Project-based learning: an analysis of cooperation and evaluation as the axes of its dynamic

The study is situated in the context of curricular changes in Spain following the 2007 crisis and the growing adoption of active learning methodologies such as project-based learning (PBL) in Secondary Education. PBL emphasizes learning through solving real-world problems, reversing the traditional sequence by having students acquire knowledge while addressing a problem. The research focuses on understanding how cooperative work functions within PBL implementations and how the evaluation process develops in this methodological framework. The purpose is to examine cooperation dynamics and assessment practices in a secondary education setting, given their importance for achieving deeper, competence-based learning and student involvement.

The paper reviews cooperation as fundamental to effective PBL, highlighting that true cooperation requires structured teacher facilitation, feedback, and monitoring (Thomas, 2000; Orlick, 1986). It notes that group work does not automatically yield cooperation and is prone to interpersonal problems such as free-rider effects, workload imbalances, unresolved conflicts, dominance struggles, and communication deficits (Díaz-Barriga & Hernández, 2002; Prince & Felder, 2006; Del Canto et al., 2009; Kerr & Bruun, 1983; Putnam, 1997; Velázquez, 2013). Lack of teacher follow-up can exacerbate these issues (Kerr & Bruun, 1983; Slavin, 2014), leading to complaints, demotivation, and preference for individual work (Gámez & Torres, 2012; McConnell, 2005). Cooperative learning principles (positive interdependence, individual accountability, interpersonal skills, group processing) are stressed as prerequisites (Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Johnson et al., 1999a,b; Kagan, 2000; Pujolàs, 2009; Dyson, 2002). The literature also emphasizes formative, shared, and authentic assessment aligned with learning outcomes to foster participation and reflective learning (Brown & Race, 2013; Brown, 2015), including self-, peer-, and co-evaluation practices and shared tutoring in complex projects (Pérez-Pueyo & López-Pastor, 2017; Hamodi et al., 2015).

Design: Qualitative case study. Participants and context: 16 fourth-year Secondary Education students (average age 15; 8 females, 8 males) at Cristo Rey Polytechnic Institute (Valladolid, Spain) enrolled in the elective Economics subject, and 5 teachers (3 male, 2 female; ages 35–57) from the same stage/center applying PBL (subjects: Economics, Geography and History, Biology and Geology, Physics and Chemistry, Philosophy). Ethical procedures followed institutional/national standards and the Helsinki declaration. Procedure: PBL implementation via the project "My Business Plan" in the Economics course across the school year. Students were organized into heterogeneous groups of 4–5 to develop cooperation and interpersonal skills; activities included planning, partial deliveries, presentations, and a final product. Data collection: (1) In-depth interviews with teachers using PBL, (2) open-ended questionnaire to students, (3) reflective diary (observer teacher) documenting classroom observations and experiences. Data analysis: Textual analysis using ATLAS.ti. Inductive and deductive coding conducted in two cycles (Miles et al., 2014), with iterative refinement and grouping into higher-level constructs (Kalpokaite & Radivojevic, 2019). Four researchers independently and critically reviewed first-cycle codes and engaged in continuous feedback to support credibility, reliability, and transparency (Neal et al., 2015). Data saturation was determined when no new relationships/properties emerged (Flick, 2007). Credibility strategies included prolonged engagement, the researcher as observer teacher, and triangulation across interviews, questionnaires, and the reflective diary (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

• Coding outcomes: 41 explanatory codes grouped into four categories—Learning, Interaction-Collaboration, Motivation, Organization. Key interrelated codes: cooperation, conflicts, evaluation, project.
• Cooperative structures: Small, heterogeneous groups facilitated communication, negotiation, coordination, and mutual learning; teachers and reflective diary entries support benefits of groups of about four for balanced participation and skill development.
• Intragroup tensions: Frequent frictions and interpersonal conflicts emerged (e.g., non-participation, distraction, free-riding), negatively affecting project tasks, group climate, and perceived fairness. Students reported workload imbalances and dissatisfaction with equal group grading when contributions differed.
• Teacher monitoring: Teachers acknowledged challenges in supervising group processes; insufficient, timely intervention allowed conflicts and free-riding to persist, limiting full development of collaborative synergies.
• Evaluation practices: While teachers recognized the importance of formative, shared evaluation (self-, co-, hetero-evaluation) and the teacher-as-guide role, traditional tests/exams remained prevalent and prioritized content knowledge and final products over process.
• Implemented assessment tools: Presentations with peer assessments and co-evaluation questionnaires were used to involve students in evaluation and provide multiple grades for final evaluation.
• Student perceptions of evaluation: Students perceived limited follow-up of processes and advocated for individual grading or differentiated evaluation to address uneven contributions (sometimes proposing solutions contrary to cooperative principles, such as solo projects for non-contributors).

Findings indicate that PBL increases student involvement by engaging learners in authentic, collaborative tasks that require information seeking, interpretation, and shared decision-making. However, effective PBL hinges on robust cooperative structures and active teacher facilitation. Consistent with prior literature, unmanaged group dynamics led to free-riding, workload imbalances, and interpersonal conflict, undermining group performance and motivation. Teachers valued competence-focused aspects (empathy, listening, critical thinking, collaboration, responsibility) and the guiding role of the teacher, yet evaluative practices often defaulted to traditional, product-oriented assessments. While self-, co-, and hetero-evaluation were introduced, students reported insufficient process monitoring and perceived unfair grading when contributions were unequal. Overall, the study underscores the need for sustained teacher monitoring and feedback to manage group processes and for alignment of assessment with the formative, process-oriented goals of PBL, increasing student participation in evaluation and ensuring fairness in grading.

The study contributes evidence that PBL, when organized in small, heterogeneous groups, can foster competence-based learning and social/interpersonal skill development. Nevertheless, insufficient supervision of group processes and conflict management, alongside reliance on traditional, product-focused assessments, limit the full realization of cooperative synergies and process-oriented learning. The authors highlight the importance of formative, shared evaluation practices (self-, co-, and hetero-evaluation) and the teacher’s guiding role to support deeper learning. Future work could explore structured interventions for monitoring group dynamics, strategies to mitigate free-riding and conflicts, and assessment models that balance individual and group contributions while emphasizing both process and product.