The way we teach and learn has evolved significantly over the last century, and will likely continue to evolve as technology and other advancements make their impact on learning environments. Much of the general population is unaware of how recent many teaching methods are compared to others, and many are misunderstood. Cooperative learning is frequently misinterpreted, despite it being one of the most common teaching methods to have surfaced in recent years (Johnson & Johnson, p. 365.) Cooperative learning is an educational method that emphasizes cooperation as a method of learning, and while groups are an important aspect of it, they are only one part of the approach. There are five primary principles in cooperative learning, the first being positive interdependence, then face-to-face interaction, individual and group accountability, interpersonal small group skills and finally group processing (Zach & Cohen, p 91.)

A fundamental aspect of Cooperative learning is the goal of creating “structured positive independence” (Gillies, p. 41). An ideal cooperative learning environment gives students the opportunity to learn as a group, as well as the knowledge and constraints that this learning is only possible using their whole group. When utilized properly, it has been shown to be hugely beneficial “cooperation was more effective than interpersonal competition and individualistic efforts; cooperation with intergroup competition was also superior to interpersonal competition and individualistic efforts” (Gillies, p. 39) Additional to these academic benefits, there is frequently a social benefit especially with younger students for whom socialization and peer interaction is arguably just as important a lesson as the classroom content itself. While groups are the base of cooperative learning, many approaches exist that work off this base.

A popular approach to cooperative learning is the “think, pair and share”, in which students consider a question or problem on their own and then when prompted turn to another and work on it with each other, finally, pairs share their conclusions with the larger group.  Another common system is the Jigsaw approach, which has several different subsets but relies on groups being deemed “experts” in one area or subject. Students move to other groups to learn about something their group is not the “expert” on before returning to their original group, or sometimes the class, to share their new knowledge.

At its very core, cooperative learning is essential to dance. There is virtually no dance that does not require at least some aspect of group work, whether that be with a partner or simply being aware of those around you during line dancing for example. In some ways, the more common methods of executing cooperative learning do not work as well in the context of dance physical education as others. “Think, pair and share” and “jigsaw” are excellent in some cases, but may be more difficult to execute in this setting. However, cooperative learning should still be worked in a physical education setting. In a dance unit, for example, groups can choreograph their own dances and present them. Alternatively, they could create or learn new dance steps/moves and similar to a Jigsaw approach share them with other groups or the class. Zach & Cohen suggest another method, working more off a “micro-teaching” approach but doing so in smaller groups in order to encourage learning of core skills as well as social interaction on that smaller scale (Zach & Cohen, p.95)

Bibliography

Gillies, Robyn M. “Cooperative Learning: Review of Research and Practice .” Australian Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 41, no. 3, 2016.

Johnson, David W., and Roger T. Johnson. “An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning.” Educational Researcher, vol. 38, no. 5, 2009, pp. 365–379. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20532563. Accessed 4 June 2021

Zach, Sima, and Rona Cohen. “Using the Cooperative Learning Model in Physical Education Teacher Education: From Theory to Practice.” Cooperative Learning in Physical Education, 2012, pp. 88–99.