The Cooperative Learning Model (CLM) has been validated in hundreds of studies in a variety of school subject areas (Metzler, 2005; Slavin, 1983). However, limited ecological research exists on teaching and learning using the CLM in physical education. Hastie and Siedentop (1999) called for further investigation of instructional models in physical education programs respective to the development of a strong program of action (PoA) and content-embedded accountability. This qualitative study was an initial step in identifying how a PoA develops in practice and the role of accountability within the CLM, and the first to examine the CLM in middle school physical education using an ecological framework.
Method:
Two intact middle school classes, grades six (N = 28) and eight (N = 31), were taught two physical education units created by the researcher, an expert with the CLM, to insure fidelity of the model. Each unit consisted of eight lessons with embedded assessments measuring psychomotor, affective, and cognitive learning outcomes. The study was conducted as action research using qualitative data collection and analysis techniques (Gubacs-Collins, 2007; Ollis & Sproule, 2007; Patton, 2002) in a 360 degree manner, collecting data from all study participant groups. Participant observations and field notes, practitioner observations and field notes, documents, formal interviews, and focus group interviews were used to describe and posit relationships among the teacher, students, and tasks within the cooperative learning units.
Analysis/Results:
The researcher sought first to determine how a PoA developed in the CLM within a learning ecology. Together, the researcher and students identified the content goals in each CLM unit, and created content synergy through direct engagement in the instructional tasks. The student-centered approach required students to actively embrace personal responsibilities for learning and to reflect on their experiences to create meaning. The researcher then sought to identify the role of accountability in a developing PoA. Task structures, while framing instructional content, inherently promoted group work and cooperation. Written and performance-based assessments explicitly defined content for which students were responsible. Content-embedded accountability completed the PoA by creating a direct link among the content, teaching and assessment used in the units.
Conclusions:
Instructional models, such as CLM, have the potential to shape instruction and learning, as students and teachers interact within the PoA. The use of the CLM merged the instructional and student-social task systems, and ultimately placed students at the center of the learning ecology.