, within this class, there was a SPNS who
needed partial curricular adaptation. His problem had the grounds on a Pervasive
Developmental Disorder (PDD) and prevented him from socializing and from
communicating naturally or successfully. More particularly, he suffered from a
relatively high level of autism, finding it tremendously difficult to experience any sort
interpersonal interaction. This notwithstanding, his performance, and their colleagues
towards him, was stunning in the sense that he would be an indispensable part of the
group: he collaborated, contributed and experienced positive socialization.
4.3.2. Fourth grade Maths II
As for the second group also a fourth year of Maths, the outline bears much
resemblance. It is to realize that the activities and the overall procedure of applying
Cooperative Learning were the same. This notwithstanding, finding two groups which
react equally to the same learning methodology is, at the very least, unlikely. These two,
albeit similar, are no exception.
Regarding the skills most directly related to Cooperative Learning, it needs to be
mentioned that their performance was most satisfactory. On this line of thinking, it
should be taken into fair consideration how students had a vested interest in the
development of their own learning, getting immerse into every factor connected to it.
This way, they genuinely felt the need to contribute to their group individually, to help
their partners, to negotiate contents. All this was made with utmost sympathy and good
manners. This can be observed in the data table:

16

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

Fourth grade of Primary - Maths class II

Measure
Identifier
Balance it
Resolve it
it
Positive interdependence
5
5
5
Individual accountability
5
3
5
Promotive interaction
5
4
5
Group processing
5
4
4
Development of interpersonal skills
5
4
3
Noise
3
4
5
Time
5
5
4

Solve it
5
5
5
3
3
5
4

Tablet
it
5
4
5
5
5
5
5

Of special importance is the presence of a SPNS. The nature of this students problem,
however, was quite different: he had his Somatic Nervous System damaged for a long
period of his scholar life, which not only brought about social problems with his
classmates and friends, but also learning as well as focusing difficulties. Consequently,
blending was truly challenging for him. Added to this, lack of concentration in any
academic activity posed a huge setback for him. As it happened with the previous case,
these students felt outstandingly reinforced by his colleagues, who helped him,
encouraged him and were by his side without hesitation.
4.3.3. Fifth grade Spanish I
When it comes to the running of Cooperative Learning methodology along a Spanish
class, it is always important to note how, although the procedure is a lot like in the case
of maths, some variances can be observed, especially on the academic area.
To begin with, it is important to clarify the corners of this subject as well as the way
students had to proceed with them. Quite as necessary as it was with Maths, five corners
were developed for Spanish. These were: Write it, Assemble it, Analyse it, Find
it and Tablet it.
The Write it corner consisted in writing a short argumentative text of about eighty
words, arguing for or against a given topic. Needless to say, this had to be done
cooperatively.
Also aiming at developing language skills, the Assemble it corner challenges the
students to put the paragraphs of a long text in order. To do that, each of the five
students of the group was given two or three paragraphs. Hence, they will have to read
17

them out loud and hear to their colleagues readings, so that they all, in conjunction with
each other, assembled it in order to conform the original text.
As for the Analyse it corner, it is interesting how students had to fulfil the task of
writing down a complete linguistic analysis of a given text, namely an article, an essay
or a story.
Concerning the Find it corner, it is to note how, developing their own linguistic ability,
students had to identify the text paragraphs fulfilling the different functions they were
given on a piece of paper.
The last corner was the Tablet it corner, where students had to use their tablets, just as
they did in Maths, to access the official websites their teachers had told them to in order
to do syntax, textual-organization or grammar exercises, fundamentally.
The data extracted from the experiment of observation indicates that the development of
Cooperative Learning features, namely, the five elements described by Johnson and
Johnson (1999), was an utter success. Hence, members of the group understood that
they had to learn together to accomplish the goal; they need each other for support,
explanations, and guidance. Additionally, they understood how each of them was held
responsible for their contribution to achieving goals and had to decide how to improve
their effectiveness. All this reflects on the pertinent table, drawn when conducting the
passive observation.

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

Fifth grade of Primary - Spanish class I

Assemble
Identifier
Write it
Analyse it
it
Positive interdependence
5
5
5
Individual accountability
5
5
5
Promotive interaction
5
5
5
Group processing
5
5
5
Development of interpersonal skills
5
5
5
Noise
5
5
5
Time
4
5
5

Find it
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

Tablet
it
5
5
5
4
5
4
5

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

superbly. It is widely known how Cooperative Learning have been used successfully to
18

promote reading and writing achievements among middle school students,

understanding in science classes and problem solving in mathematics, to name just a
few (Gillies, 2007). However, it might as well be stated that Cooperative Learning
works better in language-like subjects. It seems only fair, after all, that interpersonal
skills are achieved better within subjects where communication is not only a means, but
also an end.
4.3.4. Fifth grade Spanish II
Being conducted equally upon a Spanish class, the outcomes of Cooperative Learning
seems to have little variance throughout different groups. This notwithstanding, no
group is alike. As a result of this, certain differences can be noted:
Table 4. Fifth grade of Primary. Spanish class II.

Fifth grade of Primary - Spanish class II

Assemble
Identifier
Write it
Analyse it
it
Positive interdependence
5
5
5
Individual accountability
5
5
5
Promotive interaction
5
5
5
Group processing
5
4
3
Development of interpersonal skills
5
4
4
Noise
5
4
3
Time
4
5
5

Find it

Tablet it

5
5
5
4
4
5
5

5
5
4
3
5
4
4

Albeit positive, the results obtained in this class were not as shining as in the previous
one. Thus, some corners, such as the Analyse it one or the Tablet it one, showed a lower
level of success when it came down to students performance in relation to group
processing. The first of these corners also showed a level of noise that could be hardly
deaden by the professors attempts.
Apart from that, the performance of students was most promising in terms of both
academic and interpersonal skills.

5. Discussion of results and conclusions

5.1. Discussion
By seeing Cooperative Learning as a part of the relational work inherent in school social
interaction, the present paper has chosen to take a different perspective on this
19

methodology from those merely theoretical. Stemming from this is the idea that
Cooperative Learning needs to be analysed also inductively that is, drawing
conclusions based on context-related data extracted from valid, relevant circumstances
in which Cooperative Learning is conducted.
Taking all this into fair consideration, it seems to be the case, at least initially, that the
key to the success of Cooperative Learning resides on its inclusive philosophy, in
addition to its practice. It is of course not a claim of this paper that its application or any
factor connected to it such as teachers level of formation or learning tools have little
importance. Both aspects build a continuum and there is certainly a grey area in the
middle where it is not possible to separate the two of them.
It could be maintained, on the same subject, that it is only by means of revisiting these
aspects in the pertinent context, that the difficulties of appliance experienced when
conducting Cooperative Learning will be entirely identified and outlined. After diving
deep into all the issues surrounding the aforementioned aspects, conclusions can be
drawn in relation to these difficulties. Thus, the data extracted from both questionnaires
and from the passive observation reflect various kinds of realisations.
To begin with, they first confirmation stemming from them is that teacher training
needs to be conducted prior to the application of Cooperative Learning per se. Teachers
themselves with or without formation on such learning methodology acknowledge
that they cannot afford to carry out such methodology without previous formation
courses (see figures 1. 2., 1. 3., 1. 4., and 2. 2., 2. 3., 2. 4).
Indeed, it is particularly interesting to realise how teachers who have no formation at all
show themselves to be rather sceptical about certain aspects of Cooperative Learning.
Thus, they seem to believe that its application would lead to certain noise and
behavioural consequences (see figure 1. 18). This notwithstanding, when it comes to the
opinion of trained teachers who have actually adopted the methodology, it can be
observed that this sort of problems are not as such or can be perfectly dealt with (see
figure 2. 18.).
The initial complexity of carrying out Cooperative Learning admittedly requires a sort
of knowledge that cannot be improvised. It is such level of complexion that accounts for
the teachers request that courses should be designed where dynamic teamwork
20

strategies, cooperative work, dialogue, participation and respect towards others opinion
are enhanced and put to practice (Prez, 1999).
However, teachers training will be much more effective, if they actually show
willingness to the idea of adopting Cooperative Learning. Complying with the
educational times they lived, a considerably high number of teachers have received a
more individualistic education. Like them, most of the parents have undergone similar
educational contexts, so they probably share the same unevenness. This might account
for their reticence to adopt and accept, respectively, such innovative methodologies as
Cooperative Learning (Prez, 1999). To deal with such reservations, it is compulsory
that the educational community as a whole keeps an open mind and raises awareness on
the promising outcomes of such methodology. A shift on the perspective is all it takes.
Of equal importance is the training of students, whose performance is straightforwardly
connected to the level of success of Cooperative Learning. This was demonstrated by
the passive observation, which showed a marked contrast between experienced students
and students who had hardly undergone this learning methodology.
Adopting cooperative learning methodologies successfully is, by all accounts, not an
easy task and has many inconveniences along the whole process. However, it is
maintained that, along with an adequate formation, many of these setbacks can become
strengths, quite paradoxically. Thus, the results of this study have proved how the lack
of social skills can be translated into the outstandingly positive development of certain
skills, such as positive interdependence or promotive interaction. By the same token, as
asserted by teachers in the open ended section of the second questionnaire, despite the
fact that student diversity or class management are two of the most challenging aspects
of Cooperative Learning, a proper formation would allow the teacher to handle both of
them with utmost adequacy. It can be asserted, thereby, that the dichotomy lying behind
the notion of Cooperative Learning is nothing but promising.
It is also asserted that, for Cooperative Learning to be successful, continuity not only
throughout different subjects, but also along the different stages of education is another
mandatory requirement (see figures 1. 6. and 2. 6.) It appears to be the case, at least
initially, that the satisfactory outcomes of the methodology most evidently tangible at
the end of each educational stage have a good lot of things to do with the adequate and
constant application of it.
21

When it comes down to the academic competences, it seems that Cooperative Learning
allows students to be a direct part of their own learning process and to reap the harvest
of their own effort. Hence, all students appeared to understand the notions gradually
over time, applying them correctly and with absolute determination. Central to this
achievement is the philosophy lying behind Cooperative Learning. It seems to be the
inclusive side of it that allows students to get involved, to grow and to develop
themselves in a whole set of different manners. As acknowledged by Johnson & R.
Johnson (2003), cooperative learning creates a group ethos where students realize that
members will work to help and support their endeavours, and it is the sense of group
cohesion that develops that enhances students motivation to achieve both their own and
the groups goals.
5.2. Conclusions
Taking all this into consideration, and being aware of the limitations of this study, the
fact that some aspects of Cooperative Learning are regarded as challenging cannot be
undermined. In relation these aspects, the foregone conclusion would seem to be that
there is an existing need of specific training or formation that has to be addressed. It is
precisely the satisfaction of this need that would make Cooperative Learning much
more accessible for teachers and, most importantly, for students. It appears to be the
case that, after this initial difficulty is overcome, downsides will become upsides and
the implementation of such learning methodology will be much easier. Albeit difficult
to implement, the inescapable truth seems to be, therefore, that Cooperative Learning is
a positive methodological approach to learning.
Hence, not only are the results extracted from the questionnaires most favourable to
these claims, but also an expansion as well as a confirmation of them. Thus, despite the
reticence observed in some members of the educational community, Cooperative
Learning is nothing but a story of success. It is the philosophy lying behind it that needs
to be underpinned, espoused and, most importantly, embraced.

6. Limitations
One first limitation would be the fact that none of the questionnaires has been officially
validated. Although both were designed specifically to meet the purposes of this study
and aim at relevant issues connected to it, they are most likely flawed. Indeed, Item 5
22

(SEE APENDIX II) turned out to be a bit problematic, as some contestants remarked on
the fact that, even though their colleagues had formation on Cooperative Learning, they
did not apply it correctly or, rather, correspondingly to their formation. Thus, that
particular question could be reformulated.
Another apparent limitation is that his monograph draws on data extracted from the
observation as well as the handing in of questionnaires within a few schools throughout
Madrid. Consequently, it would seem unethical to dispute the fact that the relevance of
the sample might not be completely reliable. To confirm the possible conclusions, a
follow-up research would need to be carried out.

23

7. Bibliography

Bisquerra, R. (2009). Metodologa de la invesigacin educativa. Madrid: Editorial

Muralla.
Bourner, T. (1997). Teaching methods for learning outcomes. Education and Training,
345.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Gaviln, P., & Alario, R. (2010). Aprendizaje cooperativo. Una metodologa con futuro.
Principios y aplicaciones. . Madrid: CCS.
Gillies, R. M. (2007). Cooperative Learning. Integrating. Theory and Practice. Los
Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Hennessey, ., & Dionigi, R. (2013). Implementing cooperative learning in Australian
primary schools: Generalist teachers' perspectives. Issues in Educational
Research., 52-68.
Imbernn, F. (2007). 10 ideas clave. La formacin permanente del profesorado. Nuevas
ideas para formaren la innovacin y el cambio. Barcelona: Grao.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Anderson, D. (1976). Effects of Cooperative versus
Individualized Instruction on Student Prosodical Behavior. Attitude towards
Learning and Achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 446-452.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative Learning:
Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity. Washington D. C.: ERIC.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1999). Learning together and alone. Cooperative,
competitive and individualistic learning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2003). Student motivation in cooperative groups: Social
interdependence theory. In R. Gillies, & A. Ashman, Cooperative learning: The
social and intelectual outcomes of learning in groups (pp. 136-176). London:
RoutledegeFalmer.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An Educational Psychology Success story: Social
Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning.
Johnson, D., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of
Cooperative, Competitive and Individualistic Goal Structures on Achievement:
A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 47-62.

24

Johnson, R., & Roseth, C. (2008). Promoting Early Adolescents' Acheivement and Peer
Relationships: The Effects of Cooperative, and Individualistic Goal Structures.
American Psychological Association, 223-246.
Keritha , M. (2009). Attitude of Students Towards Cooperative Learning Methods at
Knox Community. Jamaica.
Kewley, L. (1998). Peer collaboration versus teacher directed instruction: how two
methodologies engage students in the learning process. Journal of Research in
Childhood Education, 27-32.
Lasley, T. J., & Omstein, A. C. (2000). Strategies for effective teaching. McGraw-Hill.
Len del Barco, B. (2002). Elementos mediadores en la eficacia del aprendizaje
cooperativo: entrenamientos en habilidades sociales y dinmica del grupo.
Cceres.
Ovejero, A. (1990). El aprendizaje cooperativo. Una alternativa eficaz a la enseanza
tradicional. Barcelona: PPU.
Prez , M. (1999). Qu necesidades de formacin perciben los profesores? Tendencias
pedaggicas, 7-24.
Pujols, P. (2001). Atencin a la diversidad y aprendizaje cooperativo en la educacin
obligatoria. . Archidona: Ediciones Arjibe.
Pujols, P. (2002). Ensear juntos a alumnos diferentes. La atencin a la diversidad y
la calidad en educacin. Zaragoza: Psicopedagoga de la Universidad de Vic.
Pujols, P. (2008). 9 ideas clave. El aprendizaje cooperativo. Barcelona: Grao.
Qin, Z., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and
problem solving. Review of Educational Research Summer, 129-143.
Skon, L., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1981). Cooperative Peer Interaction Versus
Individual Competition and Individualistic Effort: Effects on the Acquisition of
Cognitive Reasoning Strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83-92.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning. Theory, research and practice. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Smith, K., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1981). Can Conflic Be Constructive?
Controversy Versus Concurrence Seeking in Learning Groups. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 651-663.
Torrego, J., & Negro, A. (2012). Aprendizaje cooperativo en las aulas. Fundamentos y
recursos para su implantacin. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.

25

8. Appendices
8.1.Appendix I: Questionnaire I: Teachers perception of Cooperative Learning
Cuestionario sobre la percepcin del profesorado del Aprendizaje Cooperativo
A continuacin, le presentamos unas afirmaciones en relacin a la aplicacin de mtodos de enseanza de trabajo cooperativo dentro del
aula. Exprese su grado de conformidad con tales afirmaciones, sealando con un crculo uno de los valores, siendo:
1=No estoy nada de acuerdo; 2= No estoy de acuerdo; 3=No estoy ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo; 4=Estoy de acuerdo; 5=Estoy muy de
acuerdo
N

tem

Considero muy interesante la idea de adoptar metodologas de enseanza basadas en el trabajo cooperativo.

Entiendo y controlo las tcnicas del Aprendizaje Cooperativo suficientemente bien como para aplicarlas de
forma exitosa.

He recibido cursos de formacin sobre el Aprendizaje Cooperativo.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Creo que, para implementar de forma exitosa metodologas de enseanza basadas en el trabajo
cooperativo, sera til o necesario recibir primero formacin al respecto.
Mis compaeros han recibido cursos de formacin o controlan las tcnicas del Aprendizaje Cooperativo
suficientemente bien como para aplicarlas de forma exitosa.
Entiendo la importancia de que dichas metodologas se lleven a cabo de forma consistente en las distintas
etapas formativas que aborda mi centro educativo.
Estoy convencido de que todos podemos aprender de todos.
El Aprendizaje Cooperativo es una metodologa muy bien valorada por la comunicad educativa y que
promete buenos resultados dentro del mbito de la enseanza.
Aplicar tcnicas de aprendizaje basadas en el trabajo cooperativo fomenta de forma positiva la actitud de
los estudiantes hacia su aprendizaje.
Si mis alumnos trabajaran de forma cooperativa, las relaciones interpersonales entre ellos mejoraran.
Considero que adoptar tcnicas de aprendizaje basadas en el trabajo cooperativo favorecera a la
integracin en la clase de alumnos con necesidades especiales.
Considero que adoptar tcnicas de aprendizaje basadas en el trabajo cooperativo convertira a mis alumnos
en estudiantes ms ambiciosos.
Considero que adoptar tcnicas de aprendizaje basadas en el trabajo cooperativo fomentara que mis
alumnos desarrollasen un sentido de corresponsabilidad de cara a sus compaeros.
Considero que adoptar tcnicas de aprendizaje basadas en el trabajo cooperativo supondra el desarrollo
de capacidades sociales e interpersonales.
Considero que adoptar tcnicas de aprendizaje basadas en el trabajo cooperativo ayudara a mis estudiantes
a desarrollar o mejorar ciertas habilidades como la de colaborar, argumentar o resolver conflictos grupales,
entre otras.
Considero que adoptar tcnicas de aprendizaje basadas en el trabajo cooperativo aportara nuevas ideas y
perspectivas a todos los alumnos.
Hablando en trminos generales, el trabajo cooperativo tiene ms ventajas que el meramente individual.
Considero que utilizar tcnicas del trabajo cooperativo conllevara ciertos problemas de disciplina dentro
del aula.
Considero que el trabajo cooperativo le da demasiada importancia a las habilidades sociales, dejando
menos espacio para las competencias acadmicas.
Considero que utilizar tcnicas de aprendizaje basadas en el trabajo cooperativo de forma consistente a lo
largo del curso no permitira cubrir todo temario que se me requiere.
Aplicar Aprendizaje Cooperativo lleva demasiado tiempo de clase.
Aplicar Aprendizaje Cooperativo en mi asignatura sera ms difcil de conseguir que en otras.
(En caso positivo, especifique asignatura________________________________)
Llevar a cabo Aprendizaje Cooperativo supone ms esfuerzo que aplicar otras metodologas de enseanza
ms tradicionales.
El Aprendizaje Cooperativo es menos eficaz que aplicar otras metodologas de enseanza ms
26
tradicionales.
Considero que realizar estudios y anlisis sobre estrategias de aprendizaje tan innovativas como el
Aprendizaje Cooperativo es relevante para la comunidad educativa.

Puntuacin

8.2. Appendix II: Questionnaire II: Teachers level of formation and experience with Cooperative Learning
Cuestionario sobre la formacin y la experiencia del profesorado con el Aprendizaje Cooperativo
A continuacin, le presentamos unas afirmaciones en relacin a la aplicacin de mtodos de enseanza de trabajo cooperativo dentro del
aula. Exprese su grado de conformidad con tales afirmaciones, sealando con un crculo uno de los valores, siendo:
1=No estoy nada de acuerdo; 2= No estoy de acuerdo; 3=No estoy ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo; 4=Estoy de acuerdo; 5=Estoy muy de
acuerdo
N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

tem
Considero muy interesante la idea de adoptar metodologas de enseanza basadas en el trabajo
cooperativo.
Entiendo y controlo las tcnicas del Aprendizaje Cooperativo suficientemente bien como para aplicarlas
de forma exitosa.
He recibido cursos de formacin sobre el Aprendizaje Cooperativo.
Creo que, para implementar de forma exitosa metodologas de enseanza basadas en el trabajo
cooperativo, es til o necesario recibir primero formacin al respecto.
Mis compaeros han recibido cursos de formacin o controlan las tcnicas del Aprendizaje Cooperativo
suficientemente bien como para aplicarlas de forma exitosa.
Entiendo la importancia de que dichas metodologas se lleven a cabo de forma consistente en las distintas
etapas formativas que aborda mi centro educativo.
Estoy convencido de que todos podemos aprender de todos.
El Aprendizaje Cooperativo es una metodologa muy bien valorada por la comunicad educativa y que
promete buenos resultados dentro del mbito de la enseanza.
Aplicar Aprendizaje Cooperativo fomenta de forma positiva la actitud de los estudiantes hacia su
aprendizaje.
Cuando mis alumnos trabajan de forma cooperativa, las relaciones interpersonales entre ellos mejoran.
Considero que llevar a cabo Aprendizaje Cooperativo favorece a la integracin en la clase de alumnos con
necesidades especiales.
Considero que implementar Aprendizaje Cooperativo convierte a mis alumnos en estudiantes ms
ambiciosos.
Considero que implementar Aprendizaje Cooperativo fomenta que mis alumnos desarrollen un sentido de
corresponsabilidad de cara a sus compaeros.
Considero que llevar a cabo Aprendizaje Cooperativo supone el desarrollo de capacidades sociales e
interpersonales.
Considero que implementar Aprendizaje Cooperativo ayuda a mis estudiantes a desarrollar o mejorar
ciertas habilidades como la de colaborar, argumentar o resolver conflictos grupales, entre otras.
Considero que adoptar tcnicas de aprendizaje basadas en el trabajo cooperativo aporta nuevas ideas y
perspectivas a todos los alumnos.
Hablando en trminos generales, el Aprendizaje Cooperativo tiene ms ventajas que el meramente
individual.
Considero que el Aprendizaje Cooperativo conlleva ciertos problemas de disciplina dentro del aula.
Considero que el Aprendizaje Cooperativo le da demasiada importancia a las habilidades sociales,
dejando menos espacio para las competencias acadmicas.
Considero que utilizar Aprendizaje Cooperativo de forma consistente a lo largo del curso no permitira
cubrir todo temario que se me requiere.
Aplicar Aprendizaje Cooperativo lleva demasiado tiempo de clase.

Puntuacin
1

Aplicar Aprendizaje Cooperativo en mi asignatura es ms difcil de conseguir que en otras.

1 2 3
(En caso positivo, especifique asignatura________________________________)
Llevar a cabo Aprendizaje Cooperativo supone ms esfuerzo que aplicar otras metodologas de enseanza
23
1 2 3
ms tradicionales.
El Aprendizaje Cooperativo es menos eficaz que aplicar otras metodologas de enseanza ms
24
1 2 3
tradicionales.
Considero que realizar estudios y anlisis sobre estrategias de aprendizaje tan innovativas como el
25
1 2 3
Aprendizaje Cooperativo es relevante para la comunidad educativa.
Cul cree que es la mayor fortaleza de esta metodologa de aprendizaje? De igual manera, cul cree que es su mayor limitacin?
22

Hay algn aspecto del Aprendizaje Cooperativo que considere que necesita especial formacin o todos los aspectos requieren ms o menos
la misma?
27

8.3.Appendix III: Table: Passive observation

Identifier
Positive interdependence
Individual accountability
Promotive interaction
Group processing
Development of interpersonal skills
Noise
Time

Grade - Subject
Assemble
Write it
it

Analyse it

Find it

Tablet it

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

Qualifier 1-5

28

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

Figure 1. 1. Item 1: Interested in CL

1

Figure 1. 2. Item 2: Level of dominance

0% 0%

3
2%

18%

Figure 1. 3. Item 3: Level of formation

1

15% 6%

20%

17%

45%
55%

Figure 1. 4. Item 4: Formation relevance

Figure 1. 5. Item 5: Peer formation

2%

0%

32% 30%

40%

20%

Figure 1. 6. Item 6: Consistency relevance

0% 5%

11%

12%

22%
18%

38%

Figure 1. 8. Item 8: Perception of CL

30%

4
2%

50%

Figure 1. 11. Item 11: SPNS integration

1

10%

5%

29

3%

Figure 1. 12. Item 12: Increasing ambition

1

18%
77%

45%

0% 3%

0% 0%

47%
41%

0% 2%

40%

Figure 1. 10. Item 10: Interpersonal relationships

0%

45%

70%

Figure 1. 9. Item 9: Student attitude

0% 15%

0% 0%

30%

27%

Figure 1. 7. Item 7: Philosophy I

1

43%

32%

60%

23% 30%
44%

Figure 1. 13. Item 13: Corresponsability

1

Figure 1. 14. Item 14: Social skills betterment

1

3%
0%

50%

5
2%

38%
60%

Figure 1. 17. Item 17: Philosophy II

1

0%

57%

Figure 1. 18. Item 18: Disciplinary issues

0% 12%

47%

10%
15%

12%

48%
43%

36% 27%

40%

Figure 1. 19. Item 19: Academic insufficiencies

41%
47%

0% 10%

2%

0%

Figure 1. 16. Item 16: New perspective s

1

Figure 1. 15. Item 15

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

15% 3% 15%

5% 8%

2
5%

7%
20%

33%
34%

44%

41%

23%

27%

20%

Figure 1. 22. Item 22: Subject individuality

1

8%

10%

Figure 1. 23. Item 23: Difficulty of adoption

2

0%

Figure 1. 24. Item 24: Less effective

1
5%

2% 3%
20%

15%
31%

36%

Figure 1. 25. Item 25: Relevance of study

1

0%

27%

53% 42%

48%

5
5%

53% 42%

30

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

Figure 2. 1. Item 1: Interested in CL

Figure 2. 2. Item 2: Level of dominance

0% 0% 0%

0%

0% 0%

10%

30%

43%

0%

Figure 2. 3. Item 3: Level of formation

44%

53%

57%

3%

60%

Figure 2. 4. Item 4: Formation relevance

Figure 2. 5. Item 5: Peer formation

0% 0%
27%

2 3 4
0% 0%

Figure 2. 6. Item 6: Consistency relevance

10%

0% 0% 0%

40%

43%
57%
50%

73%

Figure 2. 7. Item 7: Philosophy I

2
0%

Figure 2. 8. Item 8: Perception of CL

0%

0%
30%

2 3
0%

0% 10%

47%

2 3
0%

43%

Figure 2. 10. Item 10: Interpersonal relationships

2
0%

0%

33%

47%

0% 10%

Figure 2. 12. Item 12: Increasing ambition

1
0%

0%

13%

43%

Figure 2. 11. Item 11: SPNS integration

47%

70%

Figure 2. 9. Item 9: Student attitude

0% 3% 17%
37%

40%

67%
43%

31

Figure 2. 13. Item 13: Corresponsability

Figure 2. 14. Item 14: Social skills betterment

1
3%

0% 0%
37%

2 3 4 5
0% 13%

0%

34%

Figure 2. 17. Item 17: Philosophy II

3% 10%

27%

50%
37%

Figure 2. 16. Item 16: New perspective s

0% 3% 13%

50%

60%

Figure 2. 15. Item 15

0%

5
0%

Figure 2. 18. Item 18: Disciplinary issues

1
17%

17% 0% 13%

40%
30%

30%
43%

30%

Figure 2. 19. Item 19: Academic insufficiencies

40%

7%

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

7% 3%

13%

0% 17%

10%

27%

17%

17%
46%

40%

23%

Figure 2. 22. Item 22: Subject individuality

40%

Figure 2. 23. Item 23: Difficulty of adoption

3% 17%

0% 7%

30%

17%

33%

Figure 2. 24. Item 24: Less effective

20% 0% 0% 27%

43%
30%
33%

20%

Figure 2. 25. Item 25: Relevance of study

5
6%

0% 0%
27%
67%

32

53%