The effects of cooperative learning on teachers in

culturally heterogeneous classrooms

Miguel A. Santos Rego, Mar Lorenzo Moledo, University of Santiago
de Compostela (Spain)

Introduction
The European Union has asked its member states to focus greater attention and place
increased attention on the development of the continuing training of non-university
teachers. In fact, there are few European community countries with specific national
programmes having obligatory up to date professional and pedagogical teacher training
activities. As can be easily imagined, the basic idea here is not so much normative as it is
strategic and even pragmatic in nature, taking into account the lack of international norms
in this respect.
Nevertheless, the general demand for more increased development in teacher training,
brings to light the necessity of complementary training for teachers, one which implies the
addressing of a new social context, reflected in the extraordinarily rapid change in Europe’s
evolving multicultural society and one which must play an important role in education.
Even though, this diagnosis can not be the same in the widely varied regions of the Union,
it is certain that in the majority of its schools the teachers are finding a challenge in teaching
girls and boys with distinctive linguistic and cultural origins, affecting the curriculum in such
a way that it must recognize the need for acknowledging different identities and promoting
integration of both individuals and groups in a public institution.
Of course this responsibility not only rests on the shoulders of the teacher. But the truth of
the matter is that without teachers’ commitment and active participation this idea has little
chance of significant advancement in coming years. The 2007 Spanish Strategic Plan for
Citizenship and Integration is an example of an attempt to put this type of plan into
practice. Even though it has many facets, the educational part of the plan is the most
important. Textual evidence of this is found in the text: “to train educational professionals
in intercultural relationships and diversity management”.
If there exists a coinciding tendency in the literature of intercultural education it is the need
to understand its operative development in primary and secondary schools through the use
of cooperative learning techniques (Slavin, 1999; Díaz-Aguado, 2003; Santos Rego y
Lorenzo Moledo, 2003; Cohen, Brody and Sapon-Shevin, 2004; López Reillo, 2006). This
consensus has brought to light another no less important current need: that of teacher
training in both theoretical and practical understanding of cooperative learning strategies,
The effects of cooperative learning on teachers in culturally heterogeneous classrooms 2

especially strategies which have been proven to be the most effective in pedagogical
management of educational contexts. Taking into consideration the abundant quantity of
information available concerning the effects of cooperative learning on students, the focus
of this study is found in the effects that the Aronson Jigsaw technique has produced on a
group of teachers working in ethno-culturally heterogeneous classrooms.
Specifically, we have shown the teachers how to use the technique in such a way that,
through a process of evaluation, its effect on their students can be analysed. As we shall see,
the results support the systematic incorporation of such activities in the initial and continued
training of teachers, taking into account advantages and rewards gained in the course of the
experience (Santos Rego, 1990; 1994; Santos Rego y Lorenzo Moledo, 2005).

The training of professionals for working in inter-cultural

contexts
Let us start off from the empirically established base that teachers, especially at the
secondary level, feel the need for special training when asked to work in n intercultural
context. In research done at the USC with a sample of 310 secondary school teachers
(students ages 12 to 16) we found that a majority (80%) affirmed that they were lacking in
special training in Intercultural education (Santos Rego and Lorenzo Moledo, 2003). This
data should not be surprising considering the training received by our university students
who are preparing themselves to enter into the teaching profession.
The low level of their preparation could be an important factor in the level of success
achieved in their active interventions in ethnic and culturally diverse contexts. Even though
in Spain teacher training is fundamentally done through theoretically based course work in
which the professor’s role is not very active, we believe that he commitment of professors
in research-action projects is the best way to enact permanent teacher training. We propose
to unite training with experimentation in such a way that teachers can relate to theoretical
principles with hands on concrete activities that allow theory to be put into practice, as it
has been shown that teaching professionals appreciate educational resources in which they
are able to actively participate in their design, development and evaluation (Lorenzo
Moledo et al. 2007). This is noted when, in spite of the difficulties, innovations are
introduced in the class room which can directly be evaluated as to their repercussions for
the students.
On the other hand innovations in permanent teacher training programs that imply
important changes in their role increase their effectiveness in the following conditions (see
Díaz-Aguado, 2003):
a) Teachers voluntarily assume an active role in the teacher training programme including
the aspect of educational innovation. In our specific case, we began with a sample from
31 secondary schools with a noticeable presence of immigrant students. We selected of
sub sample of six of these schools determined by certain criteria, one of which was
disposition and motivation of the teaching staff in participating in the pedagogical
experience (training, development, and evaluation of Jigsaw by Aronson). To evaluate
The effects of cooperative learning on teachers in culturally heterogeneous classrooms 3

the results we chose a quasi-experimental design in which in each school a work group
was formed by a teacher with two classrooms of students, one experimental and the
other one control.
b) Institutional recognition of the participants for their work in the experience, including
their initial training, as well as the development and evaluation. Teachers involved in
the programme will receive official accreditation for this training through the
appropriate administrative organ.
c) The training programme must enhance cooperation among teachers, and also between
teachers and other educative agents that act as mediators during the entire process. In
this programme we, as members of the Research Group Esculca-USC have taken on the
responsibility for this task.
d) The training programme combines theory and practice. It is our understanding that the
best way to teach teachers the educational advantages of the CLT is putting them to use
in the classroom, but without affecting an adequate level of tutoring from the Research
Team.
These are the objectives we hope to achieve with the programme: to teach the teachers the
basic fundamentals of cooperative learning; to make them learn how to structure a class in
a cooperative form; to give them the ability to evaluate the effect that the introduction of
cooperative learning has on their students, and offer them the chance to change their
perceptions concerning learning methodology.
In this way, we believe our training proposal can be characterized in the following model:

Model 1. Proposal for cooperative learning training for teachers

Tutoring and
team work

Initial theoretical Classroom Evaluation

training experience

Learning

Innovation
The effects of cooperative learning on teachers in culturally heterogeneous classrooms 4

Initial theoretical training in cooperative learning

This initial training has two clear objectives: to evaluate the strategic connection between
cooperative learning and intercultural education and to analyse an intervention programme
based in the Aronson Jigsaw technique.
The training took place in two sessions, with differentiated objectives and contents with a
total duration of 10 hours:
The first work session was merely informative. Its goal was to reflect on the desired
objectives, to explain the general characteristics of the experience, the difficulties that would
be needed to be overcome.
The following session was oriented to working with the actual contents of the intervention
programme, specifically the relationship between cooperative learning and intercultural
educational curriculum and the Aronson Jigsaw technique. This session also included work
analysis in small study groups concerning the specific topic that had been chosen using the
Aronson technique in the classroom. All the typical questions concerning this work
methodology were asked and answered (group evaluation, time wasting, unmotivated
students, absenteeism…).

Development of the programme in schools and continuous

assessment
The pedagogic experience with the Aronson Puzzle Technique was developed along a
period of two months in six secondary schools, taking into respect the established general
programme and structured in 7 phases. In the development process each centre made use of
day to day consulting service (via telephone or through e-mail) to answer questions and aid
the teachers in the process (see Santos Rego and Lorenzo Moledo, 2005).

Phase 1: Design and planning of the proposal (teacher)

 Selection of the subject matter. Each teacher had to choose the topic or topics which
will be presented to the students.
 Planning as a work proposal according the Programming of the Areas or Classroom. The
teacher elaborates the material in such a way so that each member of the team of
students has only one source of information available, or a part of a task, with the
condition that this information or task makes reference to other members of the work
group. In this way control of the learning unit will depend on the explanations given by
the rest of the students.
 Materials and organization of the environment for learning
 Materials: Preparation of a dossier for each of the sections of the didactic unit including
text books, encyclopaedias, newspapers, Internet.
 Work Space: Preparation of the classroom for working in teams, (desk in circles).
 Time: Distribution of time needed for this work depending on the planning of the
sessions.
The effects of cooperative learning on teachers in culturally heterogeneous classrooms 5

Although this first phase was not an object of evaluation, the teachers let us know that they
were given very little time to prepare the development of the technique, and said that they
encountered difficulties when it came time to choose an appropriate topic that could be
divided into various parts.

Phase 2: Constitution of the Puzzle Groups and explanation of the task (1st session
with the students).
 Group constitution. The teacher divides the class in work teams (Puzzle Groups). The
number of students in these teams must coincide with the number of parts in which we
have divided the work units (never more than 6 members). The groups should be
heterogeneous taking into account cultural background, sex and academic achievement.
Each Puzzle Group was assigned a capital letter designation (A, B, C, D).
At this point, taking into account that the number of students is not exact, the teachers
look for appropriate criteria for the best way of selecting the students. Factors such as
absenteeism, low level of academic achievement, lack of motivation, etc. could make up
criteria to determining the selection process so that a student showing one of these
negative characteristics could count on the support of other student within their group.
 Explanation of the task. The teacher introduces the subject matter of the study. The
topic is divided into parts, explaining in a brief but clear way the task that the group
will be responsible for working with. Nevertheless, we should point out a certain state
of uneasiness in the students when they are confronted with this new form of classroom
work that manifests itself in an enormous number of questions for their teachers. But
this flood of questions does not lessen their interest in the task. As was reflected on in
one of the schools:
“when the experience was explained to them just before they were going to
start a vacation it was met with a great deal of curiosity, and on returning they
were surprisingly still very interested in the project”.
Each student chooses or is assigned one of the parts (dossier) into which the proposed task
has been divided. The teacher assigns a number to each of the students in the group (a1, a2,
a3, a4, a5; b1, b2, b3, b4, b5; c1, c2, c3, c4, c5; d1, d2, d3, d4, d5).
At this time the teacher explains the what and how of the task, why it is so designed and
how it’s going to be evaluated.
In some ways we were surprised by the lack of controversy in acceptance of the structure of
the evaluation of the technique, especially when taking into account that it was the factor
we presumed would be the most difficult, given that the teachers were against a group
evaluation process. Yet there was a lack of critical response from the students to the
evaluation although, logically, there were some exceptions:
“…this experience is going to lower some marks, and maybe raise others”
(second year high school student).
The effects of cooperative learning on teachers in culturally heterogeneous classrooms 6

Phase 3: Cooperative task I and the constitution of the Expert Groups (2nd session
with the students)
 Reading of material: each student in the puzzle group individually reads the assigned
material.
If in the first phase we noticed a certain degree of anxiety in the students, in the second
the situation was very different as the work was done in silence on an individual level,
which surprised some teachers who assumed that the technique would lead to a lack of
control of the classroom.
At this moment the teachers begin to become afraid of the noise and disorder this type
of activity can cause in the classroom, highlighted by the fact that certain students that
are not prone to speaking in class, seemed to show certain impairment in this
characteristic. Specifically they needed more of the teacher’s attention, strategically
related to their expectations in the implications of the task. What emerged is a greater
consciousness of that which was being solicited, as they see the obligation to complete a
task that they have been assigned through a process involving the luck of the draw;
taking into account that only in this way the opportunities of the group’s success can be
increased.
It is always important to notice the change in the teacher’s role in respect to the first
phase, as now the teacher’ s role is minimal, becoming more of an observer or acting as
an advisor in the task.
 At the end of this session the Expert Groups are made up. The members of the various
puzzle groups take care of the same sections or parts of the work, and form other work
groups. These groups are identified using the numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), placed in each
team are the different members of the puzzle groups that have the same numerical sub
indicator as the expert groups (a1, b1, c1, d1). Each expert group meets and works in a
specific place in the classroom.

Phase 4: Cooperative work II, (3rd session with the students)

The expert groups meet to analyse, plan, develop and elaborate their corresponding
sections, and design their own work plan.
In this way, each group must study and understand their part of the topic, in doing this each
member can later explain their ideas to their fellow team members (teaching among equals)
and so bringing the group together.
When this phase was about to finish, one of the teachers brought up a couple of relevant
questions, related to the dynamic effectiveness of the technique as well as with the
credibility that cooperative learning should be given in school context:
“Is every student able to get and keep the attention of the rest of the students in
their group? Would they be able to understand the contents at the same level as
if the teachers had explained them?”
The effects of cooperative learning on teachers in culturally heterogeneous classrooms 7

Phase 5: Cooperative task III (4th session with the students)

 Work in Puzzle Groups. The original puzzle groups are brought back together. At this
time each group will be in a position to develop the task proposal as a whole, with
each of the group members’ contribution. Each student tutors their team mates in
respect to the part of the study that was done in the expert groups.
 Complete group report. At the end of this session each student should understand the
didactic unit. What’s more, each group gives the teacher a report on the same unit.

Phase 6: Evaluation of the students (5th session with the students)

 The teacher grades the report for each puzzle group (group evaluation).
 The teacher gives and individual knowledge test on the topic (individual evaluation).
The final mark will be made from the averaging of the group and the individual
evaluations.

Phase 7: Large group work and evaluation of the technique (6th session with the
students)
 General meeting. The group’s comprehension of the didactic unit is evaluated. Teacher
and students point out errors and important areas of confusion, as well as doubts and
conflicts that have emerged in the process.
 Evaluation of the technique by the students in terms of learning, interpersonal
relationships, level of satisfaction/work climate and the actual structure of the technique.

Evaluation of the pedagogical experience

Any process or programme which has been completed is subject, to a considerable degree,
to the how and when the evaluation is done and to its goals. Because of this, the evaluation
should specify through a predesigned plan that includes the moments of collecting
information, the instrument that will be used, the agents responsible for the process and
criteria used in measuring the results. In a culture of learning, the evaluation is important for
looking into future possibilities. Experiences like the one carried out suggest participative
evaluation such as “empowerment evaluation” (Fetterman, 2000, cited by Cabrera, 2002,
p.111). This proposal is made manifest, in our case, in a non-linear model made up of three
interdependent phases: initial, follow-up and final.
This model includes the following:
 Two more work meetings, after finishing the development of the programme in the
various schools, a total of 10 hours.
 A third meeting of the entire team, with the fundamental objective being the grading of
the development of the experience in the schools.
 A fourth and final session to finish up the evaluation report, and reinforced through
individual interviews with each of the teachers.


The effects of cooperative learning on teachers in culturally heterogeneous classrooms 8

Discussion and results

The fundamental support for this analysis is the teachers’ reports once the application of the
Jigsaw Technique is completed in their high school classrooms, along with an interview
done with each teacher once completion of the project in the final evaluation sessions.
The six teachers who were interviewed considered the general form of the training
programme to be very satisfactory, both from the individual as well as a group point of
view. They all show their frustration that a programme like this one was not done by a
greater number of their fellow teachers.
Specifically they found that Cooperative Learning Technique with which they had been
working is valid for any school context and openly asked that this type of programme be
incorporated to a greater extent in the scholastic schedule in various areas of learning, a
request that did not impede the consideration of one of the teachers to be in favour of a
greater degree of universality in the programme “if we want to improve the teachers’
attitudes in developing intercultural education programmes as well as teach values to the
students”.
The level of achieving the goals of the programme also seems to be satisfactory:
“Personally, I am quite happy with the work and the results we obtained.
Perhaps because we began believing that they would not be so positive and that
completing the process would include more difficulties. I must point out that the
work of the students, fundamentally, is the reason I have come to these
conclusions”.
“On both a personal as well as on a professional level I am glad to have
participated in the experience, not only because the technique was new to me
but also because of the results obtained from the student group…”
So the teachers were able to differentiate two types of objectives:
 Cognitive, those more connected to level of knowledge and education contents, which
in most cases were greater than those in the control groups. The teachers all agreed that
the students using the technique did not learn less compared with the control groups. As
an example, in one of the schools (school number 2) the teacher was surprised to find
high level of results achieved in the experimental group in terms of contents 1 learned, as
it was a group with a low academic level.
The effects of cooperative learning on teachers in culturally heterogeneous classrooms 9

Table 1. Evaluation of the students. Test of contents

e) Centers Experimental Group Control
Group
Individual Test Group Test
average average
Center 1 ---2 --- ---
Center 2 5.22 7.4 5.58
Center 3 6.4 6.9 5.8
Center 4 --- --- ---
Center 5 6.5 5.3 6.7
Center 6 6.3 7.2 5.5

 Non-cognitive, of a more socio-affective nature. In this case, the perception was

unanimously positive. Especially in relationship with the effects on student motivation:
 The programme encourages individual and group responsibility, with a positive effect
on absenteeism, especially in a school with a large gypsy population (center 6). In this
school the teacher commented that 3 gypsy students showed up for all the other
programme sessions while not attending other classes on those days;
 It increases the students’ attention in a less formal classroom environment.
 It promotes positive relationships among the students, as well as collaborative attitudes
among equals, along with mutually supportive behaviour.
 Motivation for learning is strengthened as is desire for learning (intrinsic motivation).
 It improves the dynamic of student integration with distinct ethno-cultural groups.
 Optimizes the nurturing dimension of learning.
 Promotes oral and written communication in the classroom, positively affecting the
level of comprehension of texts and teaching contents.
 Very positive evaluation of the level of involvement in the work by the students in the
various schools. The teachers believe that the results well surpassed the initial
expectations of even the most doubtful students: “it was very stimulating, very
motivating for all of them, in those who almost never lift a finger in class.”
 The active involvement of the students was the fundamental aspect in the dynamic of
the change that was produced. This does not however mean there existed
homogeneous criteria of explanation in those responsible for the experience. To shed
some light, two examples:
“I think that the fact that all the students had to participate is very positive. We
all know that in class there’s always some students who never say a word, but
in this kind of work its impossible to just sit there and do nothing”.
“Some students asked about the possibility to prepare another topic using this
study method. For the rest, let’s just say for them things returned to normal
after what was merely a parenthesis in the regular school schedule”.
 Even though the overall view of the teachers concerning the programme was
overwhelmingly a positive one it is important to point out areas that could be
improved on:
The effects of cooperative learning on teachers in culturally heterogeneous classrooms 10

 Greater advanced planning to optimize the advantages of the programme such as

teacher involvement.
 Smoother development in the programme, so that the distribution of the work load
could be better balanced between the home and the school.
 Take better care in controlling the students’ individual achievement so that the group
level does not hide possible deficiencies in certain students,
 Increase interest level in the teaching staff in using this type of activity in other subject
matters within the school curriculum.
 Take advantage of this type of technique to give a larger and better dynamic of
innovative education in the schools. In this light they recommend that the programme
be complemented with other activities that involved other members of the teaching
staff and the school’s student body as a whole.
The students also had a positive impression of the experience expressly manifesting their
satisfaction with the way it was able to activate the learning process. They expressed a
desire to use the technique in other areas and/or course related subjects. The following is a
chart that sums up the students’ evaluations as reaffirms that of the teachers as well.

Chart 1. Students’ evaluation of the technique

90% of the students preferred the Jigsaw technique to a

Preferred Technique
Reasons for Preferences - Greater connection between the students
Possible technique
deficiencies
traditional class and 10% didn’t answer
- Learn to explain things
- The experts help with understanding
- Less dependence on the teacher
- More collaboration among students
- Helps students to get to know each other
- Better understanding among students
- Dependence on other students might not work out
- Students who distract and annoy those trying to work
- Lack of order and seriousness among some group members

Conclusions
Teachers who have introduced cooperative learning in the classroom see three main
advantages:
 The students themselves are in charge of the learning process (“they make their own
explanations.”, as one of the teachers has said). Along with this must be added the use
of an easygoing natural style of communication that exists among the students using the
technique.
The effects of cooperative learning on teachers in culturally heterogeneous classrooms 11

 It increases the motivational level of learning, with positive repercussions in intrinsic

motivation.
 It allows for a greater degree of debate and discussion in the learning process with a
great effect on the mobilization of resources and cognitive-social skills.
But what’s more, we believe that one of the most important effects the programme has
on the teachers themselves is that, thanks to using and evaluating it they were able to
modulate presumptions and clichés that affect the development of cooperative learning
in the classrooms:
 Sharing is not necessary for learning, as working with individuals is more profitable and
adapts better to the needs of each student.
 The interaction of equals can be fun, but not edifying as there is a need for a competent
person for the learning process to happen.
 The good students do not get much out of the cooperative group experience.
 It’s not good to give an overall grade to all the members of the group, as this type of
grading can be dismotivating to the students.
 Confusion between group learning and group cooperation, as highlighted in the
following comment:
“I usually work with the students in heterogeneous groups, but the technique
improved the dynamics and level of participation when they worked in expert
groups.”
Without a doubt one the greatest benefits derived from the experience is related to the
process of gaining self confidence that was generated in the teachers who participated in it
because just daring to try an innovative strategy has given them a greater interest in the use
of cooperative learning with their students, especially considering successfulness of the
experience on the whole.

Notes
 The contents test is the same for both experimental and control groups.
 The overall evaluation of these schools was positive concerning the results achieved by
the students in the experimental group, looked at from a qualitative point of view. The
grade range is from 0 to 10.

References
Cabrera, F. (2002) Qué educación para qué ciudadanía, in: E. Soriano Ayala (Coord.)
Interculturalidad: fundamentos, programas y evaluación. (Madrid, La Muralla), 83-130.
Cohen, E.G., Brody, C.M. and Sapon-Shevin, M. (Eds.) (2004) Teaching cooperative learning. The
challenge for teacher education (New York, SUNY Press).
Díaz-Aguado, Mª J. (2003) Educación intercultural y aprendizaje cooperativo (Madrid, Pirámide).
López Reillo, P. (2006) Una oportunidad para aprender. La dimensión intercultural en la formación
del profesorado (Cabildo, Santa Cruz de Tenerife).
Lorenzo Moledo, M. et al. (2007) Familias inmigrantes en Galicia. La dimensión socio-educativa de la
integración (Madrid, Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia) (Informe de Investigación-SEJ2004-
05967).
The effects of cooperative learning on teachers in culturally heterogeneous classrooms 12

Santos Rego, M.A. (1990) Estructuras de aprendizaje y métodos cooperativos en educación, Revista
Española de Pedagogía, 185, 53-78.
Santos Rego, M.A. (1994) La dimensión interactiva y el aprendizaje cooperativo como vía de
educación intercultural, in: M.A. Santos Rego (Ed.) Teoría y práctica de la educación intercultural.
(Barcelona, PPU), 121-142.
Santos Rego, M.A. & Lorenzo Moledo, M. (2003) Inmigración e acción educativa en Galicia (Vigo,
Xerais).
Santos Rego, M.A. & Lorenzo Moledo, M. (2005) Promoting interculturality in Spain: assessing the
use of the Jigsaw classroom method, Intercultural Education, 16 (3), 293-301.
Slavin, R.E. (1999) Aprendizaje cooperativo. Teoría, investigación y práctica (Buenos Aires, Aique).