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).
Social Preferences for Learning Among Adolescents 7
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.
Social Preferences for Learning Among Adolescents 11
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
Social Preferences for Learning Among Adolescents 13
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
Social Preferences for Learning Among Adolescents 15
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.
Social Preferences for Learning Among Adolescents 17
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.
Social Preferences for Learning Among Adolescents 19
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.