The main goal of this paper is to identify the way that teachers introduce the team plans in classrooms when they implement a cooperative learning program (Pujolàs et. al, 2011).

The CL/LC Program: Cooperating to Learn, Learning to Cooperate, is an inclusive educational program developed by members of GRAD[1] of the University of Vic-University of Central Catalunya  implemented in childhood schools, primary and secondary schools through a consultancy process in three stages (Introduction, Generalization and Consolidation) (Lago and Pujolàs, 2011).

This program consists of three intervention areas: group cohesion through cohesion dynamics, cooperative structures as a resource for teaching that ensures equitable participation and simultaneous interaction (Kagan, 1999), and teamwork as content to teach.

This paper focuses on the third area of intervention, in which we provide the teachers tools as teams plan to help the organization and regulation of the cooperative teams.

The Team Plans are seen as tools that help self-regulation and co-regulation of the teamwork competence, understood by Zimmerman (2002; 2008) as the degree of the active role a student has in their own learning process taking into account their metacognitive, motivational and behavioural level.

Team Plans allow to increase the commitment of team members in school tasks promoting their involvement in the achievement of common and shared aims. This determines, partly, a higher quality in the final product (Dewitte and Lens, 2000), a higher self-efficacy and a higher intrinsic motivation (Zimmerman, 2002).

The Team Plans also allow students to transfer these self-regulation strategies to learn to learn competence, a key construct in the learning process with implications on academic achievement (Schunk and Ertmer, 2000; Boekaerts and Corno, 2005; Zimmerman, 2008).

The structure of the team plans is divided into the formulation of team goals, the distribution of roles and functions, personal commitments and the assessment of each of these sections. In addition, we offer rubrics that are important to support self-regulation (Blanco, 2008; Coll, Rochera and Onrubia, 2009).

Team Plans seem to lead to a good model of self-regulated learning, following studies of Zimmerman (2002; 2008), that proposed to establish phases of preparation, execution and self-reflection and Pintrich (2004) which proposed the preparation, monitoring, control and reflection phases. Furthermore, some studies (Pintrich, 2004; Boekaerts and Cascallar, 2006) support the importance of stimulating the whole process with a positive, active and participatory environment of small groups of students, because the relationship promotes the knowledge construction support and opportunities to participate providing more autonomy and responsibility for academic self-regulation.

In this way, the area of intervention (teamwork as content to teach) of the CL/LC Program is conceived as the key of cooperative learning that makes sense and strengthens the rest of their areas. However, teachers who introduced it in their classrooms, seem to justify its importance through other elements, often, outside the teaching and learning process.

[1] GRAD: Grup de Recerca en Atenció a la Diversitat (Care Diversity Research Group)

*Blanco, A. (2008). Las rúbricas: un instrumento útil para la evaluación de competencias. In: Prieto, L. (Coord.) La enseñanza universitaria centrada en el aprendizaje. Estrategias útiles para el profesorado. Barcelona: Octaedro/ICE-IUB. *Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-Regulation in classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology. An International Review, 54(2), 199-231. *Boekaerts, M. & Cascallar, E. (2006). How Far Have We Moved Toward the integration of Theory and Practice in Self-Regulation? Educational Psychology Review, 18, 199-210. *Coll, C., Rochera, M.J. & Onrubia, J. (2009). De la evaluación continua hacia la autorregulación del aprendizaje. Algunos criterios y propuestas en la enseñanza superior. In: Castelló, M. (Coord.) La evaluación auténtica en la Enseñanza Secundaria y universitaria. Barcelona: Edebé. *Dewitte, S., & Lens, W. (2000). Exploring volitional problems in academic procrastinators. International Journal of Educational Research, 33, 733-750. *Díaz Barriga, F. (2007). La investigación psicoeducativa en la perspectiva sociocultural: algunas aproximaciones y retos. In Sembrando ideas (Revista educativa electrónica de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile), 1, 35-43. *Flick, U. (2011). Introducing research methodology. A beginner’s guide to doing a research project. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. *Kagan, S. (1999). Cooperative Learning. San Clemente: Resources for Teachers. *Lago, J.R. & Pujolàs, P. (2011). El asesoramiento para el aprendizaje cooperativo en la escuela. In Martin, E. & Onrubia, J. (coords.).Orientación educativa. Procesos de innovación y mejoras de la enseñanza (pp.121-138). Barcelona: Graó. *Pintrich, P.R. (2004). A Conceptual Framework for Assessing Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning in College Students. Educational Psychology Review, 16 (4), 385-407. *Pujolàs, P.; Lago, J.R.; Naranjo, M.; Riera, G.; Olmos, G.; Pedragosa, O.; Soldevila, J.; Torné, A. & Rodrigo, C. (2011). El programa CA/AC (“Cooperar per aprendre/ Aprendre a Cooperar). Internal use Working Paper unpublished at the University of Vic, Vic, Spain. *Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2000). Self-regulation and academic learning, self-efficacy enhancing interventions. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 631-649). New York: Academic Press. *Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64-70. *Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 166–183.