cooperative learning activities for physical education

Nothing in your cart

Game categories

Explore the pe games database., elf express, snowman blitz, get the latest games delivered to your inbox, subscribe to the #physed newsletter, professional development.

Shopping Cart

No products in the basket.

Teaching physical education – PEdagogical Model: Cooperative learning

Applying effective teaching approaches to the ‘how’ of Physical Education (PE)

In this series, we present six one-page summaries of key Pedagogical Models that should form part of the diet of rich and varied PE delivery.

Each of these models provides a structured framework to guide the teaching and learning process, enhancing the overall effectiveness of physical education programmes.

The benefits of applying PE pedagogical models

Organised and purposeful lesson plans.

Pedagogical models help PE educators create learning material and carefully planned lessons designed to address key learning objectives. They also promote a systematic progression of skills and knowledge to meet intended learning outcomes, facilitating a logical and effective learning journey for students.

Differentiated instruction

Moreover, these models contribute to differentiated instruction, allowing teachers to tailor their approach to meet the diverse needs and abilities of students. By incorporating various and effective teaching strategies and styles, pedagogical models enhance engagement and understanding among students with different learning preferences. Variety is the spice of life and all that!

Incorporation of critical life skills

Additionally, the use of pedagogical models in PE delivery supports the development of critical life skills such as teamwork, communication, creativity and problem-solving. Structured lesson plans enable educators to integrate these skills seamlessly into physical activities, promoting holistic student growth.

Holistic development

It is widely accepted that PE has the potential to develop physical, cognitive, social and affective domains of learning. By using a rich variety of ‘models’ in your practice it can pave the way to move ‘beyond the physical’ to recognise, develop and celebrate wider skill development that is essential to success in PE, in sport, and in life.

Assessment and evaluation

Furthermore, employing pedagogical models assists in the assessment and evaluation of student progress. The models prompt the incorporation of measurable criteria for evaluating individual and collective achievements in PE, aiding in the identification of areas for improvement and adjustment of instructional strategies.

Today’s PEdagogical model: cooperative learning

Cooperative student learning involves students collaboratively working in small groups to achieve shared objectives, fostering enhanced learning experiences, crucial group skills and social skill development. Instead of encouraging competitive or individualistic learning, the model nurtures informal cooperative learning so that group members develop positive interdependence that extends beyond the PE class.

Originating from the emphasis on social learning by American philosopher John Dewey in 1916, the concept gained prominence in the 1960s and 1970s.

The model encourages students to take responsibility for reciprocal learning and peer coaching, which can boost engagement and learning potential. In this approach, the teacher assumes the role of a facilitator, providing guidance and support while allowing flexibility in lesson delivery. Students are typically divided into formal cooperative learning groups of 4 or 5, are assigned specific tasks or activities, which promotes teamwork, communication, and interdependence.

Cooperative learning spans various activities, encompassing team sports, fitness challenges, choreography in gymnastics or dance, and problem-solving games. Integrating physical, cognitive, social, and emotional learning within the same unit makes it a great solution for PE.

• Social and emotional learning gains are maximised
• Build class culture, positive ethos and student enjoyment
• Leadership, teamworking and communication skills developed in an inclusive environment

Disadvantages

• Heterogeneous cooperative learning groups can be challenging to manage
• Students’ own learning often takes longer but it is ‘stickier’
• Social loafing can occur if individuals don’t have clear accountability within their group

One-page summary – cooperative learning

Download the attached one-page summary for further information on cooperative learning.

Curriculum development: Why not use it to guide a PE department meeting followed by a period of testing and instructional coaching to help develop your repertoire of approaches to teaching.

It includes a short video available via the QR code to bring it to life along with:

Implementation ideas

Common misconceptions, links to further pedagogy.

Coming soon! Next in the series

Look out for the next in our PEdagogical models series:

Games-based approaches

Sport education, health-based pe (hbpe), teaching personal and social responsibility (tpsr), previous pedagogical models in the series.

You can also access the previous post and one page summary on

Direct instruction by clicking here

Further information

This insight provides an extended read on the benefits of cooperative learning along with some examples

Adopting a models based practice for physical educators

Book review

Physical education pedagogies for health

https://www.pescholar.com/courses/

Sorry, you must be a member to view downloads. Join Now. Already a member? Please sign in to view downloads.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Related Resources

Want to initiate more conversations between all staff, their students and wellbeing? This poster has…

Mosston & Ashworth Imagine a framework that presents not one way to teach, but eleven.…

It has always frustrated me how athletics looks in so many schools - a complex…

There was a problem reporting this post.

Effects of Cooperative-Learning Interventions on Physical Education Students’ Intrinsic Motivation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Carlos fernández-espínola.

1 Faculty of Education, Psychology and Sport Sciences, University of Huelva, 21071 Huelva, Spain; [email protected] (C.F.-E.); [email protected] (B.J.A.); [email protected] (E.C.V.); se.uhu@setneufj (F.J.G.F.-G.)

Manuel Tomás Abad Robles

Daniel collado-mateo.

2 Centre for Sport Studies, Rey Juan Carlos University, 28943 Madrid, Spain; moc.liamg@modallocinad

Bartolomé J. Almagro

Estefanía castillo viera, francisco javier giménez fuentes-guerra.

The aim was to review the effects of cooperative learning interventions on intrinsic motivation in physical education students, as well as to conduct a meta-analysis to determinate the overall effect size of these interventions. The PRISMA guidelines were followed to conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis. The PEDro Scale was used to assess the risk of bias and the GRADE approach was used to evaluate the quality of the evidence. A total of five studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and they were included in the meta-analysis. Effect size for intrinsic motivation of each study was calculated using the means and standard deviations of the Perceived Locus of Causality Scale (PLOC) before and after the intervention. The overall effect size for intrinsic motivation was 0.38 (95% CI from 0.17 to 0.60) while the heterogeneity was large. Although four of the five studies reported significant within-group improvements in intrinsic motivation, only three studies showed significant between-group differences in favor of the experimental group. The findings showed that program duration and participant age may be relevant factors that must be considered by educators and researchers to conduct future effective interventions. Cooperative learning interventions could be a useful teaching strategy to improve physical education students’ intrinsic motivation. However, given the large heterogeneity and the low quality of the evidence, these findings must be taken with caution.

1. Introduction

Over the last two decades, achievement goal theory [ 1 ] together with the self-determination theory [ 2 , 3 ] and Vallerand’s hierarchical model of motivation [ 4 ] have been effectively complemented to examine physical education students’ motivational process. These last two theories describe a sequence of motivational variables where social factors (i.e., the teacher’s interpersonal style) can influence satisfaction or can thwart basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence and relatedness). Autonomy can be defined as a person’s need to experience actions of their own choosing. Competence refers to the need to control results and achieve efficiency; relatedness can be defined as the need to be connected to others and the feeling of being accepted [ 3 ]. In this regard, the satisfaction of these needs has been linked to some types of self-determination motivation, such as intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is defined as “spontaneous activity that is sustained by the satisfactions inherent in the activity itself” [ 3 ] (p. 99). Therefore, intrinsic motivation involves people participating freely in activities that they find interesting, that provide novelty, fun and an appropriate challenge [ 2 ]. In consequence, it can help to achieve benefits in the cognitive, affective and psychomotor aspects of physical education students [ 5 , 6 ].

Resembling the teacher’s interpersonal style, the motivational climate generated by a physical education teacher has been studied in the scientific literature as one of the social factors in the motivational sequence described above (social factors → basic psychological needs → types of motivation → consequences). The motivational climate is a construct from the achievement goal theory [ 1 ]. According to this theory, Ames [ 7 ] postulated that social agents (teacher, peers and parents) build two possible motivational climates: a task-oriented climate (where personal growth, effort and skill progression are highlighted); and an ego-oriented climate (where comparison between peers, member rivalry and results are emphasized). The scientific literature has shown that a task-oriented climate is linked to satisfaction of the three needs [ 8 , 9 ] and consequently it is also related to the most self-determined types of motivation [ 10 ].

In relation to achievement goal theory, cooperative learning has been suggested as a teaching strategy that can improve the motivation of young people [ 11 ]. A possible relation among a task-oriented climate and cooperative structure was hypothesized because they both highlight working and effort with others, instead of against others [ 12 ]. In fact, one of the most important instruments used in the scientific literature to measure these two motivational climates in sport and physical education contexts, the Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire-2 by Newton, Duda and Yin [ 13 ], considers that cooperative learning along with effort and role constitute the three subscales that make up the task-oriented climate dimension. This questionnaire has been used in previous studies conducted in different countries and focused on the evaluation of motivation in physical education students [ 14 , 15 , 16 ].

Cooperative learning is considered a pedagogical model, which can help to achieve learning outcomes of four types: physical, affective, social and cognitive [ 17 ]. For many years, cooperative learning has been used in the context of physical education [ 18 , 19 ]. In these studies, cooperative learning interventions were conducted in different educational settings, reporting positive effects on motor skills, social skills, cognitive understanding and on creating an affective domain for physical education students. In this sense, this pedagogical model could be a useful teaching strategy to improve intrinsic motivation since it could be associated with the satisfaction of basic psychological needs from self-determination theory. This model can help to satisfy the need of relatedness since it can develop good social relations between peers [ 20 ] and can satisfy the need of competence by increasing physical skills [ 21 ]. Precisely, this fact has been analyzed in other school subjects. In the study by Hänze and Berger [ 22 ], cooperative learning improved the expertise of basic needs in physics classes, which determined more intrinsic motivation in students. Accordingly, it is possible to hypothesize that a similar process may happen in the subject of physical education. In fact, a recent systematic review of cooperative learning in physical education [ 23 ] has showed that of the four types of outcomes, social learning has been the most frequently assessed in the last five years, focusing on the relationships between teachers and students and motivation.

Therefore, the main aim of this article was to conduct a systematic review of the scientific literature on the effects of cooperative learning interventions on physical education students’ intrinsic motivation. For this purpose, the effect sizes of cooperative learning interventions on intrinsic motivation were determined through a meta-analysis.

2. Materials and Methods

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA) guidelines have been followed to carry out the current systematic review [ 24 ].

2.1. Literature Search

The Web of Science (WOS), Scopus and SportDiscus electronic databases were utilized to locate the studies selected in the present systematic review with meta-analysis. The search terms were divided into four groups of keywords as follows: (1) “cooperative learning”, “cooperative games”, “models-based learning”; (2) “intervention”, “experimental”, “quasi-experimental”, “implementation”, “randomized controlled trial”; (3) “motivation”; and (4) “physical education”. The Boolean operator “or” was incorporated between the words included in the first and second groups and the operator “and” was incorporated between each group. The manuscript search was conducted in April 2020.

2.2. Study Selection

The manuscripts were selected if they fulfilled the following inclusion criteria: (a) intervention was based on cooperative learning, (b) physical education students’ intrinsic motivation was measured, (c) the article was written in English or Spanish, (d) the manuscript was an article published or accepted in a peer review journal. No inclusion criteria related to the years of publication of the articles were considered. The study selection process was conducted by two independent authors (C.F.-E., and M.T.A.R.).

2.3. Assessment of Risk of Bias

To assess risk of bias, the PEDro scale was used [ 25 ]. This scale was developed to evaluate the quality of intervention studies, especially randomized controlled trials. The GRADE guidelines, which involves a four-point scale (“very low”, “low”, “moderate” and “high”) was used to assess the quality of evidence [ 26 ]. Table 1 shows the risk of bias results of included articles.

Risk of bias according to the PEDro Scale.

Y: criterion fulfilled; N: criterion not fulfilled; 1: eligibility criteria were defined; 2: the participants were randomly distributed to groups; 3: the assigned was concealed; 4: the groups were similar before the intervention (at baseline); 5: all participants were blinded; 6: therapists (teachers) who conducted the intervention were blinded; 7: there was blinding of all evaluators; 8: the measures of at least one of the fundamental outcomes were attained from more than 85% of the participants initially; 9:” intention to treat” analysis was conducted on all participants who received the control condition or treatment as assigned; 10: the findings of statistical comparisons between groups were reported for at least one fundamental outcome; 11: the study gives variability and punctual measures for at least one fundamental outcome; total score: each satisfied item (except the first) adds 1 point to the total score.

2.4. Data Collection

Firstly, two authors extracted data from the included articles. Subsequently, another author checked the extracted information. In accordance with the recommendations from PRISMA guidelines, the information extracted was as follows: participants, intervention, comparisons, outcomes or results and study design (PICOS) [ 27 ]. Table 2 shows the main characteristics of the different protocols of intervention and the main participants’ characteristics: sex, age, level of education and sample size. Regarding interventions, Table 3 summarizes the following details: duration of the study, number of sessions and type of cooperative intervention program.

Characteristics of the participants and the protocol.

Note: CLG = Cooperative Learning Group; CG = Control Group; SD = Standard Deviation; NR = Not Reported.

Characteristics of the interventions (duration and activities).

Note: NR = Not Reported.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

For this meta-analysis, a random-effects model was used to measure the effect of cooperative learning interventions on intrinsic motivation in physical education students. The results of each study on this variable can be seen in Table 3 . The treatment effect was calculated as the difference between the change in the experimental group and the change in the control group. In each study, effect size was calculated using the means and standard deviations before and after treatment [ 28 ]. The magnitude of the Cohen′s d was identified as follows: (a) “large”, for values higher than 0.8, (b) “moderate”, when it was between 0.5 and 0.8, (c) “small”, for values between 0.2 and 0.5, and (d) “no effect” for values below 0.2. Heterogeneity was assessed by calculating the following statistics: (a) Tau 2 , for the calculation of variance between studies, (b) Chi 2 and (c) I 2 , which is a transformation of the H statistic used to determine the percentage of the variation that is caused by the heterogeneity. The most common classification of I 2 considers values higher than 50% as large heterogeneity, values between 25% and 50% as average and lower than 25% as small [ 29 ]. The tool Review Manager 5.3 was used to conduct all analyses [ 30 ].

3.1. Study Selection

The complete process (PRISMA flow diagram) of this review is shown in Figure 1 . A total of 27 records were identified in the electronic databases—WOS (13), Scopus (7) and SportDiscus (7)—12 of which were removed because they were duplicated. Of the remaining 15 records, three were eliminated because they were not an intervention, three because the intervention programs were not based on cooperative learning, three because they did not measure the intrinsic motivation and one because it did not use a control group. Finally, five studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis after an exhaustive selection.

Flow diagram for the systematic review process according with PRISMA statements.

3.2. Risk of Bias

Table 1 shows the risk of bias of the five selected articles according to the PEDro scale. Scores varied from four [ 31 ] to seven [ 32 , 33 ]. Three studies showed a lower risk of bias, as they indicated a score of ≥6 [ 32 , 33 , 34 ]. By contrast, two studies showed a higher risk of bias, as they indicated a score of <6 [ 31 , 35 ]. Regarding the quality of evidence, the GRADE guidelines have been followed. In this sense, the rating start was “low” because the outcomes do not come from randomized controlled trials. Additionally, the quality of evidence was downgraded for reasons of inconsistency due to the degree of heterogeneity. Thus, the quality of evidence according to the GRADE guidelines was “very low”, which was defined as “We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect” [ 26 ] (p. 404).

3.3. Study Characteristics

Table 2 and Table 3 show a summary of the study characteristics. The total sample was 1020. Of these, 518 were distributed in the cooperative learning group (CLG) and 502 belonged to the control group (CG). Two studies were conducted in Primary School, two in High School and another at University level.

3.4. Interventions

Table 2 shows a summary of the cooperative learning interventions in each article: three studies used different cooperative learning structures or techniques such as Coop-Coop, Learning Together, Think-Share-Perform, Team Learning, Collective Score, etc. Only one study did not report information in this sense [ 35 ]. This table also summarizes the interventions of the control group of each article: all studies used traditional teaching methods.

Table 3 summarizes the duration of the programs and the number of sessions in each study. Intervention durations varied between three weeks and six months. The number of sessions ranged between 6 and 30. The study conducted by Cecchini et al. [ 33 ] did not report the number of sessions.

3.5. Outcome Measures

The effects of cooperative learning interventions on physical education students’ intrinsic motivation are shown in Figure 2 . To evaluate motivation levels, all five articles used the Spanish version of Perceived Locus of Causality Scale (PLOC), which is a version of a scale originally written in English by Goudas, Biddle and Fox [ 36 ]. This Scale was translated and validated for the Spanish context by Moreno-Murcia, González-Cutre and Chillón [ 37 ] and it measures five motivation levels (four items for level): Intrinsic motivation (e.g., “because Physical Education is fun”), Identified Regulation (e.g., “because I can learn new skills that I could use in other areas of my life”), Introjected Regulation (e.g., “I would feel bad about myself if I didn’t”), External Regulation (e.g., “because that is what I am supposed to do”), and Amotivation (e.g., “I really feel I’m wasting my time in Physical Education”). The previous sentence of this scale is “I take part in this Physical Education class”. For the answers, a Likert Scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) is used.

Meta-analysis: effect sizes for intrinsic motivation of cooperative learning interventions.

Having used PLOC to measure the physical education students’ intrinsic motivation, four of the five studies reported a significant increase in this variable relative to the baseline caused by cooperative learning intervention. Conversely, the study by Fernández-Argüelles and González-González de Mesa [ 31 ] reported a reduction in intrinsic motivation after the cooperative learning intervention. Nevertheless, the p -value was not reported. Regarding control groups, three studies reported non-significant changes and another study did not report them [ 31 ].

Interestingly, although three studies reported statistically significant improvement in the experimental group relative to baseline, as can be seen in Figure 2 , the studies by Cecchini et al. [ 33 ], by Fernández-Río, Cecchini, and Méndez-Giménez [ 34 ] and by Fernández-Río et al. [ 32 ] showed significant between-group differences in favor of the CLG.

Overall effect size for intrinsic motivation was 0.38 with a 95% CI from 0.17 to 0.60. In accordance with the proposed classification, this effect size was small. The heterogeneity level was high: Tau 2 = 0.05; Chi 2 = 19.72, df = 4 ( p = 0.0006); I 2 = 80%; test for overall effect: Z = 3.55 ( p = 0.0004).

4. Discussion

This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to analyze the effects of cooperative learning interventions on physical education students’ intrinsic motivation. The main finding according to meta-analysis results was that cooperative learning could improve the intrinsic motivation in physical education students. Figure 2 shows that the effect size in three of five studies was in favor of the experimental group. These findings are in accordance with self-determination theory [ 2 , 3 ] and Vallerand’s hierarchical model of motivation [ 4 ], which described how social factors, where cooperative learning is included, can influence the different forms of motivation, and that this effect is exerted by means of the satisfaction of the basic psychological needs (competence, autonomy and relatedness). This improvement can be considered as small according to the overall effect size (d = 0.38 with a 95% CI from 0.17 to 0.60; p = 0.0004). Due to the low quality of the evidence, the interpretation of this meta-analysis must be done with caution. However, findings from the current meta-analysis could be useful for teachers and educators to improve intrinsic motivation in physical education students.

From the five interventions based on cooperative learning included in this meta-analysis, four studies reported a significant improvement in intrinsic motivation. The duration of these effective interventions varied between three weeks and six months [ 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 ]. Conversely, in the study by Fernández-Argüelles and González-González [ 31 ] a decrease in intrinsic motivation was observed. Given that the intervention’s duration of that study was six weeks, the program duration does not seem to be the most critical factor. However, Figure 2 shows that the three longest studies [ 32 , 33 , 34 ] reported a higher effect size to the other two studies [ 31 , 35 ]. Therefore, according to this result, cooperative learning interventions should be carried out at least for 12 weeks to achieve a significant and relevant improvement in intrinsic motivation.

An important factor could be the age of the students. The study which reported a reduction in intrinsic motivation had a sample composed of primary school students with a mean age of 8.4 [ 31 ]. As shown in Figure 2 , this article reported a difference in favor of the control group. The remaining four studies (which reported significant improvement in intrinsic motivation) had a sample composed of primary school students with a mean age of 10.29 [ 35 ], high school students with a mean age of 13.66 [ 32 ] and 14.60 [ 33 ] and university students with a mean age of 20.39 [ 34 ]. These results are in line with the findings showed in the study by Hortigüela-Alcalá et al. [ 38 ]; they contrasted the effects of a cooperative learning intervention (without a control group) on factors such as motivation in students in two different educational stages: Primary Education (with a mean age of 11.37) and Secondary Education (with a mean age of 15.42). Motivation increased significantly in both groups. In this meta-analysis, the best results were achieved in the studies by Cecchini et al. [ 33 ] and by Fernández-Río et al. [ 32 , 34 ] Therefore, although the highest effect size was observed in the study by Cecchini et al. [ 33 ], in general, the results show that the effect size was higher in accordance with an increase of the age of participants. Consequently, the lowest effect size was observed in the study by Fernández-Argüelles and González-González de Mesa [ 31 ]. Furthermore, Fernández-Argüelles and González-González de Mesa [ 31 ] reported that an important limitation of their study was the young age of students, which may impair the execution of the program given the complexity of the strategies carried out in the sessions. Cooperative learning requires a high level of autonomy; thus, it would be advisable and interesting for future cooperative learning interventions with school students to conduct a previous program to develop students’ autonomy before the intervention. For this purpose, a second experimental group could be added in future studies with Primary School students.

Regarding the type of cooperative learning techniques or structures (as seen in Table 2 ), Fernández-Río et al. [ 34 ] used two: Learning Together [ 39 ] and Coop-Coop [ 40 ]. More cooperative learning structures can be observed in the study by Fernández-Río et al. [ 32 ], since they used several techniques as: Think-Share-Perform [ 41 ], Co-op Play [ 42 ], Collective Score [ 43 ], Learning Teams [ 41 ]. Learning Groups [ 44 ] and Pairs-Check-Perform [ 41 ]. Collective Score [ 43 ] was also used in the study by Fernández-Argüelles and González-González de Mesa [ 30 ]. Although it seems that this study used more cooperative learning structures during the intervention, the authors did not report more details. Finally, neither cooperative learning structure was found in the study by Navarro-Patón et al. [ 35 ] nor in the study by Cecchini et al. [ 33 ]. Based on the results of this systematic review and meta-analysis and the differences in terms of participants’ age and the program’s duration, it is not possible to determine whether some program types were more appropriate than others. However, an important implication of this study is possibly the inclusion of cooperative learning-based interventions in physical education teacher training programs. In this sense, further studies are needed to know which cooperative learning structures are more effective to improve students’ intrinsic motivation in physical education. In the future, the implementation of high-quality interventions as randomized controlled trials are recommended to obtained results of greater value.

The present systematic review with meta-analysis has various limitations. Firstly, the literature search was limited to two languages: Spanish and English. Therefore, the risk of exclusion of articles written in other languages was high. Secondly, the meta-analysis was conducted with a relatively small sample size, since only five studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Thirdly, the meta-analysis shows great heterogeneity and some of the studies analyzed are not of sufficient quality. Therefore, the interpretation of the results from this study must be taken with caution.

5. Conclusions

Cooperative learning interventions could be a useful teaching strategy to improve the physical education student’s intrinsic motivation since the overall effect size was significantly in favor of the experimental group. Program duration and participant’s age are relevant factors that must be considered by educators and researchers to conduct future effective interventions. In this sense, a student’s age may impair their execution of the program, given the complexity of the strategies carried out in the sessions. In addition, in terms of the duration of cooperative learning interventions, it is possible for them to achieve a significant and relevant improvement on intrinsic motivation when they last at least 12 weeks. Nevertheless, it is not possible to determine whether some program types are more appropriate than others. Given the very low quality of evidence and the large heterogeneity, these findings must be taken with caution.

Author Contributions

C.F.-E., M.T.A.R., and F.J.G.F.-G. designed and wrote the manuscript and interpreted the findings. F.J.G.F.-G. and B.J.A. supervised the study; M.T.A.R. and E.C.V. conducted the investigation; D.C.-M. and C.F.-E. analyzed the data; and E.C.V. and B.J.A. reviewed the final version. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

• Our Content
• Success Stories
• Schedule A Demo
• Login / Register

Cooperative Learning in Physical Education

• Sean Fullerton
• February 15, 2023

Sean Fullerton is a former secondary physical education teacher and current Ph.D. student at the University of New Mexico in the Health, Exercise, and Sports Science Department. In this article, Sean explores a cooperative learning in physical education Be on the lookout for lots of great content from Sean as he helps take the academic angle of physical education best practices.

Organizing the learning environment in physical education (PE) can be a daunting task for teachers, especially with large classes. Physical educators should be prepared to “plan and implement developmentally appropriate learning experiences” and “engage students in meaningful learning experiences through effective pedagogical skills” (SHAPE, 2017; pp. 2-4). 

Teaching strategies are ways to organize the learning environment for large group instruction Rink (2013). This article will discuss cooperative learning. Additionally, look at Mosston and Ashworth’s (2002) spectrum teaching styles which describe ten teaching styles from direct instructional strategies (i.e. command, practice) to indirect instructional strategies (i.e. learner initiated, self-teaching).

Teaching Styles for Large Group Instruction

Teaching styles are based on the amount of decision-making responsibility students are given in the learning process. Selecting the most appropriate teaching style and strategy depends on the curricular model, learning objectives, and students’ abilities. The learning environment for large group instruction can be organized in two ways:

1) varying the level of responsibility and engagement of the learner with the content (teaching style) 

2) organizing learning activities where the learner and teacher act in different ways (teaching strategy) (Rink, 2013).

What is Cooperative Learning?

Cooperative learning is a learning strategy where students work together in a group to complete a task or project. The cooperative learning strategy emphasizes social interaction with an understanding that valuing diversity and working with others are important in the real world (Rink, 2013). Cooperative learning can stimulate learning as well as personal and social development. Multiple teaching styles can be used within cooperative learning.  

For example, in the Sport Education curricular model (Siedentop et al., 2011), the teacher can use both practice and divergent production styles as students plan their practice session within their teams. Divergent production teaching style is when students solve problems posed by the teacher for which there are many correct answers, such as creating practice drills to focus on offensive strategies, or creating warm-up routines before practice or workout sessions. Practice teaching style is when students practice a skill or task, and provide feedback to each other based on skill cues.

Free Professional Development For PE 

From full courses to on-demand webinars, tap into the PLT4M classroom for continuing education opportunities for physical education teachers. 

Best Practices For Cooperative Learning 

For cooperative learning, Rink (2013) recommends that learners are assigned and grouped heterogeneously (of varying abilities, interests, knowledge, etc.). For cooperative learning to work, students must be provided clear expectations regarding roles, expectations, steps, resources, time frame, and assessment process (Rink, 2013). 

The student success office at the University of Waterloo provides a tip sheet titled “ Working effectively in groups ” that has tips for organizing group work, suggested roles and responsibilities, and solutions to common challenges. In the Sport Education model, there are roles assigned within the model, such as coach, trainer, referee, score keeper, etc. (Siedentop et al., 2011). UC-Irvine’s Teaching, Learning & Technology Center provides an example group contract including recommendations for instructors when utilizing contracts as a part of group learning. Each curricular model provides recommendations and resources for materials as well. 

Depending on the learning style, usually, the teacher selects thet task or project, but students can have a say in deciding the specific goal that they are to achieve (Rink, 2013). It is important that something authentic should be learned and this learning requires cooperation, and the experience is designed to develop the interdependency of the group members (Rink, 2013). 

The progression in which the group moves through tasks should be built in, or left to the learners, depending on the task and their ability levels (Rink, 2013). Timelines or checkpoints are suggested when completing long-term projects so that the teacher can provide feedback and the group can move forward in a timely manner (Rink, 2013). The teacher should offer suggestions or alternative strategies if the group is stuck. 

Cooperative Learning For Fitness and Wellness Curriculum 

Cooperative learning can be used for fitness and wellness curriculum. In which, it may be better to group students homogeneously, based on similar abilities or goals, however, their prior knowledge and experience is likely to vary. 

Reciprocal teaching style can be used for students within the group to complete health-related fitness assessment. Reciprocal teaching style is when students work together while one performs a task, and the other provides feedback. In this example, students can select how they want to assess a component of health-related fitness. At the secondary level, students can choose push-ups, the YMCA bench press test, the modified pull-up test, or isometric push-up test to measure muscular endurance and are tasked with applying proper testing procedures.

Technology could be used to provide instructions for assessments. For projects, cooperative learning can be used for students to design, implement, and evaluate a fitness program. Members will be tasked with completing pre-assessments, designing the program, following the program, and monitoring progress, and conducting a post-assessment to evaluate program effectiveness. 

Within this project, students can be assigned roles within their group: 

• Student 1 can be a “coach”, in charge of proper exercise techniques. 
• Student 2 can be a “trainer”, in charge of warm-up and cool down based on the workout. 
• Student 3 can be a “Program designer”, in charge of exercise selection, ordering, and periodization, and the application of progressive overload. 
• Student 4 can be a “manager” in charge of spotting, safety, and time management. Students should be given clear responsibilities for their roles and provided feedback from peers and their teachers. 

It may be appropriate to combine other teaching strategies within a fitness and wellness curriculum that involve interactive teaching (teacher-led), self-instructional strategies (student-led), or peer teaching (student-led, with assistance).

Key Takeaways on Cooperative Learning 

Ultimately, the teacher must select the most appropriate teaching strategy to offer the best learning environment for students to accomplish the learning objectives. The curricular model, student abilities, and learning outcomes provide a starting point for selecting the most appropriate teaching strategy. 

Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (2002). Teaching physical education (5th ed.). Boston: Benjamin Cummings.

Rink, J. E. (2013). Teaching Physical Education for Learning . McGraw-Hill Education.

SHAPE America – Society of Health and Physical Educators (2017). National Standards For Initial Physical Education Teacher Education. 

Siedentop, D., Hastie, P., & Der Mars, V. H. (2011). Complete Guide to Sport Education (Second). Human Kinetics.

More Articles From Sean Fullerton

Personalized System of Instruction in Physical Education

Student Centered Learning Examples Using Technology

5 Tips To Technology Use In Physical Education

Understanding Motivational Theories in Physical Education

Flipped Learning in Physical Education

Share this article:

Recent Posts

Middle School Health Curriculum

How To Improve Mental Health In Schools

Health Education Curriculum

Interested if plt4m can work at your school.

What does your Middle School Health Curriculum look like?

PLT4M's middle school health curriculum can empower students with the knowledge and skills to make healthy choices now and into the future!

“We want students to lift and exercise in high school, but also for the rest of their lives. That means we want to develop lifelong skills that promote health and safety throughout our classes.”

Life Lessons & Lifting - Inside The Waynesville Weight Room

At Waynesville High School, students are working hard, seeing results, and building lifelong physical and mental skills.

In what ways can our schools, specifically PE and Health Departments, mitigate the mental burden our students are currently under?

We explore how to improve mental health in schools using physical education and health classes as a conduit for success.

PE Final Exam. PT and then graphing progress/data in the Athletic Training Facility. @BR_Schools @plt4m

“When we give students more choice, they are more likely to engage. Choice has helped students staying on task, working hard, and seeing health and wellness benefits.”

Paradise PE's Push For Student Choice and Engagement

Paradise High School in Arizona has pushed for student choice in physical education that has led to new levels of student engagement.

Empower kids to say “YES” to a healthy lifestyle and “NO” to underage drinking! PLT4M is proud to now offer easy-to-implement lesson plans from Ask, Listen, Learn: Kids and Alcohol Don’t Mix, a program from http://Responsiblity.org. @AskListenLearn

Underage Drinking Prevention Lesson Plans

Underage drinking prevention lesson plans empower kids to say “YES” to a healthy lifestyle and “NO” to underage drinking.

The leader in quality Physical Education, Athletics, and Fitness equipment for 75 years.

4 Team Building Activities for Students

One of the best ways to start your school year is to get your students active and working together! Team building activities for students, also referred to as cooperative games, can be a great way to see which students work well with everyone, which work well with certain students, and which students struggle to work well with anyone. We all know we have the full range in any given class, so hopefully incorporating some team building activities and games will bring the entire class together.

My Favorite Cooperative Games for PE:

1. island movers.

One of my favorite cooperative games to do when I taught elementary students was Island Movers! The game involves as much or as little equipment as you want to allow.  The idea of the game is for students to use the equipment you give them to get everyone in their group from one end of the gymnasium to the other without anyone touching the “shark-infested waters,” aka the gym floor! Feel free to play some Jaws -themed music too!

• Split class into small groups of 4 or 5 students each for the first couple of rounds. Then make the groups the larger as you go.
• Start each group with one piece of equipment per person in the group. If they master that, remove a piece of equipment. Examples of equipment: poly spots , carpet squares, cones , jump ropes , scooters , cardboard boxes, etc. Ensure you give each group the same pieces of equipment.
• Allow students to work together to cross the shark-infested waters.
• On the last day of this activity, I make this a class challenge and the entire class must work together to accomplish the task.
• End each round with a quick debriefing. This is a time to ask your students to share what worked and what didn’t. It also allows students to try a different group’s idea.
• This is a team building activity, so make sure that all groups realize this is NOT a race.
• If a group is finished, encourage those students to cheer for the other groups.
• Mix up the groups each round so the students get to work with everyone in the class.

2. Buddy Walking

Another team building activity that I have done is called Buddy Walking. This is a fun activity that I encourage you to record on video the first and last day of the activity to see how far the students’ teamwork skills have grown and improved. Everyone will have a good laugh; and, to be quite honest, being able to laugh together is another great way to bond!

I liked to use the Team Walker Sets from Gopher for this activity. However, if you are low on funds and handy, you can make your own set with some 2×4’s and rope. The idea is to get students to think, communicate, and walk as a group from Point A to Point B. Some students will take charge and lead their group in a cadenced march, while others will struggle to work together. Again, this is why debriefing is crucial!  It will allow students to hear success stories!

3. Geacaching

Geocaching or treasure hunting is an activity that can be done in small groups or as a whole class and can be a tremendous amount of fun! You are in control of how complex you would like to make this adventurous lesson. I have never had GPS units in my PE closet, but if you can purchase a couple I would recommend it! The units range in cost and complexity, so pick what you feel comfortable using and teaching! And if you don’t have the funds to purchase GPS units, dig deep into your National Treasure skills and create maps of your own for your students to follow. The great part about creating clues to use is that you can pull classroom concepts into PE class, again this all depends on how elaborate you want to make the lesson/unit. I have done this as a search-and-rescue mission utilizing clues that they must follow to get to a specific destination. Along the way as they get to each clue, I like to add different exercises that they must complete as a group before moving onto the next clue. A word of caution, this is not the best thing to do within the halls of your school, it can be a little loud! Shop Geocaching supplies.

4. Team Cooperative Counting Game

My last suggestion, and I still use this at the high school level, is a counting game. I call it team counting, and I would say this is better for your upper elementary students. There is no equipment necessary and you can use it inside or outside!

If you have a class of 20 students, the idea is for the class to count from 1 to 20, but each student is allowed to call out only one number.

• Students sit or stand in a circle and are not permitted to count straight down the line or around the circle.
• If two students call out a number at the same time, they must start back at 1.
• If there is a long pause, I usually go with 3 or 4 seconds, then they must start over.

Depending on the class, this task can be done quickly or it may take them 10 minutes or they may never get it. I suggest not letting them struggle to the point where they don’t get it, give them some hints. The hint I use is that once a student has secured a number that they called out, they should always be the person to call that number. Again, debriefing with your class at the end is crucial, because you can talk about different strategies and how they as a class worked together to solve a tricky problem. As an extra little bonus, I use this with my track team and they must do wall sits while trying to work together to count from 1 to however many are in my sprinter/hurdler/jumper group.

Final Thoughts

I know the thought is to use team building activities for students at the beginning of the year and I agree it is important, but I would al o gauge your classes throughout the year. I know when I taught elementary school PE, there were times in the year when I pulled these back out because I felt it was necessary to get everyone back together. This is especially true as they get older because hormones kick in, friendships form, and sometimes you can tell classes are excluding some kids. That never leads to anything positive! I also want to point out that these activities are meant to be fun, and if you notice your students getting frustrated just stop and have a debriefing session to talk things out. If your students are extremely frustrated and you don’t help them work through this, you will have accomplished nothing! Good Luck! Shop team building equipment options.

Interested in More Team Building Activities for Students?

• Back-to-School Icebreakers and Team Building Activities  by Maria Corte
• Break the Ice! Team Building 101 by Chad Triolet
• Creative Ways to Integrate Fitness with Team Building into PE   by Jessica Shawley

Team Building Equipment

About the Author:

Jason Gemberling

2 responses.

Hi buddy, This is a great article! There is definitely some very useful and valuable information in here that I will be keeping for my future resources. Thanks for sharing such a great article!

Thanks for taking the time to read the article! I am glad that you found the information helpful! If you ever have any questions, do not hesitate to send me a message!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The leader in quality Physical Education, Athletics, and Fitness equipment.

Featured Resources

5 ways small sided games make a big impact, author: jessica shawley, a brand new tool for pe you didn’t know you needed, author: brett fuller, 5 skill-based floor hockey games, author: michael beringer, 16 parachute team building activities, author: tim mueller, we're social, motivating unmotivated students​, author: dr. robert pangrazi, jessica shawley, and tim mueller, promoting activity and success through adapted pe, author: dr. robert pangrazi, marci pope and maria corte, author: randy spring.

JOIN OUR NEWSLETTER

Sign up to receive the latest physical education resources, activities, and more from educational professionals like you straight to your inbox!

• DOI: 10.4324/9780203132982
• Corpus ID: 141851553

Cooperative Learning in Physical Education : A research based approach

• Ben Dyson , Ashley Casey
• Published 2012

199 Citations

Cooperative learning as formative approach in physical education for all, cooperative learning in physical education encountering dewey’s educational theory, physical education and university: evaluation of a teaching experience through cooperative learning, the implementation of models-based practice in physical education through action research, cooperative learning: a relevant instructional model for physical education pre-service teacher training, research the implementation of models-based practice in physical education through action, the challenges of models-based practice in physical education teacher education: a collaborative self-study, action research in physical education: focusing beyond myself through cooperative learning.

• Highly Influenced

Using Best Practices when Implementing the Cooperative-Learning Theory in Secondary Physical Education Programs

Elements and skills of cooperative learning for student learning in physical education, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

The efficiency of cooperative learning in physical education on the learning of action skills and learning motivation.

• 1 Department of Physical Education, Dongguan Polytechnic, Dongguan, China
• 2 Department of Computing Engineering, Dongguan Polytechnic, Dongguan, China
• 3 Department of Logistics Engineering, Dongguan Polytechnic, Dongguan, China
• 4 Department of Computer Science and Information Management, Soochow University, Taipei, China

This paper proposes a cooperative learning method for use in physical education, involving two different grouping methods: S-type heterogeneous grouping and “free” grouping. Cooperative learning was found to enhance the effectiveness of basketball skills learning and learning motivation. A comparison was made of the differences between action skills grouping (the control group) and “free” grouping (the experimental group). The ARCS Motivation Scale and Basketball Action Skills Test were used to measure results, and SPSS statistical analysis software was used for relevant statistical processing (with α set to.05). The results showed that overall skills, dribbling and passing among the action skills groups and “free” groupings significantly improved, but results for shooting were not significant; motivation levels for the two grouping methods significantly improved overall, and no significant differences in learning motivation and learning effectiveness were found between the different grouping methods. It is clear that teachers should first establish a good relationship between and with students, and free grouping methods can be used to good effect. Teachers using cooperative learning should intervene in a timely manner and choose suitable grouping methods according to the teaching goals.

Introduction

Physical education is based on physical activity and focuses on training physical fitness and improving health. In the past, physical education in schools was often regarded as marginalized or was not considered a suitable subject to study at higher education level, compared with other subjects. However, Spencer pointed out in the life preparation theory that the purpose of education is to prepare young people for a fulfilling and successful life in the future. Physical health and self-discipline are therefore highly important and are directly related to survival. The representative indirectly pointed out that the most valuable courses are those in the fields of health and physical education. In addition, many scholars have pointed out that in physical education, students can experience the fun of sports through sporting activities, and they can develop their sports skills along with personal and social skills. Sporting activities can help establish harmonious interpersonal relationships and enable individuals to develop appropriate ethical (sportsmanlike) and team behaviors, and they are an effective way to build self-confidence. Furthermore, exercise has the following benefits: it stimulates the brainstem and helps regulate neurotransmitters in the brain; it helps reduce anxiety and relieve stress; it improves strength; it can improve memory, learning ability and concentration; and it can promote feelings of well-being. The importance of physical education is therefore clear to see ( Chen et al., 2019a ; Bai et al., 2020 ).

Health has long been a topic of concern for people, and it has the most direct relationship with survival. In holistic terms, five elements of health and well-being are recognized: physical fitness, emotional fitness, social fitness, spiritual fitness and cultural fitness. Social fitness emphasizes active interaction with others and the ability to develop friendships. Ten basic abilities have been identified, associated with physical education, including respect, care and teamwork. The 12-year national education curriculum has developed the concept of “spontaneous,” “interactive,” and “shared good” in the nine years since its introduction, and the importance of this for children’s learning has been actively promoted in recent years.

The concept of teamwork and cooperation has always been valued, and the importance of cooperation has been mentioned many times in the major domains of education, and is reflected in fitness ability indicators. It can be seen that physical education can create an ideal context for cooperative learning. Acquisition of action skills in physical education is not something that happens automatically as children grow and mature, but it can be enhanced by external factors such as practice, guidance and encouragement. Cooperative learning provides these opportunities and is an effective teaching method that is advocated by experts and scholars. It can shape teamwork situations, and students can develop the ability to communicate, cooperate and coordinate with others in the process. Social skills can be enhanced at the same time, through mutual encouragement, teaching, explanation and other interactions between peers. Cooperative learning can stimulate individuals’ inner motivation, improve attitudes to learning, improve learning effectiveness and help young people achieve key learning goals. Many studies in the past have pointed out that cooperative learning can not only improve the effectiveness of learning but also make learning more enjoyable ( Chen et al., 2015 , 2021e , 2019b ).

In addition, cooperative learning is also effective in promoting subject knowledge and problem-solving abilities. Assessing the effectiveness of learning has always been an important aspect of physical education (as with other subject areas), enabling teaching and learning outcomes to be evaluated and improvements and next steps to be explored further. Various factors will affect the effectiveness of learning. Studies of heterogeneous grouping have found that it helps to promote interaction between students, cultivate social skills, increase learning effectiveness and improve learning motivation. Cooperative learning almost equates with heterogeneous grouping. In physical education, the heterogeneous grouping method mostly involves skill-performance grouping, and most studies have pointed out that such a heterogeneous grouping method is beneficial to the learning of all group members. Better performing individuals can assist those with poorer skills so that the latter can obtain feedback on their performance and improve, and those with better skills can reorganize and improve their own performance by teaching other team members.

In this research, cooperative learning was applied to physical education classes in order to explore the impact of different grouping methods on learning effectiveness and learning motivation ( Chen et al., 2020 ). Based on the research background and motivation, the aim of this study was to explore the impact of different cooperative learning grouping methods in relation to action skills learning and learning motivation. Quasi-experimental research methods were used so that the results could serve as a reference for physical education and future research.

Research Questions

The following research questions were formulated:

(1) What differences can be seen (before and after testing) between action skills groups and “free” groupings in relation to the effectiveness of cooperative learning?

(2) What differences can be seen (before and after testing) between action skills groups and “free” groupings in relation to motivation in cooperative learning?

(3) What differences can be seen between action skills groups and “free” groupings in relation to performance of action skills in cooperative learning?

(4) What differences can be seen (pre- and post-test) between action skills groups and “free” groupings in relation to learning motivation in cooperative learning?

Research Participants

(1) Research participants: Intentional sampling was used in this study. Two classes of students were selected as the research participants (59 participants in total). There were 29 students in class A (15 males and 14 females). Free grouping was adopted, and this was the experimental group in the research. Class B comprised 30 students (17 males and 13 females), grouped according to S-type heterogeneous action skills, and this was the control group.

(2) Research time: The implementation time for this research was from March 2019 to May 2020, a period of six weeks. There was a total of 12 lessons. One physical education lesson took place (45 min per class) every Monday and Thursday afternoon throughout the study period. The teaching strategy of cooperative learning was used to carry out physical education basketball teaching.

(3) Teaching content: In this study, a self-designed cooperative-learning teaching strategy was integrated into the basketball unit. The teaching content included basic basketball passing, dribbling and shooting.

(4) Research test restrictions: The ARCS Motivation Scale and the Basketball Action Skills Test were used in the pre- and post-tests of the study. Therefore, the pre-tests may have affected the post-tests.

Interpretation of Terms

(1) cooperative learning.

This is a structured and systematic teaching strategy to promote group learning. Group members participate in the learning together, and peers have a mutual relationship of success or failure and help one another to achieve the learning goal. For this research, two types of student group achievement differentiation (STAD) were used, and group game competition (TGT) to design teaching plans.

(2) Action Skills

In this research, the action skills consisted of dribbling, passing and shooting in basketball. Dribbling refers to the speed of the dribbling movement using the left and right hands; passing refers to the accuracy and speed of passing and receiving the ball bounced against the wall; shooting refers to the ability to shoot and pick up the ball (from the same distance) and shoot the ball into the basket.

(3) Different Grouping Methods

The different grouping methods in this study refer to free grouping within the limit set for the number of members and S-type heterogeneous grouping according to the performance of action skills. Participants were divided into five groups, with five to six people in each group. Once the groups had been set, they stayed as they were until the end of the study. The terms used for groups are defined separately as follows:

“Free” Grouping

Students could group themselves according to their own wishes, with at least five people in each group and a maximum of six people.

S-Type Heterogeneous Grouping of Action Skills

Action skills were defined as described above. The basketball skills test developed for the study was used as the test method. The pre-test scores obtained were ranked from high to low and were used as the basis for dividing the participants into five groups, each containing five to six people: 1∼5, 6∼10, 11∼15, 16∼20. The scores for the first group were 1, 10, 11, 20, 21, and 30. The scores for the second group were 2, 9, 12, 19, 22, and 29. From less to more, more to less, and so on.

Effectiveness of Action Skills Learning

Learning effectiveness is critical to teaching and learning outcomes. Learning effectiveness refers to the degree to which students achieve particular teaching goals. However, there may be a range of these, e.g., the main learning, auxiliary learning, cognition, motivation and skills. The action skills learning effect referred to in this research refers to the passing, dribbling and shooting scores obtained by students after the cooperative basketball lessons.

Literature Review

The connotations of cooperative learning.

Cooperative learning is a type of teaching. It means that two or more learners become a learning unit. Through the interaction of group members and the sharing of responsibilities, learners can achieve common learning goals. In this process, each learner must take responsibility for team members. This kind of teaching is learner-centered and can provide students with opportunities for active thinking and more interactive communication. Cooperative learning is a learning activity that establishes a common goal between group members, who then work together toward this, cooperate and support one another. Through the cooperation of peers, the effectiveness of individual learning is improved, and group goals can be achieved. For learning to be fully cooperative, it needs to have the following three key elements: promotion of positive interdependence; personal performance responsibility; face-to-face interaction. Cooperative learning is a structured and systematic teaching strategy, which is less subject to the restrictions of subjects and grades. Teachers can help meet the needs of students of different genders, abilities, socioeconomic backgrounds, races, etc.

After getting into groups, the whole group establishes a common goal. All group members are responsible for themselves and for the others. They encourage and assist one another in order to achieve the learning goals. Teachers arrange suitable cooperative learning situations and group students in a heterogeneous manner, providing guidance to students to help them cooperate, learn from one another, share resources and achieve learning goals together, which not only contributes to learning achievement but also to motivation levels. Cooperative learning is a systematic and structured teaching strategy, which supports learning outcomes and also students’ communication and social skills ( Chettaoui et al., 2020 ; Chen et al., 2021d , e ).

Cooperative Teaching Methods

Teachers can choose appropriate teaching methods to apply in the classroom according to teaching goals, student characteristics and the characteristics of the subject being taught. Cooperative learning methods are divided into three categories, according to the teaching situation. The first type is communication, which focuses on sharing (and discussion) of ideas among group members; the second type is that of proficiency, which focuses on the content of the course; and the third type is inquiry, which focuses on guiding groups as they explore set tasks and solve problems. Below, five other methods commonly used in physical education will be introduced, along with the student group achievement differentiation (STAD) method used in this research.

Students’ Team Achievement Differentiation Method

The student group achievement differentiation method is the most straightforward and easy-to-implement cooperative learning method. This implementation and evaluation method is similar to traditional teaching methods, but it also has other special benefits, such as group rewards, individual responsibilities and equalization. The test method ascertains the progress scores of each group member and the entire group, meaning that the effort and achievement of all students can be recognized and celebrated. Progress scores are used to confirm the extent to which teaching goals are achieved. The STAD process may involve whole-class teaching, group study, quizzes and calculation of personal progress scores. For the purposes of this study, participants’ individual scores (before cooperative learning) were calculated for each group member, and the detailed score comparison is shown in Table 1 .

Table 1. Personal progress score conversion table.

Research Relating to Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning began to develop after establishment of the Cooperative Learning Centre. Many experts and scholars have successively proposed cooperative learning-related teaching strategies and methods, and related research has also continued to develop. The research objects range from kindergartens to colleges and universities. In the field of sports, colleges and universities are the main users. A meta-analysis of relevant literature on cooperative learning showed that 80% of the results indicate that cooperative learning can have a positive impact on learning effectiveness; 13% of the results showed that there is no difference between cooperative learning and general teaching methods; 12% of the results showed use of the one-class teaching method, which has better learning results than cooperative learning. From the above meta-analysis, it was found that not all cooperative learning has positive effects. This research explored the relationship between cooperative learning and physical education. From previous literature, it was found that cooperative learning can be used in different projects and different stages of learning, and it can be combined with other teaching methods so that students’ cognition, skills and motivation can be enhanced ( Chou et al., 2015 ; Chiang and Yang, 2017 ; D’Aniello et al., 2020 ; Ding et al., 2020 ).

Not all results support the positive impact of cooperative learning in physical education classes, but few studies have found there to be no positive impact. Most of the results show that cooperative learning is a highly feasible teaching method and can be used not only in team sports such as baseball, football and volleyball but also in activities involving a small number of people or individual sports such as tennis, badminton, billiards and gymnastics. Outcomes are not dependent on the learning stage, and cooperative learning is suitable for all ages of students, including college students.

In the past, related research variables applied to physical education classes included learning effectiveness, learning motivation, interactive behavior, critical thinking, physical activity, etc. Among these, learning effectiveness has received the most attention. Not only has the learning effectiveness of action skills been found to improve but also interpersonal, communication and social skills. Furthermore, personal motivation is stimulated during interaction ( Dyson, 2001 , 2002 ).

Studies have shown that cooperative learning can improve learning effectiveness, physical activity and learning motivation more than traditional independent learning methods. Previous research into application of cooperative learning in physical education classes has yielded promising results, showing that cooperative learning is more efficient than learning in isolation or competitively. Cooperative learning is a well-established teaching method, and it is a common strategy in the field of research and teaching. Since most studies show the positive impact of cooperative learning, how to bring the greatest positive impact using this learning strategy is worthy of in-depth discussion ( Dyson et al., 2004 ; Chen et al., 2021a ).

ARCS Motivation Scale

ARCS learning motivation theory is based on comprehensive integration of different forms of learning motivation and related theories in the United States, such as cognitive school attribution theory, behavior school reinforcement theory and other theories proposed by the motivation model. This theory is based on the premise that learners’ internal psychological factors, teachers’ teaching designs and learning effectiveness are closely related. These are important factors affecting the effectiveness of learning. It is believed that traditional teaching designs have, in the past, ignored learners’ motivation for learning. If learners are not interested or are unable to focus on learning, the effect of learning will be greatly reduced. The ARCS motivation model provides teachers with a better understanding of students’ motivational needs, so that they can design courses based on learners’ needs in order to stimulate learning motivation and enhance learning effectiveness. ARCS constitutes a relatively complete set of motivational factors. It is not restricted by age and is applicable to all learning stages. Therefore, the ARCS Motivation Scale is often used to investigate student learning motivation. ARCS stands for “Attention,” “Relevance,” “Confidence,” and “Satisfaction,” which are key to learning that stimulates motivational levels and attracts the attention of learners ( Fu et al., 2018 ).

Students’ interest is linked to the perceived “relevance” for them personally and to feelings of “self-confidence” in terms of students’ perceived ability to achieve their goals. Finally, it is important for students to feel a sense of “satisfaction” from the learning process. ARCS emphasizes that in order to arouse students’ learning motivation, the above four elements must be provided for in order for teaching to be effective.

Grouping Method for Physical Education Classes

An important step before implementation of teaching in cooperative learning is to group students. It is important to group students appropriately so that they will not resist psychologically and to ensure that there is a good interactive relationship between group members, with all group members willing to work together for the group. The goal is to work hard to achieve the desired learning outcomes, so how to organize groups is a major issue in cooperative learning. For middle-school children, the distribution method normally used is to divide up classes, so groups will be uneven, with large differences. In this situation, cooperative learning usually involves heterogeneous grouping, so that students with different characteristics are allocated to each group. This can serve to even out individual shortcomings, so that each group will have its own merits, while also reducing the adverse effects caused by individual differences. As “free” grouping is very straightforward, there is no need to do any preparatory work, and students can stay with their friends. Therefore, the method of letting students select their own group members is frequently used on campus. In cooperative learning, the members of the group will be affected by the way the group is formed. A good grouping method can make the team work harder toward the common goal and significantly improve learning ( Gillies, 2004 ; Goodyear et al., 2014 ).

Before considering the subject of heterogeneity grouping, another term should be briefly explained, namely homogeneity. This means that two or more individuals have certain attributes or traits that are similar. These attributes or traits may refer to the level of skills, motivation, education or social and economic background. Heterogeneity is the opposite of the above and refers to differences in certain attributes or traits between two or more individuals. According to the definition of heterogeneous grouping, it is believed that cooperative learning with heterogeneous grouping can bring together students with diverse characteristics (such as background, abilities, experience and interests), so that they can learn from others with different attributes during the learning process. Being exposed to different ideas and perspectives will stimulate cognitive imbalances and challenge learners’ knowledge structures, thereby generating new knowledge.

In the past, there have been many studies comparing cooperative learning with other teaching methods, and it has generally been found to be a reliable method. Most of the above-mentioned studies point out that heterogeneous grouping can improve student performance in cooperative learning, and such studies have been based on the hypothesis that heterogeneous grouping yields significantly better results. There are many types of heterogeneous grouping methods. When heterogeneous grouping is applied to physical education, groups can be based on the following: skills or technical ability, gender, learning style, learning motivation, height and weight, and sporting expertise. Physical education is a subject that emphasizes action skills. Therefore, heterogeneous grouping will be based on performance of action skills (although some studies have focused on implementation of grouping based on other perspectives) ( Huang et al., 2012 ; Hernandez et al., 2020 ).

Study of Learning Effectiveness in Physical Education

Learning outcomes can be evaluated following teaching, so that students can better understand their own learning, and teachers can review their practice and endeavor to improve students’ test results. The three educational goals evaluated in this study (in relation to physical education classes) were cognition, motivation and skills. In physical education classes, cognitive measurements can involve oral reports, observations or paper and pencil tests. Test content usually relates to the rules and strategies of each sport, sports development history and general knowledge about physical fitness; motivation is scored according to sports participation, effort, learning attitude, class attendance, etc.; and skill level is based on the skills of each sport. Evaluation methods used in physical education classes particularly focus on development of sports skills, and the focus of this study was skills learning in basketball ( Hung, 2004 ; Huang et al., 2017 ).

The New Direction of Physical Education Assessment

In the past, assessments were based on the three categories of cognition, motivation and skills. In the future, in order to improve the consistency of evaluation standards in the field of fitness, a new type of teaching target (that of “behavior”) will be classified in evaluations. In addition, in the national middle-school learning evaluation standards currently being piloted, the following sub-themes (for physical education) are included: sports knowledge, skill principles, learning attitude, sports appreciation, skill performance, tactical application, sports planning and sports practice, etc. Physical education evaluations should serve to help students improve their ability to perform key skills. Other aspects of teaching should be adjusted according to actual teaching considerations, and (taking account of the differences in students’ abilities) the “process of hard work” in students’ learning should be understood in a diversified manner. The grades traditionally used (such as excellent, A, B, C, D, etc.) were changed to five A to E grades, based on student performance: A indicated “excellent”; B was “good”; C was “fair”; D was “inadequate”; and E indicated “below the required level”.

Evaluation of Basketball Learning Effectiveness

The relationship between evaluation and teaching objectives is inseparable. An evaluation design must be based on teaching objectives and the principle of segmented ability indicators. There are many ways to evaluate learning outcomes, depending on the purpose and target, with different timings and different use cases. Basketball is one of the school’s main teaching programs and is a popular sport. Although general physical education classes can use objective and subjective evaluation methods, secondary evaluations are more suitable for research and should be neutral and objective to avoid being affected by subjective factors. Therefore, the subjective evaluation method was not used in this study, and we adopted a single-objective evaluation method to evaluate teaching content (basketball skills of dribbling, passing and shooting). Not only is this method of assessment suitable for the teaching content, but the applicable objects also conform to the teaching objects of this time. In addition, if the cooperative learning strategy is used to teach basketball, whether the target is elementary school, junior high school or college students, or students with low sporting achievement in junior high schools, it can effectively improve basketball skills performance and acquisition of essential basketball knowledge. In terms of performance and students’ understanding of basketball strategy, it can be seen that application of cooperative learning in this context is feasible and can have a positive impact ( Huxham and Land, 2000 ; Ibarra et al., 2019 ; Chen et al., 2021b ).

Research Hypothesis

From the literature review, it was found that cooperative learning can have a positive impact on learning effectiveness and learning motivation, and free grouping and action skills grouping have been used in cooperative learning. Both grouping methods have advantages and disadvantages. Although differences between the two groups have been compared in the past, it could not find any comparison of the two grouping methods in physical education reported in the literature. No studies have yet been carried out on free grouping in physical education. Therefore, the following research hypotheses were formulated for the research purposes and experiments:

Hypothesis 1: In cooperative learning, skills-based grouping and free grouping yield significantly better post-test results relating to the effectiveness of action skills learning.

Hypothesis 2: In cooperative learning, skills-based grouping and free grouping yield significantly better post-test results relating to motivation for learning.

Hypothesis 3: In cooperative learning, there is no significant difference between the effectiveness of action skills learning in skills-based groups or free grouping.

Hypothesis 4: In cooperative learning, there is no significant difference between learning motivation in skills-based groups and free grouping.

Difference Between of Free Grouping and Other Grouping Methods

Free grouping can achieve teaching goals because of the friendship factor. In this study, middle-school students were divided into three groups: mixed-ability and homogeneous grouping; S-type heterogeneous grouping; and free grouping. It was found that free grouping had obvious learning effects in terms of cognition, motivation and skills. Post-test results for learning motivation were significantly better than those for the research hypothesis 1 and 2 of the pre-test. With free grouping, students with medium and low abilities improved their cognition, motivation and skills. With these three grouping methods, high-ability students can achieve cognitive, affective and technical learning( Huang et al., 2004 ; Chen et al., 2021c ).

No Difference Between Free Grouping and Other Grouping Methods

The study of the impact of the three grouping methods (“heterogeneous grouping,” “homogeneous grouping,” and “free grouping”) in the natural sciences in school in terms of learning effectiveness found no significant difference in overall academic performance. The students were divided into heterogeneous groups and self-chosen groups. The results of the study indicated that there was no difference in learning effectiveness between heterogeneous grouping and self-grouping. It was found that the three groups (“heterogeneous grouping,” “homogeneous grouping,” and “free grouping”) could all improve the academic achievement of students. Based on the above research results, research hypothesis 3 was formulated, i.e., that there would be no significant difference between the two groups in relation to action skills learning. In the above research on free grouping, it was found that the results are not yet stable (although free grouping has been evaluated in many fields) ( Huang et al., 2006 , 2015 , 2019b ).

In addition, the way the group operates will have an impact on students’ cognition and motivation and the effectiveness of skills learning. Relevant studies in the literature have found free grouping to be effective. In addition to improving cognitive skills, it also has other beneficial effects (e.g., on attitude and cohesion), and it is particularly effective for low-achieving students. Based on the above research results regarding attitudes to learning, this paper hypothesized that there would be no significant differences between the two grouping methods in terms of learning motivation (hypothesis 4) ( Huang et al., 2019a ).

Research Methods

Research structure and process.

This study mainly explored the influence of different grouping methods on the effectiveness of cooperative learning and motivation in physical education. The independent variable was grouping. The experimental group used free grouping, and the control group was based on skill levels. In order to avoid affecting the results, the control variables were teaching method, teaching time, course content, teacher characteristics and teaching environment. The dependent variable mainly explored differences between the experimental group and the control group in terms of the effectiveness of action skills learning and motivation ( Kang, 2019 ; Laurens and Valdés, 2020 ).

Research Structure

The research framework was based on the research background, research purpose and research questions, and it was drawn up based on the results of the literature review. The control variables in this research framework were teaching methods, teaching time, course content, teacher characteristics and teaching environment; the independent variables were grouping methods (free grouping and skills-based grouping); the dependent variables were the effectiveness of action skills learning and learning motivation. The research architecture diagram is shown in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1. Research architecture diagram.

Research Design

This study used ARCS motivation grouping and skills grouping as independent variables, and ARCS learning motivation and action skills as the experimental teaching of dependent variables, in an attempt to compare the influence of grouping on learning motivation and action skills learning. In the research design, T, ARCS Motivation Scale; Action Skill Test X1, free grouping; X2, skill grouping, as shown in Table 2 .

Table 2. Research design.

(1) Students Participating

The students participating in the study had the same physical education teacher in the first grade, and the research teacher took over in the second grade. The pre-test results were close for both types of grouping. Before the formal start of the experiment, the two groups of students took the basketball skills performance test and the ARCS Motivation Scale pre-test. Once the two groups of teaching experiments were complete, the students immediately retook the basketball skills performance test and the ARCS Motivation Scale post-test. The statistical table of class size is shown in Table 3 . Our analysis of the relationship between gender and group distribution for the 59 study participants showed that the distribution ratio of male to female students was 54.5%:45.5%. (Respondents who completed the questionnaire in Appendix ).

Table 3. Class size statistics.

The chi-square test was used to analyze the results for gender and group and found that x 2 = 0.16, p = 0.69 > 0.05, which did not reach the significant level, indicating that there were no significant differences. The differences are shown in Table 4 .

Table 4. Gender test summary table.

(2) Sample Homogeneity Test

This test was to understand whether there were significant differences in the test scores for the “Basketball Skills Performance Test” and “ARCS Motivation Scale” between the action skills groups and free groupings before the experiment, which might have caused errors in the research results. An independent sample t -test was conducted based on the pre-test scores for the two groups, and the data were analyzed. If a significant difference was found, a covariate analysis was carried out to establish the equality between the two groups and the post-test.

With regard to the action skills grouping and free grouping ARCS motivation pre-test homogeneity test, the test scores for the experimental group and the control group are shown in Table 5 . It can be seen that the results of the homogeneity test for the control group and the experimental group in terms of learning motivation (before testing) were not significant for overall learning motivation, self-relevance and satisfaction ( F = 2.80, 1.68, 0.48, p > 0.05), but the results were significant for attention and self-confidence ( F = 1.68, 1.06, p < 0.05). The relevant parameters of the mean and standard deviation of learning motivation were 2.93 ± 0.31 and 3.08 ± 0.36. The components were as follows: intent: 2.98 ± 0.46 and 3.36 ± 0.43; perceived relevance: 3.22 ± 0.49 and 3.35 ± 0.53; self-confidence: 2.96 ± 0.60 and 3.33 ± 0.61; satisfaction: 3.31 ± 0.56 and 3.43 ± 0.54.

Table 5. Homogeneity test of action skill grouping and free grouping ARCS learning motivation pre-test.

Homogeneity Test for Basketball Skills (Pre-test) in the Control Group and the Experimental Group

The pre-test scores for the control group and the experimental group in terms of basketball skills performance are shown in Table 6 . It can be seen from Tables 2 – 4 that there were no significant differences between the control group and the experimental group in terms of performance of basketball skills and the homogeneity test results for overall basketball skills, shooting and passing tests ( F = 0.14, 7.18, 3.33, p > 0.05), but there was a significant difference in dribbling ( F = 2.3, p < 0.05). The average basketball skills of the experimental group and the control group were 56.43 ± 12.13 and 50.93 ± 11.19, respectively; the average number of shots was 11.25 ± 3.33 and 12.46 ± 5.56; average passing was 28.58 ± 9.14 and 25.20 ± 7.18; and average dribbling was 16.18 ± 2.22 and 13.20 ± 3.23.

Table 6. Homogeneity test of pre-test of action skill grouping and free grouping in basketball skill performance.

Homogeneity Test Results

According to the test results, there were no significant differences between the action skills group and the free groupings in terms of overall learning motivation, self-relevance and satisfaction; and overall basketball skills, passing and shooting were also not significantly different. This means that the two groups of subjects had homogeneity before commencing the cooperative learning research, and the independent sample t -test could be used directly. However, attention, self-confidence and basketball skills performance in learning motivation had significant differences in the pre-test, so single-factor covariate analysis was used for the post-test results to adjust for the differences ( Lin et al., 2020 ).

Research Tools

The tools used in this research included five items: a stopwatch for timing, a technical ability test, the ARCS Motivation Scale, a checklist relating to cooperative group learning and a teacher checklist. These tools are explained in the experimental equipment table below.

Basketball Skills Performance

(1) movement teaching.

The main basketball skills focused on in the teaching project were basic ball sense, dribbling, passing and shooting.

(2) Basketball Skills Test Method

Two approaches can be adopted for assessment of students’ action skills learning: objective skill assessment and subjective skill assessment. Objective skill assessment involves measurement of distance or time with a measuring tape, stopwatch or by counting. Subjective skill assessment involves considering the pros and cons of postural performance, such as pitching power, posture and coordination. In this study, we used the basketball skills test developed for the study (see Figure 2 ).

Figure 2. Dribbling test diagram. In the above illustration, on the left is the left-hand ball; the context is a specified basketball court; the specified time and the ball route are shown by the dotted line.

Test content The pre-test and post-test units for action skills learning effectiveness in this research entailed three tests of basketball skills (dribbling, passing and shooting).

Test subjects The test tool for this research is suitable for use with 10- to 22-year-old subjects and is not restricted by gender. It is appropriate for use with the participants in this study.

Difficulty of distinguishing The average difficulty index of the test tools in this research was.65∼0.95.

Internal consistency The internal consistency α coefficient of the test tool in this study was between 0.84 and 0.97.

Scorer reliability Scorer reliability needs to be above 0.80 to be reliable. In this study, the internal scorer reliability was 0.94 and 0.91, and the inter-rater reliability was 0.90.

This research used the ARCS Motivation Scale. The scale is divided into two parts and contains 17 questions, which are explained as follows:

(1) Basic information relating to students: such as gender, exercise habits, previous semester’s sports score, physical fitness level and whether students have participated in school sports teams in the past (five questions in total).

(2) Learning motivation in physical education: This research used the ARCS Motivation Scale, which was a revised version of the designed learning motivation scale. The internal consensus reliability for “Attention” was 0.84; “Relevance” was 0.80; “Confidence” was 0.79; “Satisfaction” was 0.89; and the overall internal consensus was 0.96. This tool uses a Likert formula four-point scale (four-point Likert scale), as follows: 1 means “strongly disagree”; 2 means “disagree”; 3 means “agree”; and 4 means “strongly agree.” The four factors in ARCS are concentration, relevance, self-confidence and satisfaction.

(3) Attention: This relates to students’ level of curiosity or interest, and the aim of teaching is to ensure that this is maintained.

(4) Relevance: This relates to students’ perception that the content of the course or teaching activities relate to their own life, needs, familiar things or past experience, or that the learning may come in handy in the future.

(5) Confidence: This relates to students’ mental state in terms of whether or not they feel they can achieve the learning goals, which will, in turn, affect the actual degree of effort expended by students and their performance level. It is helpful if students believe that there is a link between success and effort.

(6) Satisfaction: This relates to positive inner feelings and also external rewards that students receive in the learning process; this kind of satisfaction is an important factor that helps sustain motivation.

Question numbers: attention: 1, 2, 3; relevance: 4, 5, 6; confidence: 7, 8, 9; satisfaction: 10, 11, 12.

Teaching Design

The participants in this study were divided into two groups: the experimental group and the control group (based on two classes). The experimental group adopted free grouping, and the method used for the control group was skills-based grouping. The teaching experiment lasted for eight weeks. In the first two sessions of the formal class, the pre-test was conducted, and an explanation of the research was given. The last two sessions involved the post-test. Every Monday and Thursday afternoon throughout the study, the students participated in a session of physical education (45 min per class), involving cooperative learning, focusing on basketball skills. There were 16 lessons in total, including the two pre-tests and two post-tests.

Preparation Before Teaching

(1) Pre-test and grouping: Free grouping: Before the experiment began, students in the experimental group were allowed to choose their groups, with a maximum of five to six people per group. Groups within the control sample were formed based on the students’ pre-test scores for basketball skills. The highest and lowest scores for each ability were grouped in the same group, and the second highest and second lowest scores were grouped in the same group. By analogy, the class was divided into five groups. Immediately after the grouping, each group was asked to come to an agreement within each group. Each student was to express his or her opinions and work toward the goal, together with the others in the group.

(2) Roles and task assignment: According to the content of the learning task, the members of each group were to take turns at playing each role. Except for the captain’s role, the other roles could be played by two or more people at the same time.

(3) Establishing a tacit understanding: Before the teaching experiment, students underwent cooperative learning and interactive skills training, such as teamwork, communication skills, leadership skills, maintenance of an atmosphere of mutual trust and conflict resolution.

Teaching Implementation Stage

The teaching implementation phase of this research was divided into three parts: preparatory activities, development activities and comprehensive activities. At the same time, based on the steps of cooperative learning, whole-class teaching, group learning, individual performance and team history, the three main skills were shooting, dribbling and passing in basketball. The teaching module comprised the following: one class to establish group relationships; three classes for the shooting unit; and four classes for each of the dribbling and passing units. There were 12 lessons in total. The main teaching method used in the cooperative learning was student group achievement differentiation (STAD), supplemented by the group game competition (TGT) method for design of teaching plans.

After the Teaching Stage

Following delivery of the teaching module, a review was completed to reflect on the following: whether the teaching methods for the two groups had been the same; whether the teaching objectives had been achieved; whether the teaching plan had been carried out according to the teaching plan; whether the teaching plan had been properly designed; and whether the elements of cooperative learning had been provided for.

Data Processing

The data processing method used in this research involved the SPSS statistical software package, to analyze the action skills test scores and learning motivation levels for the different groups after the students had completed the cooperative learning.

(1) Dependent sample t -test: This tested the difference between free grouping and action skills grouping after cooperative learning (comparison of “before” and “after” test results).

(2) Independent sample t -test: This tested the difference between free grouping and action skills grouping after cooperative learning (comparison of “before” and “after” test results for motivation).

(3) Covariate analysis: For the free grouping and action skills grouping, respectively, in the performance of the previous test, the difference between the two did not reach a significant level. The independent sample t -test was then used to analyze the difference. The difference between the two pre-test scores was found to reach a significant level. The previous test scores had common variables, and a co-variable analysis was performed to adjust the differences.

(4) In the above statistical analysis, the significance level of all the differences tested was set as α = 0.05.

Results and Discussion

The data collected from the experiments were used for statistical analysis and discussion.

Difference Between Action Skills Learning in the Control Group and the Experimental Group Before and After Cooperative Learning

Grouping in the control sample was skills-based. The differences between the pre-test and post-test scores were analyzed by an independent sample t -test, as shown in Table 7 . The results indicated that overall basketball skills, passing and dribbling skills were significantly different ( t = −3.60, −3.46, 4.70, p < 0.05), but a significant difference was not observed in the case of shooting ( t = −1.21, p > 0.05). The post-test results for overall skills, shooting, passing and dribbling were all higher than the pre-test scores ( M = 50.77 < 63.90, 12.50 < 14.45, 25.12 < 32.14, 13.18 < 17.12).

Table 7. t -test analysis of the basketball skill performance pre-test and post-test repeated measures of the control group.

Discussion of Differences Between the Control Group Before and After Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning using skills-based grouping can effectively improve skill performance. In the past, cooperative learning using heterogeneous grouping in various sports has been shown to improve the effectiveness of action skills learning. The results of this study were found to support research hypothesis 2. It may be inferred that this is to do with the heterogeneous grouping of action skills. Highly skilled performers in each group can rectify incorrect actions in time and give feedback, and the interdependence of goals and tasks in the elements of cooperative learning are such that everyone must contribute and take responsibility for achieving the goals of the group. In heterogeneous grouping, each group will have some students with strong action skills, who can act as a model, so that other students with weaker action skills can imitate them and learn from them, adjusting their actions accordingly, thereby increasing the effectiveness of action skills learning.

However, of the basketball skills studied, the improvement in shooting was not found to be significant. This may have been due to the high level of uncertainty associated with shooting. Even the most powerful players cannot achieve a 100% success rate for shooting, and shooting takes a long time. Therefore, although the improvement was not significant in statistical terms, this may be due to the limitations of the teaching environment for the three skills involved. Passing and dribbling just require an open space, but shooting is restricted by the venue, and teaching activities can only be carried out in a venue with a basketball hoop. Under this limitation, the number of shooting courses was reduced to one lesson. In addition, in the research and in our observations, it was found that the heterogeneous grouping was due to the large gap between the strengths and weaknesses of group members in the same group, so that students with strong action skills could not play to their fullest and lacked the feeling of competing at their highest level. In the post-test, the participants wanted to complete the test as soon as possible, possibly shooting without aiming carefully enough ( Lu et al., 2005 ; Liu et al., 2014 ; Nikou and Economides, 2018 ).

Differences in the Experimental Group Before and After Cooperative Learning

The experimental group used the free grouping method. The results of the independent sample t -test are shown in Table 8 . Our findings indicated that overall basketball skills, passing and dribbling skills were significantly different ( t = −3.40, −3.18, −4.87, p < 0.05), but there was no significant difference in shooting ( t = −1.03, p > 0.05). Post-test scores for overall skills, shooting, passing and dribbling were all higher than those of the pre-test ( M = 56.44 < 67.47, 11.33 < 12.39, 28.72 < 36.20, 16.23 < 18.88).

Table 8. The basketball skill performance pre-test and post-test repeated measurement t- test analysis of the experimental group.

Discussion of Differences Between Pre-test and Post-test Results for the Experimental Group

The experimental group was based on free grouping, and this grouping method could significantly improve students’ overall basketball skills, passing and dribbling. The results of this research supported research hypothesis 1. It was found that free grouping could improve the effectiveness of action skills learning. The researchers inferred that with self-chosen groups, many of the students could stay with their friends, whoever they were, and they were more willing to actively assist and help. In a good relationship, students are more patient and supportive. They are also more willing to learn, and the friendship factor in free grouping can make it easier for students to achieve the teaching goals. In addition, self-grouping can help students obtain benefits other than those explicitly intended by the teacher. Such behaviors can further improve the effectiveness of action skills learning. In the research results, although the shooting scores improved, they did not reach a significant level. The researchers deduced that factors which might have affected these results included the difficulty of acquiring and consolidating such skills and the relatively small number of lessons spent on developing this skill ( Ratnaningsih et al., 2020 ).

Another factor may be the order of learning. Shooting was taught before the other movement skills, but it could take about one and a half months to master. If students had not reached the automatic stage by the time of the post-test and had not been practicing this skill for very long, the retention effect after learning may have been poor. Another reason may be that shooting was the first item to be introduced after the free grouping. At this point in time, the students might not yet have become fully engaged with their studies. In addition, the group members, who were mostly all students of their own choosing, would have had plenty (possibly too much) to talk about, with common interests, etc., so at the beginning of the practice, there may have been more chatting and off-task behavior, reducing the practice time.

Differences in Motivation Levels Between the Control Group and Experimental Group Before and After Cooperative Learning

To explore the pre-test and post-test differences in learning motivation between the control group and the experimental group (before and after cooperative learning), a statistical analysis of the dependent sample t -test was carried out.

Differences in the Control Group Before and After Cooperative Learning

The control sample, grouped according to skill levels, was tested by an independent sample t -test before and after cooperative learning, as in Table 9 . It was found that overall learning motivation was significantly different ( t = −2.48, p < 0.05), but attention, perceived relevance, self-confidence and satisfaction were not significant ( t = 0.54, −0.57, −0.52, 0.39, p > 0.05). Attention and satisfaction scores were higher than in the pre-test ( M = 3.33 > 3.29, 3.46 > 3.37); the post-test scores for perceived relevance and self-confidence were higher than those of the pre-test ( M = 3.38 < 3.46, 3.30 < 3.43).

Table 9. Control group ARCS learning motivation scale pre-test and post-test repeated measures t -test analysis.

Discussion of Differences in the Control Group Before and After Cooperative Learning

The results of this research were found to support research hypothesis 4, i.e., that heterogeneous grouping in cooperative learning can improve learning motivation. This may be due to the help of students with strong action skills, so that other group members can gain successful experience, thereby enhancing self-confidence. In addition, due to the design of the teaching plan, each student had their own goals to achieve, contributing to achievement of team goals. In order to contribute to their group, individuals had to practice harder. Cooperative learning is something that students may not have had much experience of in physical education in the past. With this new experience and fresh relationships, not just practicing alone but in a group, there are more opportunities for exchanges, encouragement and feedback between peers, which, in turn, improves learning motivation. However, the reason for post-test scores being lower than those of the pre-test, in terms of satisfaction and attention, may be the research focus on basketball, which was not the favorite sport of most students in the classes involved. In order to carry out our research, the teaching experiment had to match the progress of the teacher. A series of 12 consecutive basketball lessons is quite different from four lessons interspersed with other activities in a general teaching unit. The participants could not engage in other sports such as badminton or volleyball. Even students who liked basketball could not engage in activities such as “bullfighting,” thus depriving them of learning or engaging in other sports. The results may therefore have been affected by the limited opportunity for the type of exercise chosen as the research focus ( Song et al., 2011 ; Chu and Chen, 2018 ).

These students were allowed greater flexibility in terms of grouping themselves. The independent sample t -test conducted before and after cooperative learning (see Table 10 ) indicated that overall learning motivation was significantly different ( t = −2.12, p < 0.05), but attention, perceived relevance, self-confidence and satisfaction were not significant ( t = 0.60, −0.90, 1.15, −0.49, p > 0.05). The pre-test scores for attention were higher than those in the post-test ( M = 2.90 > 2.87); post-test scores for perceived relevance, self-confidence and sense of satisfaction were higher than those of the pre-test ( M = 3.21 < 3.30, 2.89 < 3.10, 3.13 < 3.25).

Table 10. The number of repetitions t -test analysis before and after the “ARCS learning motivation scale” of the experimental group.

Discussion of the Differences Between Pre-test and Post-test Scores for the Experimental Group

The results of this research were found to support research hypothesis 3, i.e., that the free grouping method can improve affective partial conformity. Free grouping can help establish a harmonious atmosphere of cooperation, and a harmonious class atmosphere can enhance motivation for learning in physical education. Although overall learning motivation was found to significantly improve, other aspects (attention, perceived relevance, self-confidence, and satisfaction) were not significant. The researchers believe that due to the limit imposed on the number of groups and group size, one group was not entirely happy and had a level of unwillingness to engage. This group was composed of one student with a high level of skills and four others with lower skill levels. Because they did not usually get along very well, they often showed unwillingness to cooperate in the classroom. Some left their usual group of friends (for the sake of the research) to focus on another group of friends during the practice, which resulted in lower levels of attention, perceived relevance, self-confidence and satisfaction, and this meant that certain goals were not achieved; even attention level scores were reduced. Although students in the experimental sample were allowed to freely group themselves, it was inevitable that several individuals would be left out, meaning that single students ended up gathered together in one group. It was therefore impossible to ensure that all groups were truly “freely” selected, with group members fully aligned with one another. Indeed, it has been argued that students are maladaptive in grouping, which is echoed in grouping theory.

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Action Skills Learning in the Control Group and the Experimental Group

The main purpose of this section is to test research question 3, i.e., to compare differences in action skills learning between the control group and experimental group.

Differences in Action Skills Learning Between the Control Group and Experimental Group

Performance of basketball action skills in the experimental group and the control group was found to be homogeneous in the first test. The independent sample t -test results for overall skill performance, shooting and passing are shown in Table 11 . After analysis, it was found that the experimental group and the control group were of the same quality. The difference in the overall performance, shooting and passing tests did not reach significant levels ( t = 1.00, −1.58, 1.81, p < 0.05). The experimental group was better than the control group in terms of overall performance and passing ( M = 67.51 > 63.81, 36.30 > 32.32), and the control group was better than the experimental group in terms of shooting performance ( M = 12.30 < 14.35). After analysis, it was found that the differences in dribbling scores between the two groups were not significant ( F = 0.02, p < 0.05), and the experimental group was better than the control group ( M = 18.30 > 17.71).

Table 11. Action Skill Performance post-measurement repetition number t -test analysis.

Discussion of Differences in Action Skills Learning Between the Control Group and the Experimental Group

The research results showed that there were no significant differences in action skills learning between the control group and the experimental group. This finding supports research hypothesis 3. The research results indicated that there was no significant difference between heterogeneous grouping and free grouping. In this study, we found that heterogeneous grouping and “free” grouping can both effectively improve the quality of students’ action skills in a cooperative learning situation, and there was no difference between heterogeneous grouping and free grouping. There was no significant improvement in the two groups in terms of “shooting.” The researchers believe that shooting may have been the first skill to be learnt after the groups were organized. The group is in the middle of the group. Differences in styles and values among group members will negatively affect group interaction. In this study, it was found that the skills of “passing” and “dribbling,” which were introduced during the first stage of the teaching unit, had been adequately honed by the time the post-tests were conducted, so a significant improvement was seen in performance of these skills. It is believed that learners must first have the opportunity to speak before they can gain knowledge through interaction and dialog, and then improve their action skills. In heterogeneous groups, due to differences in ability, high-ability group members tend to be the ones who are listened to most. For classmates, the chances of speaking when individuals are of a lower ability are reduced, and the effectiveness of their learning is likely to be compromised. Free grouping creates more opportunities for expression, and the interaction between group members is more equal than that of heterogeneous grouping, although there are also opportunities in free grouping. There are different levels of ability, but there are fewer people playing the role of leader, so they are willing to respect opinions, and there are opportunities for expression regardless of ability. Students who are grouped freely tend to think that team members have better tacit understanding and a high degree of cooperation. Members can feel the centripetal force when they discuss tasks together and cooperate in the division of labor.

It has been shown that S-type heterogeneous grouping can easily make high-ability students feel greater learning pressure, and it can cause additional burdens, but in free grouping, responsibility can be shared among group members. In addition, because dribbling and passing are relatively basic skills, the level of difficulty is not high. As long as students are willing to improve their abilities, the skills in question are not directly related to the grouping method. As long as the teaching content matches the needs of students being taught, teachers can support learning by assisting students, and most learners can achieve good results. The researchers in this study believe that the lack of significant differences in action skills learning between the experimental group and the control group may be due to the above-mentioned reasons. The two grouping methods were found to have an effect on action skills, and no difference in learning effectiveness was observed. Clearly, if the teacher is aware of students’ skill levels in physical education, there will be no need to spend one or two lessons conducting pre-tests, and this knowledge can then be used for the purposes of heterogeneous grouping. Free grouping only takes three to five minutes to organize. In either of these cases, grouping can be completed quickly, and the time saved can be used in physical education and practice ( Zhang et al., 2012 ).

Comparison and Discussion

The main purpose of this section is to test the fourth research question, mainly to compare differences in post-test motivation scores between the control group and the experimental group.

Post-test Differences in Learning Motivation Between the Control Group and the Experimental Group

The experimental group and the control group were homogenous in terms of the ARCS Motivation Scale. Overall learning motivation, perceived relevance and post-satisfaction test results are shown in Table 12 . The results of the independent sample t -test are shown in Table 12 . The analysis indicated that differences between the experimental group and the control group in terms of learning motivation, perceived relevance and post-satisfaction were not significant ( t = −1.78, −0.56, −1.00, p < 0.05), and the control group was in learning motivation, perceived relevance, satisfaction The control group was better than the experimental group ( M = 3.09 < 3.37, 3.30 < 3.41, 3.25 < 3.40).

Table 12. ARCS Learning Motivation Scale post-measurement repeat measurement t- test analysis.

Single-factor covariate analysis was conducted to test the different qualities of “attention” and “self-confidence,” and it was found that the “attention” aspect was not significant ( F = 0.15, p < 0.05). The control group was better than the experimental group ( M = 3.26 > 2.93), and “self-confidence” was not significant ( F = 0.13, p < 0.05). The control group was better than the experimental group ( M = 3.36 > 3.19). That is, after excluding the influence of the pre-test, there was no significant difference in learning motivation between the experimental group and the control group after receiving eight weeks of cooperative learning.

Discussion of Post-test Differences in Motivation Between the Control Group and the Experimental Group

The results of the study indicated that there was no significant difference in learning motivation between the experimental group and the control group after cooperative learning. The results were found to support the research hypothesis, i.e., that there was no significant difference between heterogeneous grouping and free grouping. Past studies have pointed out that contextual factors will directly affect learners’ motivation, and cooperative learning provides a context that can effectively enhance students’ learning motivation. In the context of cooperative learning, we found no significant difference between free grouping and action skills grouping. The researchers believe that the reason why free grouping can improve overall learning motivation may be that allowing students to form their own groups helps support peer group emotions and creation of a harmonious learning atmosphere. Group members are more likely to actively help one another when they are friends. However, the free grouping process might have made some students feel anxious or afraid of being left out when looking for group members, and this may have had a negative impact on the experimental group. In the action skills grouping, because each group had more capable students, who could give guidance and assistance, most of the group members were able to experience a feeling of success, so learning motivation also improved (mostly from the satisfaction of learning achievements and inner gains from success). Such rewards often help students to improve their self-confidence and motivation to learn. It should also be pointed out that students can gain self-confidence in action skills learning, and this is consistent with the self-confidence part of the ARCS learning motivation theory.

This study used two different grouping methods in cooperative learning (free grouping and skills-based grouping) to teach basketball in physical education. The results in terms of learning effectiveness and learning motivation for the two groups of students were found to be relevant to school physical education. The following conclusions were reached:

(1) In cooperative learning, free grouping and action skills grouping can improve the effectiveness of skill acquisition in physical education.

(2) In cooperative learning, free grouping and skills-based grouping can effectively enhance learning motivation.

(3) In cooperative learning, no clear differences were found in terms of the effectiveness of action skills learning among self-selected groups and skills-based groups.

(4) In cooperative learning, no clear differences were found in terms of learning motivation among self-selected groups and skills-based groups.

The limitation of this study mainly is that the objective environment and content setting of teaching will affect the action skills learning motivation and produce different research results. Therefore, the teaching content and environmental factors should be unified in the research process.

It is recommended that future work should seek to explore existing relationships between students and peers so that a good cooperation mechanism can be established to promote better relationships between students.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Author Contributions

CY: conceptualization, methodology, writing, and funding acquisition. RC: formal analysis, investigation, and supervision. XC: methodology, writing – review and editing, and funding acquisition. K-HL: validation and investigation. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

This work is supported by the Horizontal Project of Dongguan Polytechnic “Research on the creation and promotion of epidemic prevention workers in enterprises” (No. 2020H36), “Horizontal Project of Dongguan Polytechnic” (Grant No. 2017H02), “Key projects of teaching reform of Dongguan Polytechnic, China (Grant No.JGZD202040)”.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Bai, X., Wang, X., Wang, J., Tian, J., and Ding, Q. (2020). “College students’ autonomous learning behavior in blended learning: learning motivation, self-efficacy, and learning anxiety,” in Proceedings of the 2020 International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET) , (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), 155–158. doi: 10.1109/ISET49818.2020.00042

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chen, X., Zhu, F., Chen, Z., Min, G., Zheng, X., and Rong, C. (2021e). Resource allocation for cloud-based software services using prediction-enabled feedback control with reinforcement learning. IEEE Trans. Cloud Comput. [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1109/TCC.2020.2992537

Chen, R., Chen, X., and Yang, C. (2021a). Using a task dependency job-scheduling method to make energy savings in a cloud computing environment. J. Supercomput. [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1007/s11227-021-04035-5

Chen, X., Chen, R., and Yang, C. (2021b). Research and design of fresh agricultural product distribution service model and framework using IoT technology. J. Ambient Intellig. Human. Comput. [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1007/s12652-021-03447-8

Chen, X., Chen, S., Ma, Y., Liu, B., Zhang, Y., and Huang, G. (2019a). An adaptive offloading framework for android applications in mobile edge computing. Sci. China Inform. Sci. 62:82102. doi: 10.1007/s11432-018-9749-8

Chen, X., Li, A., Zeng, X., Guo, W., and Huang, G. (2015). Runtime model based approach to IoT application development. Front. Comput. Sci. 9, 540–553. doi: 10.1007/s11704-015-4362-0

Chen, X., Li, M., Zhong, H., Ma, Y., and Hsu, C. (2021c). DNNOff: offloading DNN-based intelligent IoT applications in mobile edge computing. IEEE Trans. Industr. Inform. [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1109/TII.2021.3075464

Chen, X., Lin, J., Ma, Y., Lin, B., Wang, H., and Huang, G. (2019b). Self-adaptive resource allocation for cloud-based software services based on progressive QoS prediction model. Sci. China Inform. Sci. 62:219101. doi: 10.1007/s11432-018-9750-2

Chen, X., Wang, H., Ma, Y., Zheng, X., and Guo, L. (2020). Self-adaptive resource allocation for cloud-based software services based on iterative QoS prediction model. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 105, 287–296. doi: 10.1016/j.future.2019.12.005

Chen, X., Zhang, J., Lin, B., Chen, Z., Wolter, K., and Min, G. (2021d). Energy-efficient offloading for dnn-based smart iot systems in cloud-edge environments. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distribut. Syst. [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1109/TPDS.2021.3100298

Chettaoui, N., Atia, A., and Bouhlel, M. (2020). “Exploring the impact of multimodal adaptive learning with tangible interaction on learning motivation,” in Proceedings of the 2020 15th International Conference on Computer Engineering and Systems (ICCES) , (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), 1–6. doi: 10.1109/ICCES51560.2020.9334588

Chiang, T., and Yang, S. (2017). “Investigating the motivation between ubiquitous learning strategy and gender for basketball sport literacy,” in Proceedings of the 2017 6th IIAI International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics (IIAI-AAI), 2017 , (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), 556–559. doi: 10.1109/IIAI-AAI.2017.15

Chou, C., Huang, M., Huang, C., Lu, F., and Tu, S. (2015). The mediating role of critical thinking on motivation and peer interaction for action skill performance. Int. J. Sport Psychol. 46, 391–408.

Google Scholar

Chu, W., and Chen, H. (2018). “Using interactive E-books in elementary school origami activities: analysis of learning effect, learning motivation, and cognitive load,” in Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 42nd Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC) , (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), 298–303. doi: 10.1109/COMPSAC.2018.10246

D’Aniello, G., Falco, M., Gaeta, M., and Lepore, M. (2020). “A situation-aware learning system based on fuzzy cognitive maps to increase learner motivation and engagement,” in Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE), 2020 , (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), 1–8. doi: 10.1109/FUZZ48607.2020.9177590

Ding, Y., Li, Y., and Cheng, L. (2020). Application of internet of things and virtual reality technology in college physical education. IEEE Access 8, 96065–96074. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2992283

Dyson, B. (2001). Cooperative learning in an elementary physical education program. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 20, 264–281. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.20.3.264

Dyson, B. (2002). The implementation of cooperative learning in an elementary school physical education program. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 22, 69–85. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.22.1.69

Dyson, B., Griffin, L., and Hastie, P. (2004). Sport education, tactical game, and cooperative learning: theoretical and pedagogical considerations. Quest 56, 226–240. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2004.10491823

Fu, H., Hsien, H., Chia, L., Hsiang, C., Wei, T., and Tung, F. (2018). “The clustering analysis system based on students’ motivation and learning behavior,” in Proceedings of the 2018 Learning With MOOCS (LWMOOCS), 2018 , (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), 117–119.

Gillies, R. (2004). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learn. Instr. 14, 197–213. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(03)00068-9

Goodyear, V., Casey, A., and Kirk, D. (2014). Hiding behind the camera: social learning withinthe cooperative learning model to engage girls in physical education. Sport Educ. Soc. 19, 712–734. doi: 10.1080/13573322.2012.707124

Hernandez, J., Roman, G., Saldaña, C., and Rios, C. (2020). “Application of the Challenge-Based Learning Methodology, as a trigger for motivation and learning in robotics,” in Proceedings of the 2020 X International Conference on Virtual Campus (JICV), 2020 , (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), 1–4. doi: 10.1109/JICV51605.2020.9375671

Huang, G., Chen, X., Zhang, Y., and Zhang, X. (2012). Towards Architecture-based management of platforms in the cloud. Front. Comput. Sci. 6, 388–397. doi: 10.1007/s11704-012-2100-4

Huang, G., Liu, T., Mei, H., Zheng, Z., Liu, Z., and Fan, G. (2004). “Towards autonomic computing middleware via reflection,” in Proceedings of the 2020 International Computer Software and Applications Conference , (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE).

Huang, G., Luo, C., Wu, K., Ma, Y., Zhang, Y., and Liu, X. (2019b). “Software-defined infrastructure for decentralized data lifecycle governance: principled design and open challenges,” in Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems , (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE). doi: 10.1109/ICDCS.2019.00166

Huang, G., Liu, X., Ma, Y., Lu, X., Zhang, Y., and Xiong, Y. (2019a). Programming situational mobile web applications with cloud-mobile convergence: an internetware-oriented approach. IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. 12, 6–19. doi: 10.1109/TSC.2016.2587260

Huang, G., Ma, Y., Liu, X., Luo, Y., Lu, X., and Blake, M. (2015). Model-based automated navigation and composition of complex service mashups. IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. 8, 494–506. doi: 10.1109/TSC.2014.2347293

Huang, G., Mei, H., and Yang, F. (2006). Runtime recovery and manipulation of software architecture of component-based systems. Autom. Softw. Eng. 13, 257–281. doi: 10.1007/s10515-006-7738-4

Huang, G., Xu, M., Lin, X., Liu, Y., Ma, Y., Pushp, S., et al. (2017). ShuffleDog: characterizing and adapting user-perceived latency of android apps. IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput. 16, 2913–2926. doi: 10.1109/TMC.2017.2651823

Hung, H. (2004). Effects of cooperative learning and motivation on student performance and satisfaction during woodball instruction. Annu. J. Phys. Educ. Sports Sci. 4, 35–48.

Huxham, M., and Land, R. (2000). Assigning students in group workprojects. Can we do better then random? Innov. Educ. Train. Int. 37, 17–22. doi: 10.1080/135580000362043

Ibarra, M., Gomez, E., Barzola, B., Castillo, M., Ibañez, V., and Quispe, R. (2019). “Improving student’s learning motivation in schools using augmented reality,” in Proceedings of the 2019 XIV Latin American Conference on Learning Technologies (LACLO) , (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), 259–264. doi: 10.1109/LACLO49268.2019.00051

Kang, S. (2019). The study on the application of virtual reality in adapted physical education. Cluster Comput. 22, 2351–2355. doi: 10.1007/s10586-018-2254-4

Laurens, L., and Valdés, H. (2020). “Evaluation of University students motivation in learning kinematics through M-learning,” in Proceedings of the 2020 39th International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society (SCCC) , (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), 1–8. doi: 10.1109/SCCC51225.2020.9281163

Lin, B., Huang, Y., Zhang, J., Hu, J., Chen, X., and Li, J. (2020). Cost-Driven Offloading for DNN-based applications over cloud, edge and end devices. IEEE Trans. Industr. Inform. 2020, 5456–5466. doi: 10.1109/TII.2019.2961237

Liu, X., Huang, G., Zhao, Q., Mei, H., and Blake, M. (2014). iMashup: a mashup-based framework for service composition. Sci. China Inform. Sci. 54, 1–20. doi: 10.1007/s11432-013-4782-0

Lu, C., Chou, C., Tsui, H., Cheng, M., and Tsai, K. (2005). The relationships between learning motivation and learning outcomes of table tennis in college physical education. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport Washing. 76:82.

Nikou, S., and Economides, A. (2018). “Motivation related predictors of engagement in mobile-assisted inquiry-based science learning,” in Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) , (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), 1222–1229. doi: 10.1109/EDUCON.2018.8363369

Ratnaningsih, S., Miswan, Y., Hady, Y., Dewi, R., Fahriany, C., and Zuhdi, M. (2020). “The effectiveness of using edmodo-based E-learning in the blended learning process to increase student motivation and learning outcomes,” in Proceedings of the 2020 8th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM) , (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), 1–5. doi: 10.1109/CITSM50537.2020.9268924

Song, H., Huang, G., Chauvel, F., Xiong, Y., Hu, Z., Sun, Y., et al. (2011). Supporting runtime software architecture: a bidirectional-transformation-based approach. J. Syst. Softw. 84, 711–723. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2010.12.009

Zhang, Y., Huang, G., Liu, X., Zhang, W., Mei, H., and Yang, S. (2012). “Refactoring android Java code for on-demand computation offloading,” in Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications , (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE). doi: 10.1145/2384616.2384634

Questionnaire

Student, hello! Thank you very much fortaking valuable time to fill in the questionnaire. Your help will play a vital role in my experiment, thanks for your participation!

Keywords : physical education, cooperative learning, learning motivation, action skills, effect

Citation: Yang C, Chen R, Chen X and Lu K-H (2021) The Efficiency of Cooperative Learning in Physical Education on the Learning of Action Skills and Learning Motivation. Front. Psychol. 12:717528. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.717528

Received: 31 May 2021; Accepted: 20 September 2021; Published: 20 October 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Yang, Chen, Chen and Lu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Xiaozhong Chen, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

Cooperative Learning in Physical Education and Physical Activity

DOI link for Cooperative Learning in Physical Education and Physical Activity

Get Citation

This book introduces Cooperative Learning as a research-informed, practical way of engaging children and young people in lifelong physical activity. 　Written by authors with over 40 years’ experience as teachers and researchers, it addresses the practicalities of using Cooperative Learning in the teaching of physical education and physical activity at any age range.

Cooperative Learning in Physical Education and Physical Activity will help teachers and students of physical education to master research-informed strategies for teaching. By using school-based and real-world examples, it allows teachers to quickly understand the educational benefits of Cooperative Learning. Divided into four parts, this book provides insight into:

• Key aspects of Cooperative Learning as a pedagogical practice in physical education and physical activity
• Strategies for implementing Cooperative Learning at Elementary School level
• Approaches to using Cooperative Learning at Middle and High School level
• The challenges and advantages of practising Cooperative Learning

Including lesson plans, activities and tasks, this is the first comprehensive guide to Cooperative Learning as a pedagogical practice for physical educators. It is essential reading for all students, teachers and trainee teachers of physical education and will also benefit coaches, outdoor educators and people who work with youth in the community.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 | 13  pages, cooperative learning as a pedagogical model in physical education, chapter 2 | 12  pages, researched benefits of cooperative learning as a pedagogical practice, chapter 3 | 16  pages, cooperative learning structures in physical education and physical activity settings, chapter 4 | 16  pages, the role of the teacher or coach in creating a positive cooperative learning environment, chapter 5 | 23  pages, how to implement cooperative learning in physical education at the elementary or primary school level, chapter 6 | 10  pages, reciprocal teaching in physical education, coaching, and physical activity settings, chapter 7 | 13  pages, how cooperative learning is related to the different contexts for learning: working with persons with disabilities at the elementary level, chapter 8 | 14  pages, how to implement cooperative learning in physical education at middle and high school level, chapter 9 | 11  pages, the jigsaw classroom – putting the pieces of cooperative learning together, chapter 10 | 13  pages, learning teams, team game tournaments and other classroom structures: promoting cooperation, chapter 11 | 14  pages, how cooperative learning is related to the different contexts for learning: working with persons with disabilities at the middle and secondary level, chapter 12 | 18  pages, how to assess in physical education and physical activity settings, chapter 13 | 13  pages, beyond the book: a guide to developing and maintaining a cooperative learning pedagogy in physical education and physical activity settings.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Taylor & Francis Online
• Taylor & Francis Group
• Students/Researchers
• Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2024 Informa UK Limited

• Pete Charrette

PE Games for Elementary Students: 6 Dynamic Physical Education Games to Transform Your Classes

Physical Education games serve as the heartbeat of an engaging and effective physical education curriculum. These activities not only energize PE classes but also bring to life the crucial motor movement, fitness development, and manipulative skills students learn throughout their PE journey. By transitioning from traditional skill practice to dynamic, inclusive games, physical educators can witness firsthand the transformation in their students’ abilities to navigate space, collaborate with peers, and apply strategic thinking in real-time. This evolution in teaching approach aligns seamlessly with the broader educational goals set forth by SHAPE America Standards, ensuring that each game played contributes meaningfully to the development of physically literate individuals.

The incorporation of PE games into the curriculum offers a unique opportunity to cement the foundational skills taught in PE classes. Through carefully designed activities, students can apply and refine these skills in a context that emphasizes fun, engagement, and practical application. This method not only reinforces learning but also enhances students’ ability to adapt and apply various movement patterns and strategies across different situations, fostering a more comprehensive understanding and appreciation for physical activity.

Adhering to the SHAPE America Standards, this article aims to explore the multifaceted benefits of PE games. These standards serve as a guiding framework, illuminating the path towards achieving educational excellence in physical education. By integrating these games, educators can ensure their programs are not just meeting but exceeding the expectations for developing well-rounded, physically literate individuals who value and engage in physical activity for life. Through this lens, we delve into the transformative power of PE games, showcasing their potential to enrich the PE experience for students of all ages.

Benefits of Incorporating PE Games into the Curriculum

Incorporating engaging and fun games into the physical education curriculum offers multifaceted benefits, directly contributing to the development of students' physical, cognitive, and social abilities. These games are instrumental in translating theoretical knowledge into practical skills, enhancing the overall learning experience in physical education.

Engaging Students in Active Learning

Engaging students in active learning through PE games not only captures their interest but also significantly improves their motor skills and movement patterns. These activities offer a dynamic classroom atmosphere where students are eager to participate and learn. The skills utilized during PE games help address SHAPE America's standards as referenced below:

Fostering Motor Skill Competency (SHAPE America Standard 1 )

Variety of Movement Patterns:  PE games introduce students to a wide range of movements such as throwing, catching, and kicking, helping to build a solid foundation of motor skills.

Skill Development Through Play:  Engaging in a pe game allows students to practice and refine these skills in a supportive and enjoyable setting, encouraging continued participation and improvement.

Application of Knowledge and Skills (SHAPE America Standard 2 )

Strategic Thinking and Decision Making:  Games often require students to use strategy and make quick decisions, applying their understanding of movement concepts in real-time scenarios.

Real-World Skill Application:  Through small and large group games, students learn how to apply movement principles and strategies, enhancing their ability to perform and collaborate effectively.

Promoting Physical Fitness and Well-being

By making physical activity enjoyable and varied, PE games motivate students in a middle, high or elementary school to participate more frequently, contributing to a healthier lifestyle. These activities are essential in demonstrating that fitness can be fun and rewarding, encouraging students to remain active both in and outside of school.

Maintaining Physical Activity Levels (SHAPE America  Standard 3 )

Regular Engagement:  PE games ensure students are actively participating throughout the class, contributing to their daily physical activity quota.

Health-Enhancing Fitness:  Activities are designed to improve cardiovascular health, strength, flexibility, and endurance, supporting a lifelong journey towards a healthy lifestyle.

Incorporating PE games into the educational framework allows physical educators to create a dynamic and engaging learning environment. By aligning these games with the SHAPE America Standards, educators can ensure that students not only achieve their physical education goals but also develop a lifelong appreciation for health and fitness.

The Role of PE Games in Promoting Social and Personal Responsibility

Physical Education games are essential in teaching more than just physical skills; they foster social and personal responsibility, encouraging students to act with respect and integrity both on and off the field. By embedding these values into the curriculum, students can partake in healthy competition and educators can leverage PE games to promote growth in every student, directly aligning with SHAPE America's Standards 4 and 5.

Cultivating Responsible Behavior and Respect

PE games serve as a practical tool for educators to instill important social skills, such as cooperation, respect, and responsible behavior, crucial for personal development and academic success.

Teamwork and Fair Play (SHAPE America Standard 4 )

Combined Effort and Responsibility : Games provide a context for students to practice teamwork and experience the importance of fair play. These activities encourage students to take responsibility for their actions and understand their impact on the group's success.

Respect for Diversity:  Diverse PE games allow students to interact with a wide range of peers, teaching them to respect and value different abilities and backgrounds, fostering a culture of inclusivity and empathy.

Highlighting the Value of Physical Activity

Through engaging and enjoyable PE games, students can discover the comprehensive benefits of physical activity, including its impact on health, personal fulfillment, and social well-being.

Enhancing Health and Wellness (SHAPE America Standard 5 )

Boosting Self-Esteem:  Regular participation in PE games emphasizes the importance of physical activity for maintaining health, highlighting its role in enhancing physical and mental well-being.

Promoting Enjoyment and Self-Expression:  Cooperative games or activities like an obstacle course offer students a platform for challenge, enjoyment, and expressing themselves, encouraging a lifelong engagement with physical activity for pleasure and personal achievement.

Facilitating Social Interaction:  By participating in PE games, students develop social skills and build relationships, understanding the value of physical activity in creating and maintaining social bonds.

Incorporating PE games into the educational framework not only meets the SHAPE America Standards but also enriches the learning environment. Educators are equipped to guide students in developing a sense of responsibility, respect for themselves and others, and an appreciation for the integral role of physical activity in achieving a balanced and fulfilling life.

Featured PE Games

Explore the following selection of 6 dynamic PE games crafted to inject excitement, teamwork, and strategic thinking into your physical education classes. With each game offering distinct objectives and skill sets, they guarantee to captivate every student, reshaping your PE lessons into exciting and inclusive adventures. These featured games are perfect for aligning with SHAPE America's Standard 2 which states: The physically literate individual applies knowledge of concepts, principles, strategies and tactics related to movement and performance.

Game Overview

Battleship  is an engaging and fun game, that emphasizes students' development of

throwing, rolling, and blocking skills within a teamwork and strategy-focused context. Set in a naval-themed arena, this game challenges students to collaborate and think strategically as they aim to "sink" opposing teams' ships by knocking over their pins, simulating the battle on the high seas.

Equipment Needed

8 – 12 mats (representing battleships)

6 pins per battleship

Velcro tape or other markers for pin placement

8-12 flags or flagpoles (one for each battleship)

Matching scrimmage vests for scuba divers

20-30 gatorskin balls

20-30 yarn balls

Transform your gym into a vast naval battlefield with battleships stationed around the perimeter. Each battleship is represented by a mat, with six pins set around it to act as targets. A flag at the front signifies the ship's presence. Distribute various balls around the gym class floor as ammunition. Assign 4 – 8 students to each battleship, with one person from each team wearing a vest matching their flag color as the scuba diver. Designate one student from each team as a "scuba diver," identified by a vest matching their team's flag, who will operate off the mat to gather balls - the ammunition.

Rules and Gameplay

The objective is for teams to sink opposing battleships by knocking over their pins using balls.

When all a team's pins are down, that battleship is considered sunk, and they must lower their flag.

Even after being sunk, teams can continue to play and aim to sink the remaining battleships.

Players must manage their positions on their mat, covering their battleship effectively.

Each team has a scuba diver who collects balls from the gym floor to distribute to their respective teams but they cannot block shots. Each ball is like a hot potato and must be rolled quickly to a teammate.

Scuba divers can gather multiple balls at a time but must avoid interfering with the gameplay.

Players on the battleships must not step off the mat, doing so may result in a penalty such as knocking down one of their own pins.

The game concludes when only one battleship remains or the one with the most pins standing after a predetermined time. Reset the pins after the conclusion and the game continues

Teaching Tips

Differentiation/Modification: Consider using taped-off areas or cones to define battleships for easier setup. Adjust the type and size of balls to modify the game's difficulty and Change the number of pins required to sink a battleship based on skill levels. You can also vary the number of scuba divers based on team size and skill.

Safety: Encourage players to maintain positions on their mats to prevent falls. Scuba divers should be cautious of their surroundings to avoid collisions with players or obstacles.

Assessment: Assess students on their ability to apply proper throwing, rolling, and blocking techniques. Observe students' teamwork and strategic planning, ensuring they adhere to game rules and demonstrate fair play.

Storm the Castle

Storm the Castle  focuses on the dynamic skills of dodging, fleeing, chasing, and tagging within a large group setting. This medieval-themed, multi-faceted tag game encourages students to strategize and work as a team to protect their castle and its treasures while attempting to invade the opposing team's fortress. Play music to start and stop the game and for transitional purposes.

8-, 18-, or 24-inch cones for treasures.

Small saucer cones for dungeons.

16 Poly Spot Markers.

2 sets of different colored vests for teams.

Boundary lines to define the playing area.

To set up the game, begin by dividing the class into two teams, each team taking up residence on one side of the play area, symbolizing their respective castles. At the rear of each castle, place four cones, each serving as a treasure, positioned strategically on four of the eight spot markers. The play area is then divided into two distinct sections, each representing a castle. Each castle is equipped with two gates positioned at opposite ends and two dungeons situated on opposite sides, adding layers of strategic depth to the game setup.

Knights (students) start in their castle and the game starts on the teacher's signal.

The objective is for knights to cross into the other team’s castle, avoid being tagged, and retrieve treasures to bring back to their side. The first team to secure all 8 treasures wins.

Knights prevent opponents from stealing their treasures by tagging them before they can grab a cone. No diving, sliding or blob tag allowed.

Tagged knights are sent to the dungeon and can be freed by a teammate who reaches the dungeon without being tagged.

Freed knights must link with the rescuer and students walk safely return to their castle.

Knights carrying a stolen treasure must walk with it above their head to show it was legally taken and are immune to being tagged while doing so.

Up to 4 guards per team can protect the treasures.

Referees or rock/paper/scissors can resolve disputes or close calls.

Differentiation/Modification: To accommodate various play spaces, the length of the court or field may be adjusted. Playing outdoors offers a refreshing alternative to indoor spaces. The number of cones representing treasures can be varied to modify the game's difficulty, and adjusting the number of guards per team allows for strategic flexibility.

Safety: Safety is paramount in Storm the Castle. Diving or sliding to retrieve cones is strictly prohibited to minimize the risk of injury. Students are reminded to maintain control over their movements at all times, keeping an eye out for open spaces to navigate safely. It's also crucial to ensure a safe distance from walls and other obstacles, protecting students from potential harm during the excitement of play.

Assessment: Observation focuses on students' techniques in chasing, dodging, tagging, and fleeing, ensuring they apply these skills effectively within the game context. Additionally, students' adherence to the rules, their ability to work as a team, and employ strategies for cooperation are key aspects of the assessment.

King/Queen Pin

King/Queen Pin , created by an accomplished physical educator from North Carolina, Gabe Erbin - @ErvinGabe , engages students in refining their throwing, rolling, and defensive abilities within the imaginative context of a royal court. Participants adopt roles as either noble guardians (kings and queens), endeavoring to protect their kingdom's valued treasures (pins), or as rebellious contenders (peasants), aiming to overthrow the monarchs by knocking down their treasures. This activity promotes strategic planning, collaborative effort, and physical dexterity, all wrapped in an entertaining medieval narrative.

10 – 15 bowling pins

Several Nerf, Gator skin, or yarn balls

16 Poly Spot Markers

Boundary lines

To set up the game, envision the playing area as the court of a king or queen, with the monarchs positioned centrally to defend their treasures, represented by several large bowling pins placed at the heart of the play zone. Some students take on the role of a king or queen, assigned the task of guarding their pin. Meanwhile, the remaining students, cast as peasants, position themselves behind the court's sideline, ready to engage. The field is dotted with a variety of soft, Nerf, Gator, or yarn balls, serving as ammunition for the impending challenge.

 Instructions for Play

Divide students into two groups: King/Queen Pins (defenders) and Peasant throwers/rollers (attackers).

The goal for attackers is to knock down the King/Queen Pin’s pin by throwing or rolling balls.

Throws or rolls must be executed with at least one foot on the Peasant line.

Balls can be retrieved from anywhere but must be launched from the Peasant line.

Successfully knocking down a pin allows a Peasant to dethrone the King/Queen Pin and take their place.

King/Queen Pins defend by blocking balls with any part of their body, without directly supporting the pin to prevent it from falling.

The aim for King/Queen Pins is to maintain their status by effectively defending against the attackers.

Differentiation/Modification:  Try substituting balls with indoor Foam Frisbees for an added challenge. Additionally, the number of pins used in the game can be modified to accommodate the size of the group or to alter the level of difficulty, ensuring that the game remains challenging yet accessible for all players.

Safety:  Prioritize the use of soft balls to ensure safety. All throws should be made from behind the designated sideline to maintain order and fairness in the game. Players should stay aware of their surroundings to prevent collisions and avoid diving or sliding for balls. All throws should be aimed at the pins, ensuring a safe and controlled play environment.

Assessment:  Focus on observing students' technique in throwing, rolling, catching, and blocking. Evaluate students' rule adherence, teamwork, and strategic execution to assess their engagement and understanding of the game's objectives.

Sky Bowling

Sky Bowling introduces students to a unique blend of throwing, catching, blocking, and gathering skills within a game that prioritizes teamwork and strategy. Set in an indoor environment transformed into a competitive sky, the game challenges students to knock over the opposing team's hidden pins while protecting their own.

8-10 mats placed upright to form a "Sky Cloud" barrier

15-20 nerf, gator skin, or fleece balls for throwing

24-30 hula hoops scattered across each side

24-30 bowling pins or cones with whiffle balls on top, positioned within the hula hoops

A scoreboard or alternative scoring device

The gym is split into two halves, separated by upright mats linked together to form a "Wall Cloud." Around 8-10 mats are positioned upright in the center, dividing the playing area. On each side, 12-20 hula hoops are placed, each containing a bowling pin or a cone topped with a whiffle ball. Players distribute themselves across their half, ready to throw balls and defend their pins, with basketball goals set up on the wall for an additional challenge.

Instructions for Play

Players are divided into two teams, taking positions at their end line within their designated "Sky Bowling" court.

Upon the start signal, players rush to collect balls from their side and throw them over the "Wall Cloud" towards the opposing team’s pins.

Each player can only throw one ball at a time and must release it within three seconds of picking it up.

Throws must be made from the spot where the ball was picked up or stopped, with only a single step allowed for momentum.

Catching a ball cleanly allows the player a chance to score a basket; successfully doing so permits them to reset one of their knocked-down pins.

The game progresses with players catching and attempting baskets, with pins only being reset by those who score.

The match concludes after a predetermined time, with the team having the least number of pins knocked down declared the winner.

Differentiation/Modification:  To modify "Sky Bowling," you could lower the mats or use a volleyball net for better visibility. Introducing different types of balls, like beach balls, offers varied gameplay. Adjusting the playing court's size or using lines instead of mats as dividers provides flexibility in setting the game's difficulty.

Safety: Players should use soft gator skin or fleece balls to minimize injury risks. Awareness of the surroundings is crucial to avoid accidental collisions. Gathering and distributing balls should be done cautiously, and contact with the dividing mats ("Wall Cloud") is discouraged to prevent them from toppling over.

Assessment:  Observation focuses on the students' proficiency in throwing, catching, and accurately shooting balls. Additionally, adherence to the game's rules, the demonstration of fair play, and the ability to collaborate effectively within teams are key aspects of the assessment, reflecting each student's understanding and application of the game's strategies.

Stars and Strikes

Stars and Strikes   offers a dynamic experience for students, focusing on developing throwing, rolling, and guarding skills through strategic gameplay. Set in an imaginative space-themed environment, this game encourages teamwork as students work to protect their planet's command centers (bowling pins) while attempting to knock down those of the opposing team.

10 bowling pins set up on polyspots or tape dots behind each team's territory

25+ yarn, nerf, or fleece balls scattered across the play area for use as ammunition

2 red vests and 2 blue vests for the "Aliens" role

Center line to divide the gym into two halves, representing different planets

The gym is divided into two halves, representing different planets. Each side has 10 bowling pins arranged behind the back line, symbolizing the planets' command centers. The play area is filled with yarn/nerf balls, serving as ammunition for the players, or "Star Troopers," who are tasked with saving their friendly alien planet and destroying the enemy one. Two "Friendly Aliens" on each team assist in the defense and supply of ammunition.

Players are divided into two teams, each defending their planet's command centers while attempting to knock down the opposing team's pins.

Crossing the middle line is prohibited to maintain the integrity of each planet's atmosphere.

Star Troopers can throw or roll only one ball at a time in an effort to hit the bowling pins on the opposing side.

The "Aliens," (usually two students per team, identified by vests), are the only ones permitted behind the bowling pin line, tasked with protecting the pins and redistributing balls to their team.

The game aims to knock down all the opponent's pins or achieve the highest number of knocked-down pins within a set time limit.

Differentiation/Modification: The game can be adapted for various skill levels by using only fleece balls for younger or less experienced players, adjusting the number of pins, or changing the distance between pins. Bringing pins closer together can make the game more accessible for younger students.

Safety: Emphasize the use of soft fleece/yarn balls to ensure safety during play. Players should remain aware of their surroundings to avoid accidental collisions and are encouraged not to dive or slide for balls. All throws should be directed towards the pins, maintaining a safe and controlled environment.

Assessment: Observation is key in assessing students' ability to apply proper techniques in throwing, rolling, catching, and blocking. Additionally, assessing students' adherence to the rules, their ability to cooperate within their team, and their strategic planning offers valuable insights into their understanding and application of the game's objectives.

Meteor Blitz

Meteor Blitz   sometimes referred to as "MonsterBall" is designed to refine precision in both

throwing and rolling, merging the elements of teamwork and strategic gameplay. Set within a galactic theme, participants are thrust into a cosmic battle, with the objective of propelling large balls—referred to as 'planets'—into the opposing team's domain. This is achieved by skillfully hurling smaller balls, dubbed 'meteors,' towards these planets to drive them across the territorial boundary."

20-40 gator skin, nerf, or yarn balls as meteors

3-6 Large balls like exercise, beach, or slo-mo balls representing planets

4 red vests for meteor retrievers, 2 for each team

A center line to divide the playing area - eight or nine hula hoops can also be used as a divider

Two back "Meteor Launching" lines for each team

A scoreboard or scoring device to keep track of points (eight or nine hula hoops)

The gym is divided into two halves with a center line, and 3 to 6 large balls are placed on this line to start the game. Each team has two or three designated meteor retrievers who position themselves within the play area, ready to assist their team. Around the gym, several yarn, nerf, or gator skin balls are scattered to serve as meteors. Teams line up behind their respective "Meteor Launching" lines, spreading out to cover the area from one end to the other, preparing to launch their meteors into space.

Teams work to move the large balls across the opponent's line by hitting them with smaller balls.

"Meteor Launchers" stay behind their line, using strategy to throw or roll meteors at the planets.

Points are scored by moving planets across the opponent's line, hitting an opponent, or hitting an opponent's meteor retriever.

Meteor retrievers gather and return meteors to their team, but cannot directly interact with the planets.

If a launcher steps over the line, they must count to 50 in a penalty area before returning.

Direct contact with the large balls by any player results in points for the opposing team.

Differentiation/Modification: The game can be tailored to the participants' needs by limiting the action to rolling for younger students or those less skilled in throwing. Adjusting the number of planets in play can increase or decrease the game's difficulty, as can altering the number of retrievers or modifying the distance between launching lines to suit the space available or the participants' abilities.

Safety: Emphasizing safety, only soft balls should be used for throwing to minimize the risk of injury. Participants are encouraged to stay alert and control their movements, avoiding any actions that could lead to collisions or falls, such as diving or sliding for a ball. When throwing, focus should be maintained on the large balls to ensure the safety of all players, particularly the retrievers moving across the play area

Assessment: Observation is key in assessing students' application of accurate throwing or rolling techniques and their ability to catch and field rolling balls effectively. Additionally, evaluators should note each student's ability to follow the game's rules, their cooperation and teamwork within their group, and their strategic thinking in navigating the game's challenges.

If you enjoyed these games, I have written another article on my website with 6 more! Click the following link to view the games: Energize Your Physical Education classes with 6 Action-Packed Large Group PE Games

Final Reflections

Navigating through these highlighted PE games, we've embarked on a journey that extends beyond mere physical activity. These games are a gateway to teaching invaluable life skills—teamwork, resilience, and the joy of movement. It's remarkable to witness how games like Battleship  and Storm the Castle  can transform a regular PE class into an exhilarating adventure, where every student, regardless of ability, finds their moment to shine. This isn't just about meeting educational standards; it's about crafting experiences that students will treasure, fostering an enduring enthusiasm for physical activity.

So, as we wrap up, remember the power you hold in shaping an inclusive, dynamic, and joyful learning environment. Through the strategic integration of these diverse games, you’re not just instructing; you’re inspiring a lifelong commitment to health and fitness. Here’s to making every PE session a highlight of your students’ day, and here's to you, the educators, who make it all possible. Keep the spirit of play alive in your teachings, and watch your students thrive in ways beyond the physical.

Passion is your power—let it shine through! Keep igniting the spark of physical education, making it a lively and meaningful adventure for every learner.

Need some FREE resources?

Do you need some large group games for your physical education program that includes detailed lesson plans and comprehensive diagrams with fun graphics? Cap'n Pete's Power PE has you covered!

Fill in the form below to download 3 FREE  Engaging Large Group PE Games:

1. Pirates-  Fast-paced, high-energy chasing, fleeing, and tagging game

2. Galaxy Quest-  Intergalactic, engaging chasing, fleeing, and tagging game

3. Survivor 1-  Defending, rolling, throwing for accuracy game

This freebie set will be sure to enhance your PE curriculum for years!

A Mega Bundle of Large Group Games

If you're looking for a way to improve your physical education curriculum, check out Cap'n Pete's Large Group PE Games - Triple Series Mega Bundle . In the mega bundle, there are 36   quality games designed to be engaging, student-friendly, and highly active.

You can download them from either of the following platforms: Cap'n Pete's Power PE Website  or Teachers Pay Teachers- Cap'n Pete's TPT Store

This comprehensive collection includes 12 ROCKIN GAMES + 12 OUT OF THIS WORLD GAMES + 12 PE GAMES FOR SUPERHEROES! That's 36 quality themed, large group games for your PE program.

Each game comes with a detailed lesson plan consisting of 1. Overview and Purpose, 2. SHAPE AMERICA Standard 3. Learning Outcomes, 4. Essential Questions, 5. Differentiation/Modification, 6. Game Setup and Procedures (Instructions for Play), 7. Materials and Resources, 8. Safety and 9. Assessment Suggestions. An easy to follow, full page graphical diagram is also included for each game in the Large Group Game Mega Bundle.

• Activities and Games
• Creative Instruction

Related Posts

How to Design an Engaging and Effective Elementary PE Curriculum

18 Top PE Activities for Dynamic Physical Education Classes

Energizing Education: The Power of Brain Breaks in the Classroom; Includes 12 Practical Activities

Recent Posts

Physical Education and Childhood Obesity: Empowering a Healthier Generation

• Grades 6-12
• School Leaders

Check Out Our 32 Fave Amazon Picks! 📦

46 Unique Phys Ed Games Your Students Will Love

Get your steps in!

There’s nothing kids need more to break up a day spent sitting still and listening than a fun PE class to let off some steam. In the old days, going to gym class probably included playing kickball or dodgeball after running a few laps. Since then, there have been countless reinventions of and variations on old classics as well as completely new games. Although there is no shortage of options, we love that the supplies required remain relatively minimal. You can transport to another galaxy using just a pool noodle or two or create a life-size game of Connect 4 using just Hula-Hoops. You’ll want to make sure to have some staples on hand like balls, beanbags, and parachutes. There are even PE games for kindergartners based on beloved children’s TV shows and party games. Regardless of your students’ athletic abilities, there is something for everyone on our list of elementary PE games!

1. Tic-Tac-Toe Relay

Elementary PE games that not only get students moving but also get them thinking are our favorites. Grab some Hula-Hoops and a few scarves or beanbags and get ready to watch the fun!

Learn more: Tic-Tac-Toe Relay at S&S Blog

2. Blob Tag

Pick two students to start as the Blob, then as they tag other kids, they will become part of the Blob. Be sure to demonstrate safe tagging, stressing the importance of soft touches.

Learn more: Blob Tag at Playworks

3. Cross the River

This fun game has multiple levels that students have to work through, including “get to the island,” “cross the river,” and “you lost a rock.”

Learn more: Cross the River at The PE Specialist

4. Head, Shoulders, Knees, and Cones

Line up cones, then have students pair up and stand on either side of a cone. Finally, call out head, shoulders, knees, or cones. If cones is called, students have to race to be the first to pick up their cone before their opponent.

Learn more: Head, Shoulders, Knees & Cones at S&S Blog

5. Spider Ball

Elementary PE games are often variations of dodgeball like this one. One or two players start with the ball and attempt to hit all of the runners as they run across the gym or field. If a player is hit, they can then join in and become a spider themselves.

Learn more: Spider Ball Game at Kid Activities

6. Crab Soccer

We love elementary PE games that require students to act like animals (and we think they will too). Similar to regular soccer, but students will need to play on all fours while maintaining a crab-like position.

Learn more: Crab Soccer at Playworks

7. Halloween Tag

This is the perfect PE game to play in October. It’s similar to tag, but there are witches, wizards, and blobs with no bones!

Learn more: Halloween Tag at The Physical Educator

8. Crazy Caterpillars

We love that this game is not only fun but also works on students’ hand-eye coordination. Students will have fun pushing their balls around the gym with pool noodles while building their caterpillars.

9. Monster Ball

You’ll need a large exercise ball or something similar to act as the monster ball in the middle. Make a square around the monster ball, divide the class into teams on either side of the square, then task the teams with throwing small balls at the monster ball to move it into the other team’s area.

Learn more: Monster Ball at The PE Specialist

10. Striker Ball

Striker ball is an enjoyable game that will keep your students entertained while working on reaction time and strategic planning. We love that there is limited setup required before playing.

Learn more: Striker Ball at S&S Blog

11. Parachute Tug-of-War

What list of elementary PE games would be complete without some parachute fun? So simple yet so fun, all you will need is a large parachute and enough students to create two teams. Have students stand on opposite sides of the parachute, then let them compete to see which side comes out on top.

Learn more: Parachute Tug-of-War at Mom Junction

12. Fleas Off the Parachute

Another fun parachute game where one team needs to try to keep the balls (fleas) on the parachute and the other tries to get them off.

Learn more: Fleas Off the Parachute at Mom Junction

13. Crazy Ball

The setup for this fun game is similar to kickball, with three bases and a home base. Crazy ball really is so crazy as it combines elements of football, Frisbee, and kickball!

Learn more: Crazy Ball at Health Beet

14. Bridge Tag

This game starts as simple tag but evolves into something more fun once the tagging begins. Once tagged, kids must form a bridge with their body and they can’t be freed until someone crawls through.

Learn more: Bridge Tag at Great Camp Games

15. Star Wars Tag

Elementary PE games that allow you to be your favorite movie character are just way too much fun! You will need two different-colored pool noodles to stand in for lightsabers. The tagger will have one color pool noodle that they use to tag students while the healer will have the other color that they will use to free their friends.

Learn more: Star Wars Tag at Great Camp Games

16. Rob the Nest

Create an obstacle course that leads to a nest of eggs (balls) and then divide the students into teams. They will have to race relay-style through the obstacles to retrieve eggs and bring them back to their team.

17. Four Corners

We love this classic game since it engages students physically while also working on color recognition for younger students. Have your students stand on a corner, then close their eyes and call out a color. Students standing on that color earn a point.

Learn more: Four Corners at The Many Little Joys

18. Movement Dice

This is a perfect warm-up that requires only a die and a sheet with corresponding exercises.

Learn more: Roll the Dice Movement Break at Teaching Littles

19. Rock, Paper, Scissors Tag

A fun spin on tag, children will tag one another and then play a quick game of Rock, Paper, Scissors to determine who has to sit and who gets to continue playing.

Learn more: Rock, Paper, Scissors Tag at Grade Onederful

20. Cornhole Cardio

This one is so fun but can be a little bit confusing, so be sure to leave plenty of time for instruction. Kids will be divided into teams before proceeding through a fun house that includes cornhole, running laps, and stacking cups.

Learn more: Cardio Cornhole at S&S Blog

21. Connect 4 Relay

This relay takes the game Connect 4 to a whole new level. Players must connect four dots either horizontally, vertically, or diagonally.

22. Zookeepers

Students will love imitating their favorite animals while playing this fun variation of Four Corners where the taggers are the zookeepers.

23. Racket Whack-It

Students stand with rackets in hand while balls are thrown at them—they must either dodge the balls or swat them away.

Learn more: Racket Whack-It via PEgames.org

24. Crazy Moves

Set mats out around the gym, then yell out a number. Students must race to the mat before it is already filled with the correct number of bodies.

Learn more: Crazy Moves at PEgames.org

25. Wheelbarrow Race

Sometimes the best elementary PE games are the simplest. An oldie but a goodie, wheelbarrow races require no equipment and are guaranteed to be a hit with your students.

Learn more: Wheelbarrow Race at wikiHow

26. Live-Action Pac-Man

Fans of retro video games like Pac-Man will get a kick out of this live-action version where students get to act out the characters.

27. Spaceship Tag

Give each of your students a Hula-Hoop (spaceship), then have them run around trying not to bump into anyone else’s spaceship or get tagged by the teacher (alien). Once your students get really good at it, you can add different levels of complexity.

28. Rock, Paper, Scissors Beanbag Balance

We love this spin on Rock, Paper, Scissors because it works on balance and coordination. Students walk around the gym until they find an opponent, then the winner collects a beanbag, which they must balance on their head!

Learn more: Rock, Paper, Scissors Beanbag Balance at PE Universe

29. Throwing, Catching, and Rolling

This is a fun activity but it will require a lot of preparation, including asking the school maintenance staff to collect industrial-sized paper towel rolls. We love this activity because it reminds us of the old-school arcade game Skee-Ball!

Learn more: Winter Activity at S&S Blog

30. Jenga Fitness

Although Jenga is fun enough on its own, combining it with fun physical challenges is sure to be a winner with young students.

Learn more: Jenga Fitness at S&S Blog

31. Volcanoes and Ice Cream Cones

Divide the class into two teams, then assign one team as volcanoes and the other as ice cream cones. Next, spread cones around the gym, half upside down and half right side up. Finally, have the teams race to flip as many cones as possible to either volcanoes or ice cream cones.

Learn more: Warm-Up Games at Prime Coaching Sport

This fun variation on dodgeball will have your students getting exercise while having a ton of fun! Begin with three balls on a basketball court. If you are hit by a ball, you are out. If you take a step while holding a ball, you are out. There are other rules surrounding getting out and also how to get back in, which can be found in this video.

33. Musical Hula-Hoops

PE games for kindergartners that are similar to party games are some of our favorites! Think musical chairs but with Hula-Hoops! Lay enough Hula-Hoops around the edge of the gym minus five students since they will be in the muscle pot. Once the music starts, students walk around the gym. When the music stops, whoever doesn’t find a Hula-Hoop becomes the new muscle pot!

34. 10-Second Tag

This game is perfect to play at the beginning of the year since it helps with learning names and allows the teacher to get to know the first student in line.

35. The Border

This game is so fun and requires no equipment whatsoever. Divide the gym into two sides. One side can move freely while the other side must avoid letting their feet touch the floor by rolling around, crawling, etc.

36. Freedom Catch

This is a simple throwing, catching, and tag game that will certainly be a hit with your PE class. Captors attempt to tag players so they can send them to jail. You can be freed if someone on your team runs to a freedom cone while throwing a ball to the jailed person. If the ball is caught by the jailed person, they can rejoin the game.

37. Oscar’s Trashcan

As far as PE games for kindergartners goes, this one is a guaranteed winner since it is based on the show Sesame Street . You’ll need two large areas that can be sectioned off to use as trash cans and also a lot of medium-size balls. There are two teams who must compete to fill their opponent’s trash can while emptying their own. Once over, the trash will be counted and the team with the least amount of trash in their trash can wins!

38. 4-Way Frisbee

Divide your class into four separate teams, who will compete for points by catching a Frisbee inside one of the designated goal areas. Defenders are also able to go into the goal areas. There are a number of other rules that can be applied so you can modify the game in a way that’s best for your class.

39. Badminton King’s/Queen’s Court

This one is simple but fun since it is played rapid-fire with kids waiting their turn to take on the King or Queen of the court. Two players start and as soon as a point is earned, the loser swaps places with another player. The goal is to be the player that stays on the court the longest, consistently knocking out new opponents.

40. Jumping and Landing Stations

Kids love stations and they definitely love jumping, so why not combine those things into one super-fun gym class? They’ll have a blast challenging themselves with all the different obstacles presented in this video.

41. Ninja Warrior Obstacle Course

Regardless of whether you’ve ever seen an episode of American Ninja Warrior , you are probably familiar with the concept and so are your students. Plus, you’ll probably have just as much fun as your students setting up the obstacles and testing them out!

42. Balloon Tennis

Since kids love playing keepy-uppy with a balloon, they will love taking it a step further with balloon tag!

43. Indoor Putting Green

If your school can afford to invest in these unique putting green sets, you can introduce the game of golf to kids as young as kindergarten. Who knows, you might just have a future Masters winner in your class!

44. Scooter Activities

Let’s be honest, we all have fond memories of using scooters in gym class. Regardless of whether you do a scooter sleigh or scooter hockey, we think there is something for everyone in this fun video.

45. Pick It Up

This is the perfect PE game to play if you are stuck in a small space with a good-size group. Teams win by making all of their beanbag shots and then collecting all of their dots and stacking them into a nice neat pile.

46. Dodgeball Variations

Since not all kids love having balls thrown at them, why not try a dodgeball alternative that uses gym equipment as targets rather than fellow students? For example, have each student stand in front of a Hula-Hoop with a bowling ball inside of it. Students need to protect their hoop while attempting to knock over their opponents’ pins.

What are your favorite elementary PE games to play with your class? Come and share in our We Are Teachers HELPLINE group  on Facebook.

Plus, check out  our favorite recess games for the classroom ..

You Might Also Like

38 Old-School Recess Games Your Students Should Be Playing Now

Ready to feel nostalgic? Continue Reading

Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved. 5335 Gate Parkway, Jacksonville, FL 32256

• Sign in to save searches and organize your favorite content.
• Not registered? Sign up

Recently viewed (0)

• Save Search
• Previous Article
• Next Article

Social and Emotional Learning Through a Sports-Based Youth Development Program Grounded in a Hybrid Model-Based Practice

Click name to view affiliation

• Get Citation Alerts

Purchase article

Student 1 year online subscription, 1 year online subscription, student 2 year online subscription, 2 year online subscription.

By purchasing this content you agree and accept the terms and conditions

Purpose : This study aimed to investigate the student’s experiences of social and emotional learning in a community-based youth soccer program grounded in the hybridization of the teaching personal and social responsibility model and the cooperative learning model. Methods : This research was guided by a case study design. Qualitative data were collected over 28 weeks. Twenty-three children ( n  = 23) participated in the study. Eleven individual interviews, six focus group interviews, two rounds of student drawing activities, and 22 researcher’s self-reflection journals were taken during the program. Inductive analysis and constant comparison were used for data analysis. Results : Four themes were drawn from the collected data: trying your best , respecting each other , learning and working as a team , and making your responsibilities at home and school . Conclusion : The study provided evidence that the hybridization of teaching personal and social responsibility and cooperative learning could be an effective pedagogical approach for students’ social and emotional learning development in sports-based youth development programs.

Baek https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3621-3011

Howley https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3534-6768

Zhang https://orcid.org/0009-0002-8647-9552

* Shen ( [email protected] ) is corresponding author.

Journal of Teaching in Physical Education

Related Articles

Article sections.

• Promotion of SEL in SBYD Programs
• Model-Based Practice and SEL
• Hybrid MBPs
• Research Design
• Participants
• Hybrid MBP Implementation Fidelity
• Data Collection
• Data Analysis
• Trying Your Best
• Respecting Each Other
• Learning and Working as a Team
• Making Your Responsibilities at Home and School

Barlow , C.M. , Jolley , R.P. , & Hallam , J.L. ( 2011 ). Drawings as memory aids: Optimising the drawing method to facilitate young children’s recall . Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25 ( 3 ), 480 – 487 .

• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Benson , P.L. ( 2006 ). All kids are our kids: What communities must do to raise caring and responsible children and adolescents . Jossey-Bass .

Casey , A. , & Dyson , B. ( 2009 ). The implementation of models-based practice in physical education through action research . European Physical Education Review, 15 ( 2 ), 175 – 199 .

Casey , A. , & Goodyear , V.A. ( 2015 ). Can cooperative learning achieve the four learning outcomes of physical education? A review of literature . Quest, 67 ( 1 ), 56 – 72 .

Casey , A. , Goodyear , V.A. , & Dyson , B. ( 2015 ). Model fidelity and students’ responses to an authenticated unit of cooperative learning . Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 34 ( 4 ), 642 – 660 .

Casey , A. , & Kirk , D. ( 2020 ). Models-based practice in physical education . Routledge .

Coakley , J. ( 2011 ). Youth sports: What counts as “positive development?” Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 35 ( 3 ), 306 – 324 .

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning . ( 2023 ). What is SEL? https://casel.org/what-is-sel/

Cope , E. , Harvey , S. , & Kirk , D. ( 2015 ). Reflections on using visual research methods in sports coaching . Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 7 ( 1 ), 88 – 108 .

Corcoran , R.P. , Cheung , A.C.K. , Kim , E. , & Xie , C. ( 2018 ). Effective universal school-based social and emotional learning programs for improving academic achievement: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 50 years of research . Educational Research Review, 25 ( 1 ), 56 – 72 .

Dyreson , M. ( 1998 ). Making the American team: Sport, culture, and the Olympic experience . University of Illinois Press .

Dyson , B. ( 2001 ). Cooperative learning in an elementary physical education program . Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20 ( 3 ), 264 – 281 .

Dyson , B. , & Casey , A. ( 2012 ). Cooperative learning in physical education: A research-based approach . Routledge .

Dyson , B. , & Casey , A. ( 2016 ). Cooperative learning in physical education and physical activity: A practical introduction . Routledge .

Dyson , B. , Howley , D. , & Shen , Y. ( 2021a ). ‘Being a team, working together, and being kind’: Primary students’ perspectives of cooperative learning’s contribution to their social and emotional learning . Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 26 ( 2 ), 137 – 154 .

Dyson , B. , Howley , D. , & Shen , Y. ( 2021b ). “Wow! They’re teaching each other”: Primary teachers’ perspectives of implementing cooperative learning to accomplish social and emotional learning in aotearoa New Zealand physical education . Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. Advance online publication.

Dyson , B.P. , Linehan , N.R. , & Hastie , P.A. ( 2010 ). The ecology of cooperative learning in elementary physical education classes . Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 29 ( 2 ), 113 – 130 .

Elias , M.J. ( 2019 ). What if the doors of every schoolhouse opened to social-emotional learning tomorrow: Reflections on how to feasibly scale up high-quality SEL . Educational Psychologist, 54 ( 3 ), 233 – 245 .

Elias , M.J. , Zins , J.E. , Weissberg , R.P. , Frey , K.S. , Greenberg , M.T. , Haynes , N.M. , . . . Shriver , T.P. ( 1997 ). Promoting social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators . Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development .

Ellison , D.W. , Walton-Fisette , J.L. , & Eckert , K. ( 2019 ). Utilizing the teaching personal and social responsibility (TPSR) model as a trauma-informed practice (TIP) tool in physical education . Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 90 ( 9 ), 32 – 37 .

Escartí , A. , Gutiérrez , M. , Pascual , C. , & Llopis , R. ( 2010 ). Implementation of the personal and social responsibility model to improve self-efficacy during physical education classes for primary school children . International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 10 ( 3 ), 387 – 402 .

Fernandez-Rio , J. ( 2014 ). Another step in models-based practice: Hybridizing cooperative learning and teaching for personal and social responsibility . Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 85 ( 7 ), 3 – 5 .

González-Víllora , S. , Evangelio , C. , Sierra-Díaz , J. , & Fernández-Río , J. ( 2019 ). Hybridizing pedagogical models: A systematic review . European Physical Education Review, 25 ( 4 ), 1056 – 1074 .

Goodyear , V.A. ( 2017 ). Sustained professional development on cooperative learning: Impact on six teachers’ practices and students’ learning . Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 88 ( 1 ), 83 – 94 .

Gordon , B. , Jacobs , J.M. , & Wright , P.M. ( 2016 ). Social and emotional learning through a teaching personal and social responsibility based after-school program for disengaged middle-school boys . Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 35 ( 4 ), 358 – 369 .

Gould , D. , & Carson , S. ( 2008 ). Life skills development through sport: Current status and future directions . International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1 ( 1 ), 58 – 78 .

Gubacs-Collins , K. , & Olsen , E.B. ( 2010 ). Implementing a tactical games approach with sport education: A chronicle . Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 81 ( 3 ), 36 – 42 .

Haerens , L. , Kirk , D. , Cardon , G. , & De Bourdeaudhuij , I. ( 2011 ). Toward the development of a pedagogical model for health-based physical education . Quest, 63 ( 3 ), 321 – 338 .

Harvey , S. , & Jarrett , K. ( 2014 ) Recent trends in research literature on game-based approaches to teaching and coaching games. In R.L. Light , J. Quay , S. Harvey , & A. Mooney (Eds.), Contemporary developments ion games teaching (pp. 87–102). Routledge .

Hastie , P.A. , & Casey , A. ( 2014 ). Fidelity in models-based practice research in sport pedagogy: A guide for future investigations . Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 33 ( 3 ), 422 – 431 .

Hellison , D. ( 2011 ). Teaching personal and social responsibility through physical activity . Human Kinetics .

Holt , N.L. ( 2016 ). Positive youth development through sport . Routledge .

Holt , N.L. , & Neely , K.C. ( 2011 ). Positive youth development through sport: A review . Revista de Iberoamericana de Psicología del Ejercicio y el Deporte, 6 ( 2 ), 299 – 316 .

Holt , N.L. , Neely , K.C. , Slater , L.G. , Camiré , M. , Côté , J. , Fraser-Thomas , J. , MacDonald , D. , Strachan , L. , & Tamminen , K.A. ( 2017 ). A grounded theory of positive youth development through sport based on results from a qualitative meta-study . International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10 ( 1 ), 1 – 49 .

Holt , N.L. , Tink , L.N. , Mandigo , J.L. , & Fox , K.R. ( 2008 ). Do youth learn life skills through their involvement in high school sport? A case study . Canadian Journal of Education, 31 ( 2 ), 281 – 304 .

Ivy , V.N. , & Jacobs , J.M. ( 2017 ). Developing personal and social responsibility: Committing time to reflection . Strategies, 30 ( 5 ), 45 – 47 .

Jacobs , J.M. , Lawson , M. , Ivy , V.N. , & Richards , K.A.R. ( 2017 ). Enhancing the transfer of life skills from sport-based youth development programs to school, family, and community settings . Journal of Amateur Sport, 3 ( 3 ), 20 – 43 .

Johnson , D.W. , & Johnson , R.T. ( 2009 ). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning . Educational Researcher, 38 ( 5 ), 365 – 379

Jones , S.M. , & Bouffard , S.M. ( 2012 ). Social and emotional learning in schools: From programs to strategies and commentaries . Social Policy Report, 26 ( 4 ), 1 – 33 .

Jones , S.M. , Bouffard , S.M. , & Weissbourd , R. ( 2013 ). Educators’ social and emotional skills vital to learning . Phi Delta Kappan, 94 ( 8 ), 62 – 65 .

Kloeppel , T. , Kulinna , P.H. , Stylianou , M. , & Van Der Mars , H. ( 2013 ). Teacher fidelity to one physical education curricular model . Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 32 ( 2 ), 186 – 204 .

Ko , B. , Wallhead , T. , & Ward , P. ( 2006 ). Professional development workshops: What do teachers learn and use . Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 25 ( 4 ), 397 – 412 .

Larson , R.W. , Hansen , D.M. , & Moneta , G. ( 2006 ). Differing profiles of developmental experiences across types of organized youth activities . Developmental Psychology, 42 ( 5 ), 849 – 863 .

Lee , O. , & Martinek , T. ( 2013 ). Understanding the transfer of values-based youth sport program goals from a bioecological perspective . Quest, 65 ( 3 ), 300 – 312 .

Lerner , R.M. ( 1996 ). Relative plasticity, integration, temporality, and diversity in human development: A developmental contextual perspective about theory, process, and method . Developmental Psychology, 32 ( 4 ), Article 781 .

Lund , J. , & Tannehill , D. ( 2010 ). Standards-based physical education curriculum development . Jones & Bartlett Publishers .

Martinek , T. ( 2016 ). Project effort: Creating responsible leadership through values-based learning . Active and Health Magazine, 23 ( 2 ), 43 – 46 .

Martinek , T , Schilling , T. , & Hellison , D. ( 2006 ). The development of compassionate and caring leadership among adolescents . Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 11 ( 2 ), 141 – 157 .

Martinek , T.J. , & Hellison , D.R. ( 1997 ). Fostering resiliency in underserved youth through physical activity . Quest, 49 ( 1 ), 34 – 49 .

Meléndez , A. , & Martinek , T. ( 2015 ). Life after project effort: Applying values acquired in a responsibility-based physical activity program . Revista Internacional de Ciencias Del Deporte, 11 ( 41 ), 258 – 280 .

Metzler , M.W. ( 2011 ). Instructional models for physical education . Holcomb Hathaway .

Miles , M.B. , Huberman A.M. , & Saldana J. ( 2014 ). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook . SAGE .

Osher , D. , Kidron , Y. , Brackett , M. , Dymnicki , A. , Jones , S. , & Weissberg , R.P. ( 2016 ). Advancing the science and practice of social and emotional learning: Looking back and moving forward . Review of Research in Education, 40 ( 1 ), 644 – 681 .

Papacharisis , V. , Goudas , M. , Danish , S.J. , & Theodorakis , Y. ( 2005 ). The effectiveness of teaching a life skills program in a sport context . Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17 ( 3 ), 247 – 254 .

Richards , K.A.R. , & Ressler , J.D. ( 2016 ). A collaborative approach to self-study research in physical education teacher education . Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 35 ( 3 ), 290 – 295 .

Richards , K.A.R. , & Shiver , V.N. ( 2020 ). “What’s worth doing?” A qualitative historical analysis of the TPSR model . Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 39 ( 3 ), 300 – 310 .

Santos , F. , Miguel , J. , Wright , P.M. , Sá , C. , & Saraiva , L. ( 2020 ). Exploring the impact of a TPSR program on transference of responsibility goals within a preschool setting: an action research study . International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17 ( 24 ), 9449 .

Shen , Y. , Martinek , T. , & Dyson , B. ( 2022 ). Navigating the processes and products of the teaching personal and social responsibility model: A systematic literature review . Quest, 74 ( 1 ), 91 – 107 .

Shen , Y. , Rose , S. , & Dyson , B. ( 2022 ). Social and emotional learning for underserved children through sports-based youth development program grounded in teaching personal and social responsibility . Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy , 29 ( 1 ), 115 – 126 .

Siedentop , D. , Hastie , P. , & Van der Mars , H. ( 2004 ). Complete guide to sport education . Human Kinetics .

Slavin , R.E. ( 1996 ). Cooperative learning in middle and secondary schools . The Clearing House, 69 ( 4 ), 200 – 204 .

Society of Health and Physical Educators America . ( 2014 ). National standards and grade-level outcomes for K-12 physical education . Human Kinetics .

Stake , R.E. ( 2005 ). Qualitative case studies . In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp.  443 – 466 ). SAGE .

Sutherland , S. , & Stuhr , P.T. ( 2014 ). Reactions to implementing adventure-based learning in physical education . Sport, Education and Society, 19 ( 4 ), 489 – 506 .

Wright , P.M. , & Burton , S. ( 2008 ). Implementation and outcomes of a responsibility-based physical activity program integrated into an intact high school physical education class . Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27 ( 2 ), 138 – 154 .

Wright , P.M. , & Irwin , C. ( 2018 ). Using systematic observation to assess teacher effectiveness promoting personally and socially responsible behavior in physical education . Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 22 ( 3 ), 250 – 262 .

Wright , P.M. , Li , W. , Ding , S. , & Pickering , M. ( 2010 ). Integrating a personal and social responsibility program into a wellness course for urban high school students: Assessing implementation and educational outcomes . Sport, Education and Society, 15 ( 3 ), 277 – 298 .

Wright , P.M. , & Walsh , D. ( 2018 ). Teaching personal and social responsibility . In W. Li , M. Wang , P. Ward , & S. Sutherland (Eds.), Curricular/instructional models for secondary physical education: Theory and practice (pp.  140 – 208 ). Higher Education Publisher .

Article Metrics

• Yanhua Shen
• Benedict Dyson
• Seunghyun Baek
• Donal Howley

Google Scholar

© 2024 Human Kinetics

Powered by:

• [185.66.15.189]
• 185.66.15.189

Character limit 500 /500

Teamwork & Collaborative Learning

Students working independently are capable of learning deeply, and it is likely that those of us who teach undergraduate students are well suited to this sort of intellectual method. Nevertheless, structuring learning so that students are required to respond to one another’s ideas, create a product together, and, more to the point, teach each other, can be an effective teaching strategy. Collaborative or cooperative learning (or, on occasion, “group work”) has stimulated significant literature. 

“Cooperative learning is an educational approach that promotes interaction among students and shared responsibility for academic achievement”  [Stein, R. & Hurd, S. (2000).  Using Student Teams in the Classroom.  Bolton MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.:  https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED446603 ]

The following examples are among the most well-known types of collaborative learning:

• Give students a discussion prompt, question, short problem, or issue to consider.
• Individuals work briefly on a response.
• Peers report their responses to each other in pairs.
• Some (or all) pairs summarize their discussion for the large group.

Think-pair-share is a low-stakes, low-effort strategy for active learning and abbreviated collaboration. Students must work independently, communicate their ideas to peers, consider peer responses, and share that discussion in a way that begins to synthesize an exchange. While it is unlikely that all pairs in a class will have the opportunity for the last step, calling on random pairs means that most should be prepared. Think-pair-share requires that students act, instead of passively listening.

Problem-based learning (or PBL) introduces a specific problem to students, usually in groups, over an extended period, and requires that they understand the problem and begin to propose a response or solution. PBL begins to approximate the sort of work scholars do (think of the “problem” as a sort of research question), as well as the way students may need to approach problems in their lives after higher education.

Guided Design, a type of PBL, leads students through steps as they work on a problem. So, for instance, groups might do preliminary research and report back simultaneously, identify stakeholders and report back simultaneously, propose compromises and report back simultaneously, etc. For more information about PBL visit the University of Delaware’s Problem-Based Learning Site at  www.udel.edu/inst  and come to talk to us at the Teaching and Learning Transformation Center.

Case studies provide students with sample problems from experience. So, for instance, students in microbiology might propose a response to a waterborne viral outbreak. Find more examples for the sciences and humanities at the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science .

Simulations ask students to adopt roles as they perform the work of a problem-solving group. Students of government and politics, for example, might take on the roles of business owners, city council members, and neighborhood advocates in a zoning dispute.

Peer teaching is a very effective means for both the student-as-teacher and student-as-learner to learn new concepts. One example of peer teaching is tutoring, which means guiding the learning of a newer student. This can be as informal as a brief discussion in which a student explains a concept or clarifies a misunderstanding. Supplemental instruction is the extended guidance students receive over an entire course from a secondary source (e.g., a tutor). Presentations ask students to communicate course material to their peers effectively. This requires more than restating content or paraphrasing the day’s readings.

Small group discussion offers students the chance to interact with peers, to listen, and to teach. Effective small group discussion is guided by clear directions and asks students to share a product (a summary of discussion, a consensus view with minority report, or even a critique of the discussion prompt).

Peer editing   guides students as they review each others’ drafts of written work. This foundation of the craft of academic writing serves to teach both editor (who must learn to read critically and communicate criticism) and writer (who must learn to consume, evaluate, and incorporate feedback). When requiring peer editing, articulate clear expectations, instead of simply asking students to read and evaluate writing (e.g., have them identify a thesis statement and assess the strength of the writer’s evidence).

The  jigsaw strategy  breaks problems into small parts and assigns parts to groups who report back, contributing a piece of the puzzle’s solution. For example, each student in a group might be assigned a distinct article to read on a shared topic or issue; each would present that article to the group to synthesize all articles. See Step-By-Step Instructions for the Jigsaw Strategy .

To increase the structure and student engagement in collaborative activities, instructors can assign group roles. Group roles can promote accountability and support students in staying on task.  Some examples of group roles (POGIL, 2016) are below:

• Manager  or  Facilitator : Manages the group by helping to ensure that the group stays on task, is focused, and that there is room for everyone in the conversation.
• Recorder : Keeps a record of those who were in the group, and the roles that they play in the group. The recorder also records critical points from the small group’s discussion along with findings or answers.
• Spokesperson  or  Presenter : Presents the group’s ideas to the rest of the class. The Spokesperson should rely on the recorder’s notes to guide their report.
• Reflector  or  Strategy Analyst : Observes team dynamics and guides the consensus-building process (helps group members come to a common conclusion).

For more information on Group Roles, you can utilize this resource from Washington University in St. Louis.

While there is of course some resistance to collaborative learning (think, for example, of your own experiences carrying the weight of the group whose participants may have not all contributed equitably), when planned carefully it helps to satisfy a number of goals. It requires active learning, in which students must engage with course material in ways lecturing alone cannot support. It takes advantage of the notion that teaching is learning and provides a structure for peer teaching. It supports multiple learning styles by adopting a heterogeneous approach (some students write, some discuss, some edit, some listen and synthesize, some move around to gather findings from different peers, etc). Finally, by simply unsettling what students are often used to (e.g., extended lectures with little or no contribution from inactive students), collaborative learning reminds students that learning requires more than listening, and that reminder may be an early step toward metacognition, the practice of thinking about (and recognizing) how we learn.

As you develop collaborative approaches, bear in mind the following:

• Do not simply put students in groups with vague directions to discuss a topic. Instead, focus the discussions with a question or topical conflict.
• Organize groups with a purpose. Have a learning objective in mind: Would it make more sense to assign groups randomly, to allow peers to organize themselves into groups, to place students together with those whose performance has been similar? There are rationales for each of the preceding; just be sure your strategy is not arbitrary.
• Always require a product of groups’ work, even if it is as informal as a brief summary of their discussion. Accountability will motivate students put in their full effort and the product will serve as a means of assessing their understanding.
• Consider ways for assigning roles, but resist appointing a “leader,” upon whom more responsibility will fall than his or her peers. Instead, think about roles that share work (e.g., facilitator, recording secretary, spokesperson).
• For long-term collaborative projects, require regular interim reports.
• Be attentive to student schedules. If requiring regular collaboration that demands face-to-face meetings, allow those meetings to take place during class.
• As with any method, be wary of overuse. If each class meeting relies on group work learning may be no more lasting than if each class relied exclusively on uninterrupted lectures.
• Always prepare and distribute a grading rubric for collaborative projects that will be graded.

Resources:  The TLTC maintains a library which includes several works on collaborative learning. Consider reviewing one or more of the following:

• Cuseo, J.B .  (1996).  Cooperative Learning: A Pedagogy for Addressing Contemporary Challenges & Critical Issues in Higher Education  Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press. 
• Davidson, N. & Worsham, T. (Eds.). (1992).  Enhancing Thinking through Cooperative Learning.  New York: Teachers College Press.
• Stein, R. F. & Hurd, S. (2000).  Using Student Teams in the Classroom: A Faculty Guide . Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company Inc.