cooperative learning activities in physical education

The Efficiency of Cooperative Learning in Physical Education on the Learning of Action Skills and Learning Motivation

1 Department of Physical Education, Dongguan Polytechnic, Dongguan, China

Rongli Chen

2 Department of Computing Engineering, Dongguan Polytechnic, Dongguan, China

Xiaozhong Chen

3 Department of Logistics Engineering, Dongguan Polytechnic, Dongguan, China

Kuan-Han Lu

4 Department of Computer Science and Information Management, Soochow University, Taipei, China

Associated Data

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Research Questions

The following research questions were formulated:

• (1) What differences can be seen (before and after testing) between action skills groups and “free” groupings in relation to the effectiveness of cooperative learning?
• (2) What differences can be seen (before and after testing) between action skills groups and “free” groupings in relation to motivation in cooperative learning?
• (3) What differences can be seen between action skills groups and “free” groupings in relation to performance of action skills in cooperative learning?
• (4) What differences can be seen (pre- and post-test) between action skills groups and “free” groupings in relation to learning motivation in cooperative learning?

Research Participants

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

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

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

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

Interpretation of Terms

(1) cooperative learning.

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

(2) Action Skills

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

(3) Different Grouping Methods

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

“Free” Grouping

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

S-Type Heterogeneous Grouping of Action Skills

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

Effectiveness of Action Skills Learning

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

Literature Review

The connotations of cooperative learning.

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

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

Cooperative Teaching Methods

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

Students’ Team Achievement Differentiation Method

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

Personal progress score conversion table.

Research Relating to Cooperative Learning

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

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

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

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

ARCS Motivation Scale

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

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

Grouping Method for Physical Education Classes

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

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

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

Study of Learning Effectiveness in Physical Education

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

The New Direction of Physical Education Assessment

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

Evaluation of Basketball Learning Effectiveness

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

Research Hypothesis

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

Hypothesis 1: In cooperative learning, skills-based grouping and free grouping yield significantly better post-test results relating to the effectiveness of action skills learning. Hypothesis 2: In cooperative learning, skills-based grouping and free grouping yield significantly better post-test results relating to motivation for learning. Hypothesis 3: In cooperative learning, there is no significant difference between the effectiveness of action skills learning in skills-based groups or free grouping. Hypothesis 4: In cooperative learning, there is no significant difference between learning motivation in skills-based groups and free grouping.

Difference Between of Free Grouping and Other Grouping Methods

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

No Difference Between Free Grouping and Other Grouping Methods

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

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

Research Methods

Research structure and process.

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

Research Structure

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

Research architecture diagram.

Research Design

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

Research design.

(1) Students Participating

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

Class size statistics.

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

Gender test summary table.

a 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5.

(2) Sample Homogeneity Test

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homogeneity Test Results

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

Research Tools

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

Basketball Skills Performance

(1) movement teaching.

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

(2) Basketball Skills Test Method

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• (1) Basic information relating to students: such as gender, exercise habits, previous semester’s sports score, physical fitness level and whether students have participated in school sports teams in the past (five questions in total).
• (2) Learning motivation in physical education: This research used the ARCS Motivation Scale, which was a revised version of the designed learning motivation scale. The internal consensus reliability for “Attention” was 0.84; “Relevance” was 0.80; “Confidence” was 0.79; “Satisfaction” was 0.89; and the overall internal consensus was 0.96. This tool uses a Likert formula four-point scale (four-point Likert scale), as follows: 1 means “strongly disagree”; 2 means “disagree”; 3 means “agree”; and 4 means “strongly agree.” The four factors in ARCS are concentration, relevance, self-confidence and satisfaction.
• (3) Attention: This relates to students’ level of curiosity or interest, and the aim of teaching is to ensure that this is maintained.
• (4) Relevance: This relates to students’ perception that the content of the course or teaching activities relate to their own life, needs, familiar things or past experience, or that the learning may come in handy in the future.
• (5) Confidence: This relates to students’ mental state in terms of whether or not they feel they can achieve the learning goals, which will, in turn, affect the actual degree of effort expended by students and their performance level. It is helpful if students believe that there is a link between success and effort.
• (6) Satisfaction: This relates to positive inner feelings and also external rewards that students receive in the learning process; this kind of satisfaction is an important factor that helps sustain motivation.

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

Teaching Design

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

Preparation Before Teaching

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

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

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

Teaching Implementation Stage

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

After the Teaching Stage

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

Data Processing

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

• (1) Dependent sample t -test: This tested the difference between free grouping and action skills grouping after cooperative learning (comparison of “before” and “after” test results).
• (2) Independent sample t -test: This tested the difference between free grouping and action skills grouping after cooperative learning (comparison of “before” and “after” test results for motivation).
• (3) Covariate analysis: For the free grouping and action skills grouping, respectively, in the performance of the previous test, the difference between the two did not reach a significant level. The independent sample t -test was then used to analyze the difference. The difference between the two pre-test scores was found to reach a significant level. The previous test scores had common variables, and a co-variable analysis was performed to adjust the differences.
• (4) In the above statistical analysis, the significance level of all the differences tested was set as α = 0.05.

Results and Discussion

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

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

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

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

* p < 0.05.

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

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

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

Differences in the Experimental Group Before and After Cooperative Learning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Differences in the Control Group Before and After Cooperative Learning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comparison and Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• (1) In cooperative learning, free grouping and action skills grouping can improve the effectiveness of skill acquisition in physical education.
• (2) In cooperative learning, free grouping and skills-based grouping can effectively enhance learning motivation.
• (3) In cooperative learning, no clear differences were found in terms of the effectiveness of action skills learning among self-selected groups and skills-based groups.
• (4) In cooperative learning, no clear differences were found in terms of learning motivation among self-selected groups and skills-based groups.

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

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

Data Availability Statement

Author contributions.

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

Conflict of Interest

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

Publisher’s Note

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

Questionnaire

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

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

• Bai X., Wang X., Wang J., Tian J., Ding Q. (2020). “College students’ autonomous learning behavior in blended learning: learning motivation, self-efficacy, and learning anxiety,” in Proceedings of the 2020 International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET) , (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; ), 155–158. 10.1109/ISET49818.2020.00042 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen X., Zhu F., Chen Z., Min G., Zheng X., Rong C. (2021e). Resource allocation for cloud-based software services using prediction-enabled feedback control with reinforcement learning. IEEE Trans. Cloud Comput. [Epub ahead of print]. 10.1109/TCC.2020.2992537 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen R., Chen X., Yang C. (2021a). Using a task dependency job-scheduling method to make energy savings in a cloud computing environment. J. Supercomput. [Epub ahead of print]. 10.1007/s11227-021-04035-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen X., Chen R., Yang C. (2021b). Research and design of fresh agricultural product distribution service model and framework using IoT technology. J. Ambient Intellig. Human. Comput. [Epub ahead of print]. 10.1007/s12652-021-03447-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen X., Chen S., Ma Y., Liu B., Zhang Y., Huang G. (2019a). An adaptive offloading framework for android applications in mobile edge computing. Sci. China Inform. Sci. 62 : 82102 . 10.1007/s11432-018-9749-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen X., Li A., Zeng X., Guo W., Huang G. (2015). Runtime model based approach to IoT application development. Front. Comput. Sci. 9 540–553. 10.1007/s11704-015-4362-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen X., Li M., Zhong H., Ma Y., Hsu C. (2021c). DNNOff: offloading DNN-based intelligent IoT applications in mobile edge computing. IEEE Trans. Industr. Inform. [Epub ahead of print]. 10.1109/TII.2021.3075464 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen X., Lin J., Ma Y., Lin B., Wang H., Huang G. (2019b). Self-adaptive resource allocation for cloud-based software services based on progressive QoS prediction model. Sci. China Inform. Sci. 62 : 219101 . 10.1007/s11432-018-9750-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen X., Wang H., Ma Y., Zheng X., Guo L. (2020). Self-adaptive resource allocation for cloud-based software services based on iterative QoS prediction model. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 105 287–296. 10.1016/j.future.2019.12.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen X., Zhang J., Lin B., Chen Z., Wolter K., Min G. (2021d). Energy-efficient offloading for dnn-based smart iot systems in cloud-edge environments. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distribut. Syst. [Epub ahead of print]. 10.1109/TPDS.2021.3100298 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chettaoui N., Atia A., Bouhlel M. (2020). “Exploring the impact of multimodal adaptive learning with tangible interaction on learning motivation,” in Proceedings of the 2020 15th International Conference on Computer Engineering and Systems (ICCES) , (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; ), 1–6. 10.1109/ICCES51560.2020.9334588 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chiang T., Yang S. (2017). “Investigating the motivation between ubiquitous learning strategy and gender for basketball sport literacy,” in Proceedings of the 2017 6th IIAI International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics (IIAI-AAI), 2017 , (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; ), 556–559. 10.1109/IIAI-AAI.2017.15 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chou C., Huang M., Huang C., Lu F., Tu S. (2015). The mediating role of critical thinking on motivation and peer interaction for action skill performance. Int. J. Sport Psychol. 46 391–408. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chu W., Chen H. (2018). “Using interactive E-books in elementary school origami activities: analysis of learning effect, learning motivation, and cognitive load,” in Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 42nd Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC) , (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; ), 298–303. 10.1109/COMPSAC.2018.10246 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• D’Aniello G., Falco M., Gaeta M., Lepore M. (2020). “A situation-aware learning system based on fuzzy cognitive maps to increase learner motivation and engagement,” in Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE), 2020 , (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; ), 1–8. 10.1109/FUZZ48607.2020.9177590 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ding Y., Li Y., Cheng L. (2020). Application of internet of things and virtual reality technology in college physical education. IEEE Access 8 96065–96074. 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2992283 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dyson B. (2001). Cooperative learning in an elementary physical education program. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 20 264–281. 10.1123/jtpe.20.3.264 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dyson B. (2002). The implementation of cooperative learning in an elementary school physical education program. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 22 69–85. 10.1123/jtpe.22.1.69 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dyson B., Griffin L., Hastie P. (2004). Sport education, tactical game, and cooperative learning: theoretical and pedagogical considerations. Quest 56 226–240. 10.1080/00336297.2004.10491823 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fu H., Hsien H., Chia L., Hsiang C., Wei T., Tung F. (2018). “The clustering analysis system based on students’ motivation and learning behavior,” in Proceedings of the 2018 Learning With MOOCS (LWMOOCS), 2018 , (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; ), 117–119. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillies R. (2004). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learn. Instr. 14 197–213. 10.1016/S0959-4752(03)00068-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodyear V., Casey A., Kirk D. (2014). Hiding behind the camera: social learning withinthe cooperative learning model to engage girls in physical education. Sport Educ. Soc. 19 712–734. 10.1080/13573322.2012.707124 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hernandez J., Roman G., Saldaña C., Rios C. (2020). “Application of the Challenge-Based Learning Methodology, as a trigger for motivation and learning in robotics,” in Proceedings of the 2020 X International Conference on Virtual Campus (JICV), 2020 , (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; ), 1–4. 10.1109/JICV51605.2020.9375671 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang G., Chen X., Zhang Y., Zhang X. (2012). Towards Architecture-based management of platforms in the cloud. Front. Comput. Sci. 6 388–397. 10.1007/s11704-012-2100-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang G., Liu T., Mei H., Zheng Z., Liu Z., Fan G. (2004). “Towards autonomic computing middleware via reflection,” in Proceedings of the 2020 International Computer Software and Applications Conference , (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang G., Luo C., Wu K., Ma Y., Zhang Y., Liu X. (2019b). “Software-defined infrastructure for decentralized data lifecycle governance: principled design and open challenges,” in Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems , (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; ). 10.1109/ICDCS.2019.00166 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang G., Liu X., Ma Y., Lu X., Zhang Y., Xiong Y. (2019a). Programming situational mobile web applications with cloud-mobile convergence: an internetware-oriented approach. IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. 12 6–19. 10.1109/TSC.2016.2587260 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang G., Ma Y., Liu X., Luo Y., Lu X., Blake M. (2015). Model-based automated navigation and composition of complex service mashups. IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. 8 494–506. 10.1109/TSC.2014.2347293 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang G., Mei H., Yang F. (2006). Runtime recovery and manipulation of software architecture of component-based systems. Autom. Softw. Eng. 13 257–281. 10.1007/s10515-006-7738-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang G., Xu M., Lin X., Liu Y., Ma Y., Pushp S., et al. (2017). ShuffleDog: characterizing and adapting user-perceived latency of android apps. IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput. 16 2913–2926. 10.1109/TMC.2017.2651823 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hung H. (2004). Effects of cooperative learning and motivation on student performance and satisfaction during woodball instruction. Annu. J. Phys. Educ. Sports Sci. 4 35–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huxham M., Land R. (2000). Assigning students in group workprojects. Can we do better then random? Innov. Educ. Train. Int. 37 17–22. 10.1080/135580000362043 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ibarra M., Gomez E., Barzola B., Castillo M., Ibañez V., Quispe R. (2019). “Improving student’s learning motivation in schools using augmented reality,” in Proceedings of the 2019 XIV Latin American Conference on Learning Technologies (LACLO) , (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; ), 259–264. 10.1109/LACLO49268.2019.00051 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kang S. (2019). The study on the application of virtual reality in adapted physical education. Cluster Comput. 22 2351–2355. 10.1007/s10586-018-2254-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Laurens L., Valdés H. (2020). “Evaluation of University students motivation in learning kinematics through M-learning,” in Proceedings of the 2020 39th International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society (SCCC) , (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; ), 1–8. 10.1109/SCCC51225.2020.9281163 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin B., Huang Y., Zhang J., Hu J., Chen X., Li J. (2020). Cost-Driven Offloading for DNN-based applications over cloud, edge and end devices. IEEE Trans. Industr. Inform. 2020 5456–5466. 10.1109/TII.2019.2961237 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu X., Huang G., Zhao Q., Mei H., Blake M. (2014). iMashup: a mashup-based framework for service composition. Sci. China Inform. Sci. 54 1–20. 10.1007/s11432-013-4782-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lu C., Chou C., Tsui H., Cheng M., Tsai K. (2005). The relationships between learning motivation and learning outcomes of table tennis in college physical education. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport Washing. 76 : 82 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Nikou S., Economides A. (2018). “Motivation related predictors of engagement in mobile-assisted inquiry-based science learning,” in Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) , (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; ), 1222–1229. 10.1109/EDUCON.2018.8363369 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ratnaningsih S., Miswan Y., Hady Y., Dewi R., Fahriany C., Zuhdi M. (2020). “The effectiveness of using edmodo-based E-learning in the blended learning process to increase student motivation and learning outcomes,” in Proceedings of the 2020 8th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM) , (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; ), 1–5. 10.1109/CITSM50537.2020.9268924 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Song H., Huang G., Chauvel F., Xiong Y., Hu Z., Sun Y., et al. (2011). Supporting runtime software architecture: a bidirectional-transformation-based approach. J. Syst. Softw. 84 711–723. 10.1016/j.jss.2010.12.009 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang Y., Huang G., Liu X., Zhang W., Mei H., Yang S. (2012). “Refactoring android Java code for on-demand computation offloading,” in Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications , (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; ). 10.1145/2384616.2384634 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

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

Cooperative Learning in Physical Education

• Sean Fullerton
• February 15, 2023

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

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

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

Teaching Styles for Large Group Instruction

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

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

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

What is Cooperative Learning?

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

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

Free Professional Development For PE 

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

Best Practices For Cooperative Learning 

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

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

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

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

Cooperative Learning For Fitness and Wellness Curriculum 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways on Cooperative Learning 

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

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

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

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

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

More Articles From Sean Fullerton

Personalized System of Instruction in Physical Education

Student Centered Learning Examples Using Technology

5 Tips To Technology Use In Physical Education

Understanding Motivational Theories in Physical Education

Flipped Learning in Physical Education

Share this article:

Recent Posts

How To Improve Mental Health In Schools

Health Education Curriculum

Underage Drinking Prevention Lesson Plans

Interested if PLT4M can work at your school?

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

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

Paradise PE's Push For Student Choice and Engagement

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

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

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

In an age of social media and online connectivity, how can we ensure our students are safe, appropriate, ethical, and empathetic in their virtual world?

Digital Citizenship Lesson Plans

Digital citizenship lesson plans explore how students can be safe, appropriate, ethical, empathetic, and more in the digital world.

How do you make use of your school's cardio equipment in PE classes?

Treadmill Running Workouts For Students

Treadmill running workouts build confidence in the world of running for students of all fitness levels. See a free workout from PLT4M!

“Our injury rates are way down. The addition of strength and speed work has helped to keep our athletes healthy and playing throughout the season, which is often the most valuable thing that can come from the weight room.”

Sports Performance Classes Empower Female Student-Athletes

Preston High School in Idaho is empowering female student-athletes through strength and conditioning classes.

get.plt4m.com

• Browse By Category
• View ALL Lessons
• Submit Your Idea
• Shop Lesson Books
• Search our Lessons
• Browse All Assessments
• New Assessments
• Paper & Pencil Assessments
• Alternative Assessments
• Student Assessments
• View Kids Work
• Submit Your Ideas
• Browse All Best Practices
• New Best Practices
• How BPs Work
• Most Popular
• Alphabetical
• Submit Your Best Practice
• Browse All Prof. Dev.
• Online PD Courses
• Onsite Workshops
• Hall of Shame
• Becoming a PE Teacher
• PE Articles
• Defending PE
• Substitute Guidelines
• Online Classes
• PE Research
• Browse All Boards
• Board of the Week
• Submit Your Bulletin Board
• Browse All Class Mngt
• Lesson Ideas
• New Teacher Tips
• Reducing Off-Task Behavior
• Browse All Videos
• Find Grants
• Kids Quote of the Week
• Weekly Activities
• Advertise on PEC
• FREE Newsletter

PE Central has partnered with S&S Discount Sports to provide a full range of sports and PE products for your program.

Get Free Shipping plus 15% OFF on orders over $59! Use offer code B4260. Shop Now!

• Shop Online Courses:
• Classroom Management
• Integrating Literacy & Math
• Grad Credit
• All PE Courses

• Cooperative Fitness Challenge
• Cooperative Skills Challenge
• Log It (Activity Tracker)

• Instant Activities
• Grades 9-12
• Dance of the Month
• Special Events Menu
• Cues/Performance Tips
• College Lessons
• Search All Lessons

• Paper & Pencil Assessments
• Shop Assessment

• How BP's Work

• Shop Bulletin Board Books

• Apps for PE Main Menu
• Submit Your App
• Ask our App Expert
• Active Gaming

• What is Adapted PE
• Ask Our Expert
• Adapting Activities
• IEP Information
• Adapted Web Sites
• Shop Adapted Store

• PreK Lesson Ideas
• PreK Videos
• Homemade PreK PE Equip
• Shop PreK Books

• Shop Class Mngt Products

• Search Jobs
• Interview Questions
• Interview Tips
• Portfolio Development

• Becoming PE Teacher
• Fundraising/Grants

• New Products
• T-Shirts/Accessories
• Class Management
• Middle School
• High School
• Curriculums
• Limited Space

• Search Our Lessons

Sign up for our free weekly newsletter and receive

physical education lesson ideas, assessment tips and more!

Your browser does not support iframes.

No thanks, I don't need to stay current on what works in physical education.

PE Central� Copyright � 1996-2020 All Rights Reserved

PE Central � 2516 Blossom Trl W Blacksburg, VA 24060 E-mail : [email protected] Phone : 540-953-1043 Fax : 540-301-0112

Copyright � 1996-2016 PE Central® www.pecentral.org All Rights Reserved Web Debut : 08/26/1996

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

Recently viewed (0)

• Save Search
• Previous Article
• Next Article

Physical Education in the COVID Era: Considerations for Online Program Delivery Using the Comprehensive School Physical Activity Program Framework

Click name to view affiliation

• Get Citation Alerts
• Download PDF

In the wake of COVID-19, online physical education (OLPE) has become essential to the sustainability of school physical education programs. The purpose of this article is to consider factors that may be influential in efforts to deliver OLPE to students. The comprehensive school physical activity program model is used to frame a multicomponent conceptualization of OLPE and its goals and outcomes. Central to this framing is the intersectionality of school physical education, the family, and the community. This article provides a platform for physical education teacher educators and researchers to advance OLPE in its support of both the educational and public health benefits of high-quality physical education programs.

The rapid and inexorable worldwide spread of SARS-CoV-2—the coronavirus which causes the disease known as COVID-19—presents physical education professionals with new and unforeseen challenges related to program delivery. Campus closures due to the pandemic created an urgent need, in P–12 schools and institutions of higher education, to consider available alternatives to in-person programming. Most notably, online physical education (OLPE), which previously stood in the periphery of the field’s vision ( Daum & Woods, 2015 ), is now a subject of central focus. OLPE has the ability to offer the swift response needed in the context of COVID-19. OLPE is not only a potential solution to a problem, but also part of a growing presence in education, marked by the increasing viability of virtual alternatives to brick and mortar classrooms and in-person instruction. Distance education and online learning have been gaining momentum in recent years ( Digital Learning Collaborative, 2020 ; Evergreen Education Group, 2016 ; Kooiman, 2017 ), and technologies, such as virtual reality and artificial intelligence, offer new possibilities for education. The present pandemic has merely punctuated the need to explore integrating such innovations into 21st century teaching and learning.

At face value, OLPE conveys oxymoronic qualities ( Buschner, 2006 ; Kooiman, 2017 ; Mohnsen, 2012 ) and, at first regard, may generate skepticism. Certainly, OLPE is not without issues, perhaps the most prominent of which is that it lacks evidence-based best practices ( Kooiman, 2017 ). With the advent of the Internet and its implications for education, Locke ( 1997 ) warned physical educators to avoid technological determinism , which he defined as the “mental state in which one feels compelled to invest money, time, and emotional energy in a gadget on the basis of predictions about the benefits it will bring—in the absence of any empirical evidence that it reliably will do so” (p. 272). Similarly, Buschner ( 2006 ), cautioned that without good, evidence-based teaching practices, “OLPE is still only a box that includes sophisticated sound, lights, images, and words that purport to help students learn about and be physically active—but it is not physical education in its present form” (p. 5). The Society of Health and Physical Educators (SHAPE) America ( 2018 ) asserts that physical education that is delivered online should share the same purpose and intended outcomes as traditional, in-person physical education. Daum ( 2020 ) further contends that OLPE bears the same responsibilities as traditional programs with respect to delivering equitable, developmentally appropriate, and equally accessible learning experiences.

While honorable, the high aspirations for OLPE should be viewed in light of what traditional, in-person physical education programs have been able to accomplish. It must be recognized that traditional programs struggle to meet the previously mentioned expectations for physical education. In the United States, the majority of students attending in-person physical education are likely not achieving the national content standards for K–12 learners ( Hastie, 2017 ). In addition, although SHAPE America ( 2015 ) recommends that students engage in vigorous or moderate physical activity during at least 50% of physical education class time, this benchmark often eludes physical education programs that use conventional, face-to-face instruction ( Hollis et al., 2016 , 2017 ). Finally, traditional physical education has faced challenges related to equity and access, such as language barriers, funding limitations, and inadequate physical spaces for participation ( Lawson, 2018 ). An important question at this critical juncture in the evolution of the profession is whether OLPE can be optimized in ways that leverage the efficacy and impact of in-person physical education programs for diverse communities and settings. Notably, a body of evidence already exists to suggest that, when supported with appropriate pedagogical practices, digital technologies, such as social media, blogs, video analysis, and video games, can be effectively integrated into physical education to enhance students’ learning ( Bodsworth & Goodyear, 2017 ; Casey, Goodyear, & Armour, 2017 ). Moreover, findings from a recent study found that high school students enrolled in online health and physical education had more favorable perceptions of their learning experience (e.g., teacher feedback and responsiveness, understanding and interest related to the content, and perceived health gains) compared with students enrolled in in-person programs ( Williams, Martinasek, Karone, & Sanders, 2020 ).

• Comprehensive School Physical Activity Program Framework

The OLPE learning environments, both traditionally and in the current climate, expand beyond the walls of the school gym and are most likely to be circumscribed within home- and community-based settings ( SHAPE America, 2018 ). A relevant framework for conceptualizing, researching, and applying best practices in expanding physical education to multiple school- and community-based settings is the comprehensive school physical activity program (CSPAP) model (Figure  1 ; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2019 ). The CSPAP model is the CDC’s ( 2019 ) national framework for physical education and physical activity of school-aged youth in the United States. According to SHAPE America ( 2015 ), the purpose of a CSPAP is for school systems to identify and use available assets, through a coordinated and synergistic approach, to achieve three goals: (a) provide quality physical education for all students, (b) increase all students’ practice opportunities for skills learned in physical education, and (c) help all children and adolescents achieve the nationally recommended 60 min of physical activity each day for optimal health ( U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2018 ). Thus, within an equity and inclusion lens, the intent of a CSPAP is to ensure both the physical education and physical activity needs of every student are addressed.

—Comprehensive school physical activity program framework ( CDC, 2019 ).

Citation: Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 40, 2; 10.1123/jtpe.2020-0182

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

CSPAPs have gained significant traction across the globe in research and professional recommendations related to youth physical activity promotion ( Carson & Webster, 2020 ). Yet, the evidence base for CSPAPs is still young, and existing CSPAP research is mostly devoted to investigating the effectiveness of individual CSPAP components in increasing youth physical activity engagement (Goal c). Even though physical education is conceptualized as the cornerstone of a CSPAP ( CDC, 2019 ; SHAPE America, 2015 ), little CSPAP research has investigated how a CSPAP or its various components can be used to help physical education meet national recommendations (Goal a) or to promote expanded physical education learning opportunities (Goal b). Furthermore, the family and community engagement component of the model remains one of the least studied in terms of addressing any of the previously mentioned goals of a CSPAP ( Chen & Gu, 2018 ). This is surprising, given that the noted importance of families and communities in affecting the education of the youth traces back more than a century ago to the work of Dewey ( 1916 ), who first made clear the impact of human association, in the form of family and society, on the education, socialization, and development of children.

Research on the use of online instruction in physical education is in its nascent stages despite consistent calls for comprehensive study ( Daum & Buschner, 2014; 2018 ; Killian, Kinder, & Woods, 2019 ). As a result, current understanding related to the ability of OLPE to promote physical education and physical activity through family and community engagement is limited. In the present article, the authors link OLPE to the conceptual basis for CSPAP-driven efforts that directly support a school’s physical education program and its intended learning outcomes. Specifically, a schematic is introduced to elucidate the interconnectedness between the school, the digital divide, physical education, the family, the community, and the student to highlight factors that might warrant consideration in OLPE research and practice. This article is intended to guide the efforts of physical education teacher educators and researchers to optimally prepare a wide range of end users (e.g., preservice teachers, P–12 school professionals, parents, and community leaders) for the new reality in which OLPE is a necessary tool for physical education program effectiveness.

Using OLPE to Support the Goals of a CSPAP

Based on the idea that OLPE can meaningfully contribute to both the physical education- and public health-aligned goals of a CSPAP, it is important to clearly illustrate how OLPE might be used to support these goals. In particular, teacher educators and researchers can benefit from conceptualizations of OLPE as an integrated part of the CSPAP framework. Such conceptualizations can help teacher educators organize professional preparation experiences for preservice and in-service teachers and guide researchers’ lines of inquiry and intervention programming. The schematic in Figure  2 was designed with these purposes in mind, based on literature spanning (a) issues of equity and inclusion in online learning (e.g.,  Basham, Stahl, Ortiz, Rice, & Smith, 2015 ; Centeio, 2017 ; Huerta, Shafer, Barbour, Miron, & Gulosino, 2015 ), (b) OLPE (e.g.,  Harris & Metzler, 2019 ; Killian et al., 2019 ; Mosier & Lynn, 2012 ), (c) family and community engagement to support physical education and physical activity for school-aged youth (e.g.,  Brown, Atkin, Wong, Chinapaw, & van Sluijs, 2016 ; Cipriani, Richardson, & Roberts, 2012 ; Egan & Miller, 2019 ), and (d) recommendations related to family and community partnerships (e.g.,  Allar et al., 2017 ; Epstein, 2010 ; Kruger et al., 2012 ). The schematic is divided into four parts: the CSPAP conceptual framework, the digital divide, the OLPE support system, and the CSPAP outcomes framework. Within each part, factors that may be influential in efforts to support the goals of a CSPAP through OLPE are listed. Each part of the schematic is discussed in detail within the following sections of this article.

—Schematic depicting the goals and projected outcomes of a CSPAP when it is supported using OLPE that addresses key factors specific to the school, the digital divide, physical education, the family, the community, and the student. CSPAP = comprehensive school physical activity program; OLPE = online physical education; PA = physical activity; PE = physical education; SES = socioeconomic status.

• The CSPAP Conceptual Framework

As previously stated, the goals of a CSPAP are to (a) provide quality physical education for all students, (b) increase all student’s physical education skills through additional practice opportunities, and (c) help all students accumulate at least 60 min of physical activity each day ( SHAPE America, 2015 ). Two CSPAP components—physical education and family and community engagement—are highlighted in the schematic to suggest that each of these components has an essential role to play in delivering OLPE that extends and reinforces students’ physical education learning and physical activity engagement. Given that OLPE is contextualized within the family and community settings, family and community engagement is an important lever for physical education programs to succeed in reaching their educational goals. Likewise, bringing physical education to students’ homes and communities can provide an outlet for physical activity participation. Webster, Rink et al. ( 2020 ) underscore the idea that the different CSPAP components should work synergistically in mutually reinforcing ways such that physical activity opportunities across a CSPAP enhance students’ physical education learning, while physical education learning concurrently enhances students’ physical activity participation. This proposition embraces the possibility that meaningful connections can be established between physical education, the broader school environment, and what Kirk ( 1999 ) refers to as “physical culture,” which he defines as “a range of practices concerned with the maintenance, representation and regulation of the body centred on three highly codified, institutionalized forms of physical activity—sport, physical recreation and exercise” (p. 65). The link between physical education learning and wider physical activity participation may not always be clear to students or made explicit by teachers ( Parker, MacPhail, O’Sullivan, Ní Chróinín, & McEvoy, 2018 ). Therefore, highlighting the potential for CSPAPs to synergistically bolster students’ physical activity levels and physical education learning is important to informing the way OLPE is designed and implemented as part of broader CSPAP initiatives.

In Figure  2 , the factors identified for consideration within the CSPAP conceptual framework are those related to the school in general, as other factors specific to physical education, the family, and the community are identified within the OLPE support system, which focuses on these CSPAP components. School-based factors that could be influential in the extent to which a CSPAP, or any of its components, are successfully implemented include a supportive administration, a supportive staff, an actively engaged CSPAP committee, an actively engaged CSPAP champion, and strong ties with the family and the community. Carson, Castelli, Beighle, & Erwin ( 2014 ) proposed a conceptual model for CSPAP research and practice in which they considered school administrators, a CSPAP committee, and a CSPAP champion to be leaders in the implementation of CSPAPs. Although limited research exists on the influence of these potential change agents in CSPAP adoption or sustainability, Webster, Glascoe et al. ( 2020 ) discussed three themes in the recommendations for school administrators’ involvement in school-based health promotion programs. These included collaboration (e.g., involvement in planning and programming); advocacy (e.g., policy involvement); and support (e.g., professional development and technical assistance). In addition, researchers ( Orendorff et al., 2020 ) found that intrapersonal variables, such as expected outcomes of a CSPAP, directly predicted school principals’ self-reported CSPAP involvement, while interpersonal (e.g., parent and teacher support for CSPAPs) and environmental variables (e.g., overall school, community, and policy support for CSPAPs) indirectly predicted such involvement. These findings highlight not only the importance of administrative support in promoting a CSPAP, but also the importance of strong working relationships among school professionals and also between the school, families, and the local community in bringing a CSPAP to fruition.

• The Digital Divide

Positioned between the CSPAP conceptual framework and the OLPE support system within the schematic is the digital divide, particularly the Internet, through which OLPE is made possible. The digital divide represents the idea that the division of technologies, and consequently the extent to which OLPE can be accessed, plays a mediating role in the success of OLPE. Although numerous kinds of technology used in physical education, such as heart rate and activity monitors, are important to consider with respect to the digital divide, access to high-speed Internet is essential to the successful delivery of OLPE. However, such access is not a given for all students ( Centeio, 2017 ). Issues of Internet access can be understood in terms of sociocultural, geographic, and technical aspects of the digital divide. Students from low-income families likely have fewer resources (e.g., sufficient Internet connectivity for extended online learning) to support their success learning online when compared with students of high-income families ( Fishbane & Tomer, 2020 ; The Foundation for Blended and Online Learning, 2018 ), and low-income students do not appear to be accessing online programs at the same rates as their more financially secure peers ( Huerta et al., 2015 ). When school campuses closed due to COVID-19, 35% of low-income U.S. households with school-aged children did not have a high-speed Internet connection at home compared with 15% of all U.S. households with school-aged children ( Pew Research Center, 2020 ). In rural areas, students may experience issues of access due to lack of Internet access and the inconsistency of broadband speed during peak usage times ( Riddlesden & Singleton, 2014 ). Also, from a technical perspective, disparities may exist between the types of devices, platforms, and software that are used in students’ homes. Differences in devices used may be based on a family’s income status. For instance, individuals from low-income households are more likely to access the Internet from a smartphone than from a computer ( Smith, 2015 ), and this could impact the extent to which students are able to use all features of an online learning platform.

Overall, there is little research on equity issues related to online learning, and it is challenging to fully consider the many variables that could be associated with Internet access and use ( Rose, 2014 ; Rose & Blomeyer, 2007 ). However, Rose ( 2014 ) and Rose and Blomeyer ( 2007 ) highlight issues that should be given attention, including inequitable access to reliable, high-speed Internet connections, support for special needs students and students with disabilities, and awareness of difference in treatment/discrimination based on gender, race/ethnicity, and cultural differences. All students require equitable access to content and instruction regardless of gender, race/ethnicity and cultural background, devices and high-speed connections, disabilities accommodations. A recent study suggests that barriers to equity and accessibility exist in OLPE ( Killian, Woods, Graber, & Templin, 2020 ). At a minimum, OLPE must account for what families can afford with respect to the costs of existing Internet options, what access restrictions exist due to the geographic locations of students’ homes, and how students are most likely to access the Internet (i.e., via different devices, platforms, and software options).

• The OLPE Support System

When students can access OLPE, they gain physical education and physical activity experiences through the OLPE support system. This system is conceptualized in the schematic as a coalition of school physical education, the family, and the community. Factors that warrant consideration within the OLPE support system include physical education factors, family factors, and community factors.

Physical education factors

Notwithstanding a few exceptions, such as the Online Physical Education Network (OPEN; openphysed.org), high-quality OLPE resources are scarce ( Daum & Buschner, 2014 ). For OLPE to align with and support standards-based physical education and daily physical activity for students, it must capitalize on existing quality controls and affordances that make the traditional, in-person school environment attractive for physical education and physical activity programming, particularly as conceptualized using the CSPAP framework. Specifically, the advantages of public education are that it reaches virtually all children and adolescents, fosters an unparalleled environment for providing physical activity opportunities for all youth, and benefits from professional educators at relatively little financial cost to families. Thus, OLPE has the best chance to succeed in meeting the educational and public health-aligned goals of physical education when delivered through school systems, which provide the infrastructure for designing, developing, and delivering OLPE resources that meet the needs of every student.

While capitalizing on the advantages of school systems, OLPE will also likely need to work through many of the same challenges encountered in efforts to provide quality in-person physical education and physical activity promotion through CSPAPs ( Webster, Beets, Weaver, Vazou, & Russ, 2015 ). These challenges include a lack of in-service and preservice training devoted to developing teachers’ competencies in OLPE design/delivery, a lack of research evidence to inform best practices in in-service and preservice teacher preparation related to OLPE, a lack of external accountability for providing quality OLPE through either policy or professional standards, and the possible reluctance of physical educators to embrace OLPE. Physical education professionals must become advocates for OLPE through increased attention to the topic in teacher education and research, as well as increased engagement with national organizations (e.g., SHAPE America), to build momentum and establish consensus frameworks for quality OLPE ( Daum, 2020 ; Killian et al., 2019 ; Mosier & Lynn, 2012 ). Despite how physical educators might have felt about OLPE in the past, COVID has created a need for the field to actively pursue OLPE-related research and scholarship and for the profession to embrace OLPE as an essential component of professional learning, standards, and accountability.

Physical educators must also play leading roles in providing the education and support families need to be effective in assisting with OLPE. Based on a review of 66 records, Henderson and Berla ( 1994 ) noted that enhancing the ways families and community could support student achievement involved first informing families of the content standards and then encourage parents to sit on the school standards teams; typically, where implementation and assessment conversations take place. In addition to educating parents about the subject matter standards, teachers should also keep parents apprised of local physical activity opportunities and help parents monitor family physical activity participation ( Cipriani et al., 2012 ; Egan & Miller, 2019 ; McWilliams, Bulger, Keath, & Elliott, 2020 ). The promotion of physical activity among family members has also been found to be a strong predictor of students’ physical activity levels ( Glowacki, Centeio, Van Dongen, Carson, & Castelli, 2016 ). Further guidance for teachers can be found from the CDC ( 2012 ), which suggests (a) creating opportunities for parents to share important aspects of their health needs related to culture, (b) translating health information into different languages, (c) helping parents set expectations for appropriate healthy behavior, (d) monitoring and modeling healthy behavior, (e) praising and rewarding desirable behaviors, and (f) understanding child development.

It is crucial for physical educators to acknowledge and appreciate the situational barriers that often prevent parents’ engagement. Brown et al. ( 2016 ) identify numerous contextual factors that should be taken into consideration, such as family constraints (e.g., lack of time and scheduling difficulties); cultural relevance (e.g., the extent to which the curriculum aligns with family/community contexts); and the family psychosocial environment (e.g., child–parent relationships). Physical education teachers can align their support for parent involvement according to specific situational barriers ( Brown et al., 2016 ). For example, this might involve assisting with goal setting and providing positive reinforcement for families who face time-related challenges to engage in OLPE, or including activities designed for child–parent coparticipation in cases where family relationship building is identified as a key facilitator to youth physical activity. In the COVID era, as OLPE has entered the mainstream for physical education teachers, it has become increasingly clear that an awareness of home-based situational factors and contextual barriers that need to be addressed for programming to succeed for every student is often lacking.

Family factors

One of the major changes brought on by COVID-19 is the environment where students receive their education. Children and adolescents have spent more time at home due to school campuses closing, stay-at-home orders, and quarantining. This change may be negatively influencing youth physical activity ( Velde et al., 2020 ; Xiang, Zhang, & Kuwahara, 2020 ). For example, researchers in The Netherlands found that since the onset of the pandemic, the number of children who were physically active at least 60 min per day decreased from 64% to 20% ( Velde et al., 2020 ). Accordingly, pronounced attention to families as a key asset in supporting OLPE may be warranted in the COVID era. Families play an important role in influencing physical activity habits and providing opportunities for physical activity in youth ( Erwin, Beighle, & Castelli, 2013 ; Rhodes et al., 2020 ). In particular, there has been much research on the engagement of parents in their children’s lifestyle habits, including physical activity ( Lindsay, Sussner, Kim, & Gortmaker, 2006 ). Although some questions need further investigation, such as whether a parent’s gender or a child’s age are significant factors in the effectiveness of a parent’s efforts to promote physical activity (e.g.,  Anderson, Hughes, & Fuemmeler, 2009 ; Davison, Jurkowski, Li, Kranz, & Lawson, 2013 ; Kimiecik & Horn, 1998 ; Moore et al., 1991 ; Pérusse, Leblanc, & Bouchard, 1988 ; Sallis, Patterson, Buono, Atkins, & Nader, 1988 ) and how parents might best support OLPE learning outcomes, it is clear that parents are integral to the success of efforts to promote physical education learning and increase youth physical activity at home and in the community ( Lane et al., 2020 ).

The absence of adult supervision during students’ physical activity participation has been noted as a limitation of OLPE ( Harris & Metzler, 2019 ; Mosier & Lynn, 2012 ). Parents who maintained consistent communication with the OLPE instructor and provided support by monitoring students’ physical activity to ensure accountability were identified as keys to success in an OLPE course ( Kane, 2004 ). Research also suggests that parenting practices, such as modeling physically active behavior ( Hutchens & Lee, 2018 ), prompting children to be physically active, and engaging in physical activity with children, can increase children’s physical activity levels ( Lindsay, Wasserman, Muñoz, Wallington, & Greaney, 2018 ; Ransdell et al., 2003 ) and similarly may serve to promote child physical activity in an OLPE context.

Other factors that may influence the extent to which OLPE can support the goals of a CSPAP are parent logistical support for children’s OLPE and daily physical activity engagement, and parent volunteering and advocacy for OLPE. Examples of logistical support include scheduling time to assist students with OLPE assignments, providing transportation to physical activity facilities, and purchasing physical activity equipment when needed. With respect to volunteering and advocacy, parents might consider serving as ambassadors for students’ OLPE learning and physical activity participation. Some ways to do this could be to serve as volunteer mentors, coaches, or tutors, or to share personal experiences and insights related to promoting children’s OLPE learning and physical activity with school staff and community members ( CDC, 2012 ). Overall, the abrupt transition to home-based learning for students during the COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtedly disrupted the lives of families in numerous ways and placed new burdens on parents and guardians. It would be unrealistic to expect families to engage in the previously mentioned strategies (i.e., participate with children in physical activity, supervise children’s physical education learning and physical activity, provide logistical support, volunteer to support physical education, and advocate for physical education) without careful planning related to the investment of time and other resources (e.g., money needed to cover the costs of logistical support). Research is needed to better understand how families are coping during COVID-19, whether parents/guardians who have never participated in distance learning are able to support their children’s at-home physical education, and what support strategies parents/guardians enact with the most success.

Community factors

Community engagement involves integrating and identifying resources and services in the community to strengthen parent and school resources and programs ( Epstein, 2010 ). Partnerships with community members allow schools to maximize their resources (e.g., funding and facility usage; Institute of Medicine, 2013 ). Community partnerships may include parks and recreation departments, health departments, or agencies ( Erwin et al., 2013 ). Like the family, community engagement in OLPE and physical activity promotion for youth comes in multiple forms. These include space, programs, policies, and funding that support youth physical activity. Community spaces for physical activity encompass both the natural (e.g., green space, lakes, and mountains) and the built environment (e.g., safe routes for active travel, parks, playgrounds, community centers, and neighborhood streets). Community programs (e.g., after school programs and summer camps) can be hosted in a wide range of settings, such as school campuses, parks and recreation centers, faith-based organizations, and homes. Public policy and funding for youth physical activity are often intertwined, as policies can shape funding priorities.

Efforts to provide high-quality OLPE must include consideration for disparities among communities in relation to available, accessible, affordable, and contextually relevant activity spaces, programs, and policies/funding. Collaboration with local agencies and organizations is particularly important to ensuring that health promotion activities offered are community relevant ( Kruger et al., 2012 ). Hypothetically, creating a partnership with local bicycling promotion groups and offering bike education classes for families and the community may be an excellent partnership in a bike-friendly community, but not as strong where safe biking opportunities are less abundant. The ability of the community to engage in youth physical activity promotion is highly dependent on the family context and how involved families are in the community ( Finkelstein, Petersen, & Schottenfeld, 2017 ). Unfortunately, community facility or activity designers often fail to solicit parent input or feedback ( Finkelstein et al., 2017 ). For many communities, the following are inhibitors to successfully engaging youth in physical activity: (a) lack of affordable options, (b) traffic safety, (c) exposure to illicit activity in public spaces, (d) limited access to high-quality facilities, (e) transportation concerns, (f) lack of program availability, and (g) lack of information about programs offered ( Finkelstein et al., 2017 ).

The presence of any of the previously mentioned barriers may cause community spaces and programs to be underutilized by students and their families within the setting of OLPE. For instance, restricted access to school facilities for physical activity engagement and OLPE instructors’ inability to assure the safety of community facilities and equipment were noted challenges to OLPE students’ physical activity engagement within the community ( Mosier & Lynn, 2012 ). Inaccessible community facilities and equipment were also significant barriers to learning within another OLPE program, in which only 68.9% of OLPE students surveyed agreed facilities were available for their physical activity engagement every week ( Harris & Metzler, 2019 ). Identifying which barriers exist, as well as mapping the assets that a community offers, are important steps that should be taken to inform community planning and implementation of initiatives to support youth physical activity ( Allar et al., 2017 ).

• The CSPAP Outcomes Framework

Through the OLPE support system, it can be surmised that students will demonstrate targeted physical activity behaviors within the CSPAP outcomes framework, which consists of the physical education content standards and the youth physical activity guidelines. The student must be considered an active member and communicator in the activities; investments; decisions; and connections that schools, families, and communities promote for the student’s success ( Epstein, 2010 ). Student-related factors that warrant attention include the student’s physical education and physical activity abilities (e.g., physical, mental, and social–emotional); interests and motivation; and OLPE technical skills and abilities. Where disparities may be most pronounced is in the extent to which students with disabilities will be able to use OLPE for achieving physical education standards and meeting physical activity guidelines. There are nearly seven million students with disabilities in the United States ( Pew Research Center, 2020 ). This group makes up nearly 14% of national public school enrollment and has increased by 11% between the years 2000 and 2018 ( Hussar et al., 2020 ).

Students with disabilities encounter challenges as they seek to engage with online curricula, irrespective of whether the mode of delivery is supplemental, blended, or full time ( Basham et al., 2015 ). As reported by various outlets ( Camera, 2020 ), the COVID-19 pandemic has accentuated this challenge for students with disabilities. A poll of 2,400 parents in New York and California from March, 25 to April, 1 noted that 27% and 24% of parents respectively felt that schools were providing adequate online instructional material for their students ( Education Trust-West, 2020 ). While online opportunities can provide significant opportunities for many people with disabilities, Kent ( 2015 ) notes that disability is activated differently in these formats. Impairments related to vision, cognition, hearing, and manual dexterity, for example, could be significantly disabling depending on how the use of print, video, and audio is used online.

These perspectives underscore the necessity for a more equity-based approach to constructing online education for learners with disabilities. Literature has yet to fully conceptualize this, choosing instead to highlight interventions that consider the notion of universal design as a “retrofit” to existing courses ( McManus, Dryer, & Henning, 2017 ; Kinash, Crichton, & Kim-Rupnow, 2004 ). Ellis and Kent ( 2011 ) advocate for disability access built into online design processes at the outset to avoid pitfalls and short-term changes that are made because of political pressures. In developing online learning modalities, Kent ( 2015 ) also suggests that designers reflect on the social model of disability. This model moves the narrative away from a person with a disability being seen as “having something wrong” and needing to be “fixed” to an examination of how modern life is constructed in a way to exclude or restrict people with disabilities ( Oliver, 1990 ).

• Implications for Practice

Physical education teacher education (PETE) faculty are positioned to play leading roles in strengthening OLPE and supporting CSPAP goals by addressing many of the factors identified in Figure  2 . Establishing partnerships between university programs and local schools is a long-standing tradition in the work of PETE faculty, both in terms of fostering authentic field experiences and internship placements for teacher candidates and conducting school-based research. In the COVID era and beyond, this work must continue with an increased focus on generating buy-in and advocacy from school administrators and other school staff for quality physical education and CSPAPs. Principals’ involvement will likely be essential to maximizing the reach of physical education and daily physical activity promotion through the family and community engagement component of a CSPAP, given the principal’s prominence and connectedness within school communities. At the elementary school level, the involvement of classroom teachers may be equally important. These teachers, with whom children spend the majority of each school day, tend to develop the closest ties with families and harness the deepest insights into students’ lives. Virtual teaching has opened new windows into students’ home lives, and physical education teachers can improve their OLPE teaching effectiveness from gathering as much information as possible from other teachers about students’ situations at home. PETE faculty should strive to give teacher candidates opportunities to communicate with school administrators about physical education programming and CSPAPs; learn the distinct professional roles of different administrators (e.g., principal, assistant principal, and district officials); and collaborate with both preservice and in-service classroom teachers to meet CSPAP goals.

Technology integration in preservice preparation must now incorporate learning experiences that focus on using various videoconferencing platforms (e.g., Microsoft Teams, Blackboard Collaborate, Zoom, and Webex); digital device options (e.g., different kinds of desktops, laptops, tablets, and smartphones) and a wide range of applications and software adopted by school districts. Proficiency with these tools is fundamental to OLPE delivery and has become imperative since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, teacher candidates should gain experience using these tools to teach and learn within urban, suburban, and rural settings to develop a “real world” appreciation of the digital divide and to create lesson plans that reflect a first-hand understanding of technological constraints placed on distance education. Beyond becoming proficient with various digital tools for OLPE, preservice physical education teachers also need experiences using different methods of virtual program delivery, including synchronous instruction, asynchronous instruction, and hybrid models of instruction that blend online learning with in-person learning. A well-prepared 21st century physical education teacher must feel comfortable teaching within any of these instructional approaches, in addition to being able to teach under traditional, 5 days a week, in-person conditions.

Professional development workshops, parent seminars, and open house/back-to-school nights (in person or virtual) present additional platforms for addressing key factors associated with successful OLPE delivery. PETE faculty and teacher candidates can speak at these events to raise awareness of the importance of physical education and physical activity to whole child health and development and provide school staff and parents with strategies to support OLPE, as well as be involved with a CSPAP more broadly. Such strategies can be based on the work of faculty and candidates to conduct needs assessments and perform asset mapping to identify the most pressing needs of students and families (e.g., increased access to the Internet, and more culturally relevant programming) and the existing resources available within school communities (e.g., local funding opportunities, outdoor spaces for practicing psychomotor skills, and being physically active) to support student learning, family and community engagement, physical education programming, and physical activity.

Increased research in the area of OLPE will be foundational to informing measures taken to increase understanding related to, and accountability for, the use of best practices in OLPE in both preservice teacher education and K–12 physical education. Sargent and Casey ( 2019 ) recommended taking an appreciative inquiry approach to conducting research on the use of digital technologies in physical education. Appreciative inquiry is a strength-based approach that focuses on the positive aspects of technology integration rather than focusing on deficits and limitations. Citing Cooperrider and Whitney ( 2001 ), Sargent and Casey describe a cyclical approach to appreciative inquiry research, which encompasses four steps: discover, dream, design, and destiny. Discovery entails identifying what makes the technology appealing. The second step, dreaming, involves imagining what the technology could look like in the future. During the design step, the features needed to realize the dream are fleshed out. Finally, destiny brings the process back full circle with a focus on further transformation of the technology via the creation of new objectives for change. This research approach can serve as a valuable guide for PETE faculty seeking to coalesce and advance the best qualities of current OLPE technologies and practices in order to produce next generation resources for the profession.

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the need for effective integration of novel approaches to physical education in the presence of wide scale school closures and limited opportunities for in-person P–12 instruction. In this article, the authors have presented OLPE as a viable alternate mechanism for equitable physical activity promotion among youth in the current climate, drawing from the synergy of the CSPAP framework. To help teacher educators and researchers conceptualize the integration of OLPE with CSPAPs, it is purported that standards-based physical education programs can serve to promote physical activity for all youth in school, community, and home settings with the support of OLPE tools. Similarly, the goals and expectations for high-quality physical education instruction and delivery should apply to the development of successful OLPE platforms that strive to make physical activity programming equitable, developmentally appropriate, and equally accessible, accounting for unique factors of effective OLPE access and delivery at the student, family, school, and community levels. In this sense, OLPE, through capitalizing on the inherent interconnectedness between the school, digital technologies, physical education, the family, the community, and the student can serve to support CSPAP goals. Building from the schematic presented in this article, a natural next step is to develop learning experiences in PETE that focus on OLPE competency building, needs assessment, and resource optimization in the family and community contexts. Concurrently, research should examine the potential for preparing P–12 school professionals (e.g., physical education teachers and teacher educators) in successful practices for OLPE delivery and assess students’ learning, physical activity, and related health outcomes.

Allar , I. , Elliott , E. , Jones , E. , Kristjansson , A.L. , Taliaferro , A. , & Bulger , S.M. ( 2017 ). Involving families and communities in CSPAP development using asset mapping . Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 88 ( 5 ), 7 – 14 . doi:10.1080/07303084.2017.1280439

• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Anderson , C.B. , Hughes , S.O. , & Fuemmeler , B.F. ( 2009 ). Parent–child attitude congruence on type and intensity of physical activity: Testing multiple mediators of sedentary behavior in older children . Health Psychology, 28 ( 4 ), 428 – 438 . PubMed ID: 19594267 doi:10.1037/a0014522

Basham , J.D. , Stahl , S. , Ortiz , K. , Rice , M.F. , & Smith , S. ( 2015 ). Equity matters: Digital & online learning for students with disabilities . Lawrence, KS : Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities .

Bodsworth , H. , & Goodyear , V.A. ( 2017 ). Barriers and facilitators to using digital technologies in the Cooperative Learning model in physical education . Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 22 ( 6 ), 563 – 579 . doi:10.1080/17408989.2017.1294672

Brown , H.E. , Atkin , A.J. , Wong , P.G. , Chinapaw , M.J.M. , & van Sluijs , E.M.F. ( 2016 ). Family-based interventions to increase physical activity in children: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and realist synthesis . Obesity Reviews, 18 ( 4 ), 491 – 494 . doi:10.1111/obr.12493

Buschner , C. ( 2006 ). Online physical education: Wires and lights in a box . Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 77 ( 2 ), 3 – 8 . doi:10.1080/07303084.2006.10597818

Camera , L. ( 2020 ). Schools struggle to educate students with disabilities amid pandemic . Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2020-04-15/schools-struggle-to-educate-students-with-disabilities-amid-pandemic

Carson , R.L. , Castelli , D.M. , Beighle , A. , & Erwin , H. ( 2014 ). School-based physical activity promotion: A conceptual framework for research and practice . Childhood Obesity, 10 ( 2 ), 100 – 106 .

Carson , R.L. , & Webster , C.A. ( 2020 ). Comprehensive school physical activity programs: Putting research into evidence-based practice . Champaign, IL : Human Kinetics .

Casey , A. , Goodyear , V.A. , & Armour , K.M. ( 2017 ). Digital technologies and learning in physical education: Pedagogical cases . Milton Park, Abington, Oxfordshire : Routledge .

Centeio , E.E. ( 2017 ). The have and have-nots: An ever-present digital divide . Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 88 ( 6 ), 11 – 12 . doi:10.1080/07303084.2017.1331643

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . ( 2012 ). Parent engagement: Strategies for involving parents in school health . Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services .

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . ( 2019 ). Increasing physical education and physical activity: A framework for schools . Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Chen , S. , & Gu , X. ( 2018 ). Toward active living. Comprehensive school physical activity program research and implications . Quest, 70 ( 2 ), 191 – 212 . doi:10.1080/00336297.2017.1365002

Cipriani , K. , Richardson , C. , & Roberts , G. ( 2012 ). Family and community involvement in the comprehensive school physical activity program . Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 83 ( 7 ), 20 – 26 . doi:10.1080/07303084.2012.10598807

Cooperrider , D.L. , & Whitney , D. ( 2001 ). A positive revolution in change: Appreciative inquiry . Public Administration and Public Policy, 87, 611 – 630 .

Daum , D.N. ( 2020 ). Thinking about hybrid or online learning in physical education? Start here! Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 91 ( 1 ), 42 – 44 . doi: 10.1080/07303084.2020.1683387

Daum , D.N. , & Buschner , C. ( 2014 ). Research on teaching blended and online physical education . In R.E. Ferdig & K. Kennedy (Eds.), Handbook of Research on K–12 Online and Blended Learning ( 1st ed. , pp.  201 – 222 ). Pittsburg, PA : ETC Press .

Daum , D.N. , & Buschner , C. ( 2018 ). Research on teaching K–12 online physical education . In K. Kennedy & R.E. Ferdig (Eds.), Handbook of Research on K–12 Online and Blended Learning ( 2nd ed. , pp.  321 – 334 ). Pittsburg, PA : ETC Press .

Daum , D.N. , & Woods , A.M. ( 2015 ). Physical education teacher educator’s perceptions toward understanding of K–12 online physical education . Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 34 ( 4 ), 716 – 724 . doi:10.1123/jtpe.2014-0146

Davison , K.K. , Jurkowski , J.M. , Li , K. , Kranz , S. , & Lawson , H.A. ( 2013 ). A childhood obesity intervention developed by families for families: Results from a pilot study . International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10 ( 1 ), 3 . doi:10.1186/1479-5868-10-3

Dewey , J. ( 1916 ). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education . New York, NY : Macmillan .

Digital Learning Collaborative . ( 2020 ). Snapshot 2020: A review of K–12 online, blended, and digital learning . Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a98496696d4556b01f86662/t/5e61341d879e630db4481a01/1583428708513/DLC-KP-Snapshot2020.pdf

Education Trust-West . ( 2020 ). California parent poll: COVID-19 and school closures . Retrieved from https://west.edtrust.org/ca-parent-poll-covid-19-and-school-closures/

Egan , C.A. , & Miller , M. ( 2019 ). Family and community involvement to increase physical activity as part of a CSPAP . Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 90 ( 1 ), 39 – 45 . doi:10.1080/07303084.2018.1535342

Ellis , K. , & Kent , M. ( 2011 ). Disability and new media . New York, NY : Routledge .

Epstein , J.L. ( 2010 ). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share . Phi Delta Kappan, 92 ( 3 ), 81 – 96 . doi:10.1177/003172171009200326

Erwin , H. , Beighle , A. , Carson , R.L. , & Castelli , D.M. ( 2013 ). Comprehensive school-based physical activity promotion: A review . Quest, 65 ( 4 ), 412 – 428 . doi:10.1080/00336297.2013.791872

Evergreen Education Group . ( 2016 ). Keeping pace with K–12 online learning . Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59381b9a17bffc68bf625df4/t/593efc779f745684e6ccf4d8/1497300100709/EEG_KP2016-web.pdf/

Finkelstein , D.M. , Petersen , D.M. , & Schottenfeld , L.S. ( 2017 ). Promoting children's physical activity in low-income communities in Colorado: What are the barriers and opportunities? Preventing Chronic Disease, 14, E134 . doi:10.5888/pcd14.170111

Fishbane , L. , & Tomer , A. ( 2020 ). As classes move online during COVID-19, what are disconnected students to do? Brookings . Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/03/20/as-classes-move-online-during-covid-19-what-are-disconnected-students-to-do/

The Foundation for Blended and Online Learning . ( 2018 ). Digital learning strategies for rural America: A scan of policy and practice in K–12 education . Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED588911.pdf .

Glowacki , E.M. , Centeio , E.E. , Van Dongen , D.J. , Carson , R.L. , & Castelli , D.M. ( 2016 ). Health promotion efforts as predictors of physical activity in schools: An application of the diffusion of innovations model . Journal of School Health, 86 ( 6 ), 399 – 406 . doi:10.1111/josh.12390

Harris , M.T. , & Metzler , M. ( 2019 ). Online personal fitness course alignment with national guidelines for online physical education . Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 38 ( 3 ), 174 – 183 . doi: 10.1123/jtpe.2018-0169

Hastie , P.A. ( 2017 ). Revisiting the national physical education content standards: What do we really know about our achievement of the physically educated/literate person? Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 36 ( 1 ), 3 – 19 . doi:10.1123/jtpe.2016-0182

Henderson , A.T. , & Berla , N. ( 1994 ). A new generation of evidence: The family is critical to student achievement (Report No. ISBN-0-934460-41-8). Washington, DC : National Committee for Citizens in Education . (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 375968)

Hollis , J.L. , Sutherland , R. , Williams , A.J. , Campbell , E. , Nathan , N. , Wolfenden , L. , … Wiggers , J. ( 2017 ). A systematic review and meta-analysis of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity levels in secondary school physical education lessons . International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 14 ( 1 ), 52 . doi:10.1186/s12966-017-0504-0

Hollis , J.L. , Williams , A.J. , Sutherland , R. , Campbell , E. , Nathan , N. , Wolfenden , L. , … Wiggers , J. ( 2016 ). A systematic review and meta-analysis of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity levels in elementary school physical education lessons . Preventive Medicine, 86, 34 – 54 . PubMed ID: 26592691 doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.11.018

Huerta , L. , Shafer , S.R. , Barbour , M.K. , Miron , G. , & Gulosino , C. ( 2015 ). Virtual schools in the U.S. 2015: Politics, performance, policy, and research evidence . Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-schools-annual-2015

Hussar , B. , Zhang , J. , Hein , S. , Wang , K. , Roberts , A. , Cui , J. , … Dilig , R. ( 2020 ). The condition of education 2020 (NCES 2020-144). Washington, DC : National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education . Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2020144

Hutchens , A. , & Lee , R.E. ( 2018 ). Parenting practices and children’s physical activity: An integrative review . The Journal of School Nursing, 34 ( 1 ), 68 – 85 . PubMed ID: 28631518 doi:10.1177/1059840517714852

Institute of Medicine . ( 2013 ). Educating the study body: Taking physical activity and physical education to school . Washington, DC : National Academic Press .

Kane , J.J. ( 2004 ). The dog ate my disk: Teacher and student perspectives of an online personal fitness course . Florida Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance Journal, 2, 8 – 12 .

Kent , M. ( 2015 ). Disability and eLearning: Opportunities and barriers . Disability Studies Quarterly, 35 ( 1 ). Retrieved from https://dsq-sds.org/article/view/3815/3830

Killian , C.M. , Kinder , C.J. , & Woods , A.M. ( 2019 ). Online and blended learning in K–12 physical education: A scoping review . Kinesiology Review, 8 ( 2 ), 110 – 129 . doi:10.1123/kr.2019-0003

Killian , C.M. , Woods , A.M. , Graber , K.C. , & Templin , T. ( 2020 ). Factors associated with high school physical education teachers’ adoption of a supplemental online instructional system (iPE) . Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 40 ( 1 ), 136 – 145 . doi:10.1123/jtpe.2019-0188

Kimiecik , J.C. , & Horn , T.S. ( 1998 ). Parental beliefs and children's moderate-to-vigorous physical activity . Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69 ( 2 ), 163 – 175 . doi:10.1080/02701367.1998.10607681

Kinash , S. , Crichton , S. , & Kim-Rupnow , W.S. ( 2004 ). A review of 2000–2003 literature at the intersection of online learning and disability . American Journal of Distance Education, 18 ( 1 ), 5 – 19 . doi:10.1207/s15389286ajde1801_2

Kirk , D. ( 1999 ). Physical culture, physical education and relational analysis . Sport, Education and Society, 4 ( 1 ), 63 – 73 . doi:10.1080/1357332990040105

Kooiman , B.J. ( 2017 ). Moving online physical education from oxymoron to efficacy . Sport, Education and Society, 22 ( 2 ), 230 – 246 . doi:10.1080/13573322.2015.1015978

Kruger , T.M. , Swanson , M. , Davis , R.E. , Wright , S. , Dollarhide , K. , & Schoenberg , N.E. ( 2012 ). Formative research conducted in rural Appalachia to inform a community physical activity intervention . American Journal of Health Promotion, 26 ( 3 ), 143 – 151 . PubMed ID: 22208411 doi:10.4278/ajhp.091223-QUAL-399

Lane , C. , Carson , V. , Morton , K. , Reno , W. , Wright , C. , Predy , M. , & Naylor , P. ( 2020 ). A real world feasibility trial of the PLAYshop: A brief intervention to facilitate parent engagement in developing their child’s physical literacy . Manuscript under review.

Lawson , H.A. (Ed.). ( 2018 ). Redesigning physical education: An equity agenda in which every child matters . New York, NY : Routledge .

Lindsay , A. , Sussner , K. , Kim , J. , & Gortmaker , S. ( 2006 ). The role of parents in preventing childhood obesity . The Future of Children, 16 ( 1 ), 169 – 186 . PubMed ID: 16532663 doi:10.1353/foc.2006.0006

Lindsay , A.C. , Wasserman , M. , Muñoz , M.A. , Wallington , S.F. , & Greaney , M.L. ( 2018 ). Examining influences of parenting styles and practices on physical activity and sedentary behaviors in Latino children in the United States: Integrative review . JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 4 ( 1 ), e14 . PubMed ID: 29382629 doi:10.2196/publichealth.8159

Locke , L.F. ( 1997 ). Minutes of the commodore club: Even luddites chat on the internet . Quest, 49 ( 3 ), 270 – 279 .

McManus , D. , Dryer , R. , & Henning , M. ( 2017 ). Barriers to learning online experienced by students with a mental health disability . Distance Education, 38 ( 3 ), 336 – 352 . doi:10.1080/01587919.2017.1369348

McWilliams , S.R. , Bulger , S. , Keath , A. , & Elliott , E. ( 2020 ). The fit family challenge: A county-wide, web-based, physical activity initiative . Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 91 ( 3 ), 35 – 39 . doi:10.1080/07303084.2019.1705212

Mohnsen , B. ( 2012 ). Implementing online physical education , Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 83 ( 2 ), 42 – 47 . doi:10.1080/07303084.2012.10598727

Moore , L.L. , Lombardi , D.A. , White , M.J. , Campbell , J.L. , Oliveria , S.A. , & Ellison , R.C. ( 1991 ). Influence of parents' physical activity levels on activity levels of young children . The Journal of Pediatrics, 118 ( 2 ), 215 – 219 . PubMed ID: 1993947 doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(05)80485-8

Mosier , B. , & Lynn , S. ( 2012 ). An initial exploration of a virtual personal fitness course . Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 15 ( 3 ). Retrieved from ∼ https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall153/mosier_lynn153.html

Oliver , M. ( 1990 ). The politics of disablement . London, UK : Macmillan Education .

Orendorff , K. , Webster , C.A. , Mindrila , D. , Cunningham , K. M. W. , Doutis , P. , Dauenhauer , B. , & Stodden , D.F. ( 2020 ). Principals’ involvement in comprehensive school physical activity programmes: A social-ecological perspective . European Physical Education Review . doi:10.1177/1356336X20976687.

Parker , M. , MacPhail , A. , O’Sullivan , M. , Ní Chróinín , D. , & McEvoy , E. ( 2018 ). Drawing conclusions: Primary school children’s construction of school physical education and physical activity opportunities outside of school . European Physical Education Review, 24 ( 4 ), 449 – 466 . doi:10.1177/1356336X16683898

Pérusse , L. , Leblanc , C. , & Bouchard , C. ( 1988 ). Familial resemblance in lifestyle components: Results from the Canada fitness survey . Canadian Journal of Public Health, 79 ( 3 ), 201 – 205 . PubMed ID: 3401837

Pew Research Center . ( 2020 ). As schools shift to online learning amid pandemic, here’s what we know about disabled students in the U.S. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/23/as-schools-shift-to-online-learning-amid-pandemic-heres-what-we-know-about-disabled-students-in-the-u-s/

Ransdell , L.B. , Eastep , E. , Taylor , A. , Oakland , D. , Schmidt , J. , Moyer-Mileur , L. , & Shultz , B. ( 2003 ). Daughters and mothers exercising together (DAMET): Effects of home-and university-based interventions on physical activity behavior and family relations . American Journal of Health Education, 34 ( 1 ), 19 – 29 . doi:10.1080/19325037.2003.10603521

Rhodes , R.E. , Guerrero , M.D. , Vanderloo , L.M. , Barbeau , K. , Birken , C.S. , Chaput , J. , … Tremblay , M.S. ( 2020 ). Development of a consensus statement on the role of the family in the physical activity, sedentary, and sleep behaviours of children and youth . International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 17 ( 1 ), 74 . doi:10.1186/s12966-020-00973-0

Riddlesden , D. , & Singleton , A.D. ( 2014 ). Broadband speed equity: A new digital divide? Applied Geography, 52, 25 – 33 . doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.04.008

Rose , R. ( 2014 ). Access and equity for all learnings in online and blended education. International Association for K–12 Online Learning . Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED561307.pdf

Rose , R. , & Blomeyer , R. ( 2007 ). Access and equity in online classes and virtual schools. International Association for K–12 Online Learning . Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/02/iNACOL_AccessEquity_2007.pdf

Sallis , J.F. , Patterson , T.L. , Buono , M.J. , Atkins , C.J. , & Nader , P.R. ( 1988 ). Aggregation of physical activity habits in Mexican–American and Anglo families . Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 11 ( 1 ), 31 – 41 . PubMed ID: 3367370 doi:10.1007/BF00846167

Sargent , J. , & Casey , A. ( 2019 ). Appreciative inquiry for physical education and sport pedagogy research: A methodological illustration through teachers’ use of digital technology . Sport, Education and Society, 26 ( 1 ), 45 – 57 . doi:10.1080/13573322.2019.1689942

SHAPE America ( 2015 ). Comprehensive school physical activity programs: Helping all students log 60 minutes of physical activity each day . [Position statement]. Reston, VA : Author .

SHAPE America ( 2018 ). Guidelines for K–12 Online Physical Education . [Guidance document]. Reston, VA : Author .

Smith , A. ( 2015 ). The smartphone difference . Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services . ( 2018 ). Physical activity guidelines for Americans ( 2nd ed. ). Washington, DC : Author .

Velde , G.T. , Lubrecht , J. , Arayess , L. , Loo , C.V. , Hesselink , M. , Reijnders , D. , & Vreugdenhil , A. ( 2020 ). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on physical activity behavior and screen time in Dutch children during and after school closures . The Lancet . Advance online publication. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3714619

Webster , C.A. , Beets , M.W. , Weaver , R.G. , Vazou , S. , & Russ , L. ( 2015 ). Rethinking recommendations for implementing comprehensive school physical activity programs: A partnership model . Quest, 67 ( 2 ), 185 – 202 . doi:10.1080/00336297.2015.1017588

Webster , C.A. , Glascoe , G. , Moore , C. , Dauenhauer , B. , Egan , C.A. , Russ , L.B. , … Buschmeier , C. ( 2020 ). Recommendations for administrators’ involvement in school-based health promotion: A scoping review . International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17 ( 17 ), 6249 . doi:10.3390/ijerph17176249

Webster , C.A. , Rink , J.E. , Carson , R.L. , Moon , J. , & Geaudrault , K.L. ( 2020 ). The comprehensive school physical activity program model: A proposed illustrative supplement to help move the needle on youth physical activity . Kinesiology Review, 9 ( 2 ), 112 – 121 . doi:10.1123/kr.2019-0048

Williams , L. , Martinasek , M. , Karone , K. , & Sanders , S. ( 2020 ). High school students’ perceptions of traditional and online health and physical education courses . Journal of School Health, 90 ( 3 ), 234 – 244 . doi:10.1111/josh.12865

Xiang , M. , Zhang , Z. , & Kuwahara , K. ( 2020 ). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on children and adolescents’ lifestyle behavior larger than expected . Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases, 63 ( 4 ), 531 – 532 . PubMed ID: 32360513 doi:10.1016/j.pcad.2020.04.013

* Webster is with the Department of Physical Education, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA. D’Agostino is with the Department of Family and Community Health, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. Urtel is with the Department of Kinesiology, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, USA. McMullen is with the School of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO, USA. Culp is with the Department of Health Promotion and Physical Education, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA. Egan Loiacono is with the Department of Movement Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA. Killian is with the Department of Kinesiology and Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Journal of Teaching in Physical Education

Related Articles

Article sections.

• View raw image
• Download Powerpoint Slide

Article Metrics

• Collin A. Webster
• Emily D’Agostino
• Jaimie McMullen
• Cate A. Egan Loiacono
• Chad Killian

Google Scholar

© 2024 Human Kinetics

Powered by:

• [66.249.64.20|185.194.105.172]
• 185.194.105.172

Character limit 500 /500

Subscribe for insights on growing your learning community

What Is Collaborative Learning? Strategies, Use Cases, & Techniques (2024)

What you'll learn in this article:

• List item 1
• List item 2
• List item 3
• List item 4

What is collaborative learning? Collaborative learning is the practice of students working collectively to solve problems, creating a dynamic environment of shared knowledge and skills. In this article, we define what is collaborative learning, illustrate its role in effective education, and provide guidelines for its application in your classroom.

What we will discover together:

• Collaborative learning is a learner-driven approach that fosters a social, interactive classroom ecosystem aimed at enhancing communication, negotiation, feedback, and problem-solving skills among students.
• Collaborative environments encourage student engagement and active participation, which lead to deeper understanding, critical thinking, knowledge retention, and the development of important self-management and leadership skills.
• Effective collaborative learning involves the use of structured strategies, supportive environments, and technological platforms like Disco , which facilitate group interaction and personalized learning experiences through advanced features and tools.

What is the Importance of Collaborative Learning?

Collaborative learning is a learner-driven approach where the classroom transforms into a thriving ecosystem of shared goals and joint intellectual effort.

In a collaborative learning environment, students work together intertwining their unique strands of knowledge to create a robust tapestry of understanding. Building on the foundation of social constructivism, collaborative learning embodies the principle that learning is inherently a social act, shaped by the vibrant interactions among peers and the community at large.

It’s an environment where communication, negotiation, feedback, and problem-solving are not just taught but lived, preparing students for a world that values cooperation and adaptability.

The essence of collaborative learning is to:

• Nurture the ability to work effectively in groups, recognize differences, and construct universal agreements through effective communication
• Foster a collaborative learning community, where challenges are tackled collectively, and every student contributes to the collective knowledge of the entire class
• Enhance learning outcomes and ensure that students are career-ready, armed with essential skills honed through experience

Collaborative vs. Cooperative Learning: The Key Differences

Exploring the world of collaborative and cooperative learning is like looking at different paths for group work. Collaborative learning is all about diving in and finding things out together, with everyone pitching in. It's like being on an adventure where everyone has a say in which way to go. Cooperative learning, though, is more like following a map with someone leading the way and everyone having a specific job to do.

While cooperative learning leans on structured projects and assessments of individual and team efforts, collaborative learning thrives in more informal settings, with students working together towards shared objectives.

The choice between these educational approaches, such as collaborative or cooperative learning, is influenced by the desired learning goals, the subject matter at hand, and the level of student engagement.

Cooperative learning is particularly beneficial when clear roles and organization can enhance peer teaching and feedback, leading to individual learning performance that is lifted by group success. Yet, when the situation calls for an informal setting or students with more learning experience, collaborative learning’s flexibility and emphasis on group autonomy come to the fore.

Why You Should Build Collaborative Learning Environments

Embark on a deeper exploration of the myriad advantages that collaborative learning environments offer. In these vibrant learning spaces, students are not merely passive recipients of knowledge; rather, they are active participants, crafting and shaping their learning experiences.

These environments serve as incubators for deeper understanding, heightened motivation, and keen critical thinking, which are indispensable in today’s fast-paced and complex world. The psychological and social benefits of such an educational approach are particularly effective in secondary schools and in the teaching of science subjects, where the learning process is often most demanding.

A collaborative learning environment is a fertile ground for academic achievement. In this type of community, active participation and the continuous exchange of ideas through discussion boards are positively correlated with students’ performance. It’s a space where:

• Student-faculty and participant-trainer interaction blossoms
• Students work together, taking ownership of their learning and engaging with the learning material on a profound level
• Collaborative activities boost knowledge retention
• Students forge new relationships and express diverse ideas
• Students develop self-management and leadership skills, which are critical for future development

It Boosts Student Retention and Success

In the collaborative classroom, every student is given a lifeline to success. Lower-attaining students, in particular, find a nurturing haven where peer support illuminates the path to understanding.

Through collaborative learning methods such as active participation and the scaffolding of continuous peer feedback, students develop a robust sense of ownership over the course material, reinforcing their academic achievement and student retention.

The creation of tangible outcomes, such as group discussion summaries, ensures that each member is accountable, providing a clear measure of their grasp on the subject matter.

This collective educational approach is a cornerstone in higher education, where the stakes are high, and the need for persistent student engagement is critical. By encouraging active engagement, collaborative learning can:

• Maintain students’ interest
• Foster a positive impact that ripples through their academic journey
• Cement important factor for success in the educational experience

It Fosters Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills

Dive into the heart of collaborative learning activities, where critical thinking and problem-solving skills are not just developed but put to the test. Exposed to a kaleidoscope of perspectives, students are challenged to synthesize new knowledge, evaluate information swiftly, and craft well-reasoned arguments.

The incorporation of social learning into collaborative activities sparks a surge of creativity and ushers in a more dynamic approach to problem-solving, where new ideas flourish and new concepts take root.

Through strategies like the jigsaw technique, students become masters of their content domains, nurturing tailored problem-solving strategies and contributing to the cognitive development of the whole group.

While competition has its place, it’s important to ensure it catalyzes learning rather than overshadowing the educational approach. Collaborative learning builds students’ self-esteem by fostering a sense of responsibility and offering opportunities for peer-to-peer instruction, thus paving the way for good development practice.

It Enhances Social and Communication Skills

Within the collaborative learning environment, students are encouraged to scale the heights of social and communication excellence. Team-building activities and exposure to a variety of viewpoints not only enrich learning but also prepare students for the diverse professional and social learning environments they will encounter after graduation.

Through active participation in communication exercises, students hone their public speaking and active listening skills, learning to express and challenge ideas with clarity and confidence.

Peer learning , a pillar of collaborative learning, involves students working together in a collaborative environment to discuss concepts, solve problems, and share knowledge.

It’s a process that enhances collective problem-solving skills and leads to a deeper understanding of collaborative experiences. Reflective activities following collaborative sessions offer students a mirror to their growth, helping them articulate the benefits gained and challenges faced, and fostering a sense of shared responsibility within the learning community.

5 Use Cases to Implement Effective Collaborative Learning Strategies

Transitioning from the ‘why’ to the ‘how, ’ successful implementation of collaborative learning strategies is key to unlocking the full potential of this educational approach.

Effective collaboration transcends the simple act of grouping students; it demands structured approaches that are tailored to the objectives at hand and the complexities of the project. A vibrant educational experience is cultivated not just through routine group work but also through implementing a variety of structures, from ad-hoc groups for short-term tasks to long-term project teams.

Creating an interactive and supportive learning environment is a multi-faceted endeavor. It requires:

• Students to form their accountability measures
• Instructors to regularly evaluate progress
• Facilitation of face-to-face collaboration that aligns with students’ schedules
• Use of collaborative learning platforms, which provide features such as sub-groups, targeted events, content sharing, discussions, and engagement tracking that are critical to the learning process.

Use Case #1: Utilizing Technology to Facilitate Collaboration

In the digital age, technology has become a cornerstone in facilitating collaboration and enhancing the learning experience. Advances in social media and mobile learning apps have revolutionized communication patterns, promoting collaboration through collective exploration and interaction.

Social learning platforms such as Disco provide spaces where students can engage in discourse, access materials, and connect with both peers and instructors, seamlessly blending learning with social interaction.

The convenience and cost-effectiveness of mobile devices and social media are especially valued by modern students, as these tools empower them to engage in academic partnerships and procure educational information.

With students’ familiarity with digital landscapes, the integration of technology in classrooms promotes greater engagement with non-AI & AI learning content and extends the reach of the classroom beyond its physical boundaries.

Interactive technologies like digital whiteboards and dedicated applications like the Disco app enhance learner engagement by fostering continuous communication and learning opportunities.

The Power of Groups and Sub-Groups in Collaborative Learning

"Disco has allowed us to build a scalable education offering at Dribbble. The subgroups function lets us break the hundreds of students who enroll in each cohort into mentorship groups, giving each student a personal, hands-on & intimate learning experience.” - Dribbble.com

Groups and sub-groups are the building blocks of a robust collaborative learning environment. They are the crucibles in which the alchemy of learning takes place, transforming individual knowledge into collective wisdom through assigning specific roles to group members.

How do you effectively organize students within your social learning LMS ? Begin by determining whether to group them by interests, geographic location, cohort, or skill level, and then devise creative social group names . If you're at a loss for names, you can default to simple labels such as Group A, Group B, or Group C.

Navigate the Admin Area -> Members -> Groups, and then click '+ Group' to add a custom group. Make sure you created a Disco account to complete this exercise.

In this example, I am creating a group for those new members who wish to become Ambassadors. I have entered the group name, selected a color, set the visibility, and added the existing members who have expressed an interest in joining this group.

Here's what it looks like after saving changes:

📺 Watch this short tutorial to learn more:

For larger learning organizations, the ability to create mini-communities within the collaborative learning framework is invaluable. These mini-communities, or cohorts, can be specifically tailored to focus on group activities that are ideal for project-based learning approaches and learning sprints.

By dividing the larger organization into more manageable sub-groups, each cohort can engage in targeted project work, fostering a more intimate and focused learning experience that aligns with the organization's broader educational goals.

With the Disco platform, you can create subgroups to ensure active participation and effective collaboration among your learners. With group sizes of 3-5 members showing the most positive impact on learning outcomes, the strength of collaborative learning is maximized.

📺 Learn to create subgroups in less than a minute:

Diversity within these groups is not just welcomed, but celebrated, enriching the collaborative learning experience as students prepare for the varied dynamics of the real-world workplace. By presenting a topical conflict or posing well-defined questions, facilitators can steer group discussions toward effectiveness and depth.

Furthermore, collaborative presentations across departmental teams foster knowledge sharing and collective problem-solving, weaving together the fabric of a truly collaborative learning community.

Use Case #2: Creating a Supportive Collaborative Environment

A supportive collaborative environment is the lifeblood of effective group learning. It is where students are assured of their place and voice, with teachers playing a pivotal role in assisting those who may struggle or not contribute.

Close monitoring of group dynamics is essential, ensuring that every student is heard and their contributions are valued. Facilitators must navigate group processes, intervene when necessary, and cultivate a positive learning environment that encourages students to take an active role in their education.

In such an environment, the facilitator’s role extends beyond mere oversight; it involves organizing communication, coordination, and providing support to all participants.

Creating clear collaborative rules and advocating for open discussion within the classroom enhances student engagement and contribution, making the collaborative environment a place where learning thrives. A well-defined process for collaborative work, which includes delivering detailed instructions and involving students in rule creation, is integral to the success of group work.

Furthermore, the use of surveys to consider students’ varied backgrounds and learning styles can stimulate diversity and equity in group selection.

An example of this is posting a poll in your feed to easily gather feedback from your learners and community members. All it takes is a simple click on 'add poll' to set up your questions and choices. In the example below, I utilized Disco AI , our multifunctional AI native tool that not only generates social posts but also creates curriculum and responds to member inquiries.

After you've set up your poll, this is how it will appear as a post within your feed. Learners can now cast or change their votes before the deadline. Additionally, they can react, write comments, and bookmark the post, making collaboration seamless and intuitive.

Use Case #3: Driving Collaborative Feedback Through Sub-Groups

Sub-groups within the collaborative framework are instrumental in driving feedback and enhancing the learning experience. They provide a platform for peer teaching, where students can hone their expertise in specific areas through methods like the Jigsaw technique before imparting that knowledge to their home group.

This not only ensures deeper engagement with the material but also fosters a collaborative approach where students can provide and receive feedback on their tasks, leveraging the collective intellect of the group.

Facilitate this peer learning while your students are engaged with your course materials. After you've created a course on the Disco platform, you can design various content types such as lessons, tasks, quizzes, and assignments. For the assignments, enable learners in the subgroups to review their peers' submissions and provide feedback directly within the lesson's comment section.

Simply click 'settings' and scroll down to adjust the 'submission visibility' to 'sub-group members'. Be aware that this setting is not available unless you have already established subgroups within the product. Ensure you've set them up beforehand.

Furthermore, by posting comments, you can foster a collaborative learning atmosphere by encouraging students to share their insights and knowledge as they progress through the lessons. Their classmates can then engage by reacting to and responding to these comments, ensuring the learning environment remains interactive and collaborative even during individual study times.

Structured within the classroom to maximize collaborative feedback among peers, sub-groups serve as a microcosm of the larger collaborative environment. They are particularly adept at:

• Engaging introverted students
• Ensuring that every voice is heard and every perspective is considered
• Ensuring balanced participation across different personality types.

Use Case #4: Designing Engaging Collaborative Activities Through Event-Driven Group Sessions

To captivate the minds of learners and maximize engagement, the design of collaborative learning activities should be both precise and imaginative. Group sessions created through events stand out as the best part of designing these activities, as they bring students together in a dynamic and interactive setting.

With well-defined objectives, these collaborative learning approaches aim to build knowledge, shift attitudes, and enhance skills while ensuring clarity in team roles and the availability of tools for managing time, resources, and conflicts. Innovative techniques such as ‘Fishbowl,’ ‘Pairs Check,’ ‘Think-Pair-Share,’ and ‘Think-Pair-Square’ breathe life into discussions, ensuring active participation from every student.

Start creating an event within your course. If this is your first time doing so, watch this 2-minute tutorial:

To ensure your event or group session is exclusively for a specific group or subgroup, navigate to 'settings', scroll down, and modify the event access to 'private'. Subsequently, you will be able to select the groups/subgroups that are intended to attend.

The setting for these event-driven group sessions is just as crucial as the activities themselves. By moving beyond the traditional classroom and into diverse environments, whether virtual or physical, students’ senses are engaged, the focus is sharpened, and a deeper level of collaboration is achieved.

Use Case #5: Measuring Engagement and Participation

Assessing the impact of collaborative learning activities requires a comprehensive look at how students engage with the material and participate in the learning process. Monitoring student engagement encompasses assessing cognitive, behavioral, and emotional experiences through various data and observations, such as:

• Classroom participation
• Presentation assignments
• Group discussions
• Peer evaluations

By utilizing journals as a reflective tool, teachers can encourage students’ engagement and understanding of the learning process over time, providing valuable insights into the effectiveness of collaborative activities.

An engagement scoring system and learner progress reports can provide a quantitative measure of learners’ participation levels within collaborative platforms, offering a clear picture of how actively students are involved in their learning.

Additionally, peer and self-assessment techniques are employed to evaluate individual contributions, influencing grading decisions and promoting active learning. By measuring these aspects of the learning experience, educators can ensure that collaborative activities are not only engaging but also lead to meaningful academic achievement.

A step-by-step guide to build and grow a thriving learning community.

Introducing DISCO : The #1 Social & Collaborative Learning Platform Powered by AI

Disco.co shines as the premier platform for social and collaborative learning, skillfully designed for up-skilling, customer and partner enablement, cohort training, and accelerator programs. Its AI-powered capabilities make learning a highly engaging and seamlessly operated experience.

With the backing of GSV, a leading edtech investor, Disco has been recognized as Fast Co’s most innovative edtech of the year and Edtech Breakthrough’s Startup of the Year. Its impressive client roster includes the Toronto Board of Trade, Kaplan, Coursehero, MonitorDeloitte, XPrize, and Baptist Health, showcasing its widespread impact and trust within the industry.

Key Features:

• Advanced course builder
• Quizzes, assignments, lessons, tasks, certificates
• Discussion boards, forums, and messaging
• Event management tool with video streaming and Zoom integration
• Full customization of the platform from branding, domain, and labels
• Groups and subgroups for peer learning
• Integration, automation, and course duplication
• Engagement scoring and learner progress reports
• Advanced analytics and insights
• Mobile app and custom branded app - coming soon!
• SSO, API, and other enterprise features
• Membership plans, public pages, and Stripe integration
• Disco Academy and many more!

Disco is not just a learning platform; it's a transformative social learning platform that's setting the standard for collaborative learning in the digital age.

Take the Next Step in Your Educational Journey with Disco's 14-day Free Trial!

By signing up with a 14-day free trial , users can enhance peer interaction and group learning, which are critical components of effective collaborative learning in the classroom. The platform’s suite of tools is designed to facilitate group discussion, idea sharing, and collective knowledge construction, making it an invaluable asset for educators and students alike.

Meanwhile, schedule a personalized demo to gain an in-depth understanding of Disco's extensive capabilities and have your questions expertly answered by our team.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About Collaborative Learning

What exactly is collaborative learning.

Collaborative learning is an educational approach where individuals work together to achieve shared learning goals. It emphasizes the collective effort of group members to solve problems, share knowledge, and learn from each other, thereby enriching the educational experience.

How Does Collaborative Learning Boost Student Retention and Success?

By fostering an environment of peer support and active engagement, collaborative learning significantly boosts student retention and success. It encourages continuous peer feedback and active participation, which deepens students' understanding and fosters a sense of ownership over the learning material, resulting in a more engaging and effective learning experience.

Can Collaborative Learning Enhance Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Abilities?

Absolutely! Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking and problem-solving abilities by exposing learners to a variety of perspectives and challenges. This dynamic interaction stimulates engagement and promotes innovative, creative approaches to problem-solving.

How Are Groups and Sub-Groups Effectively Utilized in Collaborative Learning?

Groups and sub-groups are utilized effectively in collaborative learning by ensuring balanced participation and leveraging diversity. They facilitate peer teaching and foster a collaborative learning atmosphere through targeted events and structured activities, which significantly improves the learning experience for all participants.

What Features Position Disco as a Premier Collaborative Learning Platform?

Disco stands out as a premier collaborative learning platform thanks to its comprehensive suite of interactive features, which include engaging learning tools, multimedia content integration, real-time progress tracking, and seamless AI and productivity tool integration. Additionally, its extensive customization options cater to a wide range of learning styles and preferences, making it a top choice for collaborative learning endeavors.

Keep reading

The Learning Revolution of 2024: How AI will Fuel the Growth of Transformative Community Learning

Top 5 AI-Powered Community Platforms in 2024: Level Up Your Game in Community Building

Schulich Venture Academy Chooses Disco to Empower Startup and Venture Talent

Supercharge your community.

The Learning Community Playbook delivers actionable insights, innovative frameworks, and valuable strategies to spark engagement, nurture growth, and foster deeper connections. Access this resource and start building a vibrant learning ecosystem today!

Ready to start building your community?

Move Your Way® Toolkit for Schools

This toolkit is for anyone working to encourage physical activity in a school setting — like physical education and health education teachers, classroom teachers, coaches, after-school program leaders, and school administrators. Others promoting student health and well-being — like school nurses and parent teacher associations (PTAs) — can also use the information in this toolkit to support their work. 

Want to learn about the Move Your Way campaign? Check out this short video ! 

Browse this toolkit to:

Learn how physical activity benefits students — at school and beyond

Make a plan to get students moving, step into action , share move your way materials with parents and caregivers.

Kids and teens need movement to grow healthy and strong. Regular physical activity strengthens muscles and bones, helps prevent health problems like diabetes and heart disease, and reduces symptoms of anxiety and depression. 

Physical activity also has clear benefits for life at school. For example, students who are physically active tend to:

• Have better grades
• Miss fewer school days
• Have better focus in class 

Beyond that, physical activity in schools can help support school connectedness — students’ belief that peers and adults in the school support, value, and care about their well-being. School connectedness can make it less likely that students engage in risky behaviors like substance use and help improve students’ mental and physical health and well-being.

• Browse CDC Healthy Schools’ Physical Education and Physical Activity webpage for facts, figures, and frameworks.
• Learn about School Connectedness and how to promote it.
• Check out these 10 Actionable Tips to Support Youth Mental Health Through Sports [PDF - 2.2 MB] .

Whether you’re starting a school-wide physical activity initiative or you just want to provide students, parents, and caregivers with educational materials — it helps to make a plan. That way, you can be sure everybody is on the same page and working toward a clearly defined goal. Use these tips to plan your physical activity project:

• Set clear, achievable goals. What are you trying to achieve with your efforts? It helps to be specific — instead of “Get students to be more active,” set clearly defined goals like “Get students to move for at least 10 minutes each day during recess.” 
• Build support within your school. Who in your school community can support your physical activity project? Consider involving school leadership, PTA representatives, or other teachers. 
• Involve students. Try to include students of all ages in the planning process — they can add an important perspective and voice. Students can also serve as “ambassadors” to promote physical activity and model healthy behaviors for their peers.
• Keep accessibility top of mind. Make sure your physical activity project or initiative is accessible to everyone in the school community. For example, do you need to adapt activities to work for students with movement limitations or non-verbal communication styles? Or choose playground equipment suitable for students who use mobility devices? 
• Find partners in your community. Don’t forget about the larger community outside of school — are there organizations or individuals who can support your physical activity efforts? Think local health departments, hospitals, or community organizations. Also consider partnerships that might help you better engage all students, like an organization that could donate adaptive equipment. Use this National Youth Sports Strategy (NYSS) Champions directory to find organizations in your area that focus on youth with disabilities.
• Evaluate your progress. When trying a new strategy, it’s important to assess what’s working well — and what isn’t. Check in with school leadership and other teachers regularly: Have they noticed a difference in students’ activity levels? What problems are they experiencing? You can also use more formal evaluation measures like surveys. 

Want to learn more about planning a community-wide physical activity campaign? Check out the Move Your Way Community Playbook .

Move Your Way in the field: Building community partnerships

Move Your Way campaign pilot community Southern Nevada Health District (SNHD) partnered with the student wellness club at a local elementary school to plan and host a Move Your Way event for students. Students collaborated with their physical education teacher to create lesson plans focused on the Physical Activity Guidelines. After the student-led lesson, all students were encouraged to get active outside. Parents, faculty, and staff joined the students as they walked, ran, or skipped laps around the school. SNHD attended the event, offered more information about the campaign, and distributed Move Your Way materials to families. 

Now that you’ve made a plan, it’s time to put it into action. Try the strategies below to get students moving throughout the school day and beyond. And use Move Your Way’s engaging materials in English and Spanish to support your efforts!

Around school

Kids and teens spend a big chunk of their time at school — that’s why creating a school environment that encourages physical activity is so important. Start with these simple tips:

• Show the benefits of getting active at a glance. Print the “60 Minutes” Poster for Kids and hang it in hallways, classrooms, and the gym.
• Focus on fun. Getting physically active is a great way to build some play into the school day and enhance learning. Whether it’s playing active games or having a classroom dance party — just have fun with it!

In the classroom

Try these strategies to encourage physical activity in the classroom:

• Take movement breaks. Getting up and moving together can get antsy students back on track and reduce disruptive behaviors. Try arm circles, jumping jacks, or running in place — and consider incorporating yoga and other mindfulness activities to help improve students’ focus and lower anxiety and stress.
• Add activity to academics. Why not use movement to practice and reinforce academic lessons? For example, play a round of “beach ball spelling” — where students take turns calling out the letters of a word as they throw a beach ball to one another. Or you can set up movement-based learning stations so students can stand and walk around the classroom while completing tasks.
• Get smart about getting active. Use the Fact Sheet for Kids to teach students the what, how, and why of physical activity — and send home a copy of the Fact Sheet for Parents .
• Make a pledge. Print the Move Your Way Pledge Sheet and have students write down how they plan to get active. Then hang students’ pledge sheets up in the classroom. At the end of the week, ask students to share their experiences: Did they meet their physical activity goals? If not, how can the school community support them? 
• Check out CDC Healthy Schools’ Classroom Physical Activity webpage for additional resources and strategies.
• For more movement break ideas and printable cards, download this CDC fact sheet [PDF - 4.1 MB] .

Recess is an opportunity for students to have unstructured playtime with their friends — and you can use this time to encourage them to get creative and have fun while getting active. Try these tips:

• Call on young artists. Use chalk or paint to draw game boards or areas for activities like hopscotch on sidewalks or blacktops. This is also a great way to engage older students in creating something for their peers.
• Promote active play. Offer a variety of games and activities so each child can find something they enjoy. And you don’t have to plan every activity yourself — let kids design and lead their own games to help them build leadership and social skills. If your budget allows, consider investing in play equipment like jump ropes, playground balls, or bean bag toss games to support different ways to play. 
• Plan for bad weather days. Identify indoor spaces where students can get moving when it’s raining or too cold or hot to spend recess outside — like the gym, empty classrooms, or a spacious hallway. You might have to create a schedule to avoid overcrowding.
• Get your community involved. Ask local businesses to donate new or gently used adaptive play equipment — or partner with nearby community centers, YMCAs, or gyms to provide access to indoor activity spaces.
• Check out CDC Healthy Schools’ Recess webpage to learn about strategies and policies for recess planning.
• Get more tips for Active Outdoor Recess and Active Indoor Recess .
• Use this Painted Play Spaces Playbook [PDF – 1.2 KB] as a guide to add colorful game designs to outdoor play areas.
• Looking for games that don’t require equipment? Check out this Game Library for ideas.  

Avoid using physical activity to discipline students

Kids and teens are much more likely to get moving if they have positive associations with physical activity. That’s why it’s important not to use physical activity as a punishment (like having kids run laps) or take away opportunities for getting active (like not allowing students to go to recess).

During school events

Take advantage of school events — like open houses and back-to-school festivities — to educate parents, caregivers, and people in the community about the benefits of physical activity. Try these tips:

• Set up shop. Decorate a table or booth with the Move Your Way posters for parents — and use them as conversation starters to talk with people about physical activity. You can also hand out the Fact Sheet for Kids and the Fact Sheet for Parents . 
• Engage local partners. Local health departments, hospitals, or community organizations with a physical activity focus may be willing to set up a table and share educational materials — and even hand out goodies like water bottles, jump ropes, or balls.
• Show (and tell). If you have multimedia equipment available, consider streaming the Move Your Way videos for families during the event. 
• Get moving together. Incorporating movement breaks or active games into events can help parents and caregivers remember the joy of physical activity. Need inspiration? Watch this video showcasing accessible exercises.
• Create a challenge! Many kids love a bit of friendly competition — and they love getting their adults involved. Set up a sack race, obstacle course, or a scavenger hunt and have kids compete against parents, caregivers, or teachers.  

Use the Move Your Way teen video challenge to engage older students

Most young kids naturally want to move,   but encouraging older middle school or high school students to get active can be tough. If you’re looking for a way to engage older students, consider a multimedia classroom project — like the Move Your Way teen video challenge! 

The  Tips for Creating Your Own Move Your Way ®  Teen Video Fact Sheet [PDF - 805 KB] has everything teens need to get started, and they can watch the  Move When You Can and  Try Something Different videos for inspiration. Consider making it an assignment or an extra credit activity. Or make it a raffle —  students who create a video get the chance to win a prize!

Want to learn more about making physical activity accessible for youth with disabilities?

Explore the National Center on Health, Physical Activity and Disability’s educator webpage . 

Interested in customizing materials for your school? You can swap out photos or add your school’s logo to Move Your Way materials through the  CDC State and Community Health Media Center. If you have questions about using Move Your Way materials, want to create your own, or would like help implementing physical activity strategies in your school, please contact ODPHP.

One of the best ways to encourage physical activity outside school is to get families moving together. Getting active as a family not only helps kids and teens stay healthy — it also means everyone gets to reap the benefits of physical activity. The Move Your Way campaign has lots of resources to help families find activities that fit their lives and create healthy, sustainable routines. Try the strategies below to support parents and caregivers in getting the family active.

Hand out educational materials

You can print these materials and send them home with students — or hand them out at school events.

• The Fact Sheet for Parents helps parents and caregivers understand what kinds of activity kids and teens need to stay healthy and offers tips for helping kids get active.
• The Sports Fact Sheet for Parents helps parents and caregivers understand the benefits kids and teens can get from playing sports and offers tips to help them get their kids involved.
• With the Pledge Sheet , parents can be role models for their kids by showing how they’ll get active and making a commitment to move more.

Promote physical activity in your newsletter, email, or blog

Use or adapt the content below to promote physical activity in your email outreach, newsletter, or blog. 

Subject: Get tips to get your kids moving

Body copy:  It’s no secret that kids and teens need regular physical activity — it makes their bodies grow strong, it helps them stay at a healthy weight, and it can even help them focus better in the classroom. 

How much is enough? Kids and teens need at least 60 minutes of physical activity throughout the day. That includes a mix of heart-pumping movement like running, dancing, or jumping rope, plus activities that strengthen muscles and bones — like playing sports or climbing at the playground. Use this interactive tool to help you fit more activity into your kids’ day.

But the best way to encourage kids and teens to get active? Get the whole family moving so everyone can enjoy the benefits of physical activity!

Check out the Move Your Way campaign for actionable tips and resources to add more physical activity to your family’s routine. 

Promote Physical Activity Through Social Media 

Use Move Your Way sample messages, graphics, and GIFs to promote physical activity on your own or your school’s social media channels. You can adapt the messages to fit your needs!

Add Move Your Way to your website 

Want to make Move Your Way part of your website? Download the Move Your Way web badges and widget for an easy way to add physical activity resources to your site. 

• With the Move Your Way Activity Planner web badge and widget , school staff, parents, caregivers, and other adults can use an interactive tool to help them build their own personalized weekly activity plan.
• The Move Your Way Parent Interactive Graphic web badge links parents and caregivers to an interactive tool they can use to see how kids can fit in 60 minutes of activity a day. 

The Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.

Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by ODPHP or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.

You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Research Questions

The following research questions were formulated:

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

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

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

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

Research Participants

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

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

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

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

Interpretation of Terms

(1) cooperative learning.

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

(2) Action Skills

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

(3) Different Grouping Methods

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

“Free” Grouping

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

S-Type Heterogeneous Grouping of Action Skills

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

Effectiveness of Action Skills Learning

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

Literature Review

The connotations of cooperative learning.

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

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

Cooperative Teaching Methods

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

Students’ Team Achievement Differentiation Method

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

Table 1. Personal progress score conversion table.

Research Relating to Cooperative Learning

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

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

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

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

ARCS Motivation Scale

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

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

Grouping Method for Physical Education Classes

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

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

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

Study of Learning Effectiveness in Physical Education

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

The New Direction of Physical Education Assessment

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

Evaluation of Basketball Learning Effectiveness

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

Research Hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

Difference Between of Free Grouping and Other Grouping Methods

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

No Difference Between Free Grouping and Other Grouping Methods

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

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

Research Methods

Research structure and process.

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

Research Structure

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

Figure 1. Research architecture diagram.

Research Design

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

Table 2. Research design.

(1) Students Participating

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

Table 3. Class size statistics.

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

Table 4. Gender test summary table.

(2) Sample Homogeneity Test

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homogeneity Test Results

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

Research Tools

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

Basketball Skills Performance

(1) movement teaching.

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

(2) Basketball Skills Test Method

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teaching Design

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

Preparation Before Teaching

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

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

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

Teaching Implementation Stage

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

After the Teaching Stage

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

Data Processing

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

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

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

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

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

Results and Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Differences in the Experimental Group Before and After Cooperative Learning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Differences in the Control Group Before and After Cooperative Learning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comparison and Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data Availability Statement

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

Author Contributions

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

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

Conflict of Interest

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

Publisher’s Note

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

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

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questionnaire

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

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

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

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

Reviewed by:

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

*Correspondence: Xiaozhong Chen, [email protected]

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

December 2024 Professional Development Classes