Uncovering the Nexus Between Cooperative Learning Contexts and Achievement Goals in Physical Education

Abstract

Cooperative learning is a pedagogical framework extensively used in educational contexts worldwide, but some scholars warn that we do not know much about how its claimed outcomes are delivered. The aim of this study was to uncover the connections between cooperative learning contexts and students’ task and self-approach goals in physical education. We hypothesized that those students who perceived a stronger cooperative learning context in their classes would also show higher task and self-approach goals. A total of 1328 students (648 females and 680 males) from three different educational stages: primary education (n = 584), secondary education (n = 550) and baccalaureate (n = 194), agreed to participate. Participants’ ages ranged between 10 and 20 years (M = 13.11; SD = 2.45). An ex-post-facto, cross-sectional research design was followed. Results showed a direct and significant connection between high-perceived cooperative learning contexts and high students’ task and self-approach goals. The odds ratio tests verified this positive association, indicating a 4-times greater probability for students who perceived a strong cooperative learning context in the classroom of having high task and self-approach goals. In the same line, we observed that, as the perception of a cooperative learning context increased, task and self-approach goals also increased. This means that a small change in the class context to make it more cooperative had an impact on the students’ achievement goals. Teachers should try to create class contexts where students perceive a strong cooperative learning climate, because it has been connected to adaptive motivational patterns, task and self-approach goals, and these are associated with positive outcomes.

Keywords

cooperative learning 3 × 2 achievement goals education

Introduction

One of the most important and difficult tasks of any physical education teacher is the selection of the pedagogical approach to be used. Over the last two decades, physical education and sport pedagogy have evolved enormously from traditional, teacher-centred approaches to novel, student-centred frameworks that place students in the center stage of the teaching-learning process (Casey, 2014; Metzler, 2011). One of these highly recognized student-centred pedagogical models is cooperative learning, in which students interact to learn (Johnson et al., 2013).

Cooperative learning is a pedagogical model based on small, heterogeneous work groups in which students learn with, by and for other students, sharing efforts and resources to maximize their own and their classmates' learning (Metzler, 2017). In this active context, students and teachers act as co-learners (Casey, 2012). Scholars and researchers agree that its framework is based around five critical elements (Dyson & Casey 2016; Johnson & Johnson, 1994): (a) interpersonal skills: students communicate effectively, respecting and encouraging each other, (b) group processing: members discuss and reflect on their performance to improve the group’s functioning, (c) positive interdependence: students depend on each other to reach the objectives set, (d) promotive interaction: students work together to support each other during the tasks, and (e) individual accountability: each group member must be responsible for a part of the group’s work. Two other elements have also been considered important (Kagan, 1992): (f) equal participation: all group members have similar, active participation in the class, and (g) simultaneous interaction: all students are engaged and involved in the different tasks. Several meta-analyses have highlighted the successful implementation of cooperative learning in different education contexts all over the world (Capar & Tarim, 2015; Johnson et al., 2014; Slavin, 2013; Slavin et al., 2014). In physical education, Bores-García et al. (2020) found benefits in students’ motor (Darnis & Lafont, 2015; O’Leary et al., 2015), social (Fernandez-Río et al., 2017; Sánchez-Hernández et al., 2018; Wallhead & Dyson, 2017), physical (Altinkok, 2017; Lee, 2014), cognitive (Dyson et al., 2016; Gorucu, 2016) and affective learning (Goodyear et al., 2014). Therefore, there are multiple empirical demonstrations of the effectiveness of cooperative learning to improve students’ performance in the four learning domains: physical, cognitive, social and affective (Casey & Goodyear, 2015). Nevertheless, in a recent review, Dyson et al. (2020) warned that we do not know much about how the claimed outcomes of cooperative learning are delivered. Therefore, more research is needed to clarify the connections between this framework and other variables that could explain how it works.

Grounded in self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2017), the relationship between cooperative learning and motivation has been well documented (Fernandez-Río et al., 2017; Ntoumanis, 2001). Yet, no studies have connected this pedagogical model with the other leading framework used to examine students' motivational processes: achievement goal theory (Nicholls, 1989). Achievement goal theory, is a socio-cognitive theory based on the expectations and values that individuals place on different goals to demonstrate competence or ability (Ames, 1992). It assesses the type of competence-based goals that individuals pursue when performing an activity (Elliot, 1999). At first, only two goals were identified (Ames, 1992): mastery goals: develop competence focusing on the task from an intrapersonal point of view, and performance goals: show competence focusing on others from an interpersonal point of view. This dichotomous model evolved into a tricotomous one (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996), when performance goals were divided based on the valence individuals pose on their actions, approach (to be positive in order to succeed) and avoidance (to avoid failure), giving birth to three goals: (a) mastery: focused on improving and mastering the task; (b) performance-approach: aimed at achieving competence compared to others; and (c) performance-avoidance: focused on avoiding incompetence compared to others (Elliot & Church, 1997). Later, mastery goals were also divided in two: mastery-approach: aimed at achieving competence focusing on the task and mastery-avoidance: focused on avoiding incompetence performing the task; thus, emerging the 2 × 2 model (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Finally, Elliot et al. (2011) uncovered mastery goals that corresponded to two differentiated standards (task and oneself). Task-based goals take the task itself as an evaluation reference, while self-based goals take the person as a reference (intrapersonal). In addition, performance goals were renamed to other-based: using other individuals or a norm (interpersonal or normative) as a reference for evaluation (Murayama et al., 2012). Therefore, the 3 × 2 achievement goal framework was developed, that included three standards to define competence (task, self, other) and the two existing valences (approach and avoidance) (Elliot et al., 2011). This framework differentiates the current six achievement goals into: (a) task-approach goals: focus on achieving competence on the task (i.e., “performing a task correctly”); (b) task-avoidance goals: focus on avoiding incompetence on the task (i.e., “performing better than before”); (c) self-approach goals: focus on achieving competence based on oneself (i.e., “performing better than before”); (d) self-avoidance goals: focus on avoiding incompetence based on oneself (i.e., “avoiding performing worse than before”); (e) other-approach goals: focus on achieving competence based on others (i.e., “performing better than others”); and (f) other-avoidance goals: focus on avoiding incompetence based on others (i.e., “avoiding performing worse than others”). A few years ago, Elliot (2005) warned that mastery-approach goals could promote adaptive results and achievement processes, while mastery-avoidance goals were related to less adaptive patterns. In the same line, Elliot et al. (2011) clarified that approach goals, in general, produce more adaptive responses than avoidance goals. Liu et al. (2017, p. 294) pointed in the same direction: “goals aimed at mastering knowledge and developing self-competence lead to favourable consequences. If goals orient people to compete against others or avoid normative failure, consequences can be detrimental”. Task and self-approach goals have been connected to students’ intrinsic motivation (Elliot et al., 2011) and task-oriented classroom climates have been found to promote the most self-determined types of motivation (García-González et al., 2019). In physical education, recent research indicated that task and self-approach goals generate adaptive responses, including self-determined motivation and life satisfaction (Méndez-Giménez et al., 2017; Méndez-Giménez et al., 2018).

As previously noted, in cooperative learning contexts students perform tasks in small, heterogeneous groups to maximize their own learning and that of their peers, achieving the set goals with no need to outperform others (Casey, 2012; Johnson et al., 2013). Therefore, it could be said that this pedagogical model could generate learning climates in which no comparisons are made between students, where the focus is on the task, and the goal is to master it, both as a group and individually. Therefore, it could be said that when implementing this pedagogical approach, task and self-approach goals are being promoted. Research has shown that the most adaptive goal, and therefore the one that should be promoted in physical education, is the task-approach goal (Méndez-Giménez et al., 2014). Cooperative learning contexts have been found to promote students’ intrinsic motivation (Ning & Hornby, 2014; Tombak & Altun, 2016), but the connections between these and the students’ achievement goals remain uncovered.

To our knowledge, no previous research has assessed the possible links between cooperative learning contexts and the 3 × 2 achievement goals framework. In order to fill this gap, and considering the ideas presented earlier, this study aimed at uncovering the connections between cooperative learning contexts and students’ task and self-approach goals in physical education. Based on the essential elements of this pedagogical model and on the achievement goals theory framework, we hypothesized that those students who perceived a stronger cooperative learning context in their class would also show higher task and self-approach goals.

Methods

Participants

This study was conducted thanks to the voluntary participation of twelve randomly selected public schools in western Spain. A total of 1328 students (648 females and 680 males) from three different educational stages: primary education (n = 584), secondary education (n = 550) and baccalaureate (n = 194), agreed to participate. Participants’ ages ranged between 10 and 20 years (M = 13.11; SD = 2.45). The original sample consisted of 1422 students but 94 were excluded because they returned blank questionnaires. All the schools were located in urban areas with families with a medium-low socioeconomic level. An ex-post-facto, cross-sectional research design was followed (Cohen et al., 2011).

Instruments

Cooperative Learning Questionnaire (Fernandez-Río et al., 2017). This is an internationally validated instrument to assess cooperative learning’s essential elements in educational contexts. For its correct use in the context of this research, the initial stem was modified to: “In the physical education classes …”. The questionnaire includes twenty items evenly grouped in five factors (four items each): social skills (e.g., “We work on discussing, debating, and listening to others”), group processing (e.g., “We talk to each other to make sure that everyone in the group knows what is being done”), positive interdependence (e.g., “We cannot finish the tasks without the groupmates’ contributions”), promotive interaction (e.g., “Groupmates relate with each other and interact during the tasks”), and individual accountability (e.g., “Every group member has to participate in the group’s tasks”). A 5-point Likert scale was used to quantify the students’ responses, ranging from one (totally disagree) to five (totally agree). The mean score of all factors can also be used as a single global cooperation factor. In the original validation study, this instrument obtained acceptable Cronbach's alphas that ranged from .72 (positive interdependence) to .89 (global cooperation factor). A good fit of the data was also observed through confirmatory factor analyses: S-Bχ² (160) = 2574.51, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.953; RMSEA (IC del 90%) = 0.037 (0.035–0.038), SRMR = 0.02. Similar positive results were obtained for the global cooperation factor: S-Bχ² (165) = 3134.01, p <0.001; CFI = 0.942; RMSEA (IC del 90%) = 0.040 (0.039–0.041), SRMR = 0.032. For the present study, analogous Cronbach's alpha values were obtained for all factors: interpersonal skills (.74), group processing (.76), positive interdependence (.75), promotive interaction (.79), individual accountability (. 81) and global cooperation factor (.85).

3×2 Achievement Goals Questionnaire in Physical Education (Méndez-Giménez et al., 2014). This instrument is a Spanish validated version for physical education contexts of Elliot et al.’s (2011) original instrument. The questionnaire was headed with the introductory phrase: “In my Physical Education classes, my goal is to…” and it included six factors with four items each. For the aims of the study, only two subscales were used: task-approach goals (i.e., “perform many exercises and skills correctly”) and self-approach goals (i.e., “perform the tasks better than I have done them before”). The students responded to the different items based on a 5-point Likert scale, from one “totally disagree” to five “totally agree”. Cronbach's alphas from the original validation study were for task-approach goals: .85 and for self-approach goals: .81, and they also showed a good fit of the data through a confirmatory factor analysis: S-Bχ2 (436) = 590.96, p < .001; CFI = 0.98; RMSEA (90% CI) = 0.026 (0.021–0.031); SRMR = 0.03. In the present study, Cronbach's alpha values were: .87 for task-approach goals and .83 for self-approach goals.

Procedure

Prior to data collection, the Bioethics and Biosafety Committee of the University approved the study. Only then, the research team contacted all the schools in the region to explain the project and its objectives, and thus obtain the corresponding permission to conduct the study. In the schools that agreed to participate, the parents and/or legal guardians were contacted and informed, and those willing to let their children participate signed an informed written consent. All through the process, the ethical principles governing research with human beings were respected (World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, 2013). The administration of the questionnaires was conducted by the research team in a quiet classroom to avoid distractions. The participating students were informed that it was completely voluntary, and that their responses would not affect their grades. They were asked to be totally honest and they were also informed that they could leave the study at any time. All collected data was treated confidentially and anonymously as dictated by the American Psychological Association (2010).

Data Analysis

The entire data analysis process was conducted with the SPSS statistical program (v.21). First, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to confirm that the variables under study were normally distributed, thus supporting the use of parametric tests. Then, Student’s t-tests were conducted to asses differences based on gender. Bivariate correlations were performed to uncover associations among the different variables. Odds Ratio (OR) tests were conducted to estimate the connections between cooperative learning and the two approach goals. Finally, analyses of variance (ANOVA) tests were used to compare task and self-approach goals with three levels of cooperative learning (high, medium and low).

Results

First, the Student’s t-test showed that there were no significant differences based on gender on any of the variables under study: global cooperation factor (F = 1.612, ρ = .204), task-approach goals (F = 1.776, ρ = .183) and self-approach goals (F = .529, ρ = .467). Therefore, in the following analyses, the data was jointly analysed.

Table 1 shows internal reliability coefficients, descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations among variables. Regarding descriptive statistics, we observed that individual accountability showed the highest scores of all cooperative learning variables, while both achievement goals showed similar scores. Finally, the strongest correlations were found between both goals and individual accountability and the global cooperation factor.

Table 1.

Cronbach’ Alphas, Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations.

	Cooperative learning						Achievement goals
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Interpersonal skills	–
2. Group processing	.712**	–
3. Positive interdependence	.490**	.515**	–
4. Promotive interaction	.476**	.532**	.571**	–
5. Individual accountability	.347**	.373**	.546**	.529**	–
6. Global cooperation factor	.804**	.826**	.787**	.783**	.690**	–
7. Task-approach goals	.290**	.300**	.388**	.354**	.476**	.455**	–
8. Self-approach goals	.317**	.346**	.404**	.371**	.458**	.479**	.703**	–
α	.74	.76	.75	.79	.81	.85	.87	.83
M	3.43	3.59	3.99	4.03	4.32	3.87	4.29	4.25
SD	0.89	0.85	0.71	0.71	0.69	0.60	0.73	0.73

*p < .05. **p < .001.

With the aim of examining the associations between classrooms’ perceived cooperative learning and each student achievement goal, the odds ratio (OR) was calculated. The global factor of cooperation (independent variable) and both achievement goals (dependent variables) were dichotomized using the 50th percentile criterion as a cut-point (high, low). Recounts of the number of classified subjects, the percentage distribution of the resulting sample and the OR values obtained are shown in Table 2. A probability analysis was conducted, using the contrast between the participants belonging to the high-perceived cooperative learning context group and those of the low group as a reference, to estimate the risk of occurrence (prognosis) of showing high task-approach or self-approach goals. Participants belonging to the high-perceived cooperative learning context group showed a positive and significant association (χ² =150.392, p < .001) with high task-approach goals (OR = 4.06, 95% IC = 3.23–5.10). In the same line, a positive and significant association was also found (χ² = 160.243, p <.001) with self-approach goals (OR = 4.25, 95% IC = 3.38–5.35). Both relationships showed a median effect magnitude, according to the equivalence established with Cohen's d (Chen et al., 2010). Therefore, students belonging to the high-perceived cooperative learning context group had 4.06 times higher probability of having high task-approach goals and 4.25 times higher probability of having high self-approach goals, compared to those included in the low-perceived cooperative learning context group.

Table 2.

Participants, Distribution and OR.

		Task-approach goals			Self-approach goals
		High	Low	Total	High	Low	Total
Perceived cooperative learning context
High	N	472	205	677	455	222	677
High	%	66.6	32.9	50.8	68.1	33.4	50.8
Low	N	237	418	655	213	442	655
Low	%	33.4	67.1	49.2	31.9	66.6	49.2
Total	N	709	623	1328	668	664	1328
Total	%	100	100	100	100	100	100
χ²		150.392			160.243
p		.000			.000
OR (95% CI)		4.06 (3.23–5.10)			4.25 (3.38–5.35)

OR = odds ratio.

Finally, to deepen an understanding of the connections found between cooperative learning contexts and the two achievement goals, an ANOVA test was conducted with the different types of cooperative learning contexts. Three groups (high, medium, low) were obtained, using the 33rd percentile criterion as cut points. Significant differences were found between all the groups with large effect sizes (Table 3). Both task-approach goals and self-approach goals produced similar scores in each type of cooperation learning context, with the highest scores in the high-perceived group and the lowest in low-perceived group. These results showed a direct and clear relationship between cooperative learning contexts and task and self-approach goals.

Table 3.

Task and Self-Approach Goals and Perceived Cooperative Learning Context.

	High-perceived cooperative learning context(N = 430)	Medium-perceived cooperative learning context (N = 460)	Low-perceived cooperative learning context (N = 438)	F	p	η²
Task-approach goals	4.62^a ± 0.73	4.34^b ± 0.63	3.91^c ± 0.86	124.470	.000	0.16
Self-approach goals	4.61^a ± 0.49	4.29^b ± 0.61	3.84^c ± 0.84	148.661	.000	0.18

Note. Bonferroni post hoc; different superscripts in the same row show significant differences at p < .001; η²: Effect size.

Discussion

This study aimed to uncover the connections between cooperative learning contexts and students’ task and self-approach goals in physical education. Our results showed a direct and significant connection between high-perceived cooperative learning contexts and high students’ task and self-approach goals.

The initial hypothesis was that those students who perceived a stronger cooperative learning context in their classes would also show higher task and self-approach goals, and our results confirmed it. The OR tests verified this positive association, indicating a 4-times greater probability for students who perceived a strong cooperative learning context in the classroom to have high task and self-approach goals. Similarly, we observed that, as the perception of a cooperative learning context increased, task and self-approach goals also increased. This means that a small change in the class context to make it more cooperative had an impact on the students’ achievement goals. Therefore, any methodological step in the right direction is good for the students, and it should be supported. To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess the connections between cooperative learning and achievement goals. Previous research indicated a possible connection between cooperative learning and task-approach goals (Méndez-Giménez et al., 2017), focusing on achieving competence in the task (“performing a task correctly”; Elliot et al., 2011) and results from the present study confirmed it. In cooperative learning contexts, students perform tasks in small, heterogeneous groups to maximize their own and their partners’ learning, with no comparison or outperforming other students (Casey, 2012; Johnson et al., 2013). Therefore, this pedagogical model could generate learning climates where others’ performance (outside the working group) is not important, where the focus is on the task, and the goal is to master it, both as a group and individually, promoting task and self-approach goals. Results from the present study support these connections.

On the other hand, our results also showed that individual accountability was cooperative learning’s essential element (Johnson & Johnson, 1994), since this element showed the highest positive cooperative learning and encouraged students to concentrate on their part of the group’s task; that is to say: to achieve competence based on oneself (“performing better than before”; Elliot et al., 2011). In properly co-regulated (Salonen et al., 2005) and highly structured cooperative learning contexts (Cecchini et al., 2020), each group member is held responsible for one part of the group’s work, so they should focus on “performing better than before” (self-approach) so as not to harm the group’s final outcome. The high self-approach goals’ scores found in this study, connected to the high-perceived cooperative learning contexts, and the fact that individual accountability was the strongest correlated element all seem to support the path outlined.

In addition to the novel nature of the research, being the first one to assess the connections between both frameworks, it has more strengths. The large size of the sample used gives the study great statistical power (Sassenberg & Ditrich, 2019). The data was collected using specific, internationally validated instruments capable of assessing, one the five essential elements of cooperative learning, and the other task and self-approach goals. Both instruments give the study greater validity. However, this study also has some limitations that should be improved in future research. Its cross-sectional design prevents cause-effect inferences from the significant relationships found in this study. All the participating students lived in the same region, and had similar characteristics. Future studies should be conducted in samples with individuals from different backgrounds (economic, ethnic).

Conclusions

Teachers should try to create class contexts in which students perceive a strong cooperative learning climate, because this climiate has been connected to adaptive motivational patterns, task and self-approach goals, and positive learning outcomes. Contexts that focus on achieving task competence, both as a group and individually, while eliminating student comparisons or competition. Properly co-regulated and highly structured cooperative learning contexts can promote students’ highest task and self-goals; even small changes in the class context to make it more cooperative can have an impact on the students’ achievement goals. Therefore, teachers must try to make the shift, even if they do not do it completely.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

The Bioethics and Biosafety Committee of the University of Extremadura gave approval for the study to be conducted (No. 0063).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORICID iD

Damián Iglesias Gallego

Author Biographies

Sergio Rivera-Pérez is a PhD candidate at the Teacher Training College, University of Extremadura, Spain.

Javier Fernandez-Rio is a Full Professor at the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, University of Oviedo, Spain.

Damián Iglesias Gallego is an Associate Professor at the Teacher Training College, University of Extremadura, Spain.

References

Altinkok

(2017). The effect of movement education based on cooperative learning method on the development of basic motor skills of primary school 1st grade learners. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(2), 241–249.

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.).

Ames

(1992). Classrooms: Goals, structure, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261

Bores-García

Hortigüela-Alcalá

Fernández-Río

González-Calvo

Barba-Martín

(2020). Research on cooperative learning in physical education. Systematic review of the last five years. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2020.1719276

Capar

Tarim

(2015). Efficacy of the cooperative learning method on mathematics achievement and attitude: A meta-analysis research. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 553–559. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.2.2098

Casey

(2012). Cooperative learning through the eyes of a teacher researcher and his students. In Dyson

Casey

(Eds.), Cooperative learning in physical education: A research-based approach (pp. 75–87). Routledge.

Casey

(2014). Models-based practice: Great white hope or white elephant? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19(1), 18–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2012.726977

Casey

Goodyear

V. A.

(2015). Can cooperative learning achieve the four learning outcomes of physical education? A review of literature. Quest 67(1), 56–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2014.984733

Cecchini

J. A.

Fernandez-Rio

Méndez-Giménez

Gonzalez

Sanchez-Martínez

Carriedo

(2020). High versus low-structured cooperative learning. Effects on prospective teachers’ regulation dominance, motivation, content knowledge and responsibility. European Journal of Teacher Education, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1774548

10.

Chen

Cohen

Chen

(2010). How big is a big odds ratio? Interpreting the magnitudes of odds ratios in epidemiological studies. Communications in Statistics – Simulation and Computation, 39(4), 860–864. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610911003650383

11.

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

(2011). Research methods in education. Routledge.

12.

Darnis

Lafont

(2015). Cooperative learning and dyadic interactions: Two modes of knowledge construction in socio-constructivist settings for team-sport teaching. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 20(5), 459–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2013.803528

13.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01

14.

Dyson

Casey

(2016). Cooperative learning in physical education and physical activity: A practical introduction. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315739496

15.

Dyson

Colby

Barrat

(2016). The co-construction of cooperative learning in physical education with elementary classroom teachers. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 35(4), 370–380. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2016-0119

16.

Dyson

Howley

Wright

P. M.

(2020). A scoping review critically examining research connecting social and emotional learning with three model-based practices in physical education: Have we been doing this all along? European Physical Education Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X20923710

17.

Elliot

A. J.

(1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3

18.

Elliot

A. J.

(2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In Elliot

A. J.

Dweck

C. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52–72). Guilford Press.

19.

Elliot

A. J.

Church

M. A.

(1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218

20.

Elliot

A. J.

Harackiewicz

J. M.

(1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.461

21.

Elliot

A. J.

McGregor

H. A.

(2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501–519. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501

22.

Elliot

A. J.

Murayama

Pekrun

(2011). A 3 × 2 achievement goal model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 632–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023952

23.

Fernández-Río

Cecchini

J. A.

Méndez-Giménez

Méndez-Alonso

Prieto

J. A.

(2017). Design and validation of a questionnaire to assess cooperative learning in educational contexts. Annals of Psychology, 33(3), 680–688. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.33.3.251321

24.

Fernandez-Río

Sanz

Fernández-Cando

Santos

(2017). Impact of a sustained cooperative learning intervention on student motivation. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 22(1), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2015.1123238

25.

García-González

Sevil-Serrano

Abós

Aelterman

Haerens

(2019). The role of task and ego-oriented climate in explaining students’ bright and dark motivational experiences in physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 24(4), 344–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2019.1592145

26.

Goodyear

Casey

Kirk.

(2014). Hiding behind the camera: Social learning within the cooperative learning model to engage girls in physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 19(6), 712–734. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2012.707124

27.

Gorucu

(2016). The investigation of the effects of physical education lessons planned in accordance with cooperative learning approach on secondary school students’ problem-solving skills. Educational Research and Reviews, 11(10), 998–1007. https://doi.org/10.5897/err2016.2756

28.

Johnson

D. W.

Johnson

R. T.

(1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning. Allyn & Bacon.

29.

Johnson

D. W.

Johnson

R. T.

Holubec

(2013). Cooperation in the classroom. Interaction Book Company.

30.

Johnson

D. W.

Johnson

R. T.

Roseth

Shin

T. S.

(2014). The relationship between motivation and achievement in interdependent situations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(9), 622–633. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12280

31.

Johnson

D. W.

Murayama

Johnson

R. T.

Nelson

Skon

L. C.

(1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.89.1.47

32.

Kagan

(1992). Cooperative learning. Kagan Cooperative Learning.

33.

Kirk

(2013). Educational value and models-based practice in physical education. Educational Theory and Philosophy, 45(9), 973–986. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2013.785352

34.

Lee

T. E.

(2014). Effects of a cooperative learning strategy on the effectiveness of physical fitness teaching and constraining factors. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2014, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/519291

35.

Liu

Xiang

Lee

(2017). Developing physical literacy in K-12 physical education through achievement goal theory. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 36(3), 292–302. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2017-0030

36.

Méndez-Giménez

Cecchini-Estrada

J. A.

Fernandez-Rio

(2014). Examining the 3 × 2 achievement goal model in the physical education context. Cuadernos de Psicología Del Deporte, 14(3), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.4321/s1578-84232014000300017

37.

Méndez-Giménez

Cecchini-Estrada

J. A.

Fernandez-Rio

Mendez-Alonso

Prieto-Saborit

J. A.

(2017). 3 × 2 Achievement goals, self-determined motivation and life satisfaction in secondary education. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 22(2), 150–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psicoe.2017.05.004

38.

Méndez-Giménez

García-Romero

Cecchini-Estrada

J. A.

(2018). 3 × 2 Achievement goals, friendship and affectivity in physical education: Age-gender differences. International Journal of Medicine and Science of Physical Activity and Sport, 18(72), 637–653. https://doi.org/10.15366/rimcafd2018.72.003

39.

Metzler

(2011). Instructional models for physical education (3rd ed.). Holcomb Hathaway.

40.

Metzler

M. W.

(2017). Instructional models in physical education (3rd ed.). Routledge.

41.

Murayama

Elliot

A. J.

Friedman

(2012). Achievement goals. In Ryan

R. M.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 191–207). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399820.013.0012

42.

Nicholls

J. G.

(1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Harvard University Press.

43.

Ning

Hornby

(2014). The impact of cooperative learning on tertiary EFL learners’ motivation. Educational Review, 66(1), 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.853169

44.

Ntoumanis

(2001). A self-determination approach to the understanding of motivation in physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709901158497

45.

O’Leary

Wattison

Edwards

Bryan

(2015). Closing the theory–practice gap. European Physical Education Review, 21(2), 176–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x14555300

46.

Roseth

C. J.

Johnson

D. W.

Johnson

R. T.

(2008). Promoting early adolescents’ achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2): 223–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.223

47.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28806

48.

Salonen

Vaura

Efklides

(2005). Social interaction – What can it tell us about metacognition and coregulation in learning? European Psychologist, 10(3), 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.10.3.199

49.

Sánchez-Hernández

Martos-García

Soler

Flintoff

(2018). Challenging gender relations in PE through cooperative learning and critical reflection. Sport, Education and Society, 23(8), 812–823. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2018.1487836

50.

Sassenberg

Ditrich

(2019). Research in social psychology changed between 2011 and 2016: Larger sample sizes, more self-report measures, and more online studies. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919838781

51.

Slavin

R. E.

(2013). Classroom applications of cooperative learning. In Graham

(Ed.), APA educational psychology handbook (Vol. 3, pp. 359–378). https://doi.org/10.1037/13275-014

52.

Slavin

R. E.

Lake

Hanley

Thurston

(2014). Experimental evaluations of elementary science programs: A best-evidence synthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(7), 870–901. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21139

53.

Tombak

Altun

(2016). The effect of cooperative learning: University example. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 16(64), 173–196. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2016.64.10

54.

Wallhead

Dyson

(2017). A didactic analysis of content development during cooperative learning in primary physical education. European Physical Education Review, 23(3), 311–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x16630221

55.

World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. (2013). Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. 64th WMA General Assembly, Fortaleza, Brazil. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/