Cooperative learning

202

Int. J. Information and Operations Management Education, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2010

Cooperative learning: a methodological answer to instructional design based on competences in the university environment Rosa María Pons Parra*, José Manuel Serrano González-Tejero Faculty of Education, University of Murcia, Campus Universitario de Espinardo s/n, Murcia 30071, Spain E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding author

Clotilde Lomeli Agruel Facultad de Pedagogía e Innovación Educativa, UABC, Av. Monclova y Río Mocorito s/n, Col. Ex Ejido Coahuila, Mexicali, B.C., C.P. 21360, Mexico E-mail: [email protected]

Víctor Manuel Alcántar Enríquez Edificio de Rectoría, Av. Álvaro Obregón y Julián Carrillo, s/n, Col. Nueva, Mexicali, B.C., 21100, Mexico E-mail: [email protected]

Dolores Graciela Cordero Arroyo and Edna Luna Serrano Instituto de Investigación y Desarrollo, Educativo, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, Km. 103 Carretera Tijuana-Ensenada, Ensenada, B.C., 22830, México E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2010 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Cooperative learning

Salvador Ponce Ceballos Facultad de Pedagogía e Innovación Educativa, UABC, Av. Monclova y Río Mocorito s/n, Col. Ex Ejido Coahuila, Mexicali, B.C., C.P. 21360, Mexico E-mail: [email protected]

Rubén Roa Quiñonez Blvd. Universitario #1000, Unidad Valle las Palmas, Vicerrectoria Tijuana, Tijuana, B.C., Mexico E-mail: [email protected]

Tiburcio Moreno Olivos Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, Carretera Pachuca-Actopan Km. 4, Pachuca, Hidalgo 42160, México E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: The authors of the present study devise a teacher training programme in methods of cooperative learning, that on the base of a cooperative methodology maximise the quantity and quality of the communicative transactions that are produced along the teaching and learning process, built upon the foundation of interactivity. Using a system of interactive categories, they perform an internal analysis of the parameter of mutuality to come to the conclusion that the effects of this parameter on academic achievement are conditioned by their interaction with the structure of the goals of the students. Keywords: competencies information; cooperative goal structure; cooperative learning; instructional design information; mutuality; teacher education. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Pons Parra, R.M., González-Tejero, J.M.S., Lomeli Agruel, C., Alcántar Enríquez, V.M., Cordero Arroyo, D.G., Luna Serrano, E., Ponce Ceballos, S., Quiñonez, R.R. and Moreno Olivos, T. (2010) ‘Cooperative learning: a methodological answer to instructional design based on competences in the university environment’, Int. J. Information and Operations Management Education, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.202–223. Biographical notes: Rosa María Pons Parra is a Professor at Murcia University. Her publications in the last biennium are Aprendizaje Cooperativo en Matemáticas, ‘Perspectiva histórica del aprendizaje cooperativo: un largo y tortuoso camino a través de cuatro siglos’, Revista Española de Pedagogía, 236; ‘Cooperative learning: we can also do it without task structure’, Intercultural Education, Vol. 18, ‘La concepción constructivista de la instrucción: hacia un replanteamiento del triángulo interactivo’, Revista

203

204

R.M. Pons Parra et al. Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, Vol. XIII; ‘Reward structure as a tool to generate positive interdependence in higher education’ Cooperative Learning in Multicultural Societies, Torino (Research); ‘Training of university teachers in CLM’ sponsored for the AECID. José Manuel Serrano González-Tejero is a Professor at the Murcia University. His publications in the last biennium are Aprendizaje cooperativo y Educación para la paz. ‘Perspectiva histórica del aprendizaje cooperativo:’, Revista Española de Pedagogía, 236; ‘Cooperative learning: we can also do it without task structure’, Intercultural Education, Vol. 18, concepción constructivista de la instrucción: hacia un replanteamiento del triángulo interactivo’, REMIE XIII; ‘Teachers training in cooperative learning methods’, Cooperative Learning in Multicultural Societies, Torino; ‘Reward structure as a tool to generate positive interdependence in higher education’ Cooperative Learning in Multicultural Societies, Torino (Research); ‘Formación de profesores en MAC’, sponsored by Spanish AECI. Clotilde Lomeli Agruel is a Social Psychologist from Autonomous Metropolitan University and a Human Resource Management from the Universidad Autonoma de Baja California. She has Diploma in Administration in the Education and Training at Autonomous University of Baja California (UABC) and Diploma in International Coaches Training (UABC). She is an MSc and a PhD Candidate in Education at the University of Southern California, USA. She is a Director at the Faculty of Pedagogy and Educational Innovation. (Conference proceedings) ‘Competencias básicas para la docencia universitaria: una propuesta de formación para profesores principiante’, Sevilla. Víctor Manuel Alcántar Enríquez is a Certified Public Accountant, UNAM (Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico) and a Human Resource Management from the Universidad Autónoma de Baja California (UABC). He has an MBA from Higher Education Institutions at the Universidad Autonoma de Baja California (UABC) and PhD in Economics at the Universidad Autonoma de Baja California (UABC). He is a Titular Professor of Stroke Level ‘C’ at the UABC, a Member of the National Research System of CONACYT Level I and he is leading the academicians of Higher Education of the institution itself. Dolores Graciela Cordero Arroyo is a Doctor in Philosophy and Education at the University of Barcelona (1995) and a Master of Education at the University of Harvard (1991). She has an MA in Education at the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (1984) and an Academic Merit Award at the UABC in the Area of Education and Humanities (2002). Currently, she is a Director of the Institute of Educational Research and Development at the Universidad Autonoma de Baja California and an Editor of the REDIE, IIEF-UABC, 1999–2004. Edna Luna Serrano is a PhD in the Institute of Educational Research and Development of the Baja California Autonomous University (Mexico), FullTime Professor and Coordinator of the Doctor’s Degree Program in Educational Sciences, Member of the Mexican National System of Research since 2000 and also Member of the National Council of Research Education. Salvador Ponce Ceballos is a Full-time Faculty at the Autonomous University of Baja California, Faculty of Pedagogy and Educational Innovation. He is a Coordinator of Teacher Education in the Autonomous University of Baja California, Faculty of Pedagogy and Educational Innovation; Coordinator of Course Design in the Department of Bachelors School of Baja California and


205

Coordinator of Academic Performance in the Department of Bachelors School of Baja California. (Conference proceedings) ‘Competencias básicas para la docencia universitaria: una propuesta de formación para profesores principiante’, Sevilla. Rubén Roa Quiñonez is a Civil Engineer. Currently, he is the Director of Engineering and Technology Center at the Universidad Autónoma de Baja California. He is a General Director of the School Services. (Conference proceedings) ‘Competencias básicas para la docencia universitaria: una propuesta de formación para profesores principiante’, Sevilla and ‘Inducción para personal académico de reciente ingreso’ en la UABC, Sevilla. Tiburcio Moreno Olivos is a Teacher–Researcher at the UAEH (Research) ‘Evaluation as a forum for discussion of training and professional culture of teachers at the UAEH’, PROMEP funded project; ‘Situational diagnosis for the design of a tutorial model in general and technical secondary schools in the states of Hidalgo and Tamaulipas’, financed by the CONACYT; ‘Equitable classrooms in primary education: a process of social and cultural construction’ fund is financed by the CONACYT; ‘Formación de profesores en MAC’, sponsored by AECI; ‘Training of university teachers in CLM’ sponsored for the AECID ‘Teachers training in CLM’ Cooperative Learning in Multicultural Societies, Torino. This investigation has been financed by the Spanish Department of Exterior Affairs.

1

Introduction

Knowledge-based societies establish a dichotomist division of knowledge in tacit and explicit. Explicit or codified knowledge is a type of knowledge that can be expressed through a semiologic system and as such can be stored, shared and communicated. This type of knowledge is commonly known as information, and corresponds to what, in psychology, we know as procedural and declarative knowledge. Tacit knowledge is that type of knowledge that allows people to select, interpret and give an adequate use to codified knowledge, and refers to conditional and strategic proficiency. In a world in which knowledge is created, distributed and can be rapidly obtained, storing information is not so indispensable for people. At the same time, the needs to build, select, process and apply the required knowledge are increased in order to face the changing demands of society. This implies a change, of teaching centred in contents and objectives, towards a teaching centred in its interaction; so that the subject can answer: What is it? (declarative knowledge), How is it done? (procedural knowledge), When is it done? (conditional knowledge), Why is it done? (causal knowledge) and Which is the most effective way to do it? (strategic knowledge).

206

R.M. Pons Parra et al.

In causal knowledge, there should be a distinction between teleonomic and teleological knowledge. Teleonomic knowledge would be the type of knowledge that refers to the quality of apparent purpose and objective orientation of the structures and functions of the individuals, that derives from their history and of their adaptation, and that permits the attribution of sense to the new elements that are incorporated to their structures. Teleonomic knowledge has a clear centripetal purpose since it is more related to passed effects than with immediate purposes and, therefore, it is linked to subjective purposes. Teleological knowledge would be any knowledge applicable to purposes that are planned for an agent that is able, internally, to shape or to imagine various alternative futures; it responds to a process in which intention, purpose and forecast can take place. Teleological knowledge would be, in this manner, a centrifugal process linked to objective purposes (see Figure 1). Interaction between the different types of knowledge and the goals of learning is what has been called ‘competences’. A competence is “the capability to act efficiently in a given number of situations; it is based on knowledge, but it is not limited to it” (Perrenoud, 1997, p.7). It is usually interpreted as “a more or less specialized system of capacities that are a necessary or sufficient condition to reach a specific objective” (Weinert, 2001, p.45). Figure 1

Structure of a competence (see online version for colours)


207

In the instructional environment, the notion of competence arises as a central element of teaching design, almost a century after its initial formulation by Dewey (1916, pp.107–108). OECD, through the Project DESECO (Definition and Selection of Competences) defines the term as “the ability to meet demands or carry out a task successfully and consists of both cognitive and non-cognitive dimensions”, where the cognitive component is determined by declarative, strategic, conditional and procedural knowledge, while the non-cognitive or ‘emotional’ component is formed by the attitudes, values, emotions and motivations. Finally, the report advances the existence of two conditions for competence development: the ability to cooperate, and the need of contextualisation. The irresistible ascent that the term ‘competence’ has experienced in education (Romainville, 1996) has reached the university environment. One of the fundamental contributions of the Bologna process is to situate the concept of competences in the core of the formation of university students. In learning by competences, the university student becomes the central character of an interactive, virtual, shared and distributed learning. He should be capable of handling and updating knowledge, select information, know the sources of information and integrate what he learned to his prior knowledge; and adapt it to new situations. This change in the organisation of learning – which means moving from a content-centred education to a competence-centred education – implies a new approach in the role of university professors and a change in the instructional designs they had been developing up to now. Instructional design based on competencies, or for the achievement of competencies, is a construct in expansion within the educational environment. “Preparing the youth to confront the challenges of the information society has become an explicit objective of the educational systems of the European countries. This has made those in charge of educational policies revise the curriculum contents, and the teaching and learning methods… which, at the same time, has raised interest on key competences; those competences that are considered essential for a satisfactory participation in society along life.” (Wastiau-Schlüter, 2002, p.3)

The teaching and learning processes that are produced for the achievement of those competences, either generic (transferable to a great range of functions and tasks), basic (qualify and enable to integrate successfully in social and labour life) or specific (belonging to a specific occupation), make compulsory “a change of the teaching methods, from those that are centred in the teacher to the ones that are centred in the students…where…the role of the teacher consists of guiding the students in their effort to apply the knowledge and dexterities to new situations, so that they become competent citizens.” (Eurydice, 2002, p.21)

This reconceptualisation of the teaching and learning processes (Pons and Serrano, in press; Serrano and Pons, 2008), that now should respond and adjust to a complex interactive system among three elements (contents, objectives and students), obliges to a relocation of the teacher; that now should carry out, proprietarily, the status of ‘harmoniser of the system’, in order to confer it a unitary or structural character (see Figure 2). On the other hand, the introduction of the notion of competence in the curricula establishes that the teaching and learning processes that occur in the classroom should respond to the intervention needs of people in all the settings of life. This is something

208


that requires a radical transformation of the educational institution and sets some levels of demand. Reduced to a character of minimums, these levels of demand suppose: 1

the conversion to competencies of the traditional contents, basically academic, that require a transformation of the classroom organisation structure, time management and faculty training

2

the need of a professionalising training; that includes theoretical knowledge and general abilities: to understand, savoir faire and to know how to learn – through interpersonal processes (classroom cooperative organisation)

3

the highest level of demand in teaching, should direct its goals towards people’s integral development, adding to knowledge and savoir faire, knowing how to be and how to live together.

These changes are so imminent that can be considered as immediate present. They establish the need to perform a specific formation of the faculty so they can respond to the important challenges they should meet. As it was previously stated (Calvo et al., 1996, p.34), from a competence perspective, faculty training should “promote change and innovation, and be adapted to the educational reality in which teachers are immersed. Individualization, collaboration and cooperation should merge in order to meet the main objectives of the personal development project; as an individual and as a professional.”

In fact, according to what was said, it is evident that the teaching and learning processes should be regulated by relations that prioritise interactive processes. It is the ultimate reason of this research work: the formation of university professors in cooperative learning methods (CLM). Figure 2

Interactive triangle reconceptualised

STUDENTS

Meaning construction

Sense attribution (making sense)

TEACHER

CONTENTS

Competence

OBJECTIVES


209

Experience in training teachers in CLM is vast; especially in the last two decades, and in levels other than higher education (Angelides et al., 2007; Brody and Davidson, 1998; Palincsar and Herrenkohl, 1999; Taspinar, 2007). Slavin (1985) points out the need to distinguish between cooperative learning and learning about cooperation. The first implies instructional proposals that make possible the practice of pro-social conducts (to help, to share, to have empathy, etc.). The ‘group’ is not considered as a form to structure the work, but as an intervention-action unit, where socio-cognitive conflicts that arise within are inherent to the teaching and learning process, and condition it. The second implies the transmission of a series of theoretical contents, which refer to declarative knowledge about cooperation, to both, procedural knowledge (that makes possible the achievement of success in cooperation) and to conditional knowledge (about the necessary conditions to achieve an authentic cooperative organisation). Our professor training proposal tries to integrate both concepts: to learn about cooperation cooperatively. From the perspective of objective achievement, all the applications about teacher formation in CLM develop programmes fundamentally centred in the act of cooperating, being, therefore, the mutuality parameter the axis of these proposals. Nevertheless, experience has shown that in order to understand and adequately apply a cooperative methodology in the classroom, it is necessary to previously acquire some knowledge; usually taken for granted, but usually lacking. Some of these important gaps are: notions of constructivism, cognitive and socio-cultural interpretations of the paradigm applied to the processes of teaching and learning, constructivist theory idea vs. not constructivist theory (hierarchical integration of the basic principles of constructivism applied to teaching), interpretation of the interactive processes in the classroom, etc. All these make intervention actions to be stereotyped and stubbornly eager to apply tested methods, such as TGT, GI, STAD or the Jigsaw (Artut and Tarim, 2007; Shachar and Shmuelevitz, 1997; Stephenson, 2006), instead of devising methodologies that make possible a cooperative organisation of the classroom and the generation of cooperative learning environments. A second issue that is considered highly prominent for our purposes is the tendency to consider the mutuality parameter as a global measure of the interaction process. We have been able to observe that this parameter is found closely related to the structure of goal. We found subjects that set the goal of cooperation in the act of cooperating itself; while others are task-oriented. For some, the act of cooperating has an essentially extrinsic component (achieving success), for others show a tendency to finding the mechanisms that enable cooperation – the task is only an instrument to reach them (goal structure intrinsic to the act of cooperating itself). Starting from these two issues, we devised a programme with substantially different contents to those regularly utilised in teacher training in CLM. At the same time, we performed an analysis of the mutuality parameter, categorising in different components and qualifying the type of exchanges from the perspective of goal structure. The objectives of this first part of the study could be formulated like this: O1: to determine the contents of a university faculty training program in CLM that enable the construction of cooperative instructional designs based on competences. O2: to determine if the interactive processes developed by the professors in their learning, condition the execution of the designs and what is the influence of goal structure on them.

210


Under these conditions, our work hypothesis could be enunciated in the following terms: H1: If design implementation – taken as variable of performance – is determined by the mutuality parameter and the goal structure of the participating professors, then significant differences will be found in the appraisals of these designs; as long as we find them in the categories and subcategories that consent the mutuality parameter analysis.

2

Method

The present activity was developed along the second semester of the academic course 2008/2009, and belongs to a Mexico–Spain joint research process about university faculty training in CLM; subsidised by the Spanish Department of Exterior Affairs and Cooperation. Subjects: the activity was carried out in the Autonomous University of Baja California (UABC), and in three of its Campuses (Ensenada, Mexicali and Tijuana). The sample was composed by 62 subjects (24 university professors adhering to Mexicali Campus, 19 to Tijuana Campus and 19 to Ensenada Campus). The professors belonged to different areas of knowledge, and covered all the centres of the different campuses. Procedure: the activity was started with a visit to the University of Murcia (Spain) by the professors of the Autonomous University of Baja California (Mexico) that were assigned to carry out the activity in the three campuses (two professors by campus), in order to implement successfully the formative activity in CLM. This process lasted for two weeks (the last two weeks of February 2009). It consisted of an intensive theoretical–practical activity about the way in which the application of CLM was carried out in the University of Murcia. Once the activity was over, the professors of the UABC returned to their University for preparing and assembling the materials, and performing the selection process of the university professors that would participate in the activity. Once these processes were done, two experts of the University of Murcia travelled (in April) to the three campuses to assess the materials and to perform the opening of the formation activity. The formative process, that lasted 60 hours, was carried out along 15 sessions, 4 hr each; from April to July. The activities were developed in extensive seminars that enabled both, large and small group sessions. The furniture consisted of mobile individual chairs and tables that permitted their reorganisation in function of the type of activity (large group or team work). Spaces, times and activities were the same for the three campuses. The initial phase (large group) started with a talk on the importance of instructional design by competences, the need of cooperation for the correct development on competences of the subject and the cooperative organisation of the classroom; emphasising the structures of task and reward, the parameters of mutuality and equality and the roles of the professor and the student. This talk justified the contents of the training course, the methodology and the process of evaluation; it was given by the professors of the University of Murcia. From this moment on, the development of the activity was responsibility of the six professors of the UABC. Instructional contents were divided into three blocks. The first block, which referred to the theoretical and projective nuclei of psychology of instruction, was intended to establish the relations between competence and cooperation, and the bases of cooperative


211

learning. It was also meant to lead the faculty to the conviction that the classroom cooperative organisation is a process in which all the instructional foci converge. Once the need to use a cooperative methodology was justified, an analysis of the interactive processes that occur in the classroom was performed to determine what function they perform in the processes of teaching and learning (second block of contents). To conclude, some practical contents were discussed; about the organisation and planning of the different structures, and the roles that different instructional agents can adopt in this methodology. The contents were the following: Block 1 Constructivism and instructional design: 1.1 Psychology of instruction 1.2 Theoretical dimension of instructional psychology 1.3 Basic principles of the constructivist option 1.4 Constructivists foci in teaching: genetic-cognitive conception, theory of assimilation, socio-cultural theory, human processing of information and connectionism, multiple intelligences theory, successful intelligence and distributed intelligence 1.5 Strategic use of knowledge 1.6 Meaning construct and sense attribution: affective, emotional and cognitive factors 1.7 Project dimension of instructional psychology: instructional design 1.8 The concept of competence 1.9 The systematisation of the teaching and learning processes 1.10 Instructional design by competencies. Block 2 Cooperative learning: 2.1 Classroom organisation 2.2 Educational interaction and interactiveness: the construction of knowledge in the classroom 2.3 Teaching and learning in the context of the classroom: CLM. Block 3 Cooperative instructional design: 3.1 Basic structures in the methods of cooperative learning: goal, task and reward structure 3.2 Professor and students roles 3.3 Structure of a cooperative learning unit based on competencies. Regarding to contents, there were two processes of evaluation. The first one, or initial evaluation, was individualised, and consisted of an objective test (two options). This test was aimed at obtaining information about the knowledge of the participants in order to form work teams that respond to the structure of cooperative learning. These teams were supposed to be slightly divergent, as for initial knowledge, from the perspective of the parameter of equality. It was comprised of three evaluations prior to the development of each of the blocks of content. The intention was to eliminate the threats to internal

212


validity related to time (history effect and maturity effect), selection of subjects (sampling error and statistical decline); but, very especially, those related to the effects of interaction that lead to the nullification of the inference of the hypothesis. They are produced when some of the experimental groups change substantially more quickly than the other (present a greater learning, are more sensitive to the effects of history, show extensive maturity changes, etc.). The second, or final evaluation, was only intended to determine if a positive change had occurred in the participants in relation to the specific acquisition of the contents. It had two components. The individual component consisted of an objective test (four options) that corresponded exactly with the contents presented in the initial test, but under a different form. The group, problem solving, test (four problems) was about the contents previously studied, from a practical perspective. There were, therefore, three final evaluations, one for each block of contents. Although this evaluation did not impact directly on the purposes of our investigation, it constituted a practical and experienced part of the learning process, linked to the structure of reward. Once the theoretical–practical phase was concluded, the participants had to carry out, individually, a cooperative instructional design based on competencies. This was based on an instructional content linked to the programme of their subject that was meant to be implemented at the beginning of the following semester (2ª phase of the investigation under way). The methodology was evidently cooperative, and adopted the structure previously established by some of us in prior activities (Serrano and González-Herrero, 1996; Serrano et al., 2008b). This structure was the following one: 1

Size of the group: 4/5 members.

2

Group formation criteria: heterogeneous, as for ability (slight changeability, respecting the concept of average heterogeneousness).

3

Physical space organisation: flexible, so that the tables can be grouped in the most favourable disposition for class presentations and for team work.

4

Learning task structure: in relation to the goals to reach, each student is liable, as member of the group, of the development of the process of learning (academic and social).

5

Each group is responsible for the correct resolution of the problems presented. In relation to the product, there were two individual report slips for each member of the team.

In relation to the sequence of activities that integrate the task, the following sequence was produced. First, the professor presented the topic and exposed the process to follow – in its academic and social aspect. After the task was presented, the groups met to carry out the work, following the intervention norms established by the professor in the three basic aspects: comprehension of the materials, problem solving, formative self-assessment and individual answering of the questions. Subsequently, the professor confirmed the selfassessment giving feedback. The group reflected on the evaluation, confirming the solutions or reconsidering the questions in case they needed to be corrected. In relation to resources, each thematic block had four or five basic work documents and an assembly of references to expand the information, worksheets for each of the parts (individual), problem sheets for the global topic (group) and self-assessment slips.


213

Structure of reward: individual and group. Roles of the participants: during the implementation of the learning process, there was a specific role differentiation, since each student was accountable for a part of the information. There was no role differentiation in the group management, given that they all collaborated equally in its execution; although, the autonomy of the group allowed some differentiation in some moments of the process. Division of work: due to the nature of the task – that was comprised of, at least, four independent blocks – there was division of work among the members of the group. Each of the members was responsible of a part of the work to carry out, but it did not function as a group of experts. Criteria on materials usage: from the beginning, the participants had all the resources for the development of the activity. Handouts were delivered at the beginning of each activity. Their usage responded to an effectiveness criterion marked by the sequence of the contents that integrated the theme: procedural and conceptual comprehension, knowledge consolidation and application of knowledge to the resolution of situations. Intervention and control of the instructor: in relation to group control, the instructor observed the process, intervening in case of conflict (academic or social) to propose possible ways of solution, leaving space for autonomy as much as possible; giving feedback in case of errors and reinforcing correct responses. Observation covered segments of complete interactiveness and was centred in the group processes resulting of the learning activities. The intervention and feedback were always produced in positive terms, as soon as the need was detected. Intervention and group control: once the task was concluded, the group revised the social process, and analysed the observations of the instructor, modifying what was necessary for the development of the other activities. Presentation of the task: First, the instructor explained to the class that a new activity in the formation process was about to be developed. He reminded them that they all possessed sufficient preparation on the different aspects that integrated the activity that was about to be developed; and that he was certain they would succeed in their work. Realisation process of the task: the teacher would develop the content of the subject through a lecture that allowed students to establish into the contents they would work with. The teacher did this in a structured manner somehow, in order to generate several representations of the contents. The activity was carried out through consensus (large group) to know how it was to be performed. Before carrying it out, students were told that it was their responsibility to ask for help in the moment they ran into any difficulty. Also, that it was the partner’s responsibility to help them. This effort would be rewarded with the fact that if the task was carried out well, they could move on to the next content unit. First of all, they discussed what had been explained to them, and then analysed the relationship of the documents with the contents presented by the instructor. Then, they divided the work that each of them would take home to have it memorised for the next session. In this new session, the information of each student was integrated, leaving a last session for the solutions to the questions and problems, and also for self-evaluation. Closure process: the instructor would check the activities and self-evaluation providing the necessary feedback on both aspects of the activity (learning and evaluating) to help

214


the group consolidate processes and results; or in the event that the expected competences were not reached, they could check the process. Recovery process: this was made within the group, concerning the results of the group evaluation and with the teacher’s guidance. If the expected competencies were not achieved, the group would check the process and make sure that all members overcame their difficulties before elaborating the group product. Teacher’s observations: they were carried out during the development of the activity (answering questions of the group on time) and at the end of the presentation of the product, confirming his/her self-evaluation always in positive terms. Assessment of social skills: it was made by both the group and the teacher during the activity and at the end of the presentation of the product. Observations were always made in positive terms, for the group and for each one of its members. Once the implicit learning process in the design of the activity was concluded, the teacher would proceed to assess its application by checking the treatment granted to the cooperative learning elements included and also the level of achievement of the competencies. This assessment would permit identifying the new educational reality (situation of the interpersonal relationships and cohesion of the group, knowledge evolution, complexity of the strategies used, etc.) with the purpose of carrying out possible adaptations to assuring the progressive, personal and social development of the participants. Finally, once the three content units were concluded, the participants would gather in one last session (large group) and the teacher would present the characteristics that direct the elaboration of a cooperative instructional design brought about from a competence perspective (first hour of the activity). Next, they would gather in their work groups to elaborate the general guidelines of their instructional design. This design was elaborated at home and afterwards, it was delivered to the professors in charge of the activity. Variables: the factors and variables that were subject of analysis and study in the process are these: 1

‘Campus’: factor with three levels a

Mexicali Campus

b

Tijuana Campus

c

Ensenada Campus.

2

‘Group’: factor with 15 levels, 5 for each campus, so this factor appears within the latter factor.

3

‘Mutuality’: Independent variable. This variable was assessed following a system of six categories: formulation of their own points of view, orientation towards the other and production of adjusted help behaviour, role coordination, mutual work and conversation level control. Each of these categories was assessed separately in two subcategories: regarding the learning activity and with reference to the group process.

The interaction behaviour was collected through the development of the activities and analysed by the two professors in charge of the process and by an external observer,


215

following a minimal record of two segments of interactivity for group and session; according to the guidelines described by Jordan and Henderson (1995). The index agreed between the observers was of canonical = 0.782. The systematic observation protocol was established according to a scale composed by Likert type items, which were measured according to an ordinal scale from 1 to 5 where the values were equivalent to the next percentage of occurrences: 1 (less than 10% of occurrences); 2 (more than 10% of occurrences and less than 40%); 3 (more than 40% of occurrences and less than 60%); 4 (more than 60% of occurrences and less than 90%) and 5 (more than 90% of occurrences). The total number of included conducts was 45, so the score rank was (45–225). ‘Instructional design’: Dependent variable. The designs were corrected and assessed taking into account the constructs system elaborated by some of us (Serrano and Calvo, 1994), and had been applied effectively in previous works (Calvo et al., 1996; Serrano et al., 2008a,c). This constructs system was punctuated according to a Likert system for each item, according to the next assessment: x

It does not appear in the model (1 point).

x

It appears, but intuitively not explicitly (2 points).

x

It appears explicitly but incorrectly and, in some cases, contradicts regarding other sections. There is no justification, or it is incorrect (3).

x

It appears explicitly and correctly (4).

The scoring ranks for each evaluated construct were as follows: x

identification of the lesson (rank 4–16)

x

formulation of the objectives (rank 10–40)

x

formulation of the competences (rank 5–20)

x

interaction (4–16)

x

interdependence (rank 30–120)

x

group process (rank 30–120)

x

assignment of the task and individual responsibility (rank 13–52)

x

product presentation (rank 20–80).

The statistical analysis of the data was carried out through an ANOVA, considering as dependent variable the instructional design, as independent variable (covariant) the mutuality parameter, and as factors the campus and the group or team (within the campus factor). The results that were obtained are on Table 1. Table 1

Analysis of variance for mutuality

Source Mutuality

SS 37,106.494

df

Mean squares

F-ratio

P

1

37,106.494

89.316

0.000

Campus

40,000.853

2

20,000.427

48.141

0.000

Group (campus)

21,268.270

11

1,933.479

4.654

0.000

Error

19,526.256

47

415.452

216


The results show that the directionality, quality and quantity of the communicative transactions (mutuality) are a fundamental and determining element when it comes to analysing the performance of the professors. This performance was expressed in terms of adaptation of the instructional design to be implemented in the classroom with guaranteed success. The adjustment can be corroborated with the fact that the percentage of variance that the model explains is of 87.1% (rmultiple = 0.933). Regarding the factors, the significance of the factor ‘Campus’ cannot be attributed to the professor’s behaviour or his/her interaction, since the factor group within each campus also presents a high level of significance. It cannot be attributed to initial differences on knowledge either because the evaluations carried out presented a high homogeneity in the variances. Therefore, these differences can only be attributed to the interaction process itself; with this the parameter of equality is again the protagonist. Taking into account that the parameter of mutuality is considered as a construct formed by six categories (formulation of the own points of view, orientation towards the other, obtaining and production of help adjust behaviour, role coordination, control of pair work and level of conversation) and that each one of them was divided into two subcategories (interaction-oriented towards learning and interaction-oriented towards the group process), we proceeded to break down the construct to determine the effect of each category; finding the following results (Tables 2–7). Category 1 (Table 2), ‘formulation of the own points of view’, it has enough explaining power (p 0.01) regarding the design formulation, with no significant differences between the subjects that developed the interactive processes oriented to the solution of the task (subcategory 11), and the ones that did it oriented to the own act of cooperation (subcategory 12). Table 2

Analysis of variance for category 1

Source

SS

df

Mean squares

F-ratio

P

Subcategory 11

10,993.545

1

10,993.545

13.608

0.001

Subcategory 12

6,732.344

1

6,732.344

8.333

0.006

Campus

24,677.060

2

12,338.530

15.273

0.000

Group (campus)

29,561.434

11

2,687.403

3.327

0.002

Error

37,161.888

46

807.867

Table 3


Source Subcategory 21 Subcategory 22

SS

df

4,118.683

1

Mean squares 4,118.683

F-ratio

P

4.394

0.042

9,237.815

1

9,237.815

9.856

0.003

Campus

37,919.617

2

18,959.808

20.228

0.000

Group (campus)

32,492.202

11

2,953.837

3.151

0.003

Error

43,115.559

46

937.295

Cooperative learning Table 4

217


Source

SS

df

Mean squares

F-ratio

P

Subcategory 31

12,038.880

1

12,038.880

20.248

0.000

Subcategory 32

291.157

1

291.157

0.490

0.488

Campus

23,695.767

2

11,847.883

19.926

0.000

Group (campus)

19,184.682

11

1,744.062

2.933

0.005

Error

27,350.954

46

594.586

F-ratio

P

Table 5


Source

SS

df

Mean squares

Subcategory 41

702.534

1

702.534

0.778

0.382

Subcategory 42

6,752.373

1

6,742.373

7.476

0.009

Campus

42,650.547

2

21,325.273

23.610

0.000

Group (campus)

33,626.890

11

3,056.990

3.385

0.002

Error

41,548.058

46

903.219

Table 6


Source

SS

df

Mean squares

F-ratio

P

Subcategory 51

1,215.502

1

1,215.502

1.370

0.248

Subcategory 52

6,613.253

1

6,613.253

7.453

0.009

Campus

42,236.490

2

21,118.245

23.800

0.000

Group (campus)

16,573.188

11

1,506.653

1.698

0.104

Error

40,816.669

46

887.319

Table 7


Source

SS

df

Mean squares

F-ratio

P

Subcategory 61

8,225.516

1

8,225.516

11.568

0.001

Subcategory 62

2,988.175

1

2,988.175

4.202

0.046

Campus

27,047.727

2

13,523.863

19.020

0.000

Group (campus)

23,846.489

11

2,167.863

3.049

0.004

Error

46

Regarding category 2 (Table 3), ‘orientation towards the other’, we can observe that, even though both categories are significant at the time of explaining the differences between the designs of the subjects, first of them (interaction-oriented towards the task) presents a smaller significance (p 0.05) that the second (interaction oriented to the act of cooperation) that presents a value of p 0.01. On the contrary, on category 3 (Table 4), ‘obtaining and production of adjusted social behaviour’, the interactive pattern of subcategory 31 (interaction orientation towards the

218


learning task) presents a high-significance level (p 0.001), whereas the orientation towards the cooperative behaviour does not result significant. This significance pattern is inverted on category 4 (Table 5) ‘role coordination’, where subcategory 41 (orientation towards the task) is not significant, whereas the orientation towards the cooperative behaviour has a very significant result (subcategory 42), with a value of p 0.01. The same pattern appears in connection with category 5 (Table 6), ‘control of mutual work’, where subcategory 51, linked to the task-oriented interaction does not present any significant result, whereas the oriented towards the cooperative behaviour (subcategory 52) presents a high-significant level (p 0.01). Finally, the two subcategories on category 6 (Table 7), ‘conversational level’, result significant when it comes to explaining the instructional design differences; although subcategory 61 (orientation towards the task) presents a significant level (p 0.01) higher than subcategory 62 (orientation towards cooperation), which has a 5% significance level. A last note, related to the first formulated objectives in the introduction of this document, is that most designs exceeded the expected average; what we can consider a perfect instructional cooperative proposal based on competencies. That is, a proposal that will harbour all the basic and accessory structures implied in a cooperative classroom organisation aimed towards competence achievement. In fact, the expected average for the designs was 232 points, and the obtained results for our training experience show an average of 268 points, with a typical deviation of 49.8 and a range of (180–379). Therefore, 1

the average of our professors is almost one unit of deviation above the expected average

2

the highest value is found at three deviation units above the expected average

3

the lowest value obtained by our subjects is placed at one deviation unit below the expected average.

3

Conclusions

The obtained results in this research allow us to elaborate a series of conclusions that may be determinant for the academic performance not only from the teacher training on learning cooperative methods side, but also from a more general view about cooperative classroom organisation. In fact, from a constructivist perspective, the teaching and learning processes have to face two basic challenges: the construction of knowledge (cognitive element of learning) and the attribution of sense to learning (non-cognitive component). A competence refers to these two components. In both cases, the interpsychological mechanisms that modulate them are determined by the connection degree; depth and directionality of the communicative exchange between participants (mutuality). In this case, and above all, since Damon and Phelps (1989) introduced the mutuality term referring to the quantity, quality and the source of interaction, the pieces of work on this parameter have a predictor of cooperative methodology effects that have spread (Durán and Monereo, 2005; Tjosvold et al., 2004); although less than expected.


219

A detailed analysis of the interpsychological processes involved in these two competence components leads us to a series of factors (which we have denominated as categories), that determine the type of communicative transactions and which are the following ones (Pons et al., 2010a): formulation of our own points of view, orientation towards another, obtaining and production of adjusted social behaviours, role coordination, control of mutual work and conversational level. The results of our research show that the formulation of our own points of view contributes on the construction of a knowledge framework that allows the awareness of the personal knowledge and it is a source of conflict. The type of conflict regulation is a key factor on the explanation of its effectiveness and this regulation, as it has been proved (Fernández and Melero, 1995), is affected not only by the cognitive aspects (cognitive abilities) of the participants, but also by the relational aspects put at risk on every group activity (interpersonal abilities of the participants). It is not surprising that subcategories 11 and 12 present a similar signification level to explain the performance of the students since, in this category, the success in the performance of the task and the success in cooperation are parallel. In relation to the second category of our study (orientation towards the other), we know that the coconstruction cooperative processes between equals are characterised by the participants’ effort to reach a certain degree of intersubjectivity, which is equivalent to, understanding and adopting the reference framework used by the other person and finding an authentic shared situation (Baker et al., 1999). This element assumes a sociocognitive descentration which leads, in the first place, to a relativisation of the points of view, which is the base of the cooperation and, in the second place, and as a consequence, the possibility of establishing independence among objectives, resources and rewards, which is the key to achieve success on the execution of a task. This situation confirms the obtained results by us in which both subcategories (21 and 22) play a significant role on the objective achievement, with more emphasis on the previous one (orientation towards cooperation) and less on the consequent (orientation towards the task success). Category 3, which refers to the requests for help, starts showing the intra-analysis differences of the mutuality parameter. According to Webb’s (1991) conclusions, in order that a participant can benefit from the help of his or her classmates, it is important to have a real need for help. There must be relevance on his or her need, the formulation at an elaboration level adjusted to the difficulty level, promptly proportion of the help as soon as the difficulty is shown, that the receptor may be able to understand the help and have the chance to use, apply, in an effective way, the help received. It is obvious, that all requests are linked to the task (we hardly found requests linked to the own cooperation act); therefore, in this category, subcategory 32 (help orientation towards cooperation) does not present any significant result, whereas subcategory 31 presents a very highsignificant level. Categories 4 and 5 follow very similar patters; in fact, some authors, even though they terminologically distinguish between roles coordination and control of work, make joint analysis (Colombia and Onrubia, 2001). In fact, role coordination, as well as mutual work control, pursues the coordination and cohesion of the group; this happens more in the first case than in the second, due to the fact that the correct execution of the task is a consequence of the internal cohesion of the group – to view the group as a unit. We found, the result of this approach in our analysis. We did not find any significant result for subcategories 41 and 51 (task-oriented), and we also found a high-significant level for subcategories 41 and 52 (cooperation-oriented).

220


Finally, in relation to the category linked to the adequate conversation for solving problem-situations on a joint manner and the ability of progress on their comprehension and solution, Mercer (1997) summarises on two characteristics about the more adequate type of conversation for the purposes, and which he denominated ‘exploratory talk’. The first one is that the participants present their ideas in a clear, explicit and if possible, concise way, so that they can make decisions as a group. The second one leads to reason together and that they, on a joint way, compare the different explanations for group decisions. The first characteristic has to do with the oriented interaction towards the successful resolution of the task, whereas the second one, which conducts the taking of group decisions, is linked to the cooperation as an instrument for the construction of the group. This is the reason we found an acceptable signification for both subcategories on our research. These results confirm the results found by other authors about the importance of this category as a predictor of the obtained performance on teacher training processes in methods of cooperative learning (Gillies, 2004; Gillies and Boyle, 2008). The importance of the exploratory talk in the group is so relevant for the group work that, although in this communicative processes may appear egocentric talk ways (external by form, but regulatory by function), it exercises a ‘hook effect’ over the rest of the group members, who take it as a communicative talk, using it as a starting point for the introduction of new contributions in the joint construction process. Finally and in relation to the benevolence of the programme, it appears to confirm the necessity of using, besides the typical basic structures of a cooperative methodology (Mentz et al., 2008; Pucel and Stertz, 2005), complementary educational elements linked to the constructivist principles as proposed by the researchers that work on the teachers training on methods of cooperative leaning, with higher educational levels (Benner and Barclay-McLaughlin, 2005; Jones and Jones, 2008). This need seems to be essential when we work with the competence-based instructional design (Taspinar, 2007). This is the reason why we opened a series of research lines about faculty training, that complements those developed by other authors (Gillies and Boyle, 2008), trying to improve the understanding of this process by means of a refining the programmatic elements (Pons et al., 2010b), as well as the cooperative organisation of the classroom for this formative activity – through an exhaustive analysis of the parameter of equality that permit us to determine its influence in the acquisition of specific professional competences in this environment. The results obtained up to now (Pons et al., 2010c) seem to confirm certain supremacy of asymmetric relations (cooperation and tutorship) over symmetrical relations (contribution). Likewise, we are analysing the role of communicative speech and, especially that of the speech of discussion, in the efficacy of the processes of interactivity that occur around the curriculum contents that we have considered as base contents in this process of faculty training in methods of cooperative learning. Up to now, we have found four basic structures that seem to play an important role in this formative process: general debates, informative type debates, debates of corrections and question–answer debates. We conclude, in the first place, that the process of direct verbal interaction in university education presents a triple purpose for the academic achievement from the perspective of cognitive operation (Pons et al., 2010d): the informative purpose (cognitive assimilation), the regulating purpose (cognitive regulation) and the confirmatory purpose (cognitive accommodation). From these lines of investigation, we intend to determine the pertinent curriculum contents and the organisation of the most adequate activity to devise an activity of efficient formation of the faculty, so that they can perform instructional designs that, under the budget of a


221

cooperative methodology, lead to the improvement of the level of competence of our university students. We would not like to close without pointing out that the cooperative organisation of the classroom is a fact that comes from Europe; the Europe of knowledge and multiculturality. The ‘new global order’, forces us to make an attempt, necessary as well as obligated, to understand the world from other points of view, so that virtual dialogues, typical of classic hermeneutic approaches may lead to polyphonic and realistic dialogues where the subjects, whose beliefs, practices and values systems where questioned, may execute their right to inform on first person and to provide a more adequate representation of themselves that tend to enrich their own image and provide a closer knowledge to reality that any inform on third person. This new knowledge assumes a global enrichment for all the group members, even though they might or might not share these values, because cultural representations help on the formation of the picture that we have about others and, if they are assimilated by those others, they also influence the picture they have about themselves. This fact happens, as Constantin François of Chassebœuf, count of Volney, used to say, for giving an only altar to society, the cooperation, and this can only be reached throughout education. The teacher training on methods of cooperative learning is constituted on an essential social transformation element tending to reach a society based on knowledge and tolerance.

References Angelides, P., Stylianou, T. and Leigh, J. (2007) ‘The efficacy of collaborative networks in preparing teacher’, European Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp.135–149. Artut, P.D. and Tarim, K. (2007) ‘The effectiveness of Jigsaw II on prospective elementary school teachers’, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp.129–141. Baker, M., Hansen, T., Joiner, R. and Traum, D. (1999) ‘The role of grounding in collaborative tasks’, in P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. Oxford: Elsevier, pp.31–63. Benner, S.M. and Barclay-McLaughlin, G. (2005) ‘Simultaneous curricular reform in urban education and teacher preparation: a partnership approach’, Teacher Education and Practice, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.96–112. Brody, C.M. and Davidson, N. (1998) Professional Development for Cooperative Learning: Issues and Approaches. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Calvo, M.T., Serrano, J.M., González-Herrero, M.E. and Ato, M. (1996) Formación de profesores en métodos de aprendizaje cooperativo. Madrid: Dirección General de Investigación Científica y Técnica. Colombia, R. and Onrubia, J. (2001) ‘Interacción educativa y aprendizaje escolar: la interacción entre alumnos’, in C. Coll, J. Palacios and A. Marchesi (Eds.), Desarrollo psicológico y educación 2. Psicología de la educación escolar. Madrid: Alianza Editorial, pp.415–435. Damon, W. and Phelps, E. (1989) ‘Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education’, Int. J. Educational Research, Vol. 58, No. 2, pp.9–19. Dewey, J. (1916) Democracy and Education. New York: Free Press. Durán, D. and Monereo, C. (2005) ‘Styles and sequences of cooperative interaction in fixed and reciprocal peer tutoring’, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp.179–199. Eurydice (2002) Competencias Clave. Madrid/Bruselas: MEC/Eurydice. Fernández, P. and Melero, A. (1995) ‘Piaget, el conflicto socio-cognitivo y sus límites’, in P. Fernández and A. Melero (Eds.), La interacción social en contextos educativos. Madrid: Siglo XXI, pp.3–34.

222


Gillies, R.M. (2004) ‘The effects of communication training on teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative learning’, Int. J. Educational Research, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp.257–279. Gillies, R.M. and Boyle, M. (2008) ‘Teachers’ discourse during cooperative learning and their perceptions of this pedagogical practice’, Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp.1333–1348. Jones, K.A. and Jones, J.L. (2008) ‘A descriptive account of cooperative-learning based practice in teacher education’, College Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.1–13. Jordan, B. and Henderson, A. (1995) ‘Interaction analysis: foundations and practice’, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.39–103. Mentz, E., van der Walt, J.L. and Goosen, L. (2008) ‘The effect of incorporating cooperative learning principles in pair programming for student teachers’, Computer Science Education, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp.247–260. Mercer, N. (1997) La construcción guiada del conocimiento: el Habla de profesores y alumnus. Barcelona: Paidós. Palincsar, A.S. and Herrenkohl, L.R. (1999) ‘Designing collaborative context: lessons from three research programs’, in A.M. O’Donnell and A. King (Eds.), Cognitive Perspectives on Peer Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp.151–177. Perrenoud, P. (1997) Construir des compétences dès l’école. Practiques et enjeux pédagogiques. Paris: ESF. Pons, R.M. and Serrano, J.M. (in press) ‘La adquisición del conocimiento: una perspectiva cognitiva en el dominio de las matemáticas’, Educatio Siglo XXI, Vol. 28. Pons, R.M., Serrano, J.M., Alcántar, V., Lomeli, C. and Roa, R. (2010a) ‘Cooperación y diseño instruccional por competencias: formación de profesores en métodos de aprendizaje cooperativo’, Manuscript submitted for publication. Pons, R.M., Serrano, J.M., Alcántar, V., Moreno, M., Ponce, S. and Roa, R. (2010b) ‘Influencia del parámetro de igualdad en la formación de orientadores en métodos de aprendizaje cooperativo’, Manuscript submitted for publication. Pons, R.M., Serrano, J.M., Cordero, G., Luna, E. and Ponce, S. (2010c) ‘Training of nonuniversity-level teachers in cooperative learning methods’, Manuscript submitted for publication. Pons, R.M., Serrano, J.M., Luna, E., Cordero, G., Lomeli, C. and Moreno, T. (2010d) ‘Análisis del parámetro de mutualidad: la interacción entre iguales en el aula’, Manuscript submitted for publication. Pucel, D.J. and Stertz, T.F. (2005) ‘Effectiveness of and student satisfaction with web-bases compared to traditional in-service teacher education courses’, Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp.7–23. Romainville, M. (1996) ‘L’irrésistible ascensión du terme ‘compétence’ en éducation’, Enjeux, Vols. 37/38, pp.132–142. Serrano, J.M. and Calvo, M.T. (1994) Aprendizaje cooperativo: Técnicas y análisis dimensional. Murcia: ICE/Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia. Serrano, J.M., Calvo, M.T., Pons, R.M., Moreno, T. and Lara, R.S. (2008a) Training Teachers in Cooperative Learning Methods, Papers from the IASCE Conference, Turín: IASCE. Serrano, J.M. and González-Herrero, M.E. (1996) Cooperar para aprender. Cómo implementar el aprendizaje cooperativo al aula. Murcia: DM Editor. Serrano, J.M., González-Herrero, M.E. and Pons, R.M. (2008b) Aprendizaje cooperativo en matemáticas. Murcia: Edit.um. Serrano, J.M. and Pons, R.M. (2008) ‘La concepción constructivista de la instrucción: hacia un replanteamiento del triángulo interactivo’, Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, Vol. 13, No. 38, pp.681–712.


223

Serrano, J.M., Pons, R.M., Moreno, T. and Lara, R.S. (2008c) Formación de profesores en métodos de aprendizaje cooperativo. Madrid: AECI. Shachar, H. and Shmuelevitz, H. (1997) ‘Implementing cooperative learning, teacher collaboration, and teachers’ sense of efficacy in heterogeneous junior high schools’, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.53–72. Slavin, R.E. (1985) Cooperative Learning. New York: Longman. Stephenson, A. (2006) ‘Troubling teaching’, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.51–55. Taspinar, M. (2007) ‘The cooperative learning methods in teacher training’, Int. J. Educational Reform, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.54–70. Tjosvold, D., Yu, Z. and Hui, C. (2004) ‘Team learning from mistakes: the contribution of cooperative goals and problem-solving’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 41, No. 7, pp.1223–1245. Wastiau-Schlüter, P. (2002) Competencias Clave. Madrid/Bruselas: MEC/Eurydice. Webb, N.M. (1991) ‘Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups’, Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 22, pp.366–389. Weinert, F.E. (2001) Defining and Selecting Key Competencies. Paris: OECD.