中等体育教育中高结构与低结构合作学习对不同年龄段亲社会行为的影响

IF 2.6 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH European Physical Education Review Pub Date : 2022-10-20 DOI:10.1177/1356336X221132767
Luis García-González, Mónica Santed, E. Escolano-Pérez, J. Fernández-Río
{"title":"中等体育教育中高结构与低结构合作学习对不同年龄段亲社会行为的影响","authors":"Luis García-González, Mónica Santed, E. Escolano-Pérez, J. Fernández-Río","doi":"10.1177/1356336X221132767","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite the research exploring the benefits of using cooperative learning in secondary physical education, several research gaps still remain, namely, limited research on its effects on prosocial behaviours, the impact on adolescents as they grow up, and the lack of assessment of differently structured cooperative learning frameworks. The goal of this study was to compare high- versus low-structured cooperative learning frameworks and assess their impact on adolescents’ prosocial behaviours at different ages. The study followed a quasi-experimental pre-test–post-test design. Two hundred and eighty-six students (150 girls) participated and were distributed into four groups: Control 1 (year-8 students), Control 2 (year-10 students), Experimental 1 (year-9 students) and Experimental 2 (year-11 students). All groups experienced the same Acrosport unit, but the control groups were within a low-structured cooperative learning context and the experimental groups were within a high-structured cooperative learning framework. Cooperative learning and prosocial behaviours were measured before and after the intervention. Results showed that students who experienced a high-structured framework at a younger age significantly increased their scores on the five variables that mediate the effectiveness of cooperative learning, and their prosocial behaviours. The older the adolescents, the fewer the changes in cooperative learning, and with no changes in prosocial behaviours. Students who experienced a low-structured framework did not improve their cooperative learning and decreased their empathy, social relations, and leadership at younger ages. In conclusion, cooperative learning must be properly structured to produce a positive impact using heterogeneous working groups, teachers’ feedback and shared regulation. However, older adolescents need specifically designed cooperative learning contexts with longer learning units.","PeriodicalId":47681,"journal":{"name":"European Physical Education Review","volume":"29 1","pages":"199 - 214"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"High- versus low-structured cooperative learning in secondary physical education: Impact on prosocial behaviours at different ages\",\"authors\":\"Luis García-González, Mónica Santed, E. Escolano-Pérez, J. Fernández-Río\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1356336X221132767\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Despite the research exploring the benefits of using cooperative learning in secondary physical education, several research gaps still remain, namely, limited research on its effects on prosocial behaviours, the impact on adolescents as they grow up, and the lack of assessment of differently structured cooperative learning frameworks. The goal of this study was to compare high- versus low-structured cooperative learning frameworks and assess their impact on adolescents’ prosocial behaviours at different ages. The study followed a quasi-experimental pre-test–post-test design. Two hundred and eighty-six students (150 girls) participated and were distributed into four groups: Control 1 (year-8 students), Control 2 (year-10 students), Experimental 1 (year-9 students) and Experimental 2 (year-11 students). All groups experienced the same Acrosport unit, but the control groups were within a low-structured cooperative learning context and the experimental groups were within a high-structured cooperative learning framework. Cooperative learning and prosocial behaviours were measured before and after the intervention. Results showed that students who experienced a high-structured framework at a younger age significantly increased their scores on the five variables that mediate the effectiveness of cooperative learning, and their prosocial behaviours. The older the adolescents, the fewer the changes in cooperative learning, and with no changes in prosocial behaviours. Students who experienced a low-structured framework did not improve their cooperative learning and decreased their empathy, social relations, and leadership at younger ages. In conclusion, cooperative learning must be properly structured to produce a positive impact using heterogeneous working groups, teachers’ feedback and shared regulation. However, older adolescents need specifically designed cooperative learning contexts with longer learning units.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47681,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Physical Education Review\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"199 - 214\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Physical Education Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X221132767\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Physical Education Review","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X221132767","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

尽管研究探索了在中等体育教育中使用合作学习的好处,但仍存在一些研究空白,即对其对亲社会行为的影响、对青少年成长过程的影响的研究有限,以及缺乏对不同结构的合作学习框架的评估。本研究的目的是比较高结构和低结构的合作学习框架,并评估它们对不同年龄段青少年亲社会行为的影响。该研究采用了准实验性的测试前-测试后设计。共有286名学生(150名女生)参加,分为四组:对照组1(8年级学生)、对照组2(10年级学生),实验组1(9年级学生)和实验组2(11年级学生)。所有组都经历了相同的Acrosport单元,但对照组处于低结构合作学习环境中,实验组处于高结构合作学习框架中。在干预前后测量合作学习和亲社会行为。结果显示,在较小的年龄体验到高结构框架的学生在调节合作学习有效性的五个变量以及他们的亲社会行为方面的得分显著提高。青少年年龄越大,合作学习的变化就越少,亲社会行为也没有变化。经历低结构框架的学生并没有改善他们的合作学习,并在年轻时降低了他们的同理心、社会关系和领导力。总之,合作学习必须通过异质性的工作组、教师的反馈和共同的监管来产生积极的影响。然而,年龄较大的青少年需要专门设计的具有较长学习单元的合作学习环境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
High- versus low-structured cooperative learning in secondary physical education: Impact on prosocial behaviours at different ages
Despite the research exploring the benefits of using cooperative learning in secondary physical education, several research gaps still remain, namely, limited research on its effects on prosocial behaviours, the impact on adolescents as they grow up, and the lack of assessment of differently structured cooperative learning frameworks. The goal of this study was to compare high- versus low-structured cooperative learning frameworks and assess their impact on adolescents’ prosocial behaviours at different ages. The study followed a quasi-experimental pre-test–post-test design. Two hundred and eighty-six students (150 girls) participated and were distributed into four groups: Control 1 (year-8 students), Control 2 (year-10 students), Experimental 1 (year-9 students) and Experimental 2 (year-11 students). All groups experienced the same Acrosport unit, but the control groups were within a low-structured cooperative learning context and the experimental groups were within a high-structured cooperative learning framework. Cooperative learning and prosocial behaviours were measured before and after the intervention. Results showed that students who experienced a high-structured framework at a younger age significantly increased their scores on the five variables that mediate the effectiveness of cooperative learning, and their prosocial behaviours. The older the adolescents, the fewer the changes in cooperative learning, and with no changes in prosocial behaviours. Students who experienced a low-structured framework did not improve their cooperative learning and decreased their empathy, social relations, and leadership at younger ages. In conclusion, cooperative learning must be properly structured to produce a positive impact using heterogeneous working groups, teachers’ feedback and shared regulation. However, older adolescents need specifically designed cooperative learning contexts with longer learning units.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Physical Education Review
European Physical Education Review EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
5.90%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: - Multidisciplinary Approaches: European Physical Education Review brings together contributions from a wide range of disciplines across the natural and social sciences and humanities. It includes theoretical and research-based articles and occasionally devotes Special Issues to major topics and themes within the field. - International Coverage: European Physical Education Review publishes contributions from Europe and all regions of the world, promoting international communication among scholars and professionals.
期刊最新文献
Meaningful physical education: Towards an embodied pedagogy Pre-service teachers’ experiences of an activist approach in a health and physical education teacher education context What is the meaning of PE? Exploring the influence of an educational curriculum approach on students’ participation and non-participation in physical education How is observed (de)motivating teaching associated with student motivation and device-based physical activity during physical education? Understandings and enactments of social justice pedagogies in Swedish physical education and health practice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1