Psychology
2013. Vol.4, No.3A, 291-301
Published Online March 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/psych) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.43A043
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 291
Training of Non-University Level Teachers in Cooperative
Learning Methods
Rosa María Pons1, Yael Sharan2, José Manuel Serrano1, Clotilde Lomeli3, Céline Buchs4
1Department of Educational Psychology, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain
2University of Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel
3Faculty of Pedagogy and Educational Innovation, Autonomous University of Baja California, Mexicali, México
4Department of Educational Science, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
Email: rmpons@um.es
Received December 21st, 2012; revised January 21st, 2013; accepted February 22nd, 2013
This article proposes a teacher training program in Cooperative Learning Methods (CLM). The analysis
of the effects of the program on the development of CLM instructional designs is based on an eight cate-
gory system which supports the development of instructional design that organizes the classroom from a
cooperative perspective. This study also proves the existing differences among professionals teaching at
different levels of the non-university education levels. The results demonstrate the efficacy of the training
process of teachers who work in non-university educational system and its effect on their practice.
Keywords: Cooperative Learning; Training Teacher; Non-University Educational System
Introduction
The appearance of the concept of competency, based on the
DeSeCo (Definition and Selection of Competencies) approach
developed by the OECD, was the trigger for the emergence of
multiple initiatives which tried to give “a Copernican turn” to
education in the last two decades (Salganik et al., 1999; Zhu,
Valcke, & Schellens, 2010). It was not until the beginning of
this century when these initiatives become more systematic. In
fact, despite the slight shift from cognitive and socio cognitive
constructivism to social constructivism, it was not until the
characterization of the competency notion that this change
would have the necessary policy support (Serrano & Pons,
2011).
DeSeCo not only establishes the internal structure of compe-
tency (knowledge, cognitive skills, practical skills, attitudes,
emotions, motivation-disposition, values and ethics), but also
the required conditions in order for them to be attained: ability
to cooperate, situated on context. The aforementioned two ele-
ments correspond to two major interpretations of cognition:
distributive cognition and situated cognition.
To say that knowledge is situated means that it is a part and a
product of the activity, the context and the culture in which it
takes place and is utilized. To say that knowledge is distributive
implies that it is composed of human cognition resources as
well as all the tools and artifacts provided by culture (Salomon,
2001).
The sliding of constructivism towards the concepts of dis-
tributive and situated cognition (Slaouti, 2007) leads to the idea
of the classroom as a learning community or a community of
practice (Angelides, Stylianou, & Leigh, 2007; Wenger, Mc-
Dermott, & Sneyder, 2002), constituted of a group of people
learning together by using common tools in the same environ-
ment. Therefore, knowledge is composed of a set of known
facts that are present in different people and that once shared,
are appropriated by the members of that group. This is known
under the generic name of Cooperative Learning and the coop-
erative organization of the classroom is achieved through Co-
operative Learning Methods (CLM).
CLM are systematic instructional procedures that are charac-
terized by divide the class into small groups of different levels
of heterogeneity and by carry the members those groups to be
maintain a positive interdependence through task, goal and
reward structures.
The application of cooperative pedagogy in the classroom is
not a simple process, and requires specific teacher training. The
design of teacher training programs for cooperative learning,
both for pre-service training (Dyson, 2001; Helleve, 2007; Si-
berry & Kearns, 2005, Sharan, 2002, 2010), as well as for on-
going training (Angelides, Stylianou, & Leigh, 2007; Emmer &
Stough, 2001; Hawkes, 2000; McGregor & Gunter, 2006; Solo-
mon, 2000), to strengthen peer interaction is a promising line of
research (Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 1999; León et al., 2011).
This line of research enables both the development of inte-
grated teacher-training projects such as the SELA Project (Al-
mog & Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1999) and the successful applications
of instructional topics fostered by cooperative learning and ap-
plied to teacher-training (Dettori, Giannetti, & Persico, 2006;
Slaouti, 2007; Taspinar, 2007).
Most of these research projects use a category system as a
control and measuring element (Veenman, van Benthun, Boot-
sma, van Dieren, & van der Kemp, 2002), extracted from the
analysis of the general dimensions of CLM conducted by S.
Kagan (1985), or based on the teaching of CLM, whose effi-
ciency has already been proven (Perkins & Saris, 2001).
An earlier study of the minimum contents of a teacher train-
ing program to ensure the development of cooperative learning
instructional design (Serrano & Gonzalez-Herrero, 1996) was
based on the results obtained in one of the first training experi-
ences in Spain (Calvo, Serrano, Gonzalez-Herrero, & Ato,
1994), based on the experiential approach (Sharan & Sharan
(1987). It is precisely this aforementioned design that we would
R. M. PONS ET AL.
like to submit to experimentation once it has been modified
following experiences that took place in seminars and teacher-
training courses (Cordero & Luna, 2010; Serrano et al., 2008),
in order to prove its effectiveness.
It is from this standpoint that our work hypothesis is based
on two premises. The first (H1) is that the essential elements for
setting up a cooperative classroom involve specifying relevant
elements of the philosophy of education and the nature of
learning, the structure of the learning task, the reward structure,
the formation of groups and students’ roles, the teacher’s role,
evaluation and resources (Serrano & Calvo, 1994). The second
(H2) is that since every knowledge-acquisition process is based
on prior knowledge, the impact of a training program may vary
among teachers, depending on their initial training and the
grades they teach (preschool, elementary, secondary school or
high school).
Method
Participants
Participation in the experiment was voluntary, and 76 teach-
ers from all educational levels signed up. They were motivated
to learn CLM as an alternative way of dealing with the prob-
lems (associated mostly with cognitive, ethnic and cultural di-
versity) in their classrooms. They came from areas with high
levels of immigration, and all of them had a somewhat contact
with cooperative learning.
The distribution of the seventy-six professionals, by cycles
and levels, is shown in Table 1.
Procedure
The activity was part of a weekly academic course with
three-hour-long sessions (100 academic hours) and consisted of
two alternating parts: lectures and cooperative seminar work.
The procedure was as follows: The first part was the presen-
tation of the activity and work methodology. Afterwards, they
were provided with the following program:
Theme 1: Introduction.
1.1. Systematization of the instructional process. 1.2. General
strategies of instruction. 1.3. Developmental stages and instruc-
tional process. 1.4. The construction of knowledge: Piaget and
Vigotsky. 1.5. The Piagetian and Vygotskian interpretation of
the interaction process. 1.6. The importance of peer interaction
for knowledge acquisition and objective achievement.
Theme 2: Instructional Process Design.
2.1. The need for design. 2.2. Design dimensions and com-
ponents. 2.3. Design phases. 2.4. Evaluation of design: efficacy
and efficiency of instructional design.
Theme 3: Cooperative Learning Methods.
3.1. Definition and general dimensions of Cooperative
Learning Methods: The psychological dimension and the social
dimension. 3.2. Specific dimensions of CLM: the underlying
philosophy of education, the nature of learning, the nature of
Table 1.
Sample distribution by cycle and educational level.
Level Preschool Elementary Secondary High
Cycle 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 1
Participants 0 21 10 107 15 8 5
cooperation and communication, students’ and teachers’ roles,
and Evaluation. 3.3. Implications for analysis of process find-
ings. 3.4. Examples and dimensional analyses of CLM.
Theme 4: The Cooperative Learning Environment.
4.1. Introduction: An ecological approach. 4.2. Analysis of
the situation. 4.3. Tools of the configuration process: Concep-
tual and procedural requirements. 4.4. Implementation of a co-
operative environment: Standards, principles, levels, and condi-
tions.
Theme 5: Classroom Organization.
5.1. Introduction. 5.2. Elements: Nature, role they play in the
system and means necessary for intervention. 5.3. Forms of
organization: Theoretical framework and interpretation per-
spectives.
Theme 6: The Role of the Teacher.
6.1. General introduction to the mediation processes. 6.2.
Areas of intervention. 6.3. Stages of the training process.
Theme 7: The Role of the Student.
7.1. Introduction. 7.2. Types of roles. 7.3. Areas of interven-
tion: Formal Learning Groups, Informal Learning Groups and
Base Groups. 7.4. Methodological considerations.
Theme 8: The Learning Activity in the Cooperative Class-
room.
8.1. Task structures. 8.2. Reward structure. 8.3. Structure of a
cooperative lesson. 8.4. Perspectives of interpretation: Cogni-
tive, practical and social cohesion.
Theme 9: Observation in the Cooperative Classroom.
9.1. Introduction. 9.2. Prerequisite issues of interaction ana-
lysis. 9.3. Recording and coding. 9.4. The Human Factor.
Upon completing the presentation, the participating teachers
were asked to use the idea they had regarding the design of a
cooperative learning activity, and based on their previous ex-
periences, to produce a design about a specific level and subject
matter they were teaching (initial design). They were given two
hours to design the activity.
Once the instructional design was produced, a photocopy
was made for the researcher and the participants kept the origi-
nal. Following this, there was a meeting scheduled for the fol-
lowing week (the activity was carried out on a specific day).
The nine units of the program were grouped in six Blocks
based on the theme: Block 1, Themes 1 and 2; Block 2, Theme
3; Block 3, Themes 4 and 5; Block 4, Themes 6 and 7; Block 5,
Theme 8; and Block 6, Theme 9.
These Blocks were conducted in two types of sessions: theo-
retical and practical. Theoretical sessions were composed of
two three-hour-long lectures. The first two hours covered a
theoretical presentation and the last one was dedicated to a
discussions and questions. Practice sessions or workshops, that
were carried out after the theoretical sessions were structured
cooperatively and interdependence was generated due to the
structure of the task.
Workshops were conducted as follows: 18 groups were
formed, composed of four or five members who taught at dif-
ferent educational levels. 14 groups had 4 members each and 4
had 5 members each.
Following this they were told the rules for group work. The
researcher’s role was also explained (responding to difficulties
that may arise, redirecting the action to the group and interven-
ing, when required but never providing an answer to a question).
The interaction between the groups was voluntary and could be
carried out freely.
Once the themes in Block 1 had been learned and an activity
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
292
R. M. PONS ET AL.
was designed based on the theme, there was an individual
evaluation session which was to make a new design (design
number 1). In this evaluation session participants were told the
following: ¨You have received and prepared information that
might make you rethink several things that you have developed
or did not consider in your initial design. You can take this
design and based on it prepare another one with the same con-
tents. If you think this design is correct you can leave it as is.¨
Then, just as before, a photocopy was made of the new de-
sign and was kept by the researchers. We proceeded the exact
same way with the other Blocks.
That way, at the end of the training program we had seven
designs: an initial one, and six that were prepared after teaching
each Block of contents.
Evaluation of the Designs:
To evaluate the designs produced by the teachers participat-
ing in the training program we used a system of constructs
based on the categories and dimensions identified in a coopera-
tive learning method (Kagan, 1985; Serrano & Calvo, 1994). A
measurement model was defined for each construct, which had
at least two indicators per construct.
These constructs (latent variables) and their indicators (ob-
served variables) were the following:
1) Philosophy of Education.
a) References to activities aimed at giving the students a
clear perspective on the purpose of their learning.
b) References to activities aimed at giving the students a
clear perspective of what cooperation is.
c) Clearly formulated objectives.
d) The difference between general, specific, and operative
objectives.
e) The difference between primary objectives (linked to the
achievement of the objectives) and secondary objectives (linked
to the act of cooperation itself).
f) The goal structure assumed with regards to learning (co-
operation, competition, individualization).
2) The Nature of Learning
a) The source of the objectives and educational contents was
specified.
b) There was a differentiation made between inter- and/or in-
tra-group objectives.
c) The materials and the information sources which the stu-
dents were going to use during the teaching/learning process
were specified.
d) The type of learning intended to be promoted was speci-
fied.
3) Structure of the Learning Task.
a) The structure of an intragroup learning task was correctly
detailed.
b) The presence or absence of an intergroup learning task
structure was justified.
4) Reward Structure.
a) The reward structure was correctly detailed.
b) The presence or absence of a competitive or cooperative
intergroup reward structure was detailed and justified.
5) Formation of Groups and Students’ Role.
a) The group size was specified and justified.
b) The composition of the group (criteria of group formation)
was specified and justified.
c) The existence or nonexistence of different types of groups
was specified and justified.
d) The communication relationships and hierarchy of stu-
dents among themselves were specified and justified.
6) Role of the Teacher.
a) The role of the teacher in the learning activity was clearly
specified.
b) The role of the teacher was complementary and conse-
quently to the role of the students.
c) The role of the teacher respected the constructive activity
of the students.
d) The scaffolding processes were taken into account.
e) The sociolinguistic contexts were taken into account.
7) Evaluation.
a) The structure of the task evaluation was correctly detailed.
b) The type of evaluation established (continuous/punctual,
formative/summative, etc.) was detailed and justified.
c) The evaluation sources and the role of each in the overall
evaluation of the process were detailed and justified.
d) The way to obtain the grade of the group was clearly
specified.
e) The percentage of the overall grade that a cooperative unit
received was specified and justified, and that was provided by
the group’s score (whether or not they have), and in their case,
the percentage of the overall grade provided by the cooperative
unit.
8) Identification and Material Resources.
a) The course, the unit, the lesson, etc., were correctly identi-
fied.
b) The physical organization was clearly specified.
c) The development time of the work unit was specified and
justified.
d) The presence or absence of training was specified and jus-
tified.
e) The material to use was described and justified.
To quantify each of these variables, the following grading
criteria were used:
1. Not appearing in the instructional design.
2. Appeared, but in an intuitive manner, and not in an explicit
form.
3. Appeared in an explicit way, but incorrectly, and in some
cases, contradictory in relation with other sections. There was
no justification, or this was incorrect.
4. Appeared in a manner explicit and correct, but the justifi-
cation was insufficient.
5. Correct in every sense.
Data Analysis
To analyze the data obtained, we have used an analysis of the
adjusted marginal means with a 95% interval of confidence. For
this the differential change scores have been defined so as to
quantify the inter-evaluation transition.
Due to the analytical complexity represented by the empirical
data observed, and taking into account our work hypotheses, we
decided to analyze the change of an evaluation to that following,
in all the evaluative contents of the training course program,
using those differential change scores. The analysis of the ad-
justed marginal means allowed us to determine which elements
of evaluation were superfluous.
This model of statistical analysis allowed us to prove both of
our hypotheses, and was prepared with Version 12.0 of the
statistical package SPSS.
I. Anal ysis of Category 1: Philosophy of Education.
Regarding the transition between the initial evaluation (initial
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 293
R. M. PONS ET AL.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
294
design) and the first of the designs, the 95% confidence inter-
vals include value 0 (that is, the mean of the observed changes
is not significant) in content (f) for the first and third educa-
tional levels. The averages of other change scores were statisti-
cally significant.
In the transition from the first corrected design to the second
one, the analysis of the adjusted marginal means reveals that
there are no significant differences in content (c) in the first and
fourth level, in content (d) in the third and fourth level and in
content (e) in the fourth educational level. The rest presents
confidence intervals that do not include value 0.
For the next transition, the change scores are minimal or null
and there are no significant differences between levels. As
shown in the table of estimated means, the change is null in the
first five contents and insignificant (of little significance) in the
last level, for all the educational levels.
We also found null change scores in contents (b) and (c), and
of little significance in the remaining contents (with the excep-
tion of (f)), in the transition from the third to the fourth design.
According to the table of estimated means, the change is sig-
nificant in contents (a) in the first level, (d) in the third level, (e)
in levels 1 and 4, and (f) in levels 1, 2 and 3.
The transition between the fourth and fifth design showed
that the change scores are null in contents (b) and (c). As may
be seen in the table of estimated means, the change is not sig-
nificant in contents (d) and (e) for the fourth educational level.
Finally, for the transition to the final design, we found that
change is null in all the contents and for all educational levels.
There is therefore no measurable change (Table 2).
II. Analysis of Category 2: Nature of Learning.
The analysis of estimated means in the transition from the
initial design to the first corrected design, reveals significant
differences in contents (a), (b) and (c) for all the educational
levels (with the exception of (b), for the high school level), but
not in content (d).
Regarding the following transition, all contents present a
significant change in high school level, in secondary school the
significance is found for contents (a), (b) and (d), and in pre-
school and elementary school, (b) and (d).
The transition from the second to the third design presents
null change in contents (a), (b) and (c), with the exception, in
this last case, of the high school level. In content (d) there is a
certain level of significance in the elementary school level.
The following transition between designs reveals null change
in content (c) and non significant differences at a high school
level for any of the contents.
Most relevant in the transition of the fourth to the fifth design
is the null change observed in content (c). The remaining con-
tents show a significant change in all the other educational lev-
els.
The transition between the fifth and the final design, in this
category, shows a null change in contents (a) and (c), and non
significant changes, or scarcely significant, in the rest (Table
3).
Table 2.
Confidence intervals at 95% for the philosophy of education category.
I1 12 23 34 45 5F
Item Level Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
1 .788 1.308 1.108 1.464 .000 .000 .115 .361 .306 .646 .000 .000
2 .956 1.414 .954 1.268 .000 .000 .071 .145 .776 1.076 .000 .000
3 1.143 1.640 1.047 1.388 .000 .000 .073 .161 .620 .945 .000 .000
a
4 1.067 2.133 1.035 1.765 .000 .000 .251 .251 .651 1.349 .000 .000
1 1.035 1.536 .951 1.239 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
2 1.334 1.777 .910 1.164 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
3 1.717 2.196 1.080 1.355 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
b
4 1.486 2.514 1.305 1.895 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
1 1.776 2.319 .010 .391 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
2 1.649 2.128 .156 .510 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
3 2.393 2.912 .113 .496 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
c
4 2.844 3.956 .011 .811 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
1 1.071 1.691 .019 .362 .000 .000 .096 .096 .398 .936 .000 .000
2 1.689 2.236 .034 .336 .000 .000 .048 .122 .244 .719 .000 .000
3 2.095 2.688 .250 .076 .000 .000 .037 .223 .699 1.214 .000 .000
d
4 2.964 4.236 .351 .351 .000 .000 .199 .199 .152 .952 .000 .000
1 1.533 2.086 1.008 1.469 .000 .000 .043 .242 .367 .776 .000 .000
2 1.904 2.392 .537 .944 .000 .000 .087 .087 .449 .810 .000 .000
3 2.084 2.612 .519 .959 .000 .000 .095 .095 .544 .934 .000 .000
e
4 2.834 3.966 .273 .673 .000 .000 .196 .604 .419 .419 .000 .000
1 .108 .203 2.239 2.714 .037 .194 .180 .677 .725 1.085 .000 .000
2 .048 .322 2.383 2.802 .050 .124 .262 .701 .508 .825 .000 .000
3 .105 .192 2.295 2.749 .051 .138 .328 .803 .654 .998 .000 .000
f
4 .282 .918 2.513 3.487 .203 .203 .510 .510 .031 .769 .000 .000
R. M. PONS ET AL.
Table 3.
Confidence intervals at 95% for the learning nature category.
I1 12 23 34 45 5F
Item Level Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
1 1.198 1.660 .084 .179 .000 .000 1.007 1.565 .329 .814 .000 .000
2 .944 1.352 .042 .190 .000 .000 .643 1.135 .527 .955 .000 .000
3 .823 1.264 .044 .256 .000 .000 .125 .658 1.464 1.927 .000 .000
a
4 .727 1.673 .130 .670 .000 .000 .172 .972 1.103 2.097 .000 .000
1 .687 1.313 1.071 1.310 .000 .000 .498 1.025 .531 1.088 .050 .050
2 .316 .869 .932 1.142 .000 .000 .731 1.195 .828 1.320 .073 .081
3 .266 .865 .886 1.114 .000 .000 .487 .991 1.386 1.918 .048 .048
b
4 .042 1.242 1.156 1.644 .000 .000 .140 .940 1.029 2.171 .103 .103
1 .798 1.297 .045 .045 .023 .474 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
2 1.150 1.590 .040 .040 .051 .467 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
3 1.110 1.586 .043 .043 .731 1.182 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
c
4 1.889 2.911 .106 .294 .083 .883 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
1 .070 .451 1.425 1.909 .072 .167 .721 1.184 .388 .850 .104 .104
2 .119 .341 1.268 1.695 .056 .217 .722 1.130 .092 .500 .091 .091
3 .249 .249 1.464 1.927 .027 .201 .518 .961 .345 .786 .074 .273
d
4 .535 .535 1.504 2.496 .245 .245 .074 .875 .527 1.473 .012 .413
III. Analysis of C a tegory 3: Task Structure.
Even though the thematic blocks (except for the last one),
have proven the importance of this category in the production
of a cooperative instructional design, it is worth emphasizing
the following facts:
First, the only non significant differences were found related
to high school level, and exceptionally, in the transition from
the initial design to the first corrected design, for content (b), in
teachers of compulsory secondary education. Second, these non
significant differences only occur in that transition and the one
pertaining to the transition from the second design to the third.
Finally, and as we have just mentioned, the transition to the
final design shows null change, in all categories and for all the
educational levels (Table 4).
IV. Analysis of Category 4: Reward Structure.
The evolution found in the reward structure is almost iso-
morphic with the task structure (see Table 5).
First, changes do appear in the transition from the fifth cor-
rected design to the final design, but the changes are not statis-
tically significant; and second, the lack of significance for the
high school group is produced in the transition from design
three to design four (though maintaining the change from sec-
ond to third for content (a)).
V. Analysis of Category 5: Group Formation and Role of the
Students.
The analysis of the estimated means in the transition from the
initial design to the first corrected design, reveals significant
differences in contents (a) and (d), but there is either no change
at all, or only non significant change for contents (b) and (c), in
any of the educational levels.
Regarding the transition between the designs 1 and 2, all the
contents present a significant change in all the educational lev-
els.
The transition of second to third design presents a non sig-
nificant change, and in the three cases where it was presented
(contents (a) and (c) for the first level, content (b) for the sec-
ond level and content (d)), neither its statistical nor its psycho-
logical significance is relevant.
The following inter-design transition (3-4) is very significant
from the content perspective for (c) and (d), and has little or no
significance from the (a) and (b) contents standpoint.
What is most relevant in the transition from the fourth to the
fifth design is the remarkable lack of significance presented by
contents (c) and (d) at the high school level.
In the transition between the fifth design and the final design,
there is a null or statistically non significant change in this
category, for every level and content (Table 6).
VI. Analysis of Category 6: Role of the Teacher.
The transition between the initial design and the first cor-
rected design shows very significant differences in their execu-
tion related to all the contents (except for content (e)). These
results are repeated in the transition 1-2, but this time they are
related to content (d). Non significant differences also appear
in content (c), for the preschool education and high school lev-
els.
The transition between the second and third designs reveals a
non-existent change in contents (a) and (b), and non significant
or minimum change for (c). In addition, the contents (d) (barely
significant differences in levels 1 and 4, and non significant in
level 3) and (e) (non significant in levels 2 and 3, and barely
significant in 4) show some differences which are not espe-
cially relevant for this category either.
The transition between designs three and four shows relevant
changes for all the contents of this category, except for content
(c) for the intermediate levels (compulsory elementary and
secondary school).
The shift from the fourth to the fifth corrected designs shows
a lack of change for contents (a) and (b), and very significant
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 295
R. M. PONS ET AL.
Table 4.
Confidence intervals at 95% for the structure of the learning task category.
I1 12 23 34 45 5F
Item Level Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
1 .671 1.233 .885 1.210 .209 .648 .132 .630 .732 1.077 .000 .000
2 .863 1.359 1.005 1.291 .362 .749 .262 .701 .737 1.041 .000 .000
3 1.079 1.616 1.149 1.459 .268 .688 .675 1.151 .400 .730 .000 .000
a
4 1.024 2.176 .867 1.533 .250 .650 .490 1.510 .246 .954 .000 .000
1 .034 .347 .224 .633 .406 .832 .316 .732 1.308 1.740 .000 .000
2 .010 .286 .042 .402 .256 .632 .298 .665 1.476 1.857 .000 .000
3 .062 .236 .109 .500 .101 .508 .541 .938 1.272 1.685 .000 .000
b
4 .120 .520 .181 1.019 .237 .637 .574 1.426 .757 1.643 .000 .000
Table 5.
Confidence intervals at 95% for the reward structure category.
I1 12 23 34 45 5F
Item Level Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
1 1.324 1.723 .415 .823 .175 .587 .352 .791 .663 1.051 .023 .118
2 1.157 1.509 .450 .810 .077 .441 .288 .675 1.014 1.356 .062 .062
3 1.027 1.408 .674 1.065 .107 .502 .443 .862 .510 .881 .024 .111
a
4 .591 1.409 .582 1.418 .022 .823 .049 .849 .802 1.598 .145 .145
1 .236 .621 .467 .867 .195 .662 .163 .599 1.822 2.178 .023 .119
2 .127 .466 .342 .695 .313 .724 .289 .674 1.695 2.009 .025 .099
3 .098 .358 .722 1.104 .212 .658 .139 .556 1.700 2.039 .067 .067
b
4 .394 .394 .590 1.410 .122 1.078 .047 .847 1.636 2.364 .145 .145
Table 6.
Confidence intervals at 95% for the student role category.
I1 12 23 34 45 5F
Item Level Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
1 .774 1.131 1.466 1.867 .035 .251 .040 .231 .660 .959 .000 .000
2 .472 .787 1.379 1.733 .021 .169 .028 .268 .757 1.021 .000 .000
3 .525 .866 1.808 2.192 .103 .103 .043 .217 .727 1.012 .000 .000
a
4 .634 1.366 1.589 2.411 .221 .221 .279 .279 .693 1.307 .000 .000
1 .000 .000 2.720 3.090 .103 .198 .505 .828 .102 .469 .000 .000
2 .000 .000 2.578 2.904 .089 .355 .058 .290 .579 .902 .000 .000
3 .000 .000 2.823 3.177 .099 .187 .067 .241 .651 1.001 .000 .000
b
4 .000 .000 2.621 3.379 .308 .308 .331 .331 .624 1.376 .000 .000
1 .023 .119 1.551 1.973 .088 .387 .853 1.147 .697 1.018 .000 .000
2 .025 .099 1.554 1.927 .020 .243 .908 1.166 .859 1.141 .000 .000
3 .067 .067 1.798 2.202 .143 .143 1.208 1.488 .499 .805 .000 .000
c
4 .145 .145 1.567 2.433 .306 .306 1.700 2.300 .329 .329 .000 .000
1 .782 1.027 .887 1.113 .084 .084 .923 1.268 .625 .994 .038 .133
2 .855 1.071 .826 1.026 .037 .112 .959 1.263 .652 .978 .016 .150
3 .839 1.074 .805 1.021 .037 .124 1.139 1.469 .519 .872 .082 .082
d
4 .749 1.251 .368 .832 .026 .373 1.646 2.354 .179 .579 .176 .176
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
296
R. M. PONS ET AL.
changes to the rest of the contents, except for (d) in the ele-
mentary education level.
Finally, the transition to the final design shows very signifi-
cant changes in content (a), and moderate changes in (e), with a
lack of significance for this last in the level of preschool educa-
tion. The change is null for the rest of the contents (Table 7).
VII. Analysis of Category 7: Evaluation.
The transition between the first two designs (initial and first
corrected design) shows a lack of change or differences of very
little significance in all the contents (except for content (b),
Level 2).
There are very significant differences in contents (a), (d)
and (e) in transition 1-2, and a lack of change in the other con-
tents.
The transition between the second and third design reveals
either no change, or non significant changes in all the contents,
since the change which appears in content (a) for the level of
preschool education seems to present no high level of signifi-
cance.
The transition between designs three and four shows a lack
of change in all the contents.
The shift from the fourth to the fifth designs shows a lack of
change for contents (b) and (c), and very significant changes for
the rest of the contents, and in all the educational levels.
Finally, the transition to the final design shows significant
changes in contents (d) and (e), with a lack of significance for
the first at the high school level, and a lack of change for the
rest of the contents (Table 8).
VIII. Analysis of Category 8: Identification and Material
Resources.
The transition between the initial design and the first cor-
rected design shows there has been no change for content (d).
The significance for the rest of the contents has been high (ex-
cept for content (c) in the high school level).
The shift from the first to the second design shows very sig-
nificant changes in content (d), and a lack of change for the rest
of the contents. This situation is repeated in transition 3-4,
while the transition from 2 to 3 shows no changes in any of the
contents, since the change which appears in content (a) for the
secondary school level appears to present no excessive signifi-
cance.
The transition between designs four and five presents a lack
of change in contents (a), (b) and (d), and a high level of sig-
nificance in (c) and (e).
The transition to the final design presents null change in all
the contents (Table 9).
Finally, to determine the homogeneity of the results between
the teachers of the different educational levels a comparison
was conducted among means which shows training differences
between high school and preschool teachers with the rest of the
educational levels. There were no differences between elemen-
tary and secondary teachers (Table 10).
Table 7.
Confidence intervals at 95% for the teacher role category.
I1 12 23 34 45 5F
Item Level Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
1 .508 .920 .676 1.038 .000 .000 .995 1.195 .000 .000 .422 .721
2 .263 .626 .877 1.197 .000 .000 .912 1.088 .000 .000 .720 .984
3 .455 .849 .870 1.217 .000 .000 .904 1.096 .000 .000 .857 1.143
a
4 .578 1.422 .629 1.371 .000 .000 .795 1.205 .000 .000 .693 1.307
1 .750 1.059 .960 1.136 .000 .000 .975 1.215 .000 .000 .000 .000
2 .642 .914 .922 1.078 .000 .000 .968 1.180 .000 .000 .000 .000
3 .722 1.017 .916 1.084 .000 .000 .972 1.202 .000 .000 .000 .000
b
4 .683 1.317 .819 1.181 .000 .000 .754 1.246 .000 .000 .000 .000
1 1.152 1.705 .118 .118 .035 .226 .162 .504 .609 1.010 .000 .000
2 1.238 1.725 .072 .215 .107 .337 .039 .262 .898 1.251 .000 .000
3 1.388 1.916 .017 .243 .125 .125 .033 .294 .852 1.235 .000 .000
c
4 1.433 2.567 .241 .241 .267 .267 .049 .751 .190 1.010 .000 .000
1 .589 .935 .106 .370 .016 .379 1.399 1.839 .091 .480 .000 .000
2 .736 1.042 .042 .190 .426 .759 1.176 1.565 .022 .319 .000 .000
3 .791 1.122 .082 .169 .049 .311 .790 1.210 .684 1.055 .000 .000
d
4 .645 1.355 .270 .270 .013 .787 .149 1.051 .603 1.397 .000 .000
1 .098 .283 .819 .990 .260 .597 .314 .639 .815 1.185 .032 .381
2 .081 .081 .962 1.112 .037 .260 .745 1.032 .762 1.089 .016 .353
3 .088 .088 .918 1.082 .074 .248 .801 1.112 .475 .829 .296 .661
e
4 .189 .189 .825 1.175 .054 .746 .267 .933 .620 1.380 .422 .721
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 297
R. M. PONS ET AL.
Table 8.
Confidence intervals at 95% for the evaluation category.
I1 12 23 34 45 5F
Item Level Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
1 .038 .437 .368 .775 .090 .386 .000 .000 1.035 1.346 .000 .000
2 .046 .398 .599 .957 .055 .204 .000 .000 1.011 1.286 .000 .000
3 .059 .321 .588 .977 .010 .271 .000 .000 .981 1.279 .000 .000
a
4 .408 .408 .583 1.417 .302 .302 .000 .000 .680 1.320 .000 .000
1 .117 .117 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
2 .638 .844 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
3 .112 .112 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
b
4 .239 .239 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
1 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
2 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
3 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
c
4 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
1 .000 .000 1.633 1.987 .014 .205 .000 .000 1.013 1.367 .606 1.013
2 .000 .000 1.659 1.971 .023 .171 .000 .000 1.029 1.341 .524 .883
3 .000 .000 1.700 2.039 .061 .149 .000 .000 .961 1.300 .284 .673
d
4 .000 .000 1.637 2.363 .226 .226 .000 .000 .637 1.363 .017 .818
1 .000 .000 1.739 2.166 .024 .097 .000 .000 .857 1.333 .351 .792
2 .000 .000 2.182 2.559 .044 .044 .000 .000 .383 .803 .102 .491
3 .000 .000 .368 .775 .047 .047 .000 .000 .512 .967 .311 .733
e
4 .000 .000 .599 .957 .103 .103 .000 .000 .312 1.288 .548 1.452
Table 9.
Confidence intervals at 95% of the activity and material resources category.
I1 12 23 34 45 5F
Item Level Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
Lower
Level
Upper
Level
1 .785 1.215 .000 .000 .096 .096 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
2 .884 1.264 .000 .000 .048 .122 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
3 1.273 1.684 .000 .000 .037 .223 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
a
4 1.559 2.441 .000 .000 .199 .199 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
1 1.950 2.050 .000 .000 .050 .050 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
2 2.956 3.044 .000 .000 .044 .044 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
3 2.909 3.004 .000 .000 .044 .091 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
b
4 2.897 3.103 .000 .000 .103 .103 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
1 1.858 2.142 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 1.622 1.902 .000 .000
2 1.875 2.125 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .766 1.012 .000 .000
3 .299 .570 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .823 1.090 .000 .000
c
4 .291 .291 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .714 1.286 .000 .000
1 .000 .000 2.812 3.092 .000 .000 .875 1.220 .000 .000 .000 .000
2 .000 .000 2.654 2.901 .000 .000 .996 1.300 .000 .000 .000 .000
3 .000 .000 2.779 3.047 .000 .000 .879 1.208 .000 .000 .000 .000
d
4 .000 .000 2.713 3.287 .000 .000 .647 1.353 .000 .000 .000 .000
1 .292 .756 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .241 .711 .000 .000
2 .351 .760 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .200 .615 .000 .000
3 .909 1.352 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .601 1.051 .000 .000
e
4 1.524 2.476 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .518 1.482 .000 .000
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
298
R. M. PONS ET AL.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 299
Table 10.
Comparisons among educational levels.
Comparisons t Significance
Preschool vs. Elementary Education 3.09 .01
Preschool vs. Secondary Education 3.31 .01
Preschool vs. High School 4.53 .001
Elementary Education vs. Secondary Education 0.62 n.s.
Elementary Education vs. High School 2.82 .01
Secondary Education vs. High School 3.14 .01
Discussion and Conclusion
The analysis of data results leads to the following conclu-
sions about the teacher training program:
The analysis of the first category, Philosophy of Education,
shows that contents of the core psychological concept of in-
struction (general and specific instructional theory), and of the
projective nucleus of this discipline, both from a general per-
spective (instructional design), and from a specific perspective
(cooperative instructional design) substantially improved the
teachers’ understanding of the importance of student activity in
the teaching/learning process. Therefore, the initial Blocks 1
and 2, pertaining to roles, and those of cooperative instructional
design (Blocks 4 and 5), have greater effect in teacher training.
The second category, The Nature of Learning, together with
the previous category, are apparently the contents of the tech-
nological and the theoretical dimensions which contribute most
in raising the teachers’ consciousness regarding the nature of
the learning. This is due, in part, to a deepened understanding
of the objectives of this dimension. However, with reference to
the previous dimension, in which the general elements seemed
to have a greater weight, it is the specific theoretical and tech-
nological elements of cooperative learning that have greater
relevance for this category. In addition, the conceptualization of
the roles of the teacher and of the students in the teach-
ing/learning process (Block 5 of the contents) appears comple-
mentary.
The third category, Structure of the Learning Task, is a cate-
gory that depends on all the training elements; therefore it im-
proved with each work session. Similarly, the general compo-
nents (Blocks 1 and 2) appeared more frequently in the in-
tra-group task structure than in the intergroup.
Regarding the fourth category, Reward Structure, as seen in a
comparative inspection of Tables 4 and 5, the patterns of im-
provement in the elaboration follow the task structure direction,
and all the contents of the different thematic blocks are the ones
that have occurred in the construction of a conceptual and pro-
cedural reward structure, acceptable within the different in-
structional designs. It is in the analysis of these two sequences
where the difference of educational “sensitivity" among the
teachers of the first educational levels (primarily those of pre-
school education) and those of the last educational levels
(mainly of high schools) is best outlined, since after each train-
ing activity there was always important improvement in the
first ones, which did not always happen with the latter.
In the fifth category, Students’ Roles, it can be observed that
the knowledge of the teaching/learning process determines the
consideration of the factors that enable the rationalization, ef-
fectiveness and efficiency on the teaching/learning process. In
this sense, both the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky pose the
need of a proper interaction process based, respectively, on
socio-cognitive conflict, or expert mediation. Based on this
knowledge, we can conclude that group size is important for an
effective interaction, and that it is necessary to specify the rela-
tionships of communication and hierarchy among students (ob-
servable variables or contents (a) and (b) of the category). How-
ever, it is more complex, for example, to perceive the possible
need for forming separate typological groups. Then again, this
situation can be very easily considered on the basis of the di-
mensional analysis of the CLM (Block 2 of contents). The
greatest improvements in the designs occur, therefore, after the
teaching of Content Blocks 2 (dimensional analysis of the CLM)
and 5 (cooperative instructional design), which specifically ad-
dress the elements of this category.
It is evident that after the introductory block the foundations
were laid for the sixth category, that is, the teachers’ role in the
knowledge acquisition process, and completed by the develop-
ment of Block 4 (roles) and Block 5 (instructional design). It is
for this reason that although there are differences between the
initial instructional design and the one developed after the first
training activity, there are significant differences in almost all
the indicators; this dimension is progressively completed with
the development of the specific blocks on cooperative learning,
basically, in what is called the observable variable (e), which
referred to the sociolinguistic contexts in which the instruction
is developed.
The analysis of the change in the seventh category, Evalua-
tion, has been shown as a slow but constant process. Although
the circumstances and the function of the evaluation were pre-
sent in the initial design, this category has been in process of
transformation to the point where it can be considered as the
"beginning" of the decision-making processes. In this sense, the
contents of Block 2 (Dimensional Analysis of the CLM) and 5
(Cooperative Instructional Design), besides, of course, the ob-
servational methodology (Block 6), have implied a change in
the evaluating culture of teachers participating in the experi-
ence.
Finally, the basic training for the eighth category, Identifica-
tion and Resource Materials, was provided by the initial block
of contents (Blocks 1), where 4 and 5 are acted as complemen-
tary blocks, for the observable variable (d), in which Blocks 2
and 4 raised the teachers’ awareness of the need for training in
prior skills for the functioning of the group, and Block 5 im-
proved the design timing.
According to the program’s effects on the production of co-
operative instructional designs, we can extract some basic con-
clusions with regarding our initial hypotheses.
First of all, we must emphasize the importance of coopera-
tive teacher training methodology (Calvo et al., 1994; Mc-
Gregor & Gunter, 2006), since none of the 76 participants in
the course obtained a score of less than three in any of the de-
sign dimensions. This means that all the dimensions appeared
in the task design in an explicit and appropriately, and in some
cases, it was necessary only to ask for a bit more elaboration of
the dimension involved.
Second, we must emphasize, just as O’Donnell & King (1999)
did, the relevance of the first thematic block in the production
of the design, since it has had an enormous influence in every
design dimension, except for the Evaluation category.
Third, and as expected, the categories related to the task
structure and to reward are those where there were major dif-
R. M. PONS ET AL.
ferences, which presupposes, due to the initial scores, that they
are what teachers know least about (Serrano et al., 2008, Ser-
rano & Pons, 2007; Serrano, Pons, & Calvo, 2008). This point
confirms the work of Dyson (2001), Veenman, Van Benthum,
Bootsma, Van Dieren, & Van der Kemp (2002) and Zhu, Val-
cke and Schellens (2010). In the fifth dimension (Formation of
Groups and Role of Students), teachers’ designs underlined the
detailed elaboration of group formation. This aspect, as proved
Helleve (2007) was the one participants emphasized the most.
Fourth, predictably, the last block had little thematic impact
in the production of the design, but we expect that it will be of
great use once the teachers address the implementation of the
cooperative instructional design in the classroom, particularly if
they consider the relevance of the type of language that students
use in their communication, especially in Exploratory Language
as proposed by Helleve (2007) and Mercer (2000). We believe
that this block is important so that it can produce knowledge
transfer: The transference of knowledge from the training pro-
gram to implementation is known to be very difficult and
shouldn’t taken for granted!
Fifth, it was a surprise to find such a negligible amount of in-
fluence on the design of thematic Block 3 (the Organization of
the Classroom and the Environment of Cooperative Learning),
except for the task structure and that of reward, in which we
could appreciate the influence of elements developed with re-
gards to classroom organization. However, contrary to the ex-
pected results based on previous research (Angelides, Stylianou
& Leigh, 2007; Slaouti, 2007), the need for creating a coopera-
tive environment for learning has not appeared in any of the
components of the cooperative instructional design, perhaps
because by its very definition, the psychology of instruction
deals with the processes of teaching and learning produced in
environments specifically designed for generating them, the
classroom. In any event, due to the present results and the re-
sults obtained by other researchers (Helleve, 2007), this block
of contents must be an object of further research.
Finally, we found differences in performance among the
teachers of different educational levels, especially high school
teachers (less elaborated designs), and teachers of preschool
(more elaborated ones). The first group perhaps because of their
lack of psycho educational training, and the second because
they are more interested in the children having a clear predis-
position toward the psychocentric design (centered on students),
coupled with the lesser rigidity they perceive in the curriculum
contents. In contrast, the teachers of elementary education and
of compulsory secondary education have been shown to be
much more homogeneous, perhaps because a high percentage
of secondary school teachers come from elementary schools.
REFERENCES
Almog, T., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1999). Teachers as peer learner:
Professional development in an advanced computer learning envi-
ronment. In A. M. O’Donnell, & A. King (Eds.), The Rutgers Invita-
tional Symposium on Education Series: Cognitive perspectives on
peer learning (pp. 285-311). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-
ciates.
Angelides, P., Stylianou, T., & Leigh, J. (2007). The efficacy of col-
laborative networks in preparing teachers. European Journal of
Teacher Education, 30, 135-149.
doi:10.1080/02619760701273953
Calvo, M. T., Serrano, J. M., González-Herrero, M. E., & Ato, M. (1994).
Formación de profesores: Una experiencia de elaboración y aplica-
ción de métodos de aprendizaje cooperativo en las aulas de educa-
ción Infantil, Primaria y Secundaria. Memoria de Investigación.
Madrid: D.G.I.C.Y.T. del Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia.
Cordero, G., & Luna, E. (2010). Retos de la evaluación de los pro-
gramas de formación de profesores: el caso de un programa en méto-
dos de aprendizaje cooperativo. Revista Iberoamericana de Evalua-
ción Educativa, 3, 193-201.
Cottrill, J. F. (2000). Students’ understanding of the concept of chain
rule in first year calculus and the relation to their understanding of
composition of functions. Dissertation Abstracts International, Sec-
tion A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 60, 3941.
Dettori, G., Giannetti, T., & Persico, D. (2006). SRL in Online Coop-
erative Learning: Implications for pre-service teacher training. Euro-
pean Journal of Education, 41, 397-414.
doi:10.1111/j.1465-3435.2006.00273.x
Dyson, B. (2001). Cooperative learning in an elementary physical edu-
cation program. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20, 264-
281.
Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroom management: A cri-
tical part of educational psychology, with implications for teacher
education. Educational P s ych olog ist, 36, 103-112.
doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3602_5
Hawkes, M. (2000). Structuring computer-mediated communication for
collaborative teacher development. Journal of Research and Devel-
opment in Education, 33, 268-277.
Helleve, I. (2007). In an ICT-based teacher-education context: Why
was our group “the magic group”? European Journal of Teacher
Education, 30, 267-284. doi:10.1080/02619760701486118
Hoy, A. W., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1999). Implications of cognitive
approaches to peer learning for teacher education. In A. M. O’Don-
nell, & A. King (Eds.), The Rutgers Invitational Symposium on Edu-
cation Series: Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 257-284).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative
learning methods: A meta-analysis. Minneapolis: University of Min-
nesota.
Kagan, S. (1985). Dimensions of cooperative classroom structures. In R.
Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R.
Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp.
67-96). New York: Plenum Press.
Kennett, D. J., Young, A. M., & Berrill, D. P. (1999). Is cooperative
learning effective for high achieving entrance students? Implications
for policy and teaching resources. Journal of Research and Devel-
opment in Education, 33, 27-35.
Kumpulainen, K., & Kaartinen, S. (2000). Situational mechanisms of
peer group interaction in collaborative meaning-making: Processes
and conditions for learning. European Journal of Psychology of Edu-
cation, 15, 431-454. doi:10.1007/BF03172986
León, B., Felipe, E., Iglesias, D., & Latas, C. (2011). El aprendizaje
cooperativo en la formación inicial del profesorado de Educación
Secundaria. Rev i s t a d e Educación, 354, 715-729
McGregor, D., & Gunter, B. (2006). Invigorating pedagogic change.
Suggestions from findings of the development of secondary science
teachers’ practice and cognisance of the learning process. European
Journal of Teacher Education, 29, 23-48.
doi:10.1080/02619760500478498
Mercer, N. (2000). Words & Mind. How we use language to think to-
gether. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203464984
O’Donnell, A. M., & King, A. (1999). The Rutgers Invitational Sympo-
sium on Education Series: Cognitive perspectives on peer learning.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Oja, S. N. (2000). The unique place of role-taking and reflection in
collaborative action research. In A. L. Comunian, & U. P. Gielen (Eds.),
International perspectives on human development (pp. 531-549).
Lengerich: Pabbst Science Publishers.
Peklaj, C., & Vodopivec, B. (1999). Effects of cooperative versus indi-
vidualistic learning on cognitive, affective, meta-cognitive and social
processes in students. European Journal of Psychology of Education,
14, 359-373. doi:10.1007/BF03173120
Salganik, L. H., Rychen, D. S., Moser, U., & Konstant, J. W. (1999).
Projects on competencies in OECD contexts: analysis of theoretical
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
300
R. M. PONS ET AL.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 301
and conceptual foundations. Neuchâtel: Swiss Federal Statistical Of-
fice.
Salomon, G. (2001). Distributed cognitions. Psychological and educa-
tional considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Serrano, J. M., & Calvo, M. T. (1994). Aprendizaje cooperativo. Técni-
cas y análisis dimensional. Murcia: Obra Cultural de Cajamurcia.
Serrano, J. M., Calvo, M. T., Pons, R. M., Moreno, T., & Lara, R. M.
(2008). Training teachers in cooperative learning methods. IASCE
Conference. Turín: IASCE.
Serrano, J. M., & González-Herrero, M. E. (1996). Cooperar para
aprender. ¿Cómo implementar el aprendizaje cooperativo en el aula?
Murcia: DM/PPU Editores.
Serrano, J. M., & Pons, R. M. (2007). Cooperative learning: We can
also do it without task structure. Intercultural Education, 18, 215-
230. doi:10.1080/14675980701463562
Serrano, J. M., & Pons, R. M. (2011). El constructivismo hoy: Enfo-
ques constructivistas en educación. Revista Electrónica de Investiga-
ción Educativa, 13, 1-27.
Serrano, J. M., Pons, R. M., & Calvo, M. T. (2008). Reward structure
as a tool to generate interdependence in higher education. IASCE
Conference. Turín: IASCE.
Sharan, Y. (2002). Essential features of a teacher education program for
cooperative learning. A sia Pacific Journal Education, 22, 68-74.
doi:10.1080/0218879020220107
Sharan, Y. (2010). Cooperative learning for academic and social gains:
Valued pedagogy, problematic practice. European Journal of Educa-
tion, 45, 300-310. doi:10.1111/j.1465-3435.2010.01430.x
Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1987). Training teachers for cooperative
learning. Educational Le ader shi p, 45, 20-25.
Siberry, L., & Kearns, H. (2005). An intercultural approach to chal-
lenging issues in Northern Ireland teacher education. European Jour-
nal of Teacher Education, 28, 259-266.
doi:10.1080/02619760500269350
Slaouti, D. (2007). Teacher learning about online learning: experiences
of a situated approach. European Journal of Teacher Education, 30,
285-304. doi:10.1080/02619760701486126
Solomon, R. P. (2000). Exploring cross-race dyad partnerships in learn-
ing to teach. Teachers Co l l e g e Record, 102, 953-979.
doi:10.1111/0161-4681.00088
Taspinar, M. (2007). The cooperative learning method in teacher train-
ing. International Journal of Educational Reform, 16, 54-70.
Veenman, S., van Benthum, N., Bootsma, D., van Dieren, J., & van der
Kemp, N. (2002). Cooperative learning and teacher education. Tea-
ching and Teacher Education, 18, 87-103.
doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00052-X
Waxman, H. C., Padrón, Y. N., & Arnold, K. M. (2001). Effective in-
structional practices for students placed at risk of academic failure. In
G. D. Borman et al. (Eds.), Compensatory education at the cross-
roads (pp. 137-170). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Sneyder, W. (2002). Cultivating com-
munities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Zhu, Ch., Valcke, M., & Schellens, T. (2010). A cross-cultural study of
teacher perspectives on teacher roles and adoption of online collabo-
rative learning in higher education. European Journal of Teacher
Education, 33, 147-165. doi:10.1080/02619761003631849