The Relationship Between the Motivational Style of Teachers and the Implementation of Cooperative Learning: A Self Determination Theory Approach

Abstract

Cooperative learning (CL) is a methodological approach consisting of a series of techniques based on group work, where each member works together within the team to achieve a common goal. There is widespread evidence of its benefits for both students and teachers and it has been used successfully at various educational levels, from early childhood education to university studies. However, it is still used at a low percentage; therefore, it is of great interest to study the factors that favour its implementation by teachers. This study aims to study motivation, based on the theory of self-determination, and its relationship with the use of CL in the classroom. A sample of 279 teachers (122 male and 157 female) who had previously received specific training in the use and application of CL was used. The results show a positive relationship between intrinsic regulation towards school tasks and the application of CL in the classroom (p = 0.029). These results have important implications for understanding the factors that lead teachers to maintain CL and how this methodology also improves their teaching.

1. Introduction

Cooperative learning (CL) is defined as a set of teaching techniques or procedures [1] consisting of organising learners into small groups in order to perform a task or achieve a goal together. CL is based on Johnson and Johnson’s theory of social interdependence [2,3], which explains that this type of mutual dependence is achieved when an individual’s goals or results are affected by their own actions in conjunction with those of others. Thus, there is positive interdependence when the actions of each member of the group favour the achievement of the goals of the group as a whole, and negative interdependence occurs when such individual actions hinder the goals of the others.

Therefore, CL seeks to ensure that these groups work together to achieve an objective. It has its own characteristics that distinguish it from other types of group work that can be found in the academic environment. Johnson and Johnson describe these five elements: the aforementioned positive interdependence, individual responsibility, according to which each member of the team is responsible for a part of the task [4], and promotive interaction, social skills, and group processing [5,6]. In addition, the aim is for groups to be heterogeneous in terms of their member’s skills [7].

CL has been previously defined as a set of teaching procedures, and there are various specific techniques that can be applied to carry out CL, which are divided into two types. Some are simple cooperative techniques or structures, which are activities of short duration and easy to apply [8], such as “Numbered heads”, the “1-2-4” technique or the “Three-minute review”. More well-known are the complex techniques, which are carried out when students are more familiar with cooperative work and include the Jigsaw technique and Teamwork–Individual Achievement, among others.

Several studies over the last few decades have shown the benefits of CL for students in different areas of knowledge [9], where physical education [10,11] and STEM sciences [12,13,14] are some of the most studied. Gillies and Boyle [15] monitored primary school teachers for 2 years and found that with CL, students learned more, lessons were more interesting and confidence in both teachers and students increased.

In addition, this type of methodology has shown effectiveness in different areas in primary [16], secondary [10,14,17], and university-level education [18,19,20]. It has also gained relevance in early childhood education [21,22]. Recent research has studied its benefits in cognitive skills, such as creative thinking and executive functions, in primary school students [23,24], making it a very attractive technique for teaching following an approach of attention to diversity [25,26].

However, its implementation is not easy, and this is reflected by its low rate of use [27]. Buchs et al. [28] collected from the scientific literature the main challenges that teachers encounter when using CL in the classroom. For this reason, research is increasingly focusing on the teacher and the factors that facilitate and hinder the successful use of CL [27,28]. Some of the difficulties described are the need to acquire knowledge to create a suitable classroom environment and to prepare students for cooperation skills. On the other hand, they find that CL involves conveying the responsibility for learning to students and trusting them to be able to work effectively in groups. On the other hand, the role of the teacher also changes, becoming a facilitator rather than a transmitter of knowledge [26,29]. Teachers who have participated in research of this type have also referred to the fear of discipline problems in the classroom and the difficulty of adapting the curriculum to this methodology [15]. Finally, the preparation of lessons and the prior training required for teachers is very time-consuming [28].

This is why one of the key factors in the successful implementation of CL is the attitude of teachers [30,31]. It should be borne in mind that it is common to confuse group work or collaborative learning with cooperative learning, meaning that many teachers consider that they have already implemented it or have done so with little success. Therefore, the teacher’s attitude is directly affected by their knowledge of CL. Training in this methodology leads to a positive attitude and its effective implementation in the classroom [26]. There is also a positive correlation between teachers′ perception of the use of CL and the number of techniques applied [31]. Taking into account the age and years of experience of teachers, it was found that the older the teachers, the less interest they showed in innovative methodologies, and, likewise, there was a lower implementation of cooperative learning, both in primary and secondary education [31]. As a result of all of the above, a positive attitude and greater knowledge and control over the CL process leads to greater motivation to carry it out [7,32].

One of the theoretical models of motivation that has been studied within the context of CL is Deci and Ryan’s self-determination theory (SDT) [33]. This theoretical approach was developed as an explanatory model of the motivational processes that move or regulate people’s behaviour, including various levels where the social environment is included, but also factors related to the psychological state. In this respect, the authors indicate that there are three basic psychological needs that have a direct impact on motivation [33]: autonomy, referring to a person’s ability to choose their behaviour; competence, referring to a person’s perceived ability to master their environment, i.e., to interact effectively with it, and relatedness, which, in this theory, implies the feeling of being connected to others. It also involves feeling accepted by others.

Achieving a state of competence, autonomy, and relatedness allows the development of the highest degree of so-called self-determined motivation. This construct falls within a dimensional continuum that varies from the state of absence of motivation (amotivation) to intrinsic motivation. In the middle, we would find extrinsic motivation, which is oriented towards the achievement of a reward or the avoidance of a punishment. It is divided into four levels, in which the person can have a different degree of internalisation of the values and social norms that direct their action. The following levels would be present: external regulation, mediated by rewards and punishments; introjected regulation, where shame or guilt guides the action; identified regulation, where the motivation lies in the goal to be achieved with the action itself; and integrated regulation, where the sources of motivation are aligned with the person’s values, even if they do not enjoy the task itself. The latter two involve an internal locus of control but are still part of extrinsic motivation. By contrast, intrinsic motivation refers to full and free engagement with the task or action, where the person performs the activity out of curiosity or pleasure. Self-determined motivation would also have higher levels of intrinsic regulation [34]. Thus, the three psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness directly indicate and explain the different types of motivation that can be found in the continuum.

A high percentage of the scientific literature devoted to CL analyses the success of this methodology in students, as well as the degree of their involvement and motivation to take advantage of this type of activity and maximise their learning. Thus, it has been found that its use leads to greater intrinsic motivation for learning [7,32,35,36,37]. However, studies on teacher motivation as a predictor of CL implementation and success are less common. Some previous research has linked motivation towards CL with teachers′ personal values in Filippou et al. [38]. Related to this, within the self-determined motivation theory, intrinsic motivation has been found to be an important predictor of innovative behaviour in teachers [39].

This Study

This study aims to explore in depth the factors that guarantee and predict the use of CL by teachers, specifically those related to motivation. To this end, the aim is to determine the influence of teacher motivation on the implementation of CL in the school classroom, together with other predictors such as years of teaching experience, years of previous work in CL, specific training received in CL, gender, and the educational stage. Specifically, the aim is to study this motivation within the framework of the self-determination theory to see what types of motivation, within the continuum described above, facilitate the implementation of CL.

In the absence of previous studies that relate different types of motivation with the implementation of CL by teachers, the following exploratory hypothesis H1 is set forth: the implementation of CL in the classroom will be facilitated by intrinsic motivation processes; likewise, and based on previous studies, the following results are also expected to be found: H2: more training in CL will be positively related to the implementation of CL in the classroom [31]; H3: people who have been teaching for longer will use CL less [40]; and H4: no differences will be found between early childhood, primary and secondary education levels [31,41].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The inclusion criteria for participating in the study were as follows: a minimum of one year of experience at the educational institution and availability to receive training in AC. Teachers who, for various reasons, were unable to complete the entire course were excluded. The sample consisted of 279 teachers (122 male and 157 female) aged between 23 and 70. In total, 19 were early childhood teachers, 80 were generalist primary school teachers, and 180 were secondary school teachers in the following subject areas: Physical Education (4), Foreign Languages (38), Arts and Humanities (66), and Science (72). They belonged to a total of 14 schools in different provinces of Spain. Efforts were made to ensure that the entire target population completed the questionnaires. To this end, a document was sent to them explaining the study’s objective and the participation protocol. Ultimately, the sample was partially reduced using a convenience sampling technique. Prior to data collection, information was provided to the coordinator of each school about the protocol to be followed in order to fill in the questionnaires. In May, before the end of the academic year, the teaching staff accessed the questionnaire via an online link provided by the researchers and were informed that the process and the data obtained would be confidential. The collection system requires all responses to be completed to move on to the next set of questions, so there are no missing data. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Faculty Padre Ossó PAC3-23 on 17 March 2023.

2.2. Procedure

The project was carried out in several phases. Initially, during the first 3 months, contact was established with the heads of the academic institution to which the schools belonged in order to obtain the necessary permissions and organise the training and subsequent recording of measures. All these schools took part in a training process in which training days on cooperative learning were organised in 5 different locations in Spain, with full participation from the entire study sample. All teachers held the required university degree and had at least one year of teaching experience. This training lasted 20 h and covered different theoretical aspects and activities related to how to implement this methodology in the classroom but also used it in the sessions themselves. Therefore, emphasis was placed on working on individual responsibility, the implementation of complex CL techniques, the development of social skills, and the design of assessment criteria and rubrics to measure student learning.

Once the training was completed, the teachers applied CL in their classrooms for one academic year, with monitoring by the research group. The aim of this monitoring was to ensure that the process was homogeneous and that the correct application of CL in the classroom was guaranteed while also providing support to the schools. To this end, a hierarchical structure was designed, consisting of a national commission responsible for the project, a coordinator in each of the training sectors, a coordinator in each province, and a coordinator in each of the schools. Meetings were organised every month between the coordinators and the teachers and also between the coordinators on a quarterly basis.

Subsequently, one month before the end of the school year, the teachers received a series of questionnaires with the measurement instruments. It was distributed online, and the teachers were previously informed of the objectives of the study and gave their informed consent to participate and have their answers collected in the questionnaires.

2.3. Measurements

We used the Teachers′ Cooperative Learning Questionnaire (TCLQ) by Prieto-Saborit et al. [42]. This test measures the level of application of CL from the teachers′ perspective. It comprises 19 items grouped into 5 factors related to the elements that define cooperative learning: positive interdependency (e.g., “Students talk about their work to assess, correct, and improve it”), stimulating interactions (e.g., “Students work directly with each other”), individual responsibility (e.g., “Students listen to classmates’ ideas, opinions, and points of view”), group processing (e.g., “The members of the group are different, which enriches the work”), and social skills (e.g., “Students take group decisions between the members of the group”). The response format is a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 means “Strongly disagree” and 5 means “Strongly agree”. In the original validation, applied to pre-school, primary, and secondary school teachers, the reliability was 0.95 with Cronbach’s Alpha as the reference, and 0.96 with McDonald’s w, and the internal consistency of the subscales was between 0.78 and 0.91.

We used the Tasks Motivation Scale for Teachers by Fernet et al. [43], translated and adapted to the Spanish context by Ruiz-Quiles [44], the psychometric properties of which were again studied in Spain by Criado-Del Rey et al. [45].

This scale assesses teacher motivation with a multidimensional conceptualisation. It consists of 18 items. Each one of them starts with the introduction, “I am involved in teaching…” and continues with 18 statements (e.g., “because it enables me to achieve goals that are important to me” or “because it is enjoyable and pleasant”). The response options are distributed on a Likert-7 scale with the extreme options “strongly disagree” (1) and “strongly agree” (7). The 18 items of the scale are divided into 6 dimensions with 3 items each: intrinsic motivation; integrated regulation; identified regulation; introjected regulation; and external regulation and demotivation. It provides a weighted total score called self-determination, which was not used in this research. The reliability indices for the variables are as follows: intrinsic motivation (α = 0.87); introjected regulation (α = 0.75); identified regulation (α = 0.89); integrated regulation (α = 0.89); and external regulation (α = 0.52) and demotivation (α = 0.82).

Other measurements: In addition to the psychometric scales, a series of closed questions were administered in which socio-demographic information was collected (age and gender of the teacher), including information on the teacher’s professional situation and career: the educational stage in which teaching was provided, the subject area taught, years of teaching experience, specific training in CL received, and years applying the CL methodology in the classroom.

2.4. Data Analysis

Firstly, an exploratory analysis was carried out for the variables, subjecting the data set to descriptive statistics to obtain means and standard deviations, and a study with bivariate correlations (p < 0.05) between variables was carried out. The second phase of the analysis involved an inferential approach using two Sequential Generalised Estimating Equation (GEE) models.

Two GEE models were compared. These parameter estimation models were developed by Liang and Zeger [46] and are based on linear regression equation models, correcting for the effects of high correlation between measurements [47]. They are considered a move forward in credibility for estimating regression parameters [48,49,50]. This is the appropriate analysis when sample sizes are similar to those in our study, and the correlations between measurements are stronger than 0.30. These two criteria were developed with mathematical simulations [51], and they fit the conditions of this analysis. In both sequential GEE models developed, cooperative learning was placed as the dependent variable. The independent variables in model 1 correspond to the gender of the teachers, the stage at which they carried out their work, as well as the years they have spent working with the cooperative learning methodology, their years of teaching experience and the hours of specific training they received in cooperative learning. The second model (model 2) includes the same factors as the previous one, adding the following motivation variables: intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation and demotivation. All analyses were carried out using IBM SPSS software version 25.

3. Results

3.1. Exploratory Approach

The descriptive analyses showed that CL was being applied regularly in lessons (M = 4.09, SD = 0.60). The highest motivational regulations were detected in intrinsic motivation (M = 6.31, SD = 0.74), introjected regulation (M = 6.29, SD = 0.80), and identified regulation (M = 6.13, SD = 0.80). The lowest score was detected for amotivation (M = 1.61, SD = 0.95).

Correlational analyses showed a statistically significant relationship for the cooperative learning score with intrinsic motivation (r = 0.37), integrated regulation (r = 0.31), identified regulation (r = 0.32) and amotivation (r = −0.21). It was observed that all correlations had a positive direction except for demotivation (

Table 1. Descriptive analyses and bivariate correlations for CL and types of motivation.

	Range	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Cooperative Learning	1–5	4.09	0.60	1
2. Intrinsic Motivation	1–7	6.31	0.74	0.37 **	1
3. Integrated Regulation	1–7	6.29	0.80	0.31 **	0.64 **	1
4. Identified Regulation	1–7	6.13	0.80	0.32 **	0.63 **	0.64 **	1
5. Introjected Regulation	1–7	3.36	1.69	0.06	0.18 **	0.24 **	35 **	1
6. External Regulation	1–7	3.18	1.15	0.12	0.14 *	0.09	18 **	0.32 **	1
7. Amotivation	1–7	1.61	0.95	−0.21 **	−0.35 **	−0.28 **	−0.24 **	0.27 **	0.30 **

Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

). These data are also conceptually congruent.

3.2. Sequential Generalised Estimating Equation Models

The first of the GEE models designed included only the socio-demographic and teaching-related variables as independent variables and CL as the dependent variable. In this case, the gender variable was not significant (CI: 0.805–1.06, p > 0.241), meaning that no differences were observed on the basis of the teacher’s gender in the application of this educational model. Nor was the number of years of practice significant in explaining CL (CI: 0.929–1.03, p > 0.05). However, specific training in CL was significant (CI: 1.08–1.25, p < 0.01), as well as the years of teaching experience (CI: 0.919-.999, p < 0.05). In this respect, those who had been teaching for more years developed CL strategies to a lesser extent than teachers with less professional experience, and depending on the hours of training, a positive relationship was observed between the hours of training and the cooperative learning developed in the classes.

Differences were also observed depending on the educational stage (p < 0.001); cooperative learning was implemented more in preschool education and primary education than in secondary education.

The second GEE model (

Table 2. Generalised estimating equations taking CL as the dependent variable.

	Model 1			Model 2
Factor	AOR	95% CI	p-Value	AOR	95% CI	p-Value
Gender
Males	0.922	0.805–1.06	0.241	0.941	0.828–1.07	0.352
Females	1.00			1.00
Educational stage
Preschool	1.87	1.43–2.46	0.000	1.65	1.28–2.14	0.000
Primary education	1.37	1.14–1.66	0.001	1.33	1.13–1.58	0.001
Secondary education	1.00			1.00
Years working in CL	0.976	0.929–1.03	0.328	0.991	0.946–1.04	0.699
Years of teaching experience	0.958	0.919–0.999	0.049	0.967	0.928–1.01	0.109
Hour of training in CL	1.16	1.08–1.25	0.000	1.13	1.06–1.21	0.001
Motivation types
Intrinsic motivation				1.14	1.01–1.29	0.029
Integrated regulation				1.03	0.922–1.15	0.619
Identified regulation				1.09	0.977–1.22	0.121
Introjected regulation				0.985	0.944–1.03	0.488
External regulation				1.06	1.00–1.13	0.042
Amotivation				0.951	0.879–1.03	0.211

Note. AOR = adjusted odds ratio; CI = confident interval.

), in addition to including the same dependent variables (socio-demographic and teaching activity), included motivation scale scores as independent variables. While the model gained explanatory power, some of the socio-demographic and teaching activity variables showed variations in their explanatory power. Gender and years of CL practice were still non-significant variables (p > 0.05). However, the years of teaching activity variable, which was relevant in the first model, was also non-significant. That is, taking into account teacher motivation, the effect of years of experience was corrected and was no longer a relevant predictor of the development of the CL methodology in the classroom. In turn, hours of training remained a relevant variable (CI: 1.06–1.21, p < 0.01), and a difference continued to be observed in the implementation of CL, depending on the educational stage.

As for the motivational variables included in the second model, there were two that were significant: intrinsic motivation and external regulation, both of which were positive. Thus, high levels of intrinsic motivation explain the CL (CI: 1.01–1.29, p < 0.05), which showed the same relationship with external regulation (CI: 1.00–1.13, p < 0.05). The integrated, identified and introjected regulation variables were not statistically relevant in explaining cooperative learning among teachers.

4. Discussion

The aim of the study was to link the type of motivation in teachers to the implementation of CL in the classroom, taking into account other factors related to the teaching situation, such as previous CL training, experience, educational stage, and gender.

Intrinsic motivation is a construct that has been classically studied among teachers, and it has been shown to have a wide range of implications for teaching work [52]. Specifically, these authors mention a study by Hein et al. [53] concerning physical education teaching, where greater intrinsic motivation by the teacher translates into greater productivity, i.e., student-centred teaching styles. Likewise, Thoonen et al. [54] developed a model in which they linked motivation to a greater tendency to engage in educational activities, meaning that this could be indirectly linked to a greater focus on the use and training of teachers in CL. In addition, the intrinsic motivation of the teacher is passed on to the students, generating an interest in learning [55,56]. This is consistent with the idea that this type of motivation is associated with innovative behaviour by the teacher [39], although an inverse relationship could be found where knowledge of CL and its implementation improves the teacher’s feeling of competence and, consequently, their motivation [15]. Compliance with H1 was confirmed: intrinsic motivation in teachers is related to the use of CL. In fact, it has also been observed that the types of regulation closest to intrinsic motivation correlate with CL, although without considering the influence of other factors. Additionally, external motivation was also significant in the model, which would require a more in-depth analysis of possible causes external to the teacher’s willingness to implement a particular methodology.

Regarding training in CL and teaching experience, it was observed that, in the resulting model, years of experience, with or without CL, did not predict the use of this methodology. In that sense, Krečič and Grmek [40] suggest that more experienced teachers are used to traditional methodologies with which they feel more comfortable, which causes strong reluctance towards new pedagogical approaches. However, novice teachers move away from traditional methods and welcome innovative pedagogies. In line with this, Prieto-Saborit et al. [31] showed the results of a study that analysed 990 teachers from 60 schools that implemented CL during one school year. They found a negative relationship between teachers’ perception of their implementation of CL in the classroom and their age and teaching experience. H2 and H3 are, therefore, both maintained: people with more CL training show a greater implementation of CL, and people who have been teaching for longer will use CL less.

Finally, there is a different implementation in preschool and primary education compared to the rest. In this respect, there are studies that show that at primary education levels, it is easier and more successful to implement CL because the tutor spends more hours with the pupils [9], as well as having more support to carry it out. In addition, the flexibility of the curriculum in preschool education could provide extra motivation for teachers to implement CL in the classroom. On the other hand, it has been suggested that secondary school teachers feel limited by the pedagogical rigidity of the school, which is an impediment for them when it comes to adopting new methodologies [57]. Thus, H4 is not supported: no differences will be found between early childhood, primary and secondary education levels.

Overall, and given the academic benefits of CL, some of the factors that facilitate its implementation are highlighted. The fact that the use of CL is influenced by intrinsic motivation implies that teachers become engaged with the task [33], meaning that they apply this technique and enjoy carrying it out. Therefore, proper training enables rigorous and correct use, allowing for greater control over the process and enhancing motivation [7,32]. The use of CL in training may also allow teachers to experience its effectiveness from the student’s perspective. It is, therefore, valuable to explore its differentiating effects compared to other instructional techniques.

This study has some limitations. It would have been interesting to know the level of intrinsic motivation before starting to implement CL in the classroom to find out whether the training and acquisition of skills in this methodology has improved the teachers′ motivation. In future research, the application of a quasi-experimental design is recommended in order to better understand the relationship between variables. Also, with a larger sample size, it would be possible to establish differences between groups (gender, age ranges, and the level of education where teaching takes place) for the different types of motivation. It is also important to be cautious when generalising the results, as the sampling was not random, and it was concentrated in the same country (although each province presents different educational competencies). Likewise, although there are intermediate types of external motivation, where there is an internal locus of control (integrated, identified, and introjected), they were not relevant, and for future research, we propose studying in greater depth how different types of attitudes and social reinforcement can operate in the application of CL. Qualitative and quasi-experimental studies or additional variables that study teachers′ attitudes in more depth may enrich knowledge about teacher motivation.

5. Conclusions

This study shows the relationship between the type of intrinsic motivation within teaching tasks and the implementation of cooperative learning by teachers at different educational levels (preschool, primary and secondary) who have received specific training in this methodology. Among the contributions of this study is the focus on the factors that facilitate the successful implementation of CL by teachers. It is based on a theoretical model of scientific relevance, such as the theory of self-determined regulation, which is measurable on a specific scale designed for the population under study. As a result, it provides knowledge to improve the conditions of training and support for teachers to carry out innovative methodologies in the classroom and, thus, have an impact on the well-being of both teachers and students [58,59]. Likewise, it is part of a project in which participants have been trained in the basics and techniques of CL and have had follow-up and support for the correct development of this methodology in the classroom.