Can Cooperative Learning Achieve the Four Learning Outcomes of Physical Education? A Review of Literature

By A. Casey, Victoria A. Goodyear. 2015

305 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Physical learning, cognitive learning, social learning, and affective learning are positioned as the legitimate learning outcomes of physical education. It has been argued that these four learning outcomes go toward facilitating students’ engagement with the physically active life (Bailey et al., 2009; Kirk, 2013). With Cooperative Learning positioned as a pedagogical model capable of supporting these four learning outcomes (Dyson & Casey, 2012), the purpose of this review was to explore the empirical research in the use of Cooperative Learning in physical education reported on the achievement of learning in the physical, cognitive, social, and affective domains (or their equivalents). The review found that while learning occurred in all 4 domains, the predominant outcomes were reported in the physical, cognitive, and social domains. Affective learning was reported anecdotally, and it became clear that more work is required in this area. The article concludes by suggesting that research into the outcomes of this and other pedagogical models needs to focus on learning beyond the initial instructional unit and extend over a period of years and not just weeks.

Subfields: Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2a292dff1c9bb7cbf35bbb5274d62a1c37aec6e2

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Impact of a sustained Cooperative Learning intervention on student motivation (2017, methodology): “…of this model on students’ motivation and engagement (Dyson and Strachan 2000, 2004; Dyson, Linehan, and Hastie 2010; Goodyear, Casey, and Kirk 2014; Lafont, Proeres, and Vallet 2007), but all of them ‘rely on teachers’ and students’ subjective interpretation’ (Casey and Goodyear 2015, 65).”
Hybridizing pedagogical models: A systematic review (2018, methodology): “Finally, CL was the least often hybridized PM despite numerous implementations of the model alone (Casey and Goodyear, 2015; Gillies, 2014).”
Perspectives of Students with Disabilities Toward Physical Education: A Qualitative Inquiry Review (2015, methodology): “Five systematic steps, utilized by Shulruf (2010) and Casey and Goodyear (2015), guided this review.”