A. Rodríguez-Jiménez^*, Y.C. Abreu Álvarez and Z.H. Castro

Universidad de Artemisa “Julio Díaz González”, Cuba

Submitted on 28 August 2025; Accepted on 03 March 2026; Published on 23 March 2026

To cite this article: A. Rodríguez-Jiménez, Y.C. Abreu Álvarez and Z.H. Castro, “Self-Regulated Learning Through Cooperative Learning Methodology and Formative Assessment,” Trans. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1-8, 2026.

Copyright: 

Abstract

The development of self-regulated learning in university students is a goal to achieve in facing the educational demands of the 21st century at «Julio González» Artemisa University. This paper intends to assess the influence of evaluation and the use of the cooperative learning methodology in the self-regulation of the participants' learning in a post grade course on evaluation in the teaching-learning process (TLP). To fulfill the objective, an observation guide was applied to five sessions through which the cooperative learning methodology was implemented. In addition, a self-assessment survey for the participants was put into practice to explore their perception of the influence of the course on their self-regulated learning. The results indicated that the integration of formative assessment on the cooperative learning methodology during the post grade course contributed positively to the development of the participants' self-regulated learning.

Keywords: self-regulated learning; cooperative learning; assessment

Abbreviations: TLP: teaching-learning process; AfL: assessment for learning

1. Introduction

The speed at which knowledge accumulates and evolves in 21st-century society demands high capacities and effort from future generations to never stop learning. This requires that at every educational level, students possess preparation that leads them to develop autonomous learning throughout their lives and in different contexts of action. Assessing learning from the perspective of self-regulation changes the focus, requiring the promotion of skills to learn how to learn. According to Castro Porras and Mayorga Rojas (2022), in self-regulated learning (SRL), the student themselves plans what they are going to learn and how, self-observes what they planned, and reflects on the results they achieve in fulfilling their goals, and in all this, their motivation and interest are essential.

SRL is characterized as situated, adaptive, and dynamic (Valencia, 2022, p. 604). It is situated because it depends on the nature of the specific academic task to be solved and the characteristics of the context in which it is resolved. This implies that learning is regulated in different ways, depending on the cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational requirements demanded by each situation (adaptive and dynamic character). According to this same author, contradictorily to these conceptions, among the research conducted in the field of self-regulated learning, the use of extracurricular programs has been more common than curricular ones, although the latter are the ones that truly respond to the situated nature of SRL, as they are carried out with specific subjects and tasks.

Regarding the contextual character of SRL, the contributions of the Cultural-Historical Approach, taken up by authors such as García (2021) and Rojas-Drummond (2020), are important. The basic premise of this conception leads to the understanding that learning is a mediated process that first occurs at the social level and then at the individual level. In this transition, the nature of the activity and the communication established for it are essential. It conceives the solution of problems contextualized to the socio-historical and cultural environment of the developing subject, in which they can find the necessary help to master the tools that allow them to adapt their behavior.

This viewpoint leads to the need to not only consider the potential of the subjects but also to compensate for the difficulties that each student may present in learning. In this way, mediation increases and favors the possibility of self-regulating learning. To increase the effectiveness of this, it is essential to achieve a favorable classroom environment that stimulates appropriate communication, both among students and between them and the teacher, as demonstrated by studies conducted by Pozo Morales, Bravo Cárdenas, and Pupuche Senador (2023).

Self-regulation refers to the way the student positions themselves in relation to the learning task. Self-regulated behavior reflects their commitment to the task and their desire to perform it, hence the focus on the skills to be developed in students (Gago Galvagno, 2024). This type of learning focuses more on how one learns than on what one learns, engaging their motivation and will. In a learning situation, various components of the task and context are integrated to configure a pertinent type of self-regulated action, in which, according to Valencia Serrano (2020), the essential stages are distinguished as: goal setting, planning and deployment of strategies to achieve such goals, monitoring of the strategies and efforts deployed, as well as the assessment they make of their performance and learning.

To promote the development of self-regulation in the teaching-learning process (TLP), the adequate use of feedback is a fundamental axis (Mocarro Willis et al., 2024), and this is a distinctive feature of formative assessment or assessment for learning (AfL). AfL is an approach that, integrated into the TLP, generates feedback for students and teachers to improve learning and guide them towards achieving the objectives (Stobart, 2021; Teaching and Learning Team, 2020). According to Garcés Bustamante et al. (2020), there are different types of feedback that positively influence the performance of university students in general and, in particular, on the development of their self-regulated learning. It is necessary to consider not only the external feedback provided by the teacher through hetero-assessment but also that offered by peers (peer assessment) and that derived from the process of self-reflection (self-assessment).

This suggests the systematic use in the TLP of these three ways of carrying out formative assessment or AfL, as a guarantee of higher quality feedback. In this sense, peer assessment in higher education, according to De Brún et al. (2022), is presented as an effective strategy to increase students' responsibility for their own learning. On the other hand, self-assessment contributes to the development of metacognition and self-monitoring, which are essential components of self-regulation (Stobart, 2021).

Feedback is, therefore, a process inherent to AfL and has a direct influence on the development of self-regulated learning. In this regard, it should be considered that fostering effective feedback in the classroom requires creating an environment where errors are not seen by teachers and students as something critical, but as opportunities to improve learning (Campuzano López et al., 2021).

Teaching-learning methods constitute the way to implement these conceptions of assessment and learning in educational practice. Cooperative learning (CL), constitutes a general teaching-learning methodology that can be perfectly adjusted to such processes. The procedure of CL promotes interaction among students in order to achieve common educational objectives, such as the development of individual responsibility and positive interdependence; face-to-face interaction, the development of social skills, and group evaluation. In this approach, students are grouped into small teams, where each member has individual responsibilities but works together for the benefit of the group, as the success of one member is not possible without the success of the rest (Azorín Abellán, 2018). As a pedagogical methodology, in the context of CL, students develop skills to plan, monitor, and evaluate their own learning while working in teams, as they must manage their time, set goals, and monitor their progress both individually and as a group. According to Torres Carrero et al. (2024), constant interaction and feedback among peers also help students reflect on their learning strategies and adjust them as necessary, making it a methodology that can be very effective for the development of self-regulated learning.

Due to this form of interaction in CL, formative assessment is integrated naturally, because students receive constant feedback from their peers and the teacher. This feedback helps identify areas for improvement and reinforces acquired knowledge, which promotes self-regulated learning.

It is the education professionals, at different educational levels, who are responsible for preparing to implement in their educational practice these conceptions about assessment and cooperative learning as a methodology; since their application can favor the active role that students must play in the TLP, to respond to the demands in the training of 21st-century learners. The above justifies the inclusion of the course "Assessment in the teaching-learning process" in the program of the Master's in Didactics offered by the University of Artemisa to education professionals in the territory. The objective of this work is to assess the influence of formative assessment and the use of the CL methodology on the self-regulation of the participants' learning in said course.

2. Methods

2.1. Study group

This research was carried out with a study group of 33 education professionals (22 women and 11 men), from the third edition of the Master's in Didactics offered by the University of Artemisa, in the course "Assessment in the teaching-learning process", which took place in six face-to-face sessions (once a week), during the months of March and April 2022. The study group was very heterogeneous regarding the professional training and work profile of the participants, as it was made up of university graduates from different careers who perform varied educational functions: teachers of different subjects and levels of education (preschool, primary, secondary, pre-university, university, technological, military education, and special education), methodologies in municipal and provincial education departments, psychopedagogists in primary schools, and a theater teacher.

2.2. General methodology

To develop the program's contents, during the five face-to-face sessions of the course, the CL methodology was implemented using the jigsaw technique. Both the achievement of the CL environment, with an observation guide, and its effect on the participants' self-regulated learning, through an applied survey, were evaluated.

2.3. Cooperative learning methodology for the development of the sessions

Aronson's Jigsaw is a widely used CL technique in the TLP. According to Álvarez Morgado, et al. (2020), students are distributed into small groups of 4 to 6 members, based on the logical segments into which the topic has been divided; each member of each group is assigned one of the segments; students familiarize themselves with their area and then meet with others who were granted the same study topic to form an expert group, which allows for reflection and discussion of the participants' different points of view and a complete understanding of the content. Finally, the expert students reintegrate into their original groups to explain and present their assigned topic. Once all students have presented their corresponding topics in their groups and all doubts have been clarified - in which the teacher can directly participate - an assessment of the individually achieved learning is carried out. For this, a test on the studied topic is applied.

To guarantee the necessary feedback, as an essential aspect to enhance the self-regulatory processes of learning, in this study, once the individual test was applied, a plenary discussion of the test answers was conceived, and then the processes of peer assessment and self-assessment were developed, for which a set of aspects to consider was agreed upon with the group: fulfillment of the assigned task, participation in the group, contributions for a better understanding of the material, active listening, learnings achieved, and aspects to improve in the group work.

The conduct of self-assessment and peer assessment did not only remain in the emission of criteria and judgments by the participants, but a rating was established for each student, based on the ordinal scale: Excellent (5); Good (4); Fair (3) and Poor (2). These ratings were collected by the teacher using a card delivered by teams in each session. They reflected the first and last names of the members and the individual ratings of the self-assessment and peer assessment awarded to them.

As an important part of the feedback, it was planned to close each work session with a plenary discussion about the essential elements of the addressed topic to: facilitate the learners' self-reflection by appreciating the differences between their performance and the established objectives; support learning with relevant information; as well as ensure a better understanding of the topic through teacher-student dialogue, which are important elements to foster the self-regulation of learning.

The jigsaw technique was implemented in five work sessions of the course. The student group was divided into six work teams, three with five members and three with six, which remained with the same members throughout the course. The heterogeneity of each team was achieved by forming them with professionals who work in different educational levels and in different disciplines and subjects. In the first session, they were explained what the technique consisted of, as none of those present knew it. The course program was worked on through this method, which covered the following topics: 1. Assessment in the TLP. Historical approach. Trends in meanings and terms in use; 2. Control and assessment. Relationship of assessment with other categories of the TLP. Functions of assessment in the TLP. The object of assessment. The participants in the assessment; 3. Grading. Elaboration of the evaluative judgment. Interpretation and use of assessment: formative assessment and summative assessment of students; 4. Levels of cognitive performance and learning assessment. Levels of assimilation and levels of cognitive performance in the TLP. Precision of students' levels of cognitive performance through assessment; 5. Planning of assessment in the TLP. The specification table, assessment rubrics, open-format tests, and objective tests.

During the development of the five sessions, the authors of this work recorded observations of the activities carried out, with the aim of studying how the face-to-face sessions evidenced a CL environment. A guide built with a Likert-type scale was used, based on the principles of this type of learning. This instrument used evaluated, in each session, the degree of presence of each principle of CL with values from 1 to 5. A value of 5 indicates a total manifestation of the principle and 1, a very low degree of presence. The mean value for each principle was calculated, and based on this, a scale was constructed to evaluate the level of the observer's opinion regarding the presence of the principle: totally disagree (1.00-1.50); disagree (1.51-2.50); neither disagree nor agree (2.51-3.50); agree (3.51-4.50); totally agree (4.51-5.00).

2.4. Survey

At the end of the application of the CL methodology, after five weeks of the course, this survey consisting of 23 items was applied to the students to evaluate the perceived influence on the development of their SRL. For this, a Likert-type scale with five possible values was used: 1. Disagree; 2. Slightly agree; 3. Agree; 4. Quite agree; 5. Strongly agree. The items were elaborated by the authors of this work, based on the stages of SRL: Task orientation and decision-making (items 1 to 4 and 12); Execution of actions (items 5 to 11 and 13 to 16) and Evaluation (items 17 to 23). The statement of each of the items appears in Table 1 and, as can be seen, they have been expressed in such a way that values between 4 and 5 on the evaluative scale correspond to appreciable positive influences on the development of SRL, based on the perception of the course participants who answered the survey.

TABLE 1: Items comprising the self-assessment survey applied to students.

No.	Item
1.	The tasks developed in teams allowed me to use my previous knowledge and experiences about assessment in the teaching-learning process (TLP)
2.	The tasks we developed in each session were directly related to my educational practice
3.	I felt capable of solving the part of each task that was assigned to me in the team during the course
4.	For each task assigned in the team, I foresaw possible actions to fulfill it
5.	I relied on colleagues from the expert group and the professor to clarify my doubts in preparing the material
6.	I elaborated outlines, tables, and summaries as supports for the presentation of the material to my team
7.	With the cooperation of colleagues from the expert group and my team, I managed to overcome the obstacles I encountered in learning new conceptions about assessment
8.	I changed many of my conceptions of assessment in the TLP through discussion in the team
9.	I developed my oral expression skills
10.	I increased my capacity to recognize different points of view and opinions
11.	Interaction with my team members revealed strengths and weaknesses for my learning
12.	Teamwork revealed to me that I can prepare on different topics and explain them to others
13.	The course prompted me to reflect on my assessment practices as a teacher
14.	It stimulated me to want to put into practice the conceptions about assessment presented
15.	It provided me with methodological tools that will be useful for improving my educational practice
16.	The use of the jigsaw technique made me reflect on the meaning of student protagonism in the construction of their knowledge
17.	The evaluations I received from my team colleagues revealed achievements and difficulties in my performance
18.	My colleagues' opinions about my performance helped me improve my presentations in the team
19.	The exercise of my self-assessment in the team allowed me to assess causes of difficulties in my performance
20.	Recognizing my difficulties and their causes during self-assessment in the team allowed me to improve my presentations as the course sessions progressed
21.	The systematic exercise of self-assessment and peer assessment during the course allowed me to assess their potential as essential tools for the formative assessment of my students
22.	My results on the written questions conducted at the end of each team work session required me to perfect my active listening during my colleagues' oral presentations
23.	The plenary summaries made by the professor as conclusions of each session allowed me to assess the degree to which I achieved the desired objectives

To determine its content validity, the survey was subjected to the evaluative criteria of three Full Professors from the University of Artemisa, one specialist in the Psychology of Learning, and two others who research the topic of SRL, who asserted that each of the included items responds directly or indirectly to key aspects of the development of this type of learning.

The degree of internal consistency (reliability) of this instrument was determined by calculating the Multidimensional Correlation Coefficient rpj (Domínguez-Lara and Merino-Soto, 2022). This coefficient takes values between 0 and 1, which are compared with the typical distribution presented in Table 2 to determine the degree of reliability of the instrument.

TABLE 2: Typical ranges of the rpj coefficient.

rpj ranges	Degree of consistency
rpj ≥0.823	Highly consistent
0.823 > rpj ≥0.708	Quite consistent
0.708 > rpj ≥0.576	Consistent
0.576 > rpj ≥0.337	Inconsistent
0.337 > rpj ≥0.297	Quite inconsistent
rpj < 0.297	Highly inconsistent

The calculation of the Multidimensional Correlation Coefficient rpj for the results of the survey applied to the study sample (25 students answered the survey) yielded a value of 0.577, which indicates that this instrument is consistent for the purposes of this research. Based on these results, it could be asserted that the survey is a valid and reliable instrument, so the information obtained through its application could be used to make inferences regarding the study group.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Observation of activities during the first five sessions

These observations were made by the professors (authors of this work) thanks to the fact that once the sessions were organized with the jigsaw technique, the students remained totally active in the construction of new knowledge and the professors were only facilitators and guides in the process. Table 3 shows the results obtained using the observation guide. It can be seen that the sessions were characterized by a CL environment, as the observations indicate a strong presence of positive interdependence and individual responsibility, while the other principles were also notably manifested.

TABLE 3: Means and opinion levels based on the observations made.

CL principles	Means	Opinion level
Positive interdependence	4.68	Totally agree
Face-to-face interaction	4.20	Agree
Individual responsibility	4.75	Totally agree
Social skills	3.91	Agree
Group processing	4.11	Agree

The observers' comments on the observation guides for each session indicate how these principles are manifested. Thus, related to positive interdependence is the following comment: "The participants discuss their points of view on each of the aspects addressed and reach consensus in the different teams based on the discussions. On occasions, they turn to the professor for clarifications, both in the expert group and during the presentations in the team."

In this regard, Buchs, et al. (2021) opine that the establishment of positive interdependence generates cognitive conflict, which arises when the approaches of others contradict our own, provoking a discussion to try to reach an agreement. This implies the defense of different points of view, the contrast of varied opinions and diverse reasoning. In this way, the need to resolve the conflict leads to the search for information, reconceptualization, and questioning of the known, which constitute important tools for the planning and execution of cognitive strategies, which are essential for the self-regulation of learning.

Regarding face-to-face interaction, it is recorded in the observation guide: "Each participant is in permanent contact with the rest of the group members. They activate each other reciprocally through encouragement, praise, and recognition for the individual effort to learn. There is a willingness to help for a better understanding and participation of those who show difficulties." These results correspond with those obtained by Barceló Cerdá et al. (2024) in relation to the interaction principle: participants must relate, interact, and promote the efforts of their colleagues. Being in contact during the solution of the proposed task, activating each other mutually. These interactions allow monitoring one's own learning and the efficacy of individual cognitive strategies, which evidences another point of influence of CL on the self-regulation of learning.

Related to individual responsibility, the observer points out: "Each participant strives to understand their segment and to prepare during the expert work to present it clearly to their team members," which is in line with the need for each member to be aware of their direct responsibility in developing a part of the team's task, as expressed by Fernández et al. (2017). This commitment to oneself and to the team in solving the task leads to the establishment of personal goals and the planning of cognitive strategies to achieve them, which are characteristic aspects of self-regulated learning.

Referring to social skills, the observation guide contains the comment: "In the teams, attentive listening is appreciated by the members while one member exposes the aspect that corresponds to them, and debates are generated in which speaking turns are respected, but some conflicts are generated as a consequence of criticizing the opinions of others in a non-constructive way." These observations indicate that, as expected, in a large and heterogeneous group like this one, shortcomings are manifested in some indicators that directly contribute to the fulfillment of this principle, such as education in how to exercise constructive criticism during debates. It is evident that the full fulfillment of this principle has a positive influence on the self-regulation of learning, which is supported by Azorín Abellán (2018) when stating that the development of social skills enables participants to learn to communicate, organize work, make decisions based on consensus, reach agreements, evaluate the work done, and value their relationships with the rest of the team members.

The following comment in the observation guide is linked to the principle of group processing: "Anxiety is observed in the participants facing the individual test on the topic. The group review of the test answers with the participation of those present and the discussion among members about individual and team performance develop naturally, although self-assessment and peer assessment do not always correspond adequately."

This alludes to three types of assessment involved in CL: assessment of individual learning; peer assessment (coevaluation) and self-assessment, which relates to the moment of evaluating the learning, behaviors, relationships, attitudes, and skills of the team members. In this sense, Ríos Muñoz and Herrera Araya (2020) consider that it is necessary to decentralize assessment in the TLP, as this leads to reflective, critical, and self-critical practices associated with learning processes and that in this it is essential to promote the use of self-assessment and peer assessment to foster the creation of an assessment culture focused on learning and its self-regulation.

Individual assessment is an aspect that, as indicated in the preceding criterion, always generates some anxiety in students, which does not favor SRL; but on the other hand, it is an important springboard to achieve active listening in each participant during the presentations and discussions in the team, as well as for the search for effective learning strategies and to explain to colleagues, in the most accessible way possible, the content of the segment for which they were responsible, which are factors that positively influence the development of each participant's SRL.

The feedback regarding the answers to the test that followed its application in each session contributed to the participants readjusting their knowledge and gaining confidence in the results of their learning, as they were co-participants in that feedback. In this way, anxiety was attenuated and at the same time, self-reflection about the learning carried out was reinforced, which are factors that favor SRL.

As all the topics addressed are closely linked to the professional performance of the participants, the applied tests constituted authentic assessment tasks and were aimed, as has been evidenced, not only at the assessment of learning but, and above all, at assessment for learning. The conduct of peer assessment and self-assessment was facilitated by the establishment of indicators that guided the evaluations made. Table 4 shows the percentage frequencies for each value on the scale for the ratings awarded by the participants in each session.

TABLE 4: Peer assessment and self-assessment ratings.

Seassons	1		2		3		4		5
Frequency of ratings	P (%)	S (%)	P (%)	S (%)	p (%)	S (%)	P (%)	S (%)	P (%)	S (%)
Excellent	85	75	77	28	84	21	87	53	94	65
Good	10	25	23	72	8	71	12	47	6	35
Fair	5	-	-	-	8	8	5	-	-	-
Poor	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

P: peer assessment; S: self-assessment

An analysis of the values reflected in Table 4 reveals two regularities: there are no ratings in the lowest value of the scale (which is equivalent to the failing category according to the criteria used in Higher Education in Cuba) and the frequency in the Excellent category is always higher in peer assessment than in self-assessment. The first regularity could be explained by the fact that, despite the clarifications made to the participants regarding the non-use of the results of peer assessment and self-assessment for summative or accreditive purposes in the course, there is a belief among students that a low rating affects their image before the professor and their classmates. That is why they award themselves satisfactory ratings, even if they perceive that their performance does not correspond to said rating. On the other hand, participants feel that they are sanctioning their classmates when they do not give them the highest rating, so they prefer to evaluate them as Excellent, although when issuing their judgments and assessments they point out their strengths and weaknesses, which would explain the second regularity - which at the same time justifies what was expressed in the observation guide comment presented above -, coincides with the research results obtained by Gielen and De Wever (2020). Although the processes of peer assessment and self-assessment present the inconveniences analyzed, peer assessment trains learners to handle criticism, which is one of the social skills to be developed through CL, and in turn provides elements to carry out their own self-assessment. The judgments and assessments issued during these have great value for the development of each team member's SRL, mainly due to their contribution to the improvement of metacognition and their stimulation of self-monitoring (Stobart, 2021).

The group feedback, related to the entire topic developed in each session, was led by the professor once the self-assessment and peer assessment processes were finished. In this part of the session, there was active participation from those present based on the learnings they had achieved through the application of the jigsaw technique. This effort also served as a reference to readjust learning, taking into account the weaknesses that each student identified, and constituted a way to increase motivation and self-confidence by feeling capable of contributing knowledge in the developed group discussion. All these elements constitute factors that favorably influence the development of SRL (Rogat and Adams-Wiggins, 2021).

This CL environment, achieved with the fulfillment of its principles through the jigsaw technique, fosters effective learning and, therefore, facilitates a socially oriented TLP, based on the exchange of ideas and mutual help that occur permanently during the process (Hänze and Berger, 2021).

3.2. Self-assessment survey

Figure 1 presents the median values calculated from the ratings made by the respondents. As can be seen, all median values are close to 5.

FIGURE 1: Results of the self-assessment survey.

These results indicate a positive influence of CL on the development of SRL according to the students' perception, which corroborates the inferences elaborated from the observations made of the CL activities, presented in the previous section. To what has already been discussed about the link between the application of the CL methodology and the development of SRL, it would be convenient to add two new elements that are strengthened through CL and which, according to Zimmerman and Moylan (2023), are key to the development of SRL: self-esteem and motivation for learning.

In the self-assessment survey, items 3 (I felt capable of solving the part of each task that was assigned to me in the team during the course) and 12 (Teamwork revealed to me that I can prepare on different topics and explain them to others), contribute directly to self-esteem. The high median values in these items indicate that the participants perceived a good contribution of the implemented CL methodology to their self-esteem. These results coincide with those obtained by Slavin (2023), who bases this on considering that the negative emotional states (anxiety, tension, stress, or fear of public participation in the classroom) that a student might experience and that negatively affect their self-esteem, can be neutralized thanks to CL in which collaboration recreates a climate of participation, support, and empathy towards the rest of the members.

Items 1 (The tasks developed in teams allowed me to use my previous knowledge and experiences about assessment in the TLP), 2 (The tasks we developed in each session were directly related to my educational practice) and 14 (It stimulated me to want to put into practice the conceptions about assessment presented), refer to aspects that contribute to increasing motivation for learning. In these items, the medians were also high, from which it can be inferred that CL positively influenced the participants' motivation. Slavin (2022) bases this influence on the fact that, along with the positive atmosphere created through mutual help and stimulation among members, the pressure added by the commitment assumed with colleagues in fulfilling the assigned task increases the interest and motivation of students to reach the expectations created in the team.

4. Conclusion

In this study, the influence of the use of CL and assessment in the TLP on the development of SRL in university students has been assessed. It started from understanding self-regulated learning as a socially mediated process to interpret the positive influence that CL has on it.

The practical implementation of the jigsaw technique has made it possible to achieve a CL environment in a course on assessment in the TLP in which education professionals have participated, and this has positively influenced the development of the participants' SRL.

Assessment plays a determining role in the development of SRL, whether through CL or other pathways used in the TLP; but for this, it must be an assessment based on authentic tasks, where assessment for learning predominates over assessment of learning, because in this way it implicitly demands self-regulation in its requirements and necessarily turns the assessment task into an SRL situation.

The processes of peer assessment and self-assessment must be inherent to all assessment tasks to increase their contribution to the self-regulation of learning.

Author Contribution

Conceptualization: A. Rodríguez-Jiménez; Data curation: Y.C. Abreu Álvarez, Z.H. Castro; Formal analysis: A. Rodríguez-Jiménez; Investigation: A. Rodríguez-Jiménez, Y.C. Abreu Álvarez, Z.H. Castro; Methodology: A. Rodríguez-Jiménez; Project administration: A. Rodríguez-Jiménez.

References

1. G. Á. Morgado, C. M. Lacazette, P. C. Galleguillos and M. A. Astudillo, “El Rompecabezas de Aronson utilizado como metodología de trabajo semestral en un curso Universitario de Estadística,” Revista Electrónica De Investigación En Docencia Universitaria, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 148-173, 2020.
2. C. M. A. Abellán, “El método de aprendizaje cooperativo y su aplicación en las aulas,” Perfiles Educativos, vol, 40, no. 161, pp. 181-194. July 2018.
3. M. L. B. Cerdá, E. L. Gómez, B. P. G. Noblejas and I. R. Gómez, “La aplicación del aprendizaje cooperativo en la universidad de acuerdo con la percepción de los estudiantes de Magisterio,” EDUCAR, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 553-568, 2024.
4. C. Buchs, D. Filippou, C. Pulfrey and Y. Volpé, “Challenges for cooperative learning implementation: reports from elementary school teachers,” Journal of Education for Teaching, vol. 43. no. 3, pp. 296-306, 2017.
5. J. G. C. López, J. K. M. Ponce, J. R. Z. Zambrano and L. A. Q. Parrales, “La retroalimentación como estrategia para mejorar el proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje en los estudiantes,” Dominio De Las Ciencias, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 57-69, 2021.
6. J. F. C. Porras and J. C. M. Rojas, “Aprendizaje autorregulado y estrés académico universitario en tiempos de pandemia,” PsiqueMag:Revista Científica Digital de Psicología, vol . 11, no. 2, pp. 60-71, 2022.
7. A. D. Brún, L. Rogers, A. Drury and B. Gilmore, “Evaluation of a formative peer assessment in research methods teaching using an online platform: A mixed methods pre-post study,” Nurse Education Today, vol. 108, pp. 105166, Jan 2022.
8. S. D. Lara, and C. M. Soto, “Coeficiente rpj multidimensional: Una alternativa para estimar la confiabilidad en instrumentos con estructura compleja,” Psicología Educativa, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 145152. 2022.
9. L. G. Galvagno, C. P. Cerquera and A. M. Elgier, “Relaciones entre el aprendizaje autorregulado, la motivación y el temperamento en adolescentes,” Revista ConCiencia, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 135-152, 2024.
10. L. F. García, “Aprendizaje mediado y desarrollo cognitivo: Herramientas socioculturales en la educación actual,” Editorial Síntesis, 2021.
11. J. G. Bustamante, P. L. Godoy and L. G. Guerrero, “La retroalimentación: una estrategia reflexiva sobre el proceso de aprendizaje en carreras renovadas de educación superior,” Cuadernos De Investigación Educativa, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 37-59, 2020.
12. M. Gielen and B. D. Wever, “How do students perceive the fairness and accuracy of peer assessment?” Educational Research Review, vol. 30, pp. 100332, 2020.
13. M. Hänze, and R. Berger, “Enhancing student learning through cooperative Jigsaw II: A longitudinal study,” Instructional Science, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 523-544, 2021.
14. M. L. M.  Willis, E. A. T. Bravo and E. U. Bernal, “Una mirada global a la evaluación formativa,” Revista de Investigación de Ciencias de la Educación, Horizontes, vol. 8, no. 32, pp. 306-321, 2024.
15. J. M. P. Morales, A.V. B. Cárdenas and C. P. Senador, “Ambiente educacional y aprendizaje autorregulado de los residentes de pediatría de un hospital especializado durante la pandemia por COVID-19,” Revista Pediatría Especializada, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 50-61, 2023.
16. D. R. Muñoz and D. H. Araya, “La descentralización de la práctica evaluativa orientada al autoaprendizaje del estudiant,” Educação e Pesquisa, vol. 46, Aug 2020.
17. T. K. Rogat and K. R. A. Wiggins, “Other-regulation in collaborative groups: implications for regulation quality;” Instructional Science, vol. 42, pp. 879-904, May 2014.
18. S. R. Drummond, “Collaborative learning as a dialogic scaffold for cognitive development,” Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, vol. 24, pp. 100366, 2020.
19. R. E. Slavin, “Cooperative learning and student mental health: A longitudinal study,” School Psychology Review, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 45-60, 2023.
20. R. E. Slavin, “Cooperative learning: What makes groupwork work?” Educational
    Psychologist, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 129-143, 2022.
21. G. Stobart, “An Introduction To Assessment For Learning,” Oxford University Press, Oct 2021.
22. Teaching and Learning Team. (2020). Getting started with assessment for learning. Cambridge Assessment International Education.
23. M. C. T. Carrero, E. P. Blázquez, O. N. Martínez and F. J. S. V. Pérez, “La autorregulación y la necesidad de comunicación y de relacionarse a través del Aprendizaje Cooperativo,” Aula Abierta, vol. 53, no. 22, pp. 137-147, 2024.
24. M. V. Serrano, “Un acercamiento a la psicología popular para pensar la promoción del aprendizaje autorregulado en la educación superior,” Revista Ciencias de la Educación, vol. 32, no. 60, pp. 603-625, 2022.
25. M. V. Serrano, “Diseño de tareas para promover aprendizaje autorregulado en la universidad,” Educación Y Educadores, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 267-290. 2020.
26. J. B. Zimmerman and A. R. Moylan, “Self-regulation: Where metacognition and motivation intersect,” in Handbook of metacognition in education, D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, and A. C. Graesser, Eds., New York: Routledge, 2009.