Cooperative Framework for Physical Activity Peter Rattigan, Assistant Professor Department of Health & Exercise Science Rowan University Glassboro, New Jersey

Purpose of Presentation Present theory and practice of cooperative learning Apply this work to physical activity settings Provide a framework which can improve social skills in a variety of areas My background: –15 year teacher k-12 –10 year coach: cross-country, soccer, track and field, volleyball

Cooperative Learning Minnesota learning Center Model Related Models –Project Adventure –Cooperative Games, New Games –Team-Games-Tournament –Jigsaw Learning

Minnesota Learning Center Model David and Roger Johnson, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN Cooperative Goal Structure Competitive Goal Structure Individualistic Goal Structure

Cooperative Goal Structure “We sink or swim together” –Work in small, heterogeneous groups –Strive for all group members’ success –What benefits self benefits others –Joint success is celebrated –Rewards are viewed as unlimited –Evaluated by comparing performance to preset criteria From Johnson, Johnson & Holubec, 1991

Competitive Goal Structure “I swim, you sink; I sink, you swim” –Work alone –Strive to be better than classmates –What benefits self deprives others –Own success and other’s failure is celebrated –Rewards are limited –Graded on curve/ranked from “best” to “worst” From Johnson, Johnson & Holubec, 1991

Individualistic Goal Structure “We are each in this alone” –Work alone –Strive for own success –What benefits self does not affect others –Own success is celebrated –Rewards are viewed as unlimited –Evaluated by comparing performance to preset criteria From Johnson, Johnson & Holubec, 1991

Key Elements: Cooperative Positive interdependence Individual accountability Face to face, promotive interaction Small group collaborative skills –Trust, communication, acceptance, conflict resolution Group Processing –Evaluation, revision, celebration Adapted from Johnson & Johnson, 1989

Key Elements: Competitive Negative interdependence Clear criteria –Beginning and end –System for selecting winners and ranking competitors –Rules and procedures controlling interaction Clear system of social comparison Strict control of interaction of competitors Homogeneous matching Competitive skills –Playing fair –Being a gracious winner or loser & not to overgeneralize results –Ability to enjoy competition whatever the result –Ability to monitor others for comparison Appropriate Task Adapted from Johnson & Johnson, 1989

Key Elements: Individualistic No interdependence No interaction Clear individual accountability A goal perceived to be important Clear procedures and rules Self-contained materials and resources Appropriate skills –Ability to tune out noise and distractions –Self motivated –Ability to monitor and evaluate own progress –Personal pride in being successful An Appropriate task Adapted from Johnson & Johnson, 1989

Appropriate Tasks: Cooperative Acquisition, practice or performance of complex skills Performance of complex tasks Resolution of conflict

Appropriate Tasks: Competitive Practice of well-learned skills Reviewing of well-learned materials Performance of simple, unitary, non- divisible, overlearned tasks

Appropriate Tasks: Individualistic Practice of simple or well-learned skills Learning of specific tasks Acquisition, practice or performance of simple skills

Types of Cooperative Group Informal B a s e F o r m a l

Resources –University of MN Cooperative Learning Center –David and Roger Johnson Books –Grinesky (1996) Cooperative Learning in PE. Human Kinetics –Midura & Glover (1999) The Competition- Cooperation Link. Human Kinetics –Midura & Glover (1992) Team Building Through Physical Challenges. Human Kinetics

Summary Cooperative Learning practice incorporates cooperation, competition, and individualistic efforts There are key elements of appropriate cooperation, competition and individualistic goal structures These key elements can be used to improve skill and social development

What’s Next? Cooperative activities can be done in any setting All three structures can be used to good effect by PE teachers and coaches Some research and much work has been done in PE Less has been done in athletics It may be just as effective in both arenas