Training Teachers in Cooperative Learning

Methods
José Manuel Serrano, Maria Teresa Calvo, Rosa Maria Pons,
Universidad de Murcia (España)
Tiburcio Moreno, Rosamary Selene Lara, Universidad Autónoma del
Estado de Hidalgo (México)

Introduction
The (CLM) Cooperative Learning Methods are systematic instructional strategies that
present two general characteristics: the division of the class group in small heterogeneous
teams which represent the total population of the classroom and the creation of systems
with positive interdependence by means of specific task and reward structures (Serrano and
Bald, 1994).
Keeping in mind these two characteristics we can define a Cooperative Learning Method
(CLM) as "an educative training system in which the job itself: a) is not exclusively
determined by the academic product, b) it is oriented toward a common goal and c) it is
performed in small groups of a certain and internal diversity" (Serrano and González-
Herrero, 1996; p. 44). This is to say, there exist some secondary objectives which seek the
improvement of the social relations in order to reach both the primary objectives, (the
academic ones), and the secondary objectives (the social ones). The student/student relation
is emphasized without lessening the teacher/student relations.
However, and in spite of the common characteristics, each CLM is a unique solution for the
educational activities organization. In this sense many works has been carried out in order
to isolate the origin of the unsteadiness that makes possible the coexistence of the different
methods, in other words, they have tried to find what is called the format.
The format of a CLM is determined, among others aspects, by its dimensional structure that
should be defined through a set of exhaustive and mutually exclusive categories which
Training Teachers in Cooperative Learning Methods 2

enable its identification. These categories, which were defined by Kagan (1985), are: the
education philosophy, the nature of the learning, the nature of the cooperation, the role
performed by the students and the types of communication that are established, the role
that performs the teacher and the evaluation.
The existing interrelation among the dimensions of these categories is the characteristic that
configures all and each one of the Cooperative Learning Methods and justifies the need of
the instructional design.
Every instructional design has an ideological component that rests, in last instance, upon
three conceptions:
 the learning and its purpose,
 the concept of the subject that learns
 The role that «the others» play in the learning act.
In this sense, the cooperative learning method design has to consider:
The perspective that the student has with regard to the purpose of learning and the fact
of cooperate.
The teacher perspective respect to the educational objectives (primary or oriented
toward the contents acquisition and secondary or centered in the act of cooperation
itself).
The exposition, in an explicit way, of the suppositions or the goal structures that are
assumed upon the learning, the cooperation, the competition and, in its case, the
individuality.
The determination of the objectives origin and teaching contents.
The detailed description of the aspects that make reference to the complexity of the
learning task and to the diversity of the information (type of learning, structure of goal,
task and reward structures, and materials and available information resources to the
students along all the process, we should not forget that the main reason why distinct
CLM can produce different types and degrees of cooperation, is the fact that each one
of them creates a particular task and reward structure, which determines the quantity
and the type of interdependence and social facility established among the students. The
cooperative task and reward structures are characterized for provoking well a positive
and mutual interdependence, or well a positive facility among the components of the
group (Bond and Titus, 1983). We say that the students establish a positive and mutual
interdependence if the success of each member of the group is necessary for the success
of the rest.
The specification of the differences, intra and inter groups, that are going to be
performed (curriculum adaptations, etc.) and the reason why they are executed
(curriculum adaptation to the students psychological characteristics, to the social and
educative surrounding etc.)
The formation and the types of teams, remarking their degree of diversity (equality
parameter) and, consequently, the students role and the hierarchy that they establish
Training Teachers in Cooperative Learning Methods 3

among themselves (collaboration, cooperation and tutor work), and communication

type (reciprocity parameter).
The teacher role that, although it can vary a lot inside each one of the possible
methods, should keep in mind three basic elements for her or her intervention in the
cooperative classroom:
the constructive activity of the student, that allows a set of processes which are currently
considered as key elements for the comprehension of the interactive processes that are
established among the teacher, the student, the contents and the educational objectives
(Serrano and Pons, in press);
the scaffolding processes that do refer to the need of the teacher’s action "adjustment"
to the needs that the students find during the resolution of the educational tasks, in
order to make possible the creation of “proximal development zones” in the interactive
process, which permit a coherent analysis of the notions by means of "mayor balance
processes"; and
the social and linguistic contexts that (based on the communication ethnography works,
the ethno methodology applied to education, the analysis of the educational speech
and the analysis of the communication in the classroom) respond not only to the
question of how the language is learned but also how one learns through the use of the
language, we mean, it is about to know “the language function in the interactions
between the teacher and the student and among equals" (Green, 1983; p. 168).
The evaluation, which only has the requirement of being made by an implied element
in the basic unit of analysis (interactive triangle) of the teaching and learning processes.
The evaluation source is, therefore, an inner one, resting on either exclusively the
teacher, either both teacher and students. Regarding to the diagnosis, integration and
formation characteristics of the evaluation, the Cooperative Learning Methods use to
adopt a mixed position where the degree of incidence of each one of the types is
usually very variable, mainly regarding to the integration or formation character of the
evaluation.
Finally, the empirical aspect of the evaluation also uses to present a great variability, but it
could be reduced to five types of performances: conceptual tasks, exhibitions of the subject,
matches, examinations and tests. In general, as a guideline in the evaluation within different
CLM, it could be said that the evaluation process considers, not only the achievement of the
specified objectives for the group (group score) or for the student (individual score), but
also the contributions of the student to the group, or the team contributions to the rest of
the teams (if inter-group cooperation existed).
The elaboration and subsequent application of a Cooperative Learning Method is not an
easy task and, therefore, it requires a specific preparation of the teaching staff that allow
them to be able to develop, as well as in the theoretical field, as well as in the empirical
one, a classroom organization able to answer to the real needs of students and to the
learning object contents.
Training Teachers in Cooperative Learning Methods 4

In fact, independently that the teacher generates and controls her own formation process,
and that such process be organized and developed by experts or that it had been the result
of the teachers formation coordinated action, the fact is that for the existence of such a
process it turns out to be essential the intentional participation of the subject itself. Once the
importance of the paper played by the teacher in formation has been recognized, we
should consider two derived aspects from its own reality which are necessary to keep in
mind when we talk about her formation. The first one is the privileged position the teacher
has in the society since necessary instruments for her own progress are available: she
dominates a portion of knowledge as well as the necessary methods and techniques for its
utilization and/or enlargement, she has the necessary channels to manage her own
formation project, and she takes part of a context that, due to its own nature and elements
(personal and institutional ones) supports the development of teacher’s professional
competence. The second aspect that is derived from the previous one, is her responsibility
as a member of the society, because not in vain he is immersed in a learning context in
which interpersonal relations have to assure the development of the subjects that are
formed, as well as that of the own educative trainers; for that reason, the change that the
formation has generated in her personal project must result in benefit of the society through
the basic element of its progress, the school, which is the educative unit by excellence and
from whose professional team is part of.
This responsibility forces her to bring into play her knowledge, capacities and skills for the
correct accomplishment of such processes and to develop an innovating attitude that
maintains her progressive personal and professional growth.
These two contexts, the classroom and the Center, in which the teacher develops her
activity, constitute the reference frameworks of the formation that configures her personal
and professional development. In a global way, the teaching staff formation can be
structured around four types of knowledge: psychological and pedagogical, of the content,
didactic and of the context (Marcelo, 1994), from which a base formation can be obtained
and that will have to be, at any moment, susceptible of extension and specification.
The psychological and pedagogical knowledge is integrated by those knowledge that make
reference to the learning processes (elements that integrate them, principles that govern
their development), to their configuration (educative conceptions, planning, designs) and to
its determinants (legal, social, economic, cultural).
The knowledge of the content is integrated by the constituent concepts of that specific field
and by the procedures that the subject must develop in the process followed for the
attainment of the knowledge objects.
The didactic knowledge is integrated by the combination of two types of knowledge: those
who come from the curricular topic contents and those who come from the psychological
and pedagogical didactic scope. This knowledge, as an element that structures the
pedagogical thought, also determines the coherence of teaching-learning processes, because
in the pedagogical thought the contributions of the different teacher formation scopes come
together, educative reality is interpreted from it and, based on that interpretation,
intervention is structured.
Training Teachers in Cooperative Learning Methods 5

The knowledge of the context is integrated by those knowledge that make reference to the
different systems (social, cultural, personal, material) of educative reality, from within and
outside the classroom, (Yinger, 1991), and that determine the characteristics that will define
the educative surroundings. The acquisition of this knowledge will have to facilitate the
development of capacities and skills, and the construction of flexible and open attitudes that
cause an integrative a proper conception of the classroom.
Now a day, a very important element to determine the quality of the educative activities
carried out in a classroom is the teaching staff formation and this for two reasons:
 At classroom level, because the analysis of the learning context and the structural
elements of the educative action (tasks, subjects, media, etc.) that teachers will
inescapably have to do to carry out the educative action, will put their professional
capacity on test,
 At Center level because the joined work of the educational team (organizational
structure, interdisciplinary communication, curricular designs, formation management,
and educational practice) enriches her knowledge as well and makes favourable her
professional progress, demanding her also a continuous overcoming of the contributions
that has to do as a professional.
Consequently, the teaching staff formation must integrate knowledge and investigation,
because if the already analyzed knowledge is essential, it can not be ignored the importance
of intervention and its justification (by means of the observation of actions, the analysis of
processes, the products valuation and the reflection on the results).
However, in order to adapt this formation to teachers’ ´necessities, considering the
classroom reality diversity and the own society evolution, the following requirements must
be fulfilled:
 To foster the change and the innovation, and to reactivate the learning in the teachers
and their educational practice.
 The adaptation into the educative reality in which the teachers are with the purpose of
being able to satisfy the needs that could arise to them during the development of the
classroom activity.
 To combine the individual work with the collaboration and the cooperation in order to
pay attention, on one hand, to the differential characteristics of the personal teachers
identities, making possible its enrichment by means of the diversity of perspectives and
strategies offered by the group and, on the other one, to the identity formed by the
teachers team in formation or by the Center they belong to, and simultaneously it
makes sure the individualities distinction that integrates it.
Attending to all these suppositions, we have proposed a teaching staff formation process in
Cooperative Learning Methods that we analyze on the next pages and that begins from a
very concrete hypothesis.
Training Teachers in Cooperative Learning Methods 6

Hypothesis Approach
Our general hypothesis begins from the fact that any possible configuration of a learning
activity is always made within the framework of a concrete methodology conception and it
is carried out in three phases (design, development and evaluation) which put in relief the
role played by the formation process agents and their intervention scopes. From a
cooperative conception of the classroom, these interventions could materialize in the
following ways:
 In the design phase, the teacher must adapt the imposed demands by the own
methodology conception with the determined ones by the integral elements of the
formation process and with the educative reality characteristics. Although it is
performed by the teacher, students take part in this phase in an indirect form generally,
through their personal characteristics, their needs and aspirations and, finally, through
the commitment shown at the end of the previous lesson.
 In the development phase the teacher must adapt the interventions of the formation
process elements to the arisen needs from its own development, orienting the learning
accomplishment and facilitating the decision making by the group; the students
intervention, characterized by a progressive protagonism, must include the
accomplishments scope such as the management, depending on the autonomy level of
the group and the inter-group relations nature.
 In the evaluation phase, the protagonism of the agents is derived from the responsibility
assumed in the accomplishment of the learning process, thus, it will be a matter of
competition of the teacher to value the fulfillment of the forecasts done in reference
with the elements that integrate it, to the interventions and the objectives; on the other
hand, the students will have to participate in the valuation of the personal and group
objectives attainment, assuming their responsibility, following the teacher orientations
and coming up to make the corresponding corrections, if necessary.
HG= Under these suppositions, a teaching staff formation activity in cooperative learning
techniques must make possible to the teacher who carries out, this three-phase development
in a harmonic way.
H1: The formation activity in techniques of cooperative learning must rest on the
most prominent dimensions and be completed with a cooperative work as an
inherent methodology to that activity.
Respecting faithfully the pursuit of these acting parameters we set out to verify the
experimental hypothesis that has guided us throughout the development of this work:
Ho: If we present a teaching staff formation activity in cooperative work
techniques based on the consideration of the most excellent CLM dimensions, from
a practical point of view eminently, and at the same time we make possible a
reflection on the rest of the dimensions, and we complete the information with
the personal experience of the teachers through the own methodology activity
organization (different cooperation forms), then we will have obtained an integral
Training Teachers in Cooperative Learning Methods 7

formation of all the teachers that makes possible to them to carry out the activities
design in a cooperative classroom organization.

Methodology
Subjects
The sample was selected from the whole population of Murcia Region teachers belonging
to the different educative levels (Infantile Education, Primary Education and Secondary
Education). The numerical balance between groups and the proportionality in reference to
the place has been maintained the selection of the participants in the formation activity was
made as follows:
In the first place a public call was established, in collaboration with the Provincial Direction
Programs Unit of the Education and Science Ministry from Murcia, and through the
Teachers and Resources Centers of this Community. Subsequently a period of pre-inscription
was settled down which carried out to a selection candidates in which the contributed data
and the results of an interview that tried to determine the applicant motivation for the
activity accomplishment were valued. The general criteria for the selection were the
following ones:
1. Agreement of the Teachers Cloister where the applicant was ascribed for the activity
accomplishment.
2. To have students who belong to ethnic and/or cultural minorities (native or not) or with
some kind of deficiency (physical, psychic or sensorial) integrated in the class.
3. To be in definitive property in the Center.
4. To have a minimum English language dominion (translation level).
5. To have application and schedule availability.
The initial selection leads to obtain a sample of 29 teachers who began to do the formation
activity. Nevertheless, after the successive evaluations and the own experimental loss of life
of these activities, the subjects that concluded the complete experience (theoretical and
practical phase) were 24.
The attribution of these 24 teachers was the following: 8 from Infantile Education, 6 from
Primary Education, 8 from Secondary Education, 1 from the Orientation Service and 1 from
the Teachers and Resources Center.

Procedure

In order to a clearer explanation, we have differentiated the working procedure and the
evaluation one.
Training Teachers in Cooperative Learning Methods 8

Working procedure.-: We distinguish two kinds of formative activities: a) Theoretical

teachers training and b) Empirical teachers training in Centers with the aid of a Permanent
Seminar on MAC.

Theoretical teachers training

This phase took 132 hours and included a practical and a evaluative activities as well (87
hours of specific theoretical formation, 20 hours of practices and 25 hours of evaluation)
These activities were made in the Developmental Psychology and Education Department’s
classroom (Faculty of Education of Murcia University). This classroom has mobile furniture
so that students can be organized in working teams easily.
Teachers received two three hours classes a week, during 15 weeks.
Contents were organized as follows:
1.- Introduction:
Educative process systematization
Psychological basis of classroom cooperative organization
2.- The cooperative learning
MAC
The cooperative learning environment
Classroom cooperative organization
Teacher and pupil roles in a cooperative methodology
Task and reward structures
Leaning activities in a cooperative classroom
Cooperative learning and creativity
3. Methodological questions
Observation processes in a cooperative classroom.
The first topic aimed to introduce the methodological question into the frame of the
educative process systematization. It gets 3 hours of class combining lecture and debate on
the necessity of specifying the interactive process to improve the reaching of objectives.
After this first topic students were asked to design a MAC (MAC-0) on some content to be
taught in their classrooms toward the end of the academic year. As a general aspect of the
procedure, teachers have to reformulate the proposed MAC as results of the new
information received in the theoretical sessions, So that at the end of the formative process
we had 5 MACS (block 1: MAC-1, block 2: MAC-2, block 3: MAC-3; practices: MAC-4; and
Empirical formation in Centers: MAC-5). The class methodology differed inter sessions, in
order to facilitate the personal experience of students and consequently the possibility of
comparing and evaluating.
For the second topic we chose a group working methodology, which didn’t accomplish the
requirements of a MAC, to provide the student the opportunity of differentiate between an
asystematic group interaction and a very structured one, as it is the case of a MAC.
Training Teachers in Cooperative Learning Methods 9

All the block 2 was organize according to a Cooperative learning Methodology. After each
topic, the class organization was changed, with new teams and/or modifying some
dimension of the method (task structure, lecturer role or students role).
Each of the topics of block 2 started with a 3 hours lecture, and then the students
elaborated a document on the basis of the recommended bibliography. The document was
evaluated by means of an auto evaluative process into the own team, the rest of teams’
evaluation and lecture’s evaluation. All the evaluations had to be justified.
The block 3 was on observational methodology and classroom observation, and we
selected the works of Anguera (1990) and Serrano (2003) for the general aspects, and those
of Bakeman (Bakeman & Gotman, 1989; Bakeman & Quera, 1996). The method we used in
this case was the traditional masterful lesson. And was evaluated by means of the
elaboration and categorization by all the participants in the formative process (the teachers
as well) of a classroom observational guide.
fter this block, a new revision of the MAC was made (MAC-3) for students. This last version
had to be applied in their classrooms as a practical activity. Once carried out this practice,
there were several tutorial sessions with each of the participants to comment this process
and suggest the necessary modifications; the resultant method was the MAC-4.

Empirical teachers training in Centers

The second phase of the program was covered along the whole academic year, and
consisted on the organization of teachers’ classes in terms of the Cooperative Learning
Method they had developed during the previous phase (MAC-IV), as well as a Permanent
Seminar each 15 days, in 3 hours sessions. All the difficulties found in class were analysed
and solved in the Seminar. In case that some problem couldn’t be solved in these sessions,
one of the lectures went to the Center to help in the resolution in situ.
Once ended the academic year teachers had to do a final revision of their proposed method
on the basis of the empirical experience (MAC-5). >This final formulation was not applied.
Evaluation procedure.- To asses the learning process, we proceeded to evaluate the
different MACS proposed for participants in the different moments (MACS 0-5) in terms of
the ten basic elements defined by ourselves as necessaries to develop any content by mean
of a cooperative methodology (Serrano & González-Herrera, 1996; pp-202-210). These are:
1. Lesson identification
2. Academical objectives
3. Social objectives
4. Direct interaction
5. Positive interdependency
6. Group process
7. Individual responsibility
8. Task assignation
9. Product presentation
10 Lesson evaluation
Training Teachers in Cooperative Learning Methods 10

The MACS evaluation guide can be seen in Annexes. It was developed by a Likert scale with
five levels:
1. It does not appear
2. Slight and not proper appearance
3. Slight and proper appearance
4. It is developed but not completely
5. Proper and completed development

Statistical Analysis
The data analysis was done by means of a random block design taking the subjects factor as
the block variable and the CLM sequential factor as the inter-subjects variable. As
dependent variables they were used the questionnaire variables grouped by categories.
Category I (lesson identification) was eliminated because it was not outstanding for our
investigation and because it did not contribute to a substantive valuation for our results.
In order to generate the analysis, the averages by minimum squares were obtained for the
different subjects who completed the experience (twenty four) and for the different
temporary measures that were determined by the six CLM elaborations. The analysis was
performed with the SYSTAT statistical package (tenth version). The F values in the different
analysis of variance threw highly significant results, for all the dependent variables, in both
factors (subjects factor and sequence factor), with values of p <,001, exception that was
done from the global valuation, where the p value, in the subjects factor, threw a meaning
of p < .01

Results and Conclusions

In accordance with the made analysis we can establish a set of results that can be better
interpreted if consulting the graphics we enclosed. These graphs or diagrams are represented
in axes of Cartesian coordinates that correspond to the profiles, for the nine dependent
variables that were the evaluated categories in the different CLM (Y-axis), obtained from
the averages of the two dependent variables or factors (subjects and time) in those
categories (X-axis). We go next to carry out a detailed study of the elements of our analysis.
In the first place all the analysis of variance allows us to conclude, without any doubt, that
there exist significant differences in all the analyzed categories for the time factor and in all
the subjects. In other words, all the subjects learned, in a significant statistically way, in each
one of the formation process components. Now and well, as the graphics analysis is going
to demonstrate us, (that somehow clarifies the Analyses of Variance results), they not
always learned in the same way or, to be more accurate, not all the learning process
elements, for the correct Method of Cooperative Learning elaboration, had the same
effects.
In the second place, and once that, as we have said, we eliminated the denominated
category lesson identification, because of its lack of meaning, we are going to analyze the
effects that the different learning blocks could have had on the CML control elaboration.
Training Teachers in Cooperative Learning Methods 11

In relation to the denominated category academic objectives, that delimits the learning
process, we can verify the enormous significance that presents the second block about
specific contents on the Cooperative Learning (Sequence of CLM-1 to CLM-2, levels 2 to 3
from the sequential factor, along with the little incidence of the third block of contents that
makes reference to the observation methodology and the observation inside the classroom.
Also, it is worth while to emphasize the importance of the systematic intervention (CLM-4
to CLM-5) in the classroom as opposed to the sporadic intervention (CLM-3 to CLM-4),
comparing levels 4-5 as opposed to 5-6 from the enclosed graphic, where a substantial
change of the slope straight line can be observed.

30,0

27,0

24,0

21,0

18,0

15,0

12,0
1 2 3 4 5 6

Graphic 1a: Academic objectives

In these data, a certain subject’s homogeneity influences and thus we can observe in the
following graph that only subjects 4, 9, 12, 20 and 21 show a slight dissonance.

33,0

30,0

27,0

24,0

21,0

18,0

15,0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Graphic 1b: Academic objectives

In relation to the denominated category social objectives, which are similar to the
previous ones but where the contents have a social nature, we found a similar tendency to
that found in the academic objectives, with the reservation that it is in the first practical
Training Teachers in Cooperative Learning Methods 12

activity (sporadic practice or punctual) where it is discovered the importance of the social
nature contents objectives implicit in all cooperative methodology, although, without any
doubt, the importance is also pronounced in the systematic activity practice inside the
classroom, as it can be deduced from the graph.
Equally, we find again, an acceptable incidence of the Introduction in the method
formulation improvement (distance 1-2 in the graph) and a null incidence of the
observation methodology in the elements elaboration of the different Cooperative Learning
Methods that emphasize in the social aspects.

36,0
33,0
30,0
27,0
24,0
21,0
18,0
15,0
12,0
9,0
1 2 3 4 5 6

Graphic 2a: Social objectives

In relation to the subjects we can continue verifying certain homogeneity, only broken by
subjects 9, 12, 20 and 21.

36,0

33,0

30,0

27,0

24,0

21,0

18,0

15,0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Graphic 2b: Social objectives

For the denominated category direct interaction, that it intends to configure the social
system of the classroom, we can observe some similar conduct guidelines to the ones
Training Teachers in Cooperative Learning Methods 13

described for the previous category, until the point that the graphs profiles are almost
coincident.

18,0

15,0

12,0

9,0

6,0
1 2 3 4 5 6

Graphic 3a: Direct interaction

The information pointed to the different CLM sequences is valid also for the diagram of
subjects.

17,0

15,0

13,0

11,0

9,0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Graphic 3b: Direct interaction

The reasons so that the similarity of results takes place in the two categories, are due to the
existent relation between both by their incidence in the social system, the first one at a
contents level and the second one at a level of organization.
The denominated category positive interdependence, although it probably presents a
partially causal relation with respect to the previous ones, as far as the inter and intra
groups relations that are settle down, will make to depend on, in a great extent, the
development of the social system which forms the classroom, it also presents some specific
connotations that can be observed in the graph we expose next.
Training Teachers in Cooperative Learning Methods 14

105,0

90,0

75,0

60,0

45,0

30,0
1 2 3 4 5 6

Graphic 4a: Positive interdependence

In effect, in the first place it appears for the first time a slight slope in the straight line that
joins CLM-2 and CLM-3 (levels 3 and 4) that only can be explained by the need of
observing the interactive conduct guidelines to find out which interactions generate positive
interdependence.
Secondly, the slope of the straight line determined by the practical activity (segments 4-5
and 5-6) is confused because it resorts to integrate interaction and objectives, with the
purpose of generating a specific type of interaction: the interaction that facilitates positive
interdependence. The aspect, which is more difficult to obtain, is what causes that a greater
diversity or heterogeneity in the conducts of our teachers takes place, as it can be observed
in the following graph.

90,0

75,0

60,0

45,0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Graphic 4b: Positive interdependence

The situation turns to be more complicated when we deal with the denominated category
group process.
In effect, this category element implies the conjunction of rolls between all the social
elements of the classroom, since, in order to structure the process followed by the group it
is necessary to concrete the role played by the teacher and by the own group. At this
moment, the situation analysis demands a strong observation component which is shown
evidently in the graphic, and the variation of the third theoretical component of the
formation process (step from the CLM-2 to the CLM-3, that corresponds to the levels of
Training Teachers in Cooperative Learning Methods 15

time 3 and 4 of the graph) is comparable to the practical-theoretical information from the
two last blocks (levels 4 and 5 and levels 5 and 6, respectively). On the contrary, the
information provided by the «Introduction» (development which allows to pass from the
CLM-0 to the CLM-1, and that corresponds to the levels 1 and 2 of the attached graphic) is
practically irrelevant in a situation that is of evident empirical content.

120,0

105,0

90,0

75,0

60,0

45,0

30,0
1 2 3 4 5 6

Graphic 5a: Group process

Finally, and as we already aimed previously, a greater complexity of the situation, generates
unfailingly and necessarily, a greater variability in the subjects.

110,0

100,0

90,0

80,0

70,0

60,0

50,0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Graphic 5b: Group process

Such previous case analysis patterns can be applied to the case of the category described and
defined under the epigraph of individual responsibility.
However, we find that the scanty variability of this category (which is possible to observe in
the Annex I, and presents very few observation samples in the protocol of CLM evaluation
that we have elaborated) it does not allow an evident vision as the previous one, although
it can be observed a clear parallelism between the graphs of both categories, at least, where
it makes reference to the time factor, we mean, to the different moments sequence of the
Methods of Cooperative Learning elaborated by the participants in the activity.
Training Teachers in Cooperative Learning Methods 16

9,0

8,0

7,0

6,0

5,0

4,0

3,0

2,0
1 2 3 4 5 6

Graphic 6a: Individual responsibility

The problematic arisen from the little variability is pronounced with greater intensity in the
graphic of subjects analysis.

8,0

7,0

6,0

5,0

4,0

3,0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Graphic 6b: Individual responsibility

For the task assignment category we stand before two very simple and evident analyses.
In relation to the CLM elaboration, the most prominent is the information about ¿how it
must be done?, and in this question it is only essential to emphasize, on the one hand, the
necessary theoretical formation provided by the specific information conferred in the
second theoretical block and, by the other one, the practice regulations that makes possible
to adapt the task to the students and to facilitate, in this way, the understanding of the
implicit process in the task.
From this perspective, we can observe in the next detailed graph, how we found a great
modification in this category between CLM-l and CLM2 (levels 2 and 3) and CLM-3 and
CLM-5 (levels 4 to 6) that occur after two tablelands constituted by the null differences
found between moments 1 and 2 of the process (Introduction) and the moments 3 and 4
(Observation methodology and observation in the classroom).
Training Teachers in Cooperative Learning Methods 17

45,0

40,0

35,0

30,0

25,0

20,0

15,0

10,0
1 2 3 4 5 6

Graphic 7a: Task assignment

In relation to the subjects’ factor, we stand before a scanty variability (the average scores
oscillate between 25 and 30 points) which could be analyzed from the high professionalism
perspective of the participants in the formation activity.

35,0

30,0

25,0

20,0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Graphic 7b: Task assignment

In relation to the product presentation, and since this category has the objective of
valuating the attainment level of the goals (personal and group ones), it finds its
naturalization paper in the application of all the aspects (theoretical and practical) carried
out in the process.
It is not to be strange, therefore, that we stand before a graph that seems a continuous from
the beginning of the process.
Training Teachers in Cooperative Learning Methods 18

80,0
75,0
70,0
65,0
60,0
55,0
50,0
45,0
40,0
35,0
30,0
1 2 3 4 5 6

Graphic 8a: Product presentation

In reference to the subjects’ factor, we found with a variability that can be explained by the
teacher styles and, more specifically, by the educative level in which they teach but, in this
work, we have not considered it as variable to analyze because the sample size did not
allow it, among other reasons.

75,0
70,0
65,0
60,0
55,0
50,0
45,0
40,0
35,0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Graphic 8b: Product presentation

Finally, we are with the denominated category lesson valuation, which allows us to verify
the adaptation of the design and the followed process to the governing objectives of the
formation process. The category presents similar connotations to the previous one, but we
find again the scanty variability that we have conferred to it in the evaluation protocol.
Nevertheless, it is possible to observe in the graphics that its development follows the
guidelines of the previous one.
Training Teachers in Cooperative Learning Methods 19

5,0

4,0

3,0

2,0

1,0

0,0
1 2 3 4 5 6

Graphic 9a: Lesson valuation

5,0

4,0

3,0

2,0

1,0

0,0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Graphic 9b: Lesson valuation

In summary, results of this teachers training experience point toward the idea of that
formation in CLM requires the conjunction of declaratory and procedural cognitive
elements (theoretical and practical) such as attitude elements too.
On the one hand, the teaching staff theoretical formation becomes essential, since, the
initial psychological and pedagogical formation they receive is too generalist and it must be
completed with the explicit and necessary knowledge for the cooperative methodology
application. These knowledges, as we have verified in our investigation, are:
1. The interpretation and explanation of the educative processes, from a psychological
perspective, that must extend their initial knowledge in the following lines:
a. The relations between learning and development
b. The constructive teaching-learning processes conception
2. The implied analysis of the factors and psychological processes in the scholar learning,
that must extend their initial knowledge in the following lines:
a. The strategic use of knowledge
b. The scholar learning from the student’s perspective. Learning approaches.
c. The cognition learning element: the construction of meaning
d. The affective learning element: the sense attribution
Training Teachers in Cooperative Learning Methods 20

3. The dynamics study of the teaching and learning processes, that must extend its
knowledge in the line of the classroom context, or better said, in the classroom
conception as the context:
a. Characteristics of the educational speech
b. Inter-psychological mechanisms and modular factors in knowledge construction
in interaction with the equal ones
c. Interaction and interactivity
4. The intersection of the educative scenes, which must extend its knowledge on the
relations between the different micro-systems in which the student is inserted (meso-
system analysis).
5. A specific formation on cooperative learning methods, that must constitute an own
formation program, and that must be about the generic CLM dimensions.
6. A process of formation in Centers, where it is possible to analyze, in situ, the difficulties
that a methodology of this type can raise into the classroom application.