Social Preferences for Learning Among Adolescents ... - Fitness for Life

Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 2010, 29, 3-20 © 2010 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Social Preferences for Learning Among Adolescents in Secondary Physical Education Luis Miguel Ruiz,1 Jose Luis Graupera,2 Juan Antonio Moreno,3 Isabel Rico,4 The University of Castilla La Mancha, 2The University of Alcalá de Henares, 3Miguel Hernández University, 4Polytechnic University of Madrid 1

The purpose of the current study was to explore social interaction preferences for learning in Physical Education (PE) among Spanish secondary students. The sample consists of 6,654 students (3,500 girls and 3,154 boys, aged 12–17 years) from public and private urban and rural schools in two communities in Spain. All participants completed the Graupera/Ruiz Scale of Social Interaction Preferences in PE Learning (GR–SIPPEL) which explores four learning preference dimensions: cooperation, competition, affiliation, and individualism. Results indicated that the ordinal profile of students’ preferences in PE classes was: cooperative (very high preference), competitive and affiliate (high-moderate preference), and individualistic (moderate-low preference). Gender differences emerged: girls were less competitive and individualistic than boys, and slightly more cooperative and affiliate. Weak grade level differences were also observed. Keywords: social interaction, learning preferences, affiliation

Physical Education (PE) in schools has among its main objectives the promotion of social growth and the development of children’s prosocial behaviors, which include altruism, empathy, and the understanding of other individuals’ needs (Polvi & Telama, 2000). Johnson and Engelhard (1992) defined learning preferences as inclinations toward the type of strategies and structures that students believe would optimize their learning. In the field of PE and sport these preferences have been the subject of a few studies, the majority of them directed toward cooperative learning in PE (Barrett, 2005; Dyson, 2001, 2002; Dyson & Grineski, 2001; Polvi & Telama, 2000) and the formation of cooperative and prosocial behaviors in the gymnasium (Orlick, 1978a, 1978b, 1988, 2006). These authors have tended to consider that competition is the antithesis of cooperative learning, although there are more balanced views Ruiz is with the University of Castilla La Mancha—Exercise and Sport Sciences, Toledo, Spain. Graupera is with the University of Alcalá de Henares—Physical Education, Madrid, Spain. Moreno is with Miguel Hernández University—Physical Education, Elche, Spain. Rico is with Polytechnic University of Madrid—Sport Pedagogy, Madrid, Spain. 3

4 Ruiz et al.

which consider that both cooperative and competitive tasks should be included in PE settings to ensure that learning will be more effective and enjoyable (Midura & Glover, 1999). It is interesting to see that the majority of these studies have accepted that children need to learn cooperative skills and to develop prosocial behaviors (Grineski, 1996). In high school PE, many teachers have accepted that youth may need to consider changing their preferences and accept cooperative structures of learning because they improve their achievements, communication skills, and selfesteem (Dyson & Strachan, 2000). Much of the literature on students’ learning preferences evolved from the work of David and Roger Johnson (Johnson, 1981; Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1994; Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon, 1981). Many of their studies found cooperative learning to be highly preferred among elementary school children. However, little research has investigated the pattern of preferences among secondary school children in PE classes. Typically, this prior work has not actually studied learning preferences of participants. Rather, they have looked at methods or pedagogical techniques used in interventions directed to increase the development of cooperative skills, perhaps because the zeitgeist has turned many educators (Slavin, 1995) and physical educators toward strategies of cooperative learning (Barrett, 2005; Dyson, 2001, 2002; Graupera, 2007). Understanding students’ social preferences in learning may have important implications for teaching and learning (Ellison, Boykin, Tyler, & Dillihunt, 2005). There are a paucity of studies exploring children’s perceptions and preferences in learning interactions in PE settings. Most educators recognize the relevance of learner preferences and self-perceptions in learning motor skills (Lintunen, 1999). These characteristics and preferences do not simply develop, but are the result of a dynamic and complex interaction between the natural dispositions and past experience/learning of an individual. The process of learning in PE is a complex psychosocial phenomenon that relates the task, student, teacher, learning structure, and environment (Newell, 1991).

Social Interaction Structures for Learning Learning structures (Deutsch, 1949; Hayes, 1976; Johnson, Bjorkland & Krotee, 1994; Pepitone, 1980; Slavin, 1995) have three basic social organizations for tasks: cooperative, competitive, and individualistic. These varied organizational modes manifest a different relationship between the task to be performed and the objective to be attained when students practice to learn (Johnson, 1981). Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec (1994) defined these three types of social structures as: (1) Cooperative. When students’ objectives are deeply interconnected, and a student attains his or her objectives when the other members of the group attain their objectives. The results of each member of the group affect the other members in a positive way. (2) Competitive. When the results of the members are not interconnected. If one participant attains his or her objectives this may be because others participants do not. Every member of the group competes with other members trying to achieve the best result for themselves and this implies that other members of the group cannot attain this objective.

Social Preferences for Learning Among Adolescents 5

(3) Individualist. In this situation there is no relationship between the objectives that the members of the group try to attain. If one member of the group attains his or her objective this does not affect the other members of the group or impede them from attaining their objectives. The main characteristic of this social organization is individual progress without worrying about the results of other members of the group. Several educational psychologists have analyzed comparative research on these different structures of learning (Hertz-Lazarowitz & Miller, 1992). These studies have followed two main paths. While one path of research studies has focused on the analysis of the relationships established among students in these different social learning structures (interpersonal attraction, social support, self-esteem), the other has focused on the relationship between these social organizations and school achievement (Gill, 2000). Research on the first path (relationships among students) has reported findings that support the theoretical prediction of the relationship between cooperative situations and the development of social skills, adaptation to norms, improved self-esteem, care, and feelings of support (Johnson, Bjorkland & Krotee, 1994). The second path of research (learning structures and school achievement) through meta-analytic studies (Johnson et al., 1981; Slavin, 1995) has tried to establish relationships between the social organization of learning and achievement. In general, findings support the premise that cooperative social organization of learning are more productive in social skills and achievement than competitive or individualistic situations, in a variety of contexts including PE (Johnson, Bjorkland, & Krotee, 1994; Kahila, 1993). Current literature is replete with research findings supporting the facilitative effects of cooperative learning among students in a variety of academic settings (Gibson & Campbell, 2000; Onwuegbuzie, 2004), enhancing motivation (Hancock, 2004) quality of learning experiences (Peterson & Miller, 2004), or academic performance (Baer, 2003). In the context of PE there is an increasing interest in cooperative versus competitive structures of learning as a pedagogical approach (Brown & Grineski, 1992; Greendorfer, 1987; Grineski, 1989; Midura & Glover, 1999; Orlick, 1978b, 1988; Yoder, 1993) and as empirical research studies (Barrett, 2005; Dyson, 2001, 2002; Dyson, Griffin, & Hastie, 2004; Polvi & Telama, 2000; Ruiz, Graupera, Fraile, & Rico, 1997; Ruiz, Graupera, Rico, & Mata, 2004). These PE studies have followed two main paths to studying learning structures. The first has been the cooperative learning path. Games, activities, and exercises are used to improve the prosocial and social development of school children (e.g., Orlick, 2006). The other approach is to demonstrate the effects of different cooperative programs on student outcomes and achievement (Barrett, 2005; Dyson, 2001, 2002).

Affiliation Recently there has been an increased interest in the study of social interaction structures for learning in PE, and a new dimension has been added, that is, team affiliation (Kinchin, 2006). This interest in team affiliation may be due to its role in Siedentop’s Sport Education model (1994). According to MacPhail, Kirk, and Kinchin (2004), affiliation is one of the most attractive features of the Sport Education model for students, enhancing relationships among team members and

6 Ruiz et al.

developing teamwork and cooperation, and is present in a variety of activities in the PE curriculum. Hastie and Carlson (1998) purport that team affiliation also increased participation in diverse population groups. According to Metzler (2005) team affiliation helps people to construct a group identity, make group decisions, and work toward commons goals.

Social Interaction Preferences for Learning The literature and interest in social interaction learning styles and in social interaction preferences for learning has increased during recent decades in the fields of psychology and education in general (Grasha & Riechmann, 1975; Owens & Barnes, 1992) and in sport and PE in particular (García, 1994; Graupera, 2007; Livecchi, Merrick, Ingersoll, & Stemmans, 2004; Randall, Buschner, & Swerkes, 1995). Few studies have called for the opinions, cognitions, or perceptions of students about these learning organizations and their learning preferences. Ellison et al. (2005) investigated students’ preferences for learning among white American and African American elementary school students from low-income backgrounds to discern the variation in students’ reported learning preferences while holding socioeconomic status constant. Students’ completed the Social Interdependence Scales (Johnson & Norem-Hebeisen, 1979). These scales were developed to assess students’ preferences for cooperative, competitive, and individualistic classroom social structures. Other similar scales to assess learning preferences include the Learning Preference Scales by Owens & Barnes (1992), the Children Competitive and Cooperative Attitude Scale (CCCAS; Hutchins, 1978) and Severy’s Questionnaire about Helping Tendency (Severy, 1975). To date, no standardized scales have been identified for social interaction preferences in learning that include affiliation (except the exploratory analysis of the GR-SIPPEL scale published by Ruiz et al., 2004). The affiliation dimension has been evaluated in PE and Sport Education through interviews with individuals and teams. Team affiliation has been found to be an attractive and enjoyable experience for PE students (Bennet & Hastie, 1997) and to be related with positive motivational outcomes (MacPhail, Trish, Kirk, & Kinchin, 2008).

Gender Results from studies investigating learning preferences have shown that boys and girls are socialized to think, relate, and act in different and in stereotypical ways. The type and frequency of physical activity that boys and girls do are also different (García, 1994; Gill, 2000; Hinde & Groebel, 1991). In many cases researchers have shown that girls are more cooperative, compassionate, and supportive than boys (Farver & Branstetter, 1994). In Spain girls were also more sensitive, empathic, and respectful in primary and secondary education than boys, paid more attention to small children, and worried more about others than boys (Calvo, González, & Martorell, 2001). Other studies of the learning preferences of girls and boys have demonstrated that behaviors related to taking care and expressiveness are more characteristic of girls and behaviors that demand instrumental responses are more apparent in boys (mainly in adults; Hinde & Groebel, 1991).


Purpose of the Study The purpose of the current study was to explore social interaction preferences for learning in PE among Spanish secondary students. The two questions guiding our investigation included: (1) What are the social interaction preferences for learning in PE of Spanish secondary students? and (2) Are these preferences different between boys and girls, and among the different grades of secondary education?

Method Participants and Settings Sample description: 6,654 students (3,154 boys and 3,500 girls) participated in the study, with ages ranging from 12 to 17 years and school grade from the first to the fourth grade of Spanish Compulsory Secondary Education (12–16 years old) and the first grade of Spanish High Secondary Education (16–17 years old; Table 1). These participants were drawn from 30 public and private Secondary Schools in urban and rural towns in two different Spanish communities. All of the students at the schools were asked to participate. The total population of schoolchildren of these two communities was 382,759. School participants in this study followed the same curriculum, which included PE as a compulsory subject twice a week in the grades that were studied (MEPSYD, 2008). Assent to participate was provided by the students and parental consent was obtained (97% participation in the 30 Secondary Schools selected). Study of this large sample was possible due to the cooperation of the Educational Council of Castilla-La Mancha (Spain).

Scale The Graupera/Ruiz-Scale of Social Interaction Preferences in Physical Education Learning (GR–SIPPEL) was used to establish students’ preferences for cooperative, competitive, affiliate, and individualistic learning in PE classes. Graupera and Ruiz developed this scale with primary and secondary students (Ruiz et al., 2004) specifically for assessing peer social interaction preferences in learning in PE classes. The scale is comprised of 28 items divided into four dimensions of seven items each, named cooperation, competition, affiliation, and individualism. Table 1 Sample Size by Gender and School Grade School Grade (age)

Male

Female

Total

first CSE (12–13 yrs.) second CSE (13–14 yrs.) third CSE (14–15 yrs.) fourth CSE (15–16 yrs.) first HSE (16–17 yrs.) Total

330

327

657

367 965 815 677

318 1021 968 867

685 1986 1783 1544

3154

3501

6655

* CSE: Compulsory Secondary Education; * HSE: High Secondary Education

8 Ruiz et al.

This scale provides information regarding boys’ and girls’ profiles of preferences and demographic information. Each item was presented with a four point Likert-like scale, with 1 as totally disagree and 4 as totally agree. Examples of these four dimensions are: (a) competitive dimension: “I like to do things better than the others”, (b) cooperative dimension: “I like to say and do things that help others”, (c) affiliate dimension: “I like to work in a group that wants me to be with them”, and (d) individualized dimension: “I get better grades when I work alone” (Table 2).

Procedure The research team contacted PE teachers and informed them about the purpose of this study. Members of the research team were trained to administer the scale and then the surveys were administered at schools. All members of the research group were Exercise and Sport Sciences postgraduates working at the University of Castilla-La Mancha’s Motor Competence Laboratory (Toledo, Spain) with experience in the application of scales and tests related to sport psychology, sport pedagogy, and motor competence in PE settings. Students were assessed in their class groups in the gym and typical PE settings. Each student received a scale with the instructions, and students were asked to be honest in their responses as the responses would not be seen by anyone except the researchers conducting the study. They were told that the purpose of the scale was to determine their learning preferences in PE classes. Students were instructed to report how they felt, what they thought, and how they acted in different situations that are commonly found in PE classes. They were reminded that participation was voluntary and that if they wanted to leave the class and wait outside until after the test was finished, they were free to do so. Each student worked through the scale without aid from the researchers. They spent about 10–15 min completing the scale.

Data Analysis Reliability and Construct Validity The internal consistency reliability of the social interaction domains was assessed (Cronbach’s α). The construct validity of the GR-SIPPEL scale was examined in this study by Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using the Maximum Likelihood method. Multiple-Groups CFA was implemented to test equal factor structures across the gender samples. The program SPSS 15 was used to carry out reliability analysis. The program AMOS 6 was used to carry out the CFA.

Group Differences Descriptive data were analyzed with reference to gender and grade level. A MANOVA test was applied with the four dimensions of the scale as dependent variables and the gender and school grade as independent factors, and univariate polynomial contrast, linear, and quadratic effects were applied with the school grade factor.

Table 2 GR-SIPPEL Items and Four Factors Factor Cooperation

Item 2. 6. 10.

I think that group work is necessary for everybody.

14.

I love team sports.

18.

I like to help other classmates even if they do not help me.

22.

I like to work with other classmates, even when activities are very boring. I like to work in a group, even when the activity is difficult.

26. Competition

1. 5.

I like to do things better than the others. I like to be able to do things better than my classmates.

9.

I try to be the best in my class.

13.

I like to finish my work earlier than my classmates.

17.

I like it when other people tell me that I have done better than other classmates. If I try to be better than my classmates, I work harder.

21. 25. Affiliation

I work harder if I see that other classmates are doing better than me.

3. 7.

I like to work in a group that wants me to be with them. I need to participate in group work to feel well.

11. 15.

I like team games because I always know what I have to do. I like group games because my mistakes are hidden.

19.

I only feel well when I work in a team.

23.

Things go better when I am with others than when I am alone. The best way of learning in class is when I am accepted in a group.

27. Individualism

I like to say and do things that help others. I like to participate in a work group.

4. 8. 12.

I like to work in my own way, without worrying about what others do. My best way of doing things well is doing them alone.

16.

I wish that there were individual exercises for working alone. I like activities that I can do alone very much.

20.

I love individual sports.

24.

The best way of learning in class is when I am working alone. I get better grades when I work alone.

28.

9

10 Ruiz et al.

Results Reliability The Cronbach’s α reliability coefficients were 0.77 (CI 95%: 0.76–0.78) for cooperation; 0.70 (CI 95%: 0.69–0.71) for affiliation; 0.83 (CI 95%: 0.83–0.84) for competition; and 0.77 (CI 95%: 0.76–0.78) for individualism. Coefficients of theses four dimensions demonstrated internal consistency, being equal to or higher than .70 and considered adequate (DeVellis, 2003). All items’ homogeneity (corrected correlation item-scale) showed an index higher than 0.30.

Construct Validity Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) conducted in previous studies (Ruiz et al., 2004) showed a logical and consistent fourfactor structure (see Table 2). The adequacy of the four-factor structure of the GR-SIPPEL scale was examined in the current study using CFA. The first-order CFA model hypothesized a priori that: (a) responses to the GR-SIPPEL scale could be explained by four factors, (b) each item would have a nonzero loading on the social interaction factor it was designed to measure, and zero loadings on all other factors, (c) the four factors would be correlated, and (d) measurement error terms would be uncorrelated. The goodness-of-fit indexes reached desirable cut-off values (GFI = 0.94; CFI = 0.90). The RMSEA index showed a score of 0.046 (CI 90%: 0.045–0.047; Pclose = 1). It was concluded that the data fit the initially hypothesized model. Multiple-Groups CFA. In addition, the construct validity of the GR-SIPPEL

model was tested for each gender group. The goodness-of-fit statistics, CFI (0.93), and RMSEA (0.034 [CI 90%: 0.034–0.035; Pclose = 1]) values indicated that the hypothesized four-factor model of GR-SIPPEL structure was a good fit across the gender samples.

Group Differences Descriptive statistics for all scales in the total sample by group are shown in Table 3. MANOVAs found significant effects for the two factors (gender: F4, 6679 = 140.74, p < .001; school grade: F16, 20405 = 10.09, p < .001) and an interaction between school grade and gender (F16, 20405 = 2.26, p = .003). The effect of school grade (η2 = .006) and the interaction between the two factors (η2 = .001) were very low, while gender differences (η2 = .078) were more relevant. Univariate follow-up tests indicated that gender differences were significant for all four scale dimensions. These differences showed that boys preferred more competition (F1, 6634 = 381.67; p < .001; η2 = .054) and individualism (F1, 6634 = 198.39; p < .001; η2 = .029) while girls preferred cooperation (F1, 6634 = 92.30; p < .001; η2 = .014) and affiliation (F1, 6634 = 19.86; p < .001; η2 = .003). Even with significant gender differences, the peer social interaction preferences profiles of males and females were very similar (Figure 1). Boys and girls showed higher scores in the cooperative dimension and the lower scores for the individualist dimension. The competitive and affiliate dimensions obtained moderate scores.


Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for the GR-SIPPEL Dimensions by Gender and School Grade Male

Female

Total

GR Scale (1–4)

School Grade

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

Cooperation

first CSE

3.38

.58

3.43

.51

3.41

.55

second CSE

3.18

.60

3.31

.60

3.24

.60

third CSE

3.09

.60

3.31

.54

3.21

.58

fourth CSE

3.12

.57

3.30

.54

3.22

.56

first HSE

3.14

.57

3.30

.51

3.23

.54

Total

3.15

.59

3.32

.54

3.24

.57

first CSE

2.80

.78

2.37

.78

2.59

.81

second CSE

2.82

.76

2.46

.73

2.65

.77

third CSE

2.76

.74

2.40

.69

2.57

.74

fourth CSE

2.73

.71

2.37

.70

2.53

.73

first HSE

2.78

.71

2.36

.68

2.55

.72

Total

2.77

.73

2.38

.70

2.57

.74

first CSE

2.78

.67

2.69

.65

2.73

.66

second CSE

2.68

.61

2.74

.64

2.71

.63

third CSE

2.57

.61

2.69

.61

2.63

.61

fourth CSE

2.52

.58

2.64

.62

2.59

.60

first HSE

2.48

.57

2.64

.58

2.57

.58

Total

2.57

.61

2.67

.61

2.62

.61

first CSE

2.12

.74

1.91

.63

2.02

.70

second CSE

2.18

.67

1.93

.62

2.06

.66

third CSE

2.30

.67

2.02

.63

2.15

.66

fourth CSE

2.23

.62

1.97

.61

2.09

.63

first HSE

2.15

.63

1.94

.57

2.03

.61

Total

2.22

.66

1.97

.61

2.08

.65

Competition

Affiliation

Individualism

* CSE: Compulsory Secondary Education; HSE: High Secondary Education

Follow-up tests for grade using univariate polynomial contrasts were performed, and showed a small negative linear relationship for cooperation (F4, 6634 = 18.56; p < .001; η2 = .011), and affiliation (F4, 6634 = 15.05; p < .001; η2 = .009). In both cases very small decreases in these dimensions were observed with increases in school grade, which were slightly more apparent in boys than girls (significant linear interaction effects of gender*school grade, in cooperation: F4, 6634 = 3.27; p = .011; η2 = .002; in affiliation: F4, 6634 = 5.44; p < .001; η2 = .003). For individualism there was a negative curvilinear (weak but significant) relationship (F4, 6634 = 10.09; p < .001; η2 = .006).

Figure 1 — Social interaction profile by gender.

Figure 2 — Social interaction dimensions by school grade. 12


In this case a small increase in this dimension was observed for third CSE (14–15 year old), and decreased with older students (Figure 2).

Discussion Analysis of the literature has shown that the majority of studies had as their main objective the demonstration of the effect of cooperative pedagogical technique on students’ achievements without considering their preferences. Thus, the main objective of this study was to analyze the social preferences using a measure of cooperation, competition, affiliation, and individualism for Spanish students in PE. Further psychometric analyses were performed on the GR-SIPPEL scale showing strong internal consistency and reliability as well as confirming its four factor structure. In addition, the model fit well for both genders. This sample of secondary students was more cooperative than competitive, and this is good news, given the reported problems with competition and individualism in secondary PE and the need for more cooperative structures (Barrett, 2005; Dyson, 2001; Dyson, et al., 2004; Polvi & Telama, 2000). These results support those of Ellison et al. (2005), who found that fifth and sixth grade African American and white students preferred more cooperative learning structures over competitive or individualistic ones. These findings are consistent with those of other researchers such as Stassen (2002), who indicated that adolescence is the time when peer relationships are very important and cooperative structures of learning are preferred by students. Kahila’s view (1993) is that the kind of interaction that PE classes promote is one of great closeness, which increases cooperative attitudes. Dyson’s research showed that teachers and students held similar positive perceptions of cooperative learning and that the cooperative learning instructional format holds much promise for PE (Dyson, 2002). Although cooperation was important to students, the competitive dimension also had a moderate-high score and was higher for boys. Cooperation and competition may not be opposite dimensions for children. Competition in sports may include both cooperation and social interdependence (Ruiz et al., 1997; Ruiz et al., 2004). Teachers must develop and support an effective social interdependence atmosphere in PE settings where competition and cooperation have their places (Gill, 2000). A new finding from this study is that there were students who also preferred affiliation structures of learning; that is, they wanted to be with others and felt good in a group. Perhaps what they wanted was to be members of a group and to perceive that their classmates thought well of them. This finding has also been shown for low-skilled children (MacPhail et al., 2008). According to Gallahue and Ozmun (2002), one of the most compelling forces of later childhood and adolescence is the need to belong. The need for group or team affiliation, or the reaffirmation of friendships, may be the most attractive feature of participation in physical activity and sports (Bennet & Hastie, 1997). The trend of teenagers toward affiliation with their peers has an important potential to reinforce the sport socialization process. This affiliation can also be found in the Sports Education model with authentic competitive and affiliate sport settings (MacPhail, et al., 2004; Siedentop, 1994).

14 Ruiz et al.

School Grade The significant relationships across dimensions evaluated (cooperation, affiliation) were very weak. These results corroborate previous studies in Spain by Ruiz et al. (2004). No other studies were found which demonstrated the stability of social interaction preferences with these grade levels. Students of the first grade of CSE (12–13 year olds), who obtained higher scores in cooperation and affiliation, go into a new context, secondary education, and may want to be accepted, to belong to a group of older students, as well as protect their self-worth. One must to remember that classmates may have a greater influence on younger students than their closer friends (Skinner, 2002).

Gender Differences Boys scored higher in the competitive and individualistic dimensions and girls scored higher in the cooperative and affiliate dimensions. However, if the profiles of both genders are studied, one can perceive substantial similarities. Not only girls but also boys strongly preferred cooperative learning, and both genders had a moderate preference for competition and affiliation and less of a preference for individualism. The profile of preferences in learning of this sample of Spanish adolescents is similar to that obtained by other authors in Australia, the United States, and England, where among samples of 8–12 year olds in general education, systematic cooperation was found to be the preferred dimension, followed by competition, with individualism the least-preferred dimension (Owens & Barnes, 1992; Ellison et al., 2005). Our results also showed that girls preferred cooperative learning styles, something which other studies have demonstrated before (Farver & Branstetter, 1994; García, 1994), and they also had higher preferences than boys for the affiliate learning style. In line with other studies, boys were found to be more individualistic than girls (Calvo et al., 2001; García, 1994; Ruiz et al., 2004), and they preferred social comparisons and to try to win at sports and PE activities. For girls, to win or lose was not their principal motivation for learning in PE classes. They preferred more social interactions and to help others to participate in the tasks (Gill, 1992; Sassen, 1980). The study of girls in PE has received increased attention, and has shown the difficulties that girls have when they practice in a context where masculinity is predominant. Flintoff and Scraton (2006) presented an interesting review of girls’ perceptions of PE. These authors found that girls and boys had different activity preferences and different perceptions of PE. From our findings, it appears that boys and girls preferred to learn within different social structures and they preferred different kinds of interactions. This tendency is probably related to the cultural influences that boys and girls have received during their growth and development (Boykin & Ellison, 1995; García, 1994). Garcia’s study showed how a group of preschool Asiatic boys and girls did not show these sex differences: they were all more cooperative, which may reflect the effect of the more cooperative Asiatic culture. It is interesting that Burrows (2004) also pointed this out when talking about the Maoris’ preferences for learning. Maoris from New Zealand preferred models


of learning emphasizing connectedness and learning in groups which may be related to the critical social-culturalism often used in New Zealand schools. The socialization process explicitly and, probably more importantly, implicitly nurtures boys and girls with rules, knowledge, and behavior that reproduce the cultural customs of behavior in life, and sometimes children accept them as the only path to follow without considering that there may be other paths to follow to achieve the same goals. If we consider these results from the point of view of the different behavioral dimensions of students, it seems that these learning preferences can be important for different types of contents and contexts. For skill learning and performance, some competitive and individualistic structures of learning could be better than others, but recent studies have demonstrated that cooperative structures can also lead to skill learning (Barrett, 2005). Girls’ cooperative preferences probably have an effect on their level of practice, and this influence may affect their perceived competence. They may prefer interactions with others rather than improving skill competence. It is not known, however, if this is due to not being praised the same way as boys (Ruiz et al., 2004). There are many circumstances when boys and girls have to work together in a group or team in PE. In this context it may be possible to find small conflicts between different learning style preferences. Girls may give more emphasis to relationships and try to include everyone (Hills, 2006). Boys may want to win, to throw further, jump higher or run farther and so on. When girls show these kinds of competitive attitudes they may not receive the same kind of praise and reinforcements as boys. We know that boys are praised for performance and girls for effort, and boys limit girls’ opportunities to learn by hassling them (Griffin, 1989). Given that the differences between boys and girls in the specific dimensions of preferences for social interaction correspond to global profiles which are essentially similar, teachers can develop integrated structures of learning that promote different objectives: social interactions, physical fitness, or skill learning. To increase the level of practice of girls and strengthen their perceived competence may need competitive or individualistic structures of learning. To develop cooperative attitudes in boys and girls may require the creation of scenarios of learning where all students feel good and recognized. Cooperative structures have a great potential to develop the personal and social skills of all students and not just those of the unskilled or underserved children (Dyson et al., 2004; Martinek, 1981).

Social Interaction Preferences and PE We can say that a main preference for learning in PE does not exist. Students may respond to a combination of these four dimensions in different contexts and with different objectives. But it can be affirmed that our sample of secondary Spanish students reported preferring cooperative learning structures followed by competition, affiliation and individualism in PE settings. To take advantage of the apparent tendency of adolescents to form groups (cooperation, competition, affiliation), educators should not only integrate competitive and cooperative tasks in their classes (Midura & Glover, 1999), but also take advantage of the favorable tendency toward affiliation of their students and try to favor activities promoting group cohesion (Paskevich, Estabrooks, Brawley, & Carron, 2001), team affiliation (MacPhail et

16 Ruiz et al.

al., 2004; Siedentop, 1994), and team building in sport (Eys, Patterson, Loughead, & Carron, 2005; Glover & Midura, 1992). Preference for affiliation behaviors was high in our sample of secondary PE students. These results confirm the results obtained by the Sport Education Model research. According to this model having affiliation as a method of interaction with peers is highly valued by high school students (Bennet & Hastie, 1997; Hastie & Carlson, 1998; MacPhail et al., 2004; MacPhail et al., 2008).

Implications An important implication of this research is that both teachers and researchers should pay more attention to the learning preferences of students in PE. These data suggest that it is necessary to develop a new educational and research perspective that considers the role of students’ interaction preferences in learning in PE and learning structure relationships with pedagogical methods. It would be interesting to compare the relative effect of different pedagogical techniques based in the cooperative learning approach with reference to other learning methods based in a wider perspective of social interaction in PE. These methods must consider in their student-centered approach to learning four of the social interaction dimensions presented in this study: cooperation, competition, affiliation and individualism. Proposals like Siedentop’s Sport Education Model (1994) or Tactical Games (Griffin, Mitchell, & Oslin, 1997) offer possibilities for future study of social interaction preferences. We agree with the assertion of Dyson et al. (2004) that PE has to be directed beyond a socially situated and activity-driven view of the curriculum. The GR–SIPPEL scale permits the assessment of a new tetradimensional model of social interaction for learning in PE. It has good psychometric qualities and could be a useful tool for physical educators and researchers. Finally, the GR–SIPPEL scale would be useful to conduct comparative research in PE from a wider perspective of social interaction that considers the four dimensions of students’ learning preferences across cultures. Acknowledgments Thank you to the reviewers for their efforts to improve the quality of this manuscript.

References Baer, J. (2003). Grouping and achievement in cooperative learning. College Teaching, 51(4), 169–175. Barrett, T. (2005). Effects of cooperative learning on the performance of sixth-grade physical education students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 24, 88–102. Bennet, G., & Hastie, P. (1997). A sport education curriculum model for a collegiate physical activity course. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 68, 39–44. Boykin, A.W., & Ellison, C.M. (1995). The multiple ecologies of black youth socialization: An Afrographic analysis. In R.T. Taylor (Ed.), African American youth: Their social and economic status in the United States (pp. 93–128). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Brown, L., & Grineski, S. (1992). Competition in physical education: an educational contradiction? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 63(1), 17–19, 77.


Burrows, L. (2004). Understanding and investigating cultural perspectives in physical education. In J. Wright, D. MacDonald, & L. Burrows (Eds.), Critical inquiry and problem solving in physical education (pp. 105–119). London: Routledge. Calvo, A.J., González, R., & Martorell, M.C. (2001). Variables relacionadas con la conducta prosocial en la infancia y adolescencia: Personalidad, autoconcepto y género. [Variables related to prosocial behavior in childhood and adolescence: Personality, self-concept and gender]. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 24(1), 95–110. Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129–152. DeVellis, R.F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dyson, B. (2001). Cooperative learning in an elementary Physical Education program. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20, 264–281. Dyson, B. (2002). The implementation of cooperative learning in an elementary Physical Education program. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22, 69–85. Dyson, B., Griffin, L.L., & Hastie, P. (2004). Sport education, tactical games, and cooperative learning: Theoretical and pedagogical considerations. Quest, 56, 226–240. Dyson, B., & Grineski, S. (2001). Using cooperative learning structures in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 72(2), 28–31. Dyson, B., & Strachan, K. (2000). Cooperative learning in a high school physical education program. Waikato Journal of Education, 6, 19–37. Ellison, C.M., Boykin, W., Tyler, K.M., & Dillihunt, M.L. (2005). Examining classroom learning preferences among elementary school students. Social Behavior and Personality, 33(7), 699–708. Eys, M.A., Patterson, M.M., Loughead, T.M., & Carron, A.V. (2005). Team building in sport. In D. Hackfort, J.L. Duda, & R. Lidor (Eds.), Handbook of research in applied sport and exercise psychology: International perspectives (pp. 219–231). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. Farver, J.A., & Branstetter, W.H. (1994). Preschoolers’ prosocial responses to their peers’ distress. Developmental Psychology, 30(3), 334–341. Flintoff, A., & Scraton, S. (2006). Girls and physical education. In D. Kirk, D. MacDonald, & M. O’Sullivan (Eds.), The handbook of physical education (pp. 767–783). London: Sage. Gallahue, D.L., & Ozmun, J.C. (2002). Understanding motor development (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. García, C. (1994). Gender differences in young children’s interactions when learning fundamental motor skills. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 65(3), 213–225. Gibson, D.R., & Campbell, R.M. (2000). The role of cooperative learning in the training of junior hospital doctors. A study of pediatric senior house officers. Medical Teacher, 22(3), 297–301. Gill, D.L. (1992). Gender differences in competitive orientation and participation. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 19, 145–159. Gill, D.L. (2000). Psychological dynamics of sport and exercise. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Glover, D., & Midura, D. (1992). Team building through physical challenges. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Grasha, A.F., & Riechmann, S.W. (1975). Student Learning Style Scales Questionnaire. Cincinnati, OH: Faculty Resource Center, University of Cincinnati. Graupera, J.L. (2007). Estilos de aprendizaje en la actividad física y el deporte. [Learning styles in Physical Activity and Sport]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Toledo: Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha. Greendorfer, S.I. (1987). Psychosocial correlates of organized physical activity. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 58(7), 59–64.

18 Ruiz et al.

Griffin, P. (1989). Gender as a socializing agent in physical education. In N.T. Templin & P. Schemp (Eds.), Socialization into PE: Learning to teach (pp. 219–232). Indianapolis: Benchmark Press. Griffin, L.L., Mitchell, S.A., & Oslin, J.L. (1997). Teaching sport concepts and skills: A tactical games approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Grineski, S. (1989). Children, games and prosocial behavior: Insight and Connections. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 60(8), 20–25. Grineski, S. (1996). Cooperative learning in physical education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Hancock, D. (2004). Cooperative and peer orientation effects on motivation and achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(3), 159–167. Hastie, P.A., & Carlson, T.B. (1998). Sport education: A cross cultural comparison. Journal of Comparative Physical Education and Sport, 20(2), 36–43. Hayes, I. (1976). The use of group contingencies for behavioural control: a review. Psychological, 83, 628–648. Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Miller, N. (1992). Interaction in cooperative groups. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Hills, L.A. (2006). Playing the field(s): An exploration of change, conformity and conflict in girls’ understandings of gendered physicality in physical education. Gender and Education, 18(5), 539–556. Hinde, R.A., & Groebel, J. (1991). Cooperation and prosocial behaviour. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Hutchins, P.A. (1978). The relationships of children’s personality factors to their competitive and/or cooperative attitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Maine: University of Maine. Johnson, D.W. (1981). Student–student interaction: The neglected variable in education. Educational Researcher, 10, 5–10. Johnson, R.T., Bjorkland, R., & Krotee, M.I. (1994). The effects of cooperative, competition and individualistic student interaction patterns on achievements and attitudes of students learning the golf skill of putting. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 55(2), 129–134. Johnson, C., & Engelhard, G. (1992). Gender, academic achievement, and preferences for cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning among African American adolescents. The Journal of Psychology, 126(4), 385–392. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Holubec, E.J. (1994). Cooperative learning in the classroom. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Johnson, D., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47–62. Johnson, D.W., & Norem-Hebeisen, A. (1979). A measure of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic attitudes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 843–850. Kahila, S. (1993). The role of teaching method in prosocial learning: Developing helping behaviour by means of the cooperative teaching method in physical education. Studies in Sport, Physical Education and Health, 29. Doctoral dissertation. Jyvaskyla: University of Jyvaskyla. Kinchin, G.D. (2006). Sport education: A view of the research. In D. Kirk, D. MacDonald, & M. O’Sullivan (Eds.), The Handbook of Physical Education (pp. 596–609). London: Sage. Lintunen, T. (1999). Development of self-perceptions during the school years. In Y. Vanden Auweele, F. Bakker, S. Biddle, M. Durand, & R. Seiler (Eds.), Psychology for Physical Educators (pp. 115–134). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.


Livecchi, N., Merrick, M., Ingersoll, C., & Stemmans, C. (2004). Pre-athletic training students perform better on written tests with teacher-centered instruction. Journal of Allied Health, 33(3), 200–204. MacPhail, A., Kirk, D., & Kinchin, G. (2004). Sport education: Promoting team affiliation through physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 23, 106–122. MacPhail, A., Trish, G., Kirk, D., & Kinchin, G. (2008). Children’s experiences of fun and enjoyment during a season of sport education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79(3), 344–355. Martinek, T.J. (1981). Pygmalion in the gym: A model for the communication of teacher expectations in PE. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 52, 58–67. MEPSYD. (2008). Ley orgánica de educación (LOE). Enseñanzas mínimas de educación secundaria [Spanish law of education. Obligatory curriculum of secondary education]. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Política Social y Deporte (MEPSYD). Metzler, M.W. (2005). Instructional Models for Physical Education. Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway. Midura, D.W., & Glover, D.R. (1999). The competition–cooperation link. Games for developing respectful competitors. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Newell, K.M. (1991). Motor skill acquisition. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 213–237. Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Relationship between peer orientation and achievement in cooperative learning-based research. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(3), 164–171. Orlick, T. (1978a). Winning through cooperation: competitive insanity, cooperative alternatives. Washington, DC: Accropolis Press. Orlick, T. (1978b). The cooperative sports and games book: Challenge without competition. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Orlick, T. (1988). The second cooperative sports & games book. Barcelona: Pantheon Books. Orlick, T. (2006). Cooperative games and sports: Joyful activities for everyone. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Owens, L., & Barnes, J. (1992). Learning preference scales. Hawthorn, Vic.: Australian Council for Educational Research. Paskevich, D.M., Estabrooks, P.A., Brawley, L.R., & Carron, A.V. (2001). Group cohesion in sport and exercise. In R.N. Singer, H.E. Hausenblas, & C.M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 472–494). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Pepitone, E.A. (1980). Children in cooperation and competition. Massachusetts: Lexington Books. Peterson, S.E., & Miller, J.A. (2004). Comparing the quality of students’ experiences during cooperative learning and large-group instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(3), 123–134. Polvi, S., & Telama, R. (2000). The use of cooperative learning as a social enhancer in physical education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 44(1), 105–115. Randall, L., Buschner, C., & Swerkes, B. (1995). Learning style preferences of physical education majors: Implications for teaching and learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 6(2), 57–77. Ruiz, L.M., Graupera, J.L., Fraile, A., & Rico, I. (1997). Análisis psicométrico de la escala de actitudes cooperativas y competitivas en la infancia y estudio de su validez para la evaluación de un programa alternativo de deporte escolar. In Investigaciones en ciencias del deporte, 14: Nuevas perspectivas didácticas y educativas de la educación física (pp. 60–85). Madrid: Consejo Superior de Deportes. Ruiz, L.M., Graupera, J.L., Rico, I., & Mata, E. (2004). Preferencias participativas en educación física de los chicos y chicas de la educación secundaria mediante la escala GR de participación social en el aprendizaje. [Participative preferences in physical education among boys and girls in secondary education by means of the GR scale of social participation in learning]. Motricidad, 12, 151–168.

20 Ruiz et al.

Sassen, G. (1980). Success anxiety in women: A constructivist interpretation of its sources and its significance. Harvard Educational Review, 50, 13–25. Severy, L.J. (1975). Individual differences in helping dispositions. Journal of Personality Assessment, 39(3), 282–292. Siedentop, D. (1994). Introduction to sport education. In D. Siedentop (Ed.), Sport education: Quality PE through positive sport experiences (pp. 3–16). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Skinner, R.A. (2002). Self-perceptions, perceived control and anxiety in children and adolescents at risk of developmental coordination disorder. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Curtin University of Technology, Australia. Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Harlow, Essex: Allyn & Bacon. Stassen, K. (2002). The developing person through childhood and adolescence. New York, NY: Worth Publishing. Yoder, L.J. (1993). Cooperative learning and dance education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 64(5), 47–51.