The Application of Cooperative Learning in Chinese Education: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Cooperative learning has been applied in Chinese education for decades, and an overview of its implementation in China is warranted for further improvements. This study seeks to survey the current application of cooperative learning at various education levels in China based on an analysis of 50 prior studies. The survey finds that comparable cooperative learning procedures and methods have been adopted by educators in different education phases and those teachers and students have encountered many challenges in enacting cooperative learning. We also put forward several suggestions in response to these challenges for improving instructional outcomes of this teaching approach.

Full text

The Application of Cooperative
Learning in Chinese Education:
A Systematic Review
Yucheng Zhou
Monitor Business Machines New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand
Abstract: Cooperative learning has been applied in Chinese
education for decades, and an overview of its implementation in
China is warranted for further improvements. This study seeks to
survey the current application of cooperative learning at various
education levels in China based on an analysis of 50 prior studies.
The survey finds that comparable cooperative learning procedures
and methods have been adopted by educators in different education
phases and those teachers and students have encountered many
challenges in enacting cooperative learning. We also put forward
several suggestions in response to these challenges for improving
instructional outcomes of this teaching approach.
Science Insights Education Frontiers 2024; 25(1):4055-4076
DOI: 10.15354/sief.24.re423
How to Cite: Zhou, Y. C. (2024). The application of cooperative learning in
Chinese education: A systematic review. Science Insights Education Frontiers,
25(1):4055-4076.
Keywords: Cooperative Learning, Practical Application, Systematic Review

Zhou. (New Zealand). The Application of Cooperative Learning in Chinese Education.
SIEF, Vol.25, No.1, 2024 4056
About the Author: Yucheng Zhou., Monitor Business Machines New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand. E-mail:
Daniel.zhou@monitorbm.com
Correspondence to: Yucheng Zhou at Monitor Business Machines New Zealand in New Zealand.
Conflict of Interests: None
Funding: No funding sources declared.
AI Declaration: The author affirms that artificial intelligence did not contribute to the process of preparing the
work.
© 2024 Insights Publisher. All rights reserved.
Creative Commons NonCommercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed by the Insights Publisher.

Zhou. (New Zealand). The Application of Cooperative Learning in Chinese Education.
SIEF, Vol.25, No.1, 2024 4057
Introduction
HE CONCEPT of cooperative learning (CL) was advanced in the
1970s and subsequently evolved into an established instructional
modality. Deemed a potent strategy for fostering students’ key
competencies, including critical thinking, interpersonal communication, and
collaboration abilities (Loh & Ang, 2020), CL has been widely adopted in
the global educational community. It was introduced to China in the 1980s
and used as a major pedagogical paradigm to change the traditional
education style in China. Chinese researchers put a high value on CL,
claiming that the promotive effects of CL on the student’s academic success
and social development as well as the improvement of the learning
environment are of vital significance for the growth of the individual and the
achievement of the national educational goals (Han, 2018). Governmental
interest in cooperative learning in China finds expression in the “Opinions
on Intensifying the Curriculum Reform and Implementing All-Round
Education as the Core Mission,” which advocates advancing instructional
reform by popularizing relatively novel learning methods, such as
cooperative learning, inquiry-based learning, and self-directed learning
(Ministry of Education of China, 2014).
Global research on CL in the last few decades has substantiated its
positive effects on student learning outcomes. In their review of 84 studies,
Trung and Truong (2023) discovered that CL was beneficial for enhancing
the student’s learning motivation, academic performance, and practical skills.
CL is also acclaimed to have positive effects on students’ learning of specific
subjects. For example, Xu & Yang’s (2023) study suggests that it is effective
in increasing the student’s language acquisition in foreign language
instruction and empirically verifies its effectiveness in improving their
language accuracy, enhancing their learning motivation and confidence,
boosting their engagement in learning, and reducing their anxiety in foreign
language learning. In the area of physical education, research has
demonstrated that the improved interpersonal relationships brought by CL
are conducive to the student’s physical, academic, social, and emotional
development (Bores-García et al., 2023; Casey & Goodyear, 2015). Recent
meta-analytic studies of CL have verified that it can generate better learning
outcomes than traditional teaching methods. At the same time, these studies
also point out that factors such as the method and intensity of teacher
intervention, grouping method, cooperation intensity, and group size can
have significant impacts on CL’s outcomes, which are likely to be neglected
by teachers or researchers. Therefore, to optimize the effects of CL, it is
necessary to look more thoroughly into its implementation processes. This
study, based on a review of 50 relevant studies, aims to survey the
application of CL in Chinese education at all levels and critically examine
T

Zhou. (New Zealand). The Application of Cooperative Learning in Chinese Education.
SIEF, Vol.25, No.1, 2024 4058
prior experiences in this regard with the view to providing implications for
more efficacious use of this instructional approach.
Literature Review
Conceptualization of Cooperative Learning
CL is an instructional strategy with which the teacher organizes the students
to work toward a common learning goal or outcome or solve a common
problem or task in groups, making sure that they complete their work
through interdependent behavior but with each individual student being held
accountable for their contributions and efforts (Brody & Davidson, 1998).
The study group in CL is typically made up of a certain number of students
with varying levels of competence, and group members are not only
responsible for their own mastery of learning substances but also for helping
each other to reach the shared learning objectives (Slavin, 1987). In CL, the
student learns how to maximize their own and the team’s achievements by
means of information sharing, knowledge co-construction, and more
(Johnson & Johnson, 1989). According to Sharan (2018), CL is not a rigid
teaching and learning approach with prescribed procedures but does show
certain consistent features: (i) small-group interaction surrounding the
learning task; (ii) mutually supportive cooperation behavior among students;
(iii) positive interdependence in working towards learning objectives; (iv)
individual accountability and responsibility for group work outcomes
(Sharan, 2014).
Education researchers in China claim that the idea of CL is deep-
rooted in Chinese ancient educational philosophy. Statements in archaic
Chinese like “Learning alone without peers leads to ignorance and prejudice”
and “A cultured man gets along with others, though he may not always agree
with them on learning” represent the educational wisdom of ancient Chinese
on CL (Han, 2018). That is why CL, as a foreign pedagogical approach, can
easily garner attention in Chinese academia. Wang (2002), one of the earliest
Chinese researchers in the CL studies, defines CL learning as a teaching
process in which students are grouped on the principle of “intra-group
heterogeneity” to increase the interactions between classroom actors, with
the group achievements being treated as the assessment criterion to motivate
team efforts to reach the common instructional objectives. Compared to their
foreign peers, Chinese researchers place a heavier weight on the teacher’s
role in CL by emphasizing the importance of their “inspiration and guidance”
(Han, 2018), albeit also stressing the central position of students in CL (Li &
Ham, 2013; Wang et al., 2020).

Zhou. (New Zealand). The Application of Cooperative Learning in Chinese Education.
SIEF, Vol.25, No.1, 2024 4059
CP’s Core Elements
The study group is the most fundamental organizational structure for
implementing CL. Nevertheless, the presence of a study group does not
necessarily mean the occurrence of CL. Students in a group working on their
respective learning tasks without substantive inter-peer communication is not
seen as CL. Integral to CL are certain essential elements (Ma, 2003), despite
the fact that there is currently no conclusive definition of CL’s core
components. The five-element CL pattern, advanced by American
researchers Johnson and Johnson (1989, 2009), has been the most referenced,
which includes: (1) Positive Interdependence—meaning that group members
rely on each other for the goal achievement, with each of them making a
unique contribution to the collective endeavor. (2) Individual
Accountability—stressing the necessity of a clear division of responsibility,
with which each group member is held accountable for a specific section of
the assigned task. (3) Promotive Interaction—highlighting the importance of
inter-peer interaction for completing the learning task, including providing
feedback to group members, posing questions to each other’s reasoning and
conclusions, and assisting each other in achieving the group’s outcomes in
an efficient manner. (4) Appropriate Use of Social Skills—emphasizing that
the teacher has the responsibility to urge students to use legitimate social
skills to solve problems to practice and develop interpersonal
communication abilities, including trust-building, leadership, decision-
making, and conflict management. (5) Group Processing—entailing the
collective efforts to build the team, including setting shared learning
objectives, evaluating the team performance regularly, and setting forth
improvements to be made in order to enhance the efficiency and
effectiveness of the group operation.
CL Implementation Methods
As per Slavin (1980), CP’s in-class implementation entails three structures:
the task, reward, and authority structures. The task structure is about the
configuration of various learning tasks and the organization of study groups
(e.g., the grouping method and the availability of teacher supervision). The
reward structure exerts impacts on student performance and group cohesion.
The authoritative structure concerns the students’ power over their learning
activities instead of the teacher’s control of the learning process. The three
structures, particularly the reward structure, are dynamic changes in the
process of in-class CL implementation (Slavin, 1980) and hence deserve
careful consideration by the teacher when they make the preparations for
CL-based instruction.

Zhou. (New Zealand). The Application of Cooperative Learning in Chinese Education.
SIEF, Vol.25, No.1, 2024 4060
Over the years, the researchers have developed many distinctive
methods for executing CL, among which the most widely adopted are
Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD), Team Games Tournament
(TGT), Jigsaw, Learning Together (LT), and Small-group Teaching. STAD
is featured by the following procedures: First, the students are grouped on
the principle of intra-group heterogeneity, with each group consisting of
members with differential academic levels. Second, an assessment is
administered to the students after they complete a learning task in groups.
The scores of individual members are combined to calculate the average
scores of the group according to prescribed rules that ensure the equal weight
of the contribution of each student. Third, the score ranking is not conducted
within the whole class, but instead, the class is divided into several layers,
and the student is only compared with their peers in the same layer (Wittrock,
1978; Slavin, 1980). The basic procedures of TGT are comparable to those
of STAD, except that in TGT, the competition replaces the assessment and
takes place every week among students in the same academic layer from
different groups (Stevens et al., 1991; Wang, 2002). “Jigsaw” adopts the
same grouping method as the above two models. On top of that, it divides
the teaching materials for a certain subject into several sections and has the
students in a group address different sections separately. The students
studying the same section make up a specialty study group, who work
together to delve deeper into the content and subsequently teach their
knowledge of the delegated section to peers in their respective groups
(Slavin, 1994). Comparatively, LT has simpler procedures. The students
with varying academic levels work together in a group, and the teacher gives
feedback on the overall performance of the group. This model pays more
attention to the group organization before the enactment of CL and the
regular evaluation of the performance of group members (Wang, 2002).
Small-group Teaching is a more general method with a special emphasis on
the size of the study group, which should be ideally composed of two to six
people. With this method, the group needs to establish a research project
based on the learning materials available to the whole class and split it up
into several separate tasks, assigning them to individual members, who later
put together their work results and formulate the group report. Each group
needs to make a representation of their research findings to the class, and the
teacher and other groups give comments on their report (Slavin, 1980).
A Comparison of Cooperative Learning and
Collaborative Learning
The two concepts, cooperative learning and collaborative learning, emerged
almost at the same time. Initially, they were deemed two distinct approaches,
with collaborative learning focusing more on the techniques involved in

Zhou. (New Zealand). The Application of Cooperative Learning in Chinese Education.
SIEF, Vol.25, No.1, 2024 4061
inter-student interaction and cooperative learning more on the process of the
inter-student interaction under the direction and supervision of the teacher
(Panitz, 1999; McInnerney & Roberts, 2004). Yet, amid the advances in
theoretical and practical research on them and increasing integration of
technology, the distinction between the two has become blurred (Yang,
2023). Currently, the researchers tend to agree that there are no fundamental
differences between them and that they are both student-centered
instructional methods with the potential to help teachers and students shape
new learning environments (Jacobs, 2015). This study acknowledges the
subtle differences between cooperative learning and collaborative learning
but contends that there are no significantly mutually contradictory elements
between the two concepts and that they basically coexist in practical
teaching. Hence, in this survey, the two terms are virtually interchangeable,
both pointing to a learning approach that requires students to learn and
practice disciplinary knowledge, fulfill learning tasks, and reach educational
objectives primarily via intra-group interactions (Li & Ham, 2013).
Research Questions
Based on a survey of existing research on CL in the Chinese context, this
study addresses the following questions:
Q 1: What are the conceptions of CL among Chinese educators and
education researchers?
Q 2: How has CL been implemented in Chinese classrooms?
Q 3: What are the challenges of CL application in Chinese education?
Research Methodology and Process
We sourced literature from China National Knowledge Infrastructure
(CNKI), Web of Science, EBSCO, and Scopus, using “cooperative learning,”
“group cooperative learning,” “collaborative learning,” and “China” as
search terms. To obtain high-quality papers in Chinese from the CNKI, only
journals listed in “A Guide to the Core Journals of China” and the “Chinese
Social Science Citation Index” were selected as literature sources. As of
August 2024, a total of 1876 journal articles were retrieved, with 797 in
Chinese and 1079 in English.
Rayyan, a systematic literature review tool, was adopted to remove
duplicate and irrelevant studies. We further screen the records using the
following criteria: (1) including studies with a research topic on the practical
application of CL but excluding theoretical studies and literature review-
based studies; (2) including studies in the context of Chinese education; (3)
including studies with a detailed description of the implementation

Zhou. (New Zealand). The Application of Cooperative Learning in Chinese Education.
SIEF, Vol.25, No.1, 2024 4062
procedures of CL (CL implementation schemes, grouping methods, types of
learning tasks, etc.) but excluding those skipping this step or only reporting
research findings; (4) including studies accessible in full text to avoid
misunderstandings due to incomplete information. Based on these criteria,
50 papers were obtained, with 34 in Chinese and 16 in English. Their
publication years range from 2007 to 2023.
Research Results
Our review shows that existing literature on CL application in China has
covered all of its education levels, from basic to tertiary education. Among
the 50 studies, five address CL applications in primary schooling, 12 concern
secondary education, and 33 concentrate on its application in tertiary
education. Regarding their disciplinary scope, CL studies targeting the
primary level mostly address the effectiveness of CL in multiple subjects
(N=4), whereas research on CL applications in secondary and tertiary
education typically focuses on a single discipline. As to the specific subjects
involved, research at the primary level shows parallel interest in the
mathematics-dominated natural science education (N=5) and Chinese
language-centered humanities education (N=4). Studies at the secondary
level focus more on natural science subjects (N=10), with less attention paid
to humanities (N=1) and social sciences (N=1). Comparatively, research at
the tertiary education level covers a wide range of subjects, such as physics,
chemistry, medicine, computer science, and more from the domain of natural
sciences (N=12); language education in the domain of humanities (N=12);
and education-related disciplines in the domain of social sciences (N=6),
with additional four studies specializing in CL in physical education (PE). In
analyzing CL’s effects on student development, all these studies, no matter
which education level they target, have highlighted its positive roles in
promoting student cognitive and non-cognitive abilities. In addition,
classroom teaching remains the primary setting for CL (N=41). CL
application in the online and mobile learning scenarios is also researched
(N=9), particularly at the tertiary education level (N=7). The active
implementation of online CL in higher education institutions is perhaps due
to their richer education resources and more flexible teaching environments.
The above breakdown of literature indicates a widespread adoption
of CL in all levels of Chinese education. The ensuing section is devoted to a
more in-depth analysis of the following three dimensions: the perceptions of
CL in Chinese researchers and educators, CL implementation patterns in
various education phases, and challenges of CL application in China.
Perceptions of CL in Chinese Researchers

Zhou. (New Zealand). The Application of Cooperative Learning in Chinese Education.
SIEF, Vol.25, No.1, 2024 4063
The researchers’ perceptions of CL derive from their understanding of the
purpose of CL. A sizable portion of them claimed that their adoption of CL
was a reaction to new requirements from the national curriculum program or
education policies (e.g., Lin, 2007; Tan, 2015; Yan, 2023). Some treated CL
as an educational idea rather than simply a learning model, emphasizing the
importance of students’ agency in the learning process and the necessity of
their use of their initiatives in completing learning tasks (Chen & Qin, 2013).
On top of its role in enhancing student academic performance, CL is also
acclaimed as a humanistic and pro-social modality of education (Pan & Wu,
2013), with the potential to lower the student’s anxiety level in learning and
classroom interaction, to boost their self-esteem, and improve their quality of
interpersonal relationships (Jiang & Tan, 2007; Jiang, 2007). Certain
researchers adopted a comparatively simple understanding of CL, viewing it
as a mutually supportive learning modality that facilitates students working
together to complete specific training activities according to established
procedures and rules, and therefore, introduced it into physical education or
vocational skills training (e.g., Zhang, 2009; Gao & Zhu, 2014).
In the Chinese historical context of collective culture, it is easy for
the researchers to be identified with CL’s core elements, claiming they were
in conformity with Confucian ideas (Chan, 2014), and gave their own
interpretations. For example, according to Peng et al. (2020), “positive
interdependence” is most effectively realized through division of
responsibility and sharing of resources; “promotive interaction” is not just
about inter-student interaction but also involves teacher-student
communication; when encouraging “appropriate use of social skills,” the
teacher should place a special emphasis on teamwork ability development in
students. Moreover, the division of roles in CL is underlined in the literature.
Zhang (2014) argued that the division of roles among group members was
aimed at defining the accountability of everyone in the process of CL and
that there was a need to give the learners necessary prompts on how to
perform their respective roles for a successful completion of the common
learning task. In addition, the classroom environment is also deemed an
essential factor affecting the outcomes of CL. A digital learning environment
facilitating interaction and timely feedback can help students solve problems
more effectively in the group study (Xu et al., 2017).
To sum up, our review finds that under the influence of the national
education policy and traditional culture, Chinese researchers and educators
exhibit open and receptive attitudes towards CL. They have developed their
own conceptions of CL’s essential elements and realized that CL can bridge
the gaps in the traditional educational modalities.
CL Implementation Patterns

Zhou. (New Zealand). The Application of Cooperative Learning in Chinese Education.
SIEF, Vol.25, No.1, 2024 4064
The literature in review shows that there are primarily three CL
implementation patterns in Chinese schools. (1) Using one single CL-
execution method. For example, Liu and Zhao (2012) focused on STAD, and
Luo (2020) on TGT in their studies. Among the aforementioned CL
execution methods, LT was the most used, adopted by 16 studies, as opposed
to the Jigsaw method, which was the least applied (Song Yi, 2012), possibly
due to its entailing the organization of additional “specialty study groups,”
an extra burden for the teacher. In effect, the Jigsaw method is not quite
applicable in a class with many study groups. (2) Mixing several CL-
execution methods together. For instance, Jing (2007) and Li (2017) grouped
the students according to STAD’s grouping procedure before the students
were required to carry out CL activities following the small-group teaching
method. Each CL-execution method has its own limitations, whereas the
mixed-methods-based pattern can make up for the inadequacies of any single
method, which is evidenced by Ning’s (2010) and Hornby’s (2013) practices.
They incorporated the Numbered-Heads-Together (NHT) method into
STAD, numbering the groups and students first and assigning the learning
tasks or representation opportunities to them by randomly drawing the
numbers to avoid uneven task distribution. (3) Combining CL with other
learning models, such as project-based learning (Chang & Song, 2023),
mobile learning (Huang et al., 2020), and the flipped classroom (Jiang et al.,
2016; Huang et al., 2021). Some researchers integrated these learning
models into CL to improve the latter’s learning outcomes. In the past, a
portion of teachers assigned CL tasks to students before class and had them
present their group study results in class, resulting in the latter’s focus on the
representation rather than the group learning process. To address this issue,
Cao and Bai (2018) experimented with CL in a flipped classroom setting,
making students engage in CL activity in the classroom and complete
learning tasks under the supervision of the teacher to increase in-class
interactions and the teacher’s oversight of the students’ group work process.
At the same time, other researchers have tried to utilize CL to compensate
for the shortcomings of other learning models. For example, Cao (2014)
discovered in her interpretation classes that self-directed learning did not
work well without effective supervision and therefore, introduced group-
based CL to optimize the engagement of every student.
In addition, some researchers have examined the differences in CL’s
effects between various subjects. In their survey on students’ perceptions of
three CL-based courses, Guo and Zhang (2008) found that students tended to
increase CL behavior in courses involving open-ended learning content. This
finding is corroborated by research by Zhang et al. (2011), who compared
task-specific CL and open-ended question-based CL to draw the conclusion
that the latter elicited better performance and lower cognitive load in the
students. In most studies included in our review, CP was enacted within one

Zhou. (New Zealand). The Application of Cooperative Learning in Chinese Education.
SIEF, Vol.25, No.1, 2024 4065
class, with several exceptions where the researchers examined the effects of
CL in interdisciplinary study. For example, Cheng et al. (2022) organized
preschool education and digital media majors into groups to develop digital
teaching resources for young children.
To delve into CL’s implementation in China in more detail, this study
further examines the composition of the study group, the types of learning
tasks and cooperation behaviors, the assessment methods, and the roles of
the teacher in CL discussed in the literature.
The Grouping Methods and Division of Roles
Most studies in the included literature organized CL study groups on the
principle of homogeneity between groups and heterogeneity within the group
to ensure that each group includes students with different characteristics and
that the overall competence levels of groups are comparable. Only very few
studies adopted the random grouping method or left the grouping to the
students’ discretion (e.g., Xu, 2016). Furthermore, most researchers
employed the “static grouping” mode, where the composition of the group
remains stable for a certain period, with only several of them choosing to
regroup the class in the middle of the semester (e.g., Jiang & Tan, 2007;
Jiang, 2007). Realizing that “static grouping” might cause issues like low
motivation or the “bystander” effect, fixed role assignment, intra-group
fatigue, etc., Zhong and Huang (2022) advanced the “dynamic grouping”
mode, in which the teacher divides the learning task into several sub-tasks,
administers assessment and interviews to students after the completion of
each sub-task, adjusts the composition of the group in consideration of
factors like group cohesion, group cooperation smoothness, and student
academic achievements as indicated by the results of assessment and
interviews, and, after that, advances the students to the next sub-task in
reorganized groups. Yet, they also noted that “dynamic grouping” might
compromise the student’s attachment to group efforts (Zhong & Huang,
2022). The majority of researchers grouped the students in light of their
academic results and competence levels to ensure that each group contained
both high- and low-performers. Nevertheless, this grouping method is not
without its challenges, which will be discussed later in a separate section.
Moreover, gender, personality traits, interests, and the learning style of the
student are also the chief factors that researchers considered in grouping the
students (e.g., Zhang & Zhao, 2009; He & Jing, 2019). The plurality-valued
grouping method is aimed at enabling mutual complementation in group
members. In most studies, a group of four to six is the common size of group
(e.g., Cai & Zhang, 2008; Meng, 2017). Zhang (2013) noted that a group of
over eight would have difficulty splitting responsibilities properly among its

Zhou. (New Zealand). The Application of Cooperative Learning in Chinese Education.
SIEF, Vol.25, No.1, 2024 4066
members, leading to some students being marginalized with low levels of
participation.
A portion of studies have explicitly specified the division of roles
within the group. Common among these roles are the group leader,
responsible for organizing, managing, and coordinating the group activities;
the recorder, for documenting learning materials, the group inquiry process,
and group study results; the spokesperson, for representing group learning
outcomes to the class; and the information collector, for searching and
organizing learning resources (e.g., Chen & Qin, 2013; Liu et al., 2022).
Certain studies prescribed the roles of group members to suit the needs of the
learning task. For example, in teaching a rehabilitation course, You (2016)
required each student in the group to take on a specific role essential for a
rehabilitation therapy group, such as the rehabilitation assessor, exercise
therapist, occupational therapist, physical therapist, and speech therapist. In
most cases, there was a rotation of roles among the group members, who
took turns trying different responsibilities (Tan, 2015; Meng, 2017).
However, in some studies, there was no purposeful specification of the
division of responsibility among group members (Chan, 2014; Xiao &
Chongda, 2014), or the teacher simply designated the best-performing
student as the group leader, who had the responsibility to organize learning
activities and assign specific duties to group members (Yin & Shen, 2016).
The Type of Learning Tasks and Cooperation Behavior
in CL
Learning tasks for CL vary by education level. In CL at the primary
education level, students typically work together in groups to solve problems
using worksheets or assignment cards (Jiang & Tan, 2007; Jiang, 2007;
Huang et al., 2020). On top of problem-solving, secondary school students
have more challenging CL tasks to complete, such as theme-based group
representation and creation tasks that require substantial hands-on
manipulation skills from the group members. To make a thematic group
representation, the students need to gather materials, discuss with each other,
and prepare a representation based on the selected theme (Zhao, 2023); to
complete a creation task, they must give full play to their creativity,
designing and producing an artifact in collaboration (Tan, 2015). In addition,
the students can review for exams more effectively via group work (Chen &
Qin, 2013). University students have more complex CL tasks to address,
such as project development, project-based research, and specialty-related
practical study, which challenge their comprehensive competencies (Jiang,
2014; Zhang, 2014; Chang & Song, 2023).
Analyses of student cooperation behaviors are beneficial for
revealing how CL is enacted. Regretfully, the literature in review has paid

Zhou. (New Zealand). The Application of Cooperative Learning in Chinese Education.
SIEF, Vol.25, No.1, 2024 4067
inadequate attention to student cooperation behavior. Only a small number
of studies gave concrete descriptions of students’ interaction behaviors,
including information sharing, idea exchange, and brainstorming, and their
communication devices, such as summary, inference, commenting, analysis,
and reasoning (Ning & Hornby, 2010, 2013; Cao & Bai, 2018; Cheng et al.,
2022). Most studies used more general terms like group discussion and
group work to describe intra-group cooperation behaviors without providing
details, such as interaction patterns and tactics, as well as their impact on CL
outcomes, resulting in our limited knowledge about CL enactment
procedures. Hence, CL may appear a “black box” in most situations, into
which we input learning tasks, grouping methods, and teacher interventions,
and from which we get group representations and student performance as
outputs (Cao & Bai, 2018). Yet, little is known about the key information
inside the box, such as cognitive interaction and cognitive flow that occur
during the CL process.
Evaluation Methods for CL
According to our analysis results, the teacher is the chief evaluator of student
CL outcomes at the primary education level. This may be because self-
reflection and inter-peer evaluation skills are not fully developed in primary
school students, who are not sufficiently mature to make independent and
objective judgments on their own learning outcomes or group performance.
In secondary schools and universities, both the teacher and students act as
the evaluators for the results of CL, jointly assessing the performance of the
individual and the group. The most pervasive CL evaluation method in these
education phases is the “intra-group evaluation + inter-group evaluation +
teacher assessment + tests” pattern (e.g., Zhang & Zhao, 2009; Huang et al.,
2021), which is also well-accepted by students as a multi-actor evaluation
method (Guo & Zhang, 2008). The teacher is often held responsible for
finalizing the evaluation criteria (Gao & Zhu, 2014), which cover not only
student academic performance but also their collaboration and
communication skills such as oral representation (Yin & Shen, 2016).
Furthermore, researchers like Li (2017) highlighted the individual’s
contribution to the group work as a core component of the CL evaluation
system. It is also noteworthy that studies focusing on CL at the secondary
education level place an exceptional emphasis on the proper wording of the
teacher’s evaluation, as adolescent students tend to be more sensitive to
external stimuli, particularly more concerned about others’ comments.
Therefore, the teacher’s appraisal must be objective as well as inspiring for
this group (Zhao, 2023). In addition, some researchers highly emphasized
the importance of regular collective reflections on CL activities (e.g., Tan,
2015; He & Jing, 2019), claiming that they could help boost the engagement

Zhou. (New Zealand). The Application of Cooperative Learning in Chinese Education.
SIEF, Vol.25, No.1, 2024 4068
of the students and the teacher, stimulate thorough discussion on the issues
encountered in the CL process, and continuously optimize the CL
implementation strategies.
The Teacher’s Roles in CL
No matter which education phase they teach, the educator plays their roles in
student group CL as the designer, director, assistant, and promoter, providing
students with a learning environment that facilitates their CL enactment (Wu
& He, 2014). In the initial stage, the teacher needs to fulfill three duties:
student grouping, CP orientation, and lesson preparation (Jiang & Tan, 2007).
First off, to strengthen positive interdependence between group members,
most researchers designed certain supporting activities for the students, such
as naming the group and establishing shared goals for the group (e.g., Zhang
& Zhao, 2009). Second, a portion of researchers provided CP orientation for
students. The majority of them only inform students of the learning
objectives and evaluation criteria in advance (e.g., Jian, 2019; Li et al., 2019);
a small number of them chose to give students sufficient time for knowing
each other and practicing cooperation skills (Pan & Wu, 2013; He & Jing,
2019). Third, the lesson preparation work of the teacher typically focused on
selecting appropriate learning materials and reorganizing them to suit the CL
learning environment (e.g., Zhang & Zhao, 2009; Song, 2012; Gao & Zhu,
2014). In the process of CL enactment, the teacher often acted as the
supervisor without significant interference in actual group activities (e.g.,
Chan, 2014; Liu, 2022). Some researchers conducted class-based
introductory instruction before students’ group study, providing them with
relevant basic knowledge and background information to ensure their group
CL was informed by practices (e.g., Jing, 2007; You, 2016). In addition,
after students’ completion of each CL task, the teacher needs to give a
summary, answer queries from the students, and offer directions to
individuals who want extra instruction. This step has been emphasized in
most studies included in our review (e.g., Pan & Wu, 2013; Liu et al., 2022).
Challenges of CL
Research on CL implementation has also revealed a variety of issues. The
misconceptions of CL among Chinese educators are pronounced ones. Some
teachers simply equated CL to group discussion (Tan, 2015) or assumed that
CL would naturally take place after learning tasks were assigned to the group
(Wang, 2007). Some treated CL as a rigid procedure (Yan, 2023), an
established combination of processes including grouping, learning task
assignment, task completion, group discussion, and group representation

Zhou. (New Zealand). The Application of Cooperative Learning in Chinese Education.
SIEF, Vol.25, No.1, 2024 4069
(Guo & Zhang, 2008). Others failed to make necessary preparations for CL
enactment: for example, their neglect of the division of roles in group
members might lead to disorderly CL execution and low learning efficacy
(Wang, 2007); the absence of well-designed learning objectives was an
impediment to eliciting the dedication of all group members (Hsiung,
2011)—an overly unitary learning objective could be easily achieved by the
high-performing members without involving teamwork; the lack of provision
of CL skill training by the teacher was unfavorable for ensuring student CL
outcomes (Chan, 2014). Furthermore, a portion of educators misunderstood
teacher supervision of the CL process as the teacher’s absolute control of
student group work, disregarding the significance of team building and the
cultivation of self-regulation ability in students (Wang, 2007).
Additionally, the educator may encounter certain practical challenges
in implementing CL. Han (2015) noted that it was difficult for the teacher to
seek out learning resources and methods that cater to the needs of students at
distinct academic levels. The choice of the assessment method is also not
easy. The two alternatives, evaluating student academic achievement based
on group performance or evaluating group performance with test scores of
individual students, can both have a negative impact on student motivation
levels in CL (Song, 2012). Also, in the Chinese context of prevalent large-
sized classes, the relatively big number of study groups in a CL classroom
complicates class management. With finite classroom or laboratory space,
mutual disruptions between groups are unavoidable (You, 2016).
In the meantime, the students also experience additional
complications in a CL classroom. There are significant disparities in the CL
engagement level between high- and low-achieving students. Low-achieving
students have low intention of engaging in CL because of the following
reasons: their ideas are often disregarded by peers during the group work
(Zhang & Zhao, 2009); they are primarily to blame when the group fails to
reach the learning objective (Jiang & Tan, 2007); and they have few chances
to exhibit their ability as the high-achieving students are the chief actors in
dealing with the learning task (Wang, 2007). On the other hand, high-
achieving students have their own complaints. They may feel “exploited”
because their low-achieving peers are seemingly taking a “free ride” (Jiang,
2007). When facing the pressures of high-stakes examinations, this group is
more willing to work independently (Meng, 2017). Furthermore, there are
individual differences in group discussion behavior (Chen & Qin, 2013),
showing two extremes. Some students are not interested in speaking openly
to a group of people (Tan, 2015); some, on the other hand, show a strong
propensity for being the center of attention, who may purposefully interrupt
others’ speeches or initiate casual conversations to attract peer attention
(Jiang et al., 2016). Worse still, the students typically feel helpless in dealing
with disputes due to a lack of coping tactics (Chan, 2014). They are likely to

Zhou. (New Zealand). The Application of Cooperative Learning in Chinese Education.
SIEF, Vol.25, No.1, 2024 4070
be intolerant of inter-peer disagreements or to get emotional over the
disputes (Yan, 2023), which poses serious barriers to the smooth enactment
of CL.
Discussion
Basically, CL implementation at various education levels in China follows
broadly similar procedures: grouping, learning task assignment and
provision of learning resources, group CL enactment, CL outcome
representation, and multi-dimensional evaluation, summary, and reflections,
despite the minor adaptations due to the variations in the cognitive
characteristics between different age groups and the disparities in the
education resources and environment between different levels of education.
Aside from the conventional CL methods, Chinese researchers have also
experimented with other approaches, including integrating CL into the
flipped classroom model to combine self-directed learning with group study
(Li et al., 2019) and leveraging educational technology (such as the smart
classroom) to enhance teacher management efficiency and student CL
outcomes (e.g., Xu et al., 2017). Nevertheless, there is currently a lack of in-
depth research into student cooperation behaviors in CL and their effects on
student learning results. The challenges encountered by educators in their
practical application of CL underscore the necessity of strengthening
research in this area.
Issues with students’ CL enactment are largely due to the teacher’s
less-ideal organization of CL activities. The unclear division of roles leads to
unbalanced contributions to group work results among group members.
Explicit division of roles within a group is crucial for maintaining students’
CL engagement intention as it ensures each group member can perceive their
value to the team (Liu, 2013). Although the students are allowed autonomy
in dividing the specific responsibilities, the teacher must be substantively
involved in the division of roles in a group. At the same time, the absence of
division of roles also reflects the illegitimate design of CL learning
objectives and tasks. When the learning task has an overly simple structure,
focusing on a single skill, it can be easily finished off by more competent
students in the group, making the division of responsibility unnecessary. To
make students engage in genuine group cooperation, the teacher must
develop well-structured CL tasks that are challenging and demand team
efforts as well. In addition, the students’ low consciousness of cooperation
and poor collaboration skills also contribute to their difficulty conducting CL,
which are, to some extent, associated with the inadequacies in intervention
and guidance on the part of the teacher. To help students develop sound
awareness of cooperation, the teacher needs to formulate legitimate
incentives for cooperative behaviors while also teaching them how to

Zhou. (New Zealand). The Application of Cooperative Learning in Chinese Education.
SIEF, Vol.25, No.1, 2024 4071
balance cooperation and competition. Also, it is important for the teacher to
provide essential CL skills training to students beforehand to ensure the
students are well prepared for CL implementation.
Challenges of CL faced by the teachers are also attributable to the
following two reasons. First off, a sizable portion of teachers do not have a
complete understanding of the concept of CL and may fail to
comprehensively consider the five key elements of CL: positive
interdependence, individual accountability, promotive interaction,
appropriate use of social skills, and group processing. The absence of any of
these components may directly negatively affect the effectiveness of CL
(Dyson et al., 2022). Meanwhile, the manipulation of in-class CL is
complicated and demanding, necessitating a thorough comprehension of the
diverse ability levels of the students and the characteristics of current
teaching materials on the part of the teacher. It entails considerable
additional burdens of lesson preparation and classroom management. To
address these issues, it is imperative to supply the teachers with
comprehensive guidelines on CL implementation and promote the use of
educational technology in CL-based teaching.
Our analysis results suggest that more successful CL implementation
in Chinese education warrants a systematic framework for CL practice,
which should cover an overarching concept of CL, an interpretation of its
core elements, concrete execution steps, and coping tactics for common
issues. The teacher needs such a framework to develop knowledge about CL
and establish CL instruction paths in an efficient manner.
Conclusion
Based on a review of relevant research over the last more than 10 years, this
study gives an overview of CP’s application in Chinese education, with a
focus on exploring the challenges of CL implementation in China and their
causes. Pertinent suggestions for improving student CL enactment are also
proposed. The survey finds that the Chinese education world shows strong
interest in CP as an instructional strategy, whereas a lack of systematic CL
implementation guidelines for Chinese teachers negatively affects its
effectiveness.
The limitations of this study should be acknowledged. The limited
literature search scope may lead to an insufficient inclusion of prior studies.
It is suggested that future research, on the basis of this survey, delve more
thoroughly into factors that potentially influence CL’s outcomes, such as the
use of educational technology in CL in the context of digital transformation
in education. Also, comparisons with overseas CP research should be
increased to provide a more comprehensive reference framework for Chinese
CL studies and practice.

Zhou. (New Zealand). The Application of Cooperative Learning in Chinese Education.
SIEF, Vol.25, No.1, 2024 4072
References
(The studies included in the systematic review
are marked with asterisks)
Bores-García, D., Hortigüela-Alcalá, D.,
Fernandez-Rio, F. J., González-Calvo, G.,
& Barba-Martín, R. (2021). Research on
cooperative learning in physical education:
Systematic review of the last five years.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 92(1):146-155. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2020.17
19276
Brody, C., & Davidson, N. (1998). Introduction:
Professional development and cooperative
learning. In. Professional Development
for Cooperative Learning: Issues and
Approaches. State University of New
York Press.
*Cai, Q. & Zhang, H. (2008). Cooperative
Learning in the Teaching of English as a
major: Introduction to the cultural
background of Advanced English.
Journal of Hebei Normal University
(Education Science Edition), 2008(2):67-
71. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.13763/j.cnki.jhebnu.ese.
2008.02.005
*Cao, M. & Bai, L. (2018). A cooperative
learning Model for mathematical problem
solving. E-education Research,
39(11):85-91. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2018.1
1.011
*Cao, Y. (2014). Group cooperative learning in
the interpretation class: An empirical
study of novice learners of English
interpretation. Journal of Xi’an Foreign
Studies University, 22(1):122-125. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.16362/j.cnki.cn61-
1457/h.2014.01.029
Casey, A., & Goodyear, V. A. (2015). Can
cooperative learning achieve the four
learning outcomes of physical education?
A review of literature. Quest, 67(1):56-72.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2014.98
4733
*Chan, K. W. (2014). Cooperative learning in a
Hong Kong primary school: Perceptions,
problems and accommodation.
Intercultural Education, 25(3):216-228.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2014.91
1805
*Chang, J. & Song, L. (2023). Group
cooperative learning in country and area
studies. Foreign Language Research,
2023(3):81-87. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.16263/j.cnki.23-
1071/h.2023.03.012
*Chen, H. & Qin, W. (2013). Cooperative
learning in preparation for Gaokao in high
schools. Journal of the Chinese Society of
Education, 2013(S1):94-96. Available at:
https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract
?v=8XtZWovJaISV3-
yppNQgJmpl9MkAnFBD5zhTpVr5EC7P
q5yEOO0s24Nv19pj9IGwdAifvG25-
7hhxDeBgho4Uc4w66lvMbbN14waPex
mTGZCBNVJ4BCSaGRiC-
i88QtHrXyLxIKdyBpgXbKNEtLSmAre
QjtlwWJEUoPMSOS4T9yrQXOWgj2xS
w==&uniplatform=NZKPT&language=C
HS
*Cheng, C. Y., Kao, C. P., Hsu, T. W., & Lin, K.
Y. (2023). A study of the feasibility of a
cross-college curriculum based on the
experience of student cooperation.
International Journal of Technology and
Design Education, 33(1):23-37. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-
09752-3
Dyson, B., Shen, Y., Xiong, W., & Dang, L.
(2022). How cooperative learning is
conceptualized and implemented in
Chinese physical education: A systematic
review of literature. ECNU Review of
Education, 5(1):185-206. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/209653112110067
21
*Han, M. (2015). An Empirical Study on the
Application of Cooperative Learning to
English Listening Classes. English
Language Teaching, 8(3):177-184. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n3p177
Han, X. (2018). Progress and trends in research
on cooperative learning in China amid the
last 40 years of reform and opening Up: A
bibliometric analysis using CiteSpace.
Contemporary Education Sciences,
2018(04):76-83. Available at:
https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract
?v=-4s28oSk47_HJn6snOgVpa0-
I6fn7oCmKmXyRl9l-
jD3ruiGaj7W6y_wwrKYBoyDbVEjsF7at
ZRgRKFfMQ7hb7o0xBKbVa_pgsK3IVI
RbfC4v8jRtSMjlIqH71tSdNsfYWIcIQU
H2zuu4PJ-V1L-
PXDrt7tHPTOMiKcDDJgv5O0wcjMWV
LgwsQ==&uniplatform=NZKPT&langua
ge=CHS
*He, Y. & Jing, L. (2019). Cooperative learning-
based teaching practice in middle school

Zhou. (New Zealand). The Application of Cooperative Learning in Chinese Education.
SIEF, Vol.25, No.1, 2024 4073
classrooms in remote rural areas. Biology
Teaching, 2019(10):32-34.
*Hsiung, C. M. (2011). Empirical investigation
into the ability-condition interaction effect
of cooperative learning. International
Journal of Engineering Education,
27(2):303-309.
*Huang, F., Cheng, L., Ke, Y., & Shang, L.
(2021). Group cooperative learning in
flipped classroom teaching for university
nursing students. Journal of Nursing
Science, 2021(7):1-3.
*Huang, P. S., Chiu, P. S., Huang, Y. M., Zhong,
H. X., & Lai, C. F. (2020). Cooperative
mobile learning for the investigation of
natural science courses in elementary
schools. Sustainability, 12(16):6606. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12166606
*Gao, X. & Zhu, J. (2014). A cooperative
learning-based model for training
professional competences of pre-service
mathematics teachers. Bulletin of Science
and Technology, 2014(7):240-243. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.13774/j.cnki.kjtb.2014.0
7.057
*Guo, J. & Zhang, C. (2008). The application of
collaborative learning in post-graduate
education. E-education Research,
2008(05):77-81.
Jacobs, G. M. (2015). Collaborative Learning or
Cooperative Learning? The Name Is Not
Important; Flexibility Is. Beyond Words,
3(1):32-52. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33508/bw.v3i1.676
*Jian, Q. (2019). Effects of digital flipped
classroom teaching method integrated
cooperative learning model on learning
motivation and outcome. The Electronic
Library, 37(5):842-859. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-02-2019-0024
*Jiang, B. (2014). Web-based cooperative
learning in college chemistry teaching.
International Journal of Emerging
Technologies in Learning (Online),
9(2):45. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v9i2.3224
*Jiang, B. (2007). Does cooperative learning
affect student academic excellence? An
experimental study of a fifth-grade class.
Shanghai Research on Education,
2007(1):64-66. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.16194/j.cnki.31-
1059/g4.2007.01.024
*Jiang, B. & Tan, D. (2007). An experimental
study of the effect of cooperative learning
in improving the performance of low
achievers in primary schools. Chinese
Journal of Special Education, 2007(2):82-
85.
*Jiang, Y., He, X., & Wan, K. (2016). The
effectiveness of cooperative learning in
the flipped classroom and implementation
strategies. Modern Educational
Technology, 2016(3):80-86.
*Jing, Li (2007). The application of cooperative
learning to the comprehensive English
Class. China Adult Education,
2007(9):183-184.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989).
Cooperation and competition: Theory and
research. Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An
educational psychology success story:
Social interdependence theory and
cooperative learning. Educational
Researcher, 38(5):365-379. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X093390
57
Li, B. & Gong, L. (2019). The effect of
cooperative learning on student Learning
outcomes: A meta-analysis based on 54
experimental and quasi-experimental
studies. Research in Educational
Development, 2019(24):39-47. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14121/j.cnki.1008-
3855.2019.24.008
*Li, H. (2017). Networking for English
Literature Class: Cooperative Learning in
Chinese Context. English Language
Teaching, 10(12):219-229. DOI:
http://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n12p219
Li, M. P., & Lam, B. H. (2013). Cooperative
learning. The Hong Kong Institute of
Education, 1:33.
*Li, Y., Xiao, J., Xu, L., Luo, Y., & Tao, L.
(2019). The effectiveness of group
cooperative learning in the flipped
classroom teaching of basic nursing.
Chinese Nursing Research,
2019(22):3959-3963.
*Lin, W. (2007). An experimental study of
cooperative learning in basketball
teaching. Journal of Guangzhou Sport
University, 2007(4):126-128+118.
Available at:
https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract
?v=8XtZWovJaIRlzxbFpFH1rDHYsgejQ
LgHKAeZJgdHwN3kVCBhYmz2fcLbK
HlFq1GUIJN-
WUC9AdZi5qQxEDBSSUwPISmIiu1Ljg
MHnPiiBk6QdvBNAYCh_bolvdyLv1Pek
WBtB_B8IB1yzAecVoZnvOaPDnWaa1u
w1Y5wjiebMFZvHhVZ18g1Cw==&unip
latform=NZKPT&language=CHS
*Liu, B. & Zhao, J. (2012). The application of
internet-assisted group collaborative

Zhou. (New Zealand). The Application of Cooperative Learning in Chinese Education.
SIEF, Vol.25, No.1, 2024 4074
learning. China Educational Technology,
2012(8):16-21.
*Liu, H., Zhao, W., & Duo, Z. (2013). Design
and practice of mobile technology-
assisted in-class collaborative learning.
China Educational Technology,
2013(6):86-92.
*Liu, L., Huang, X., & Yi, P. (2022). The
application of concept map-based group
cooperative learning in the emergency
treatment placement of university nursing
students. Nursing Journal of the People’s
Liberation Army, 2022(5):84-87.
*Liu, W. (2022). Analysis on the Effectiveness
of PE FCT Model Based on Cooperative
Learning Model. Wireless
Communications and Mobile Computing,
2022(1), 7955813. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7955813
Loh, R. C. Y., & Ang, C. S. (2020). Unravelling
cooperative learning in higher education.
Research in Social Sciences and
Technology, 5(2):22-39. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46303/ressat.05.02.2
*Luo, Y. J., Lin, M. L., Hsu, C. H., Liao, C. C.,
& Kao, C. C. (2020). The effects of team-
game-tournaments application towards
learning motivation and motor skills in
college physical education. Sustainability,
12(15):6147. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156147
Mcinnerney, J., & Roberts, T. (2004).
Collaborative or cooperative learning? In.
Online Collaborative Learning: Theory
and Practice. p. 203-214. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-174-
2.ch009
*Meng, J. (2017). An Empirical Study on the
Application of Cooperative Learning to
Comprehensive English Classes in a
Chinese Independent College. English
Language Teaching, 10(2):94-99. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n2p94
Ministry of Education of China. (2014).
Opinions on Intensifying Curriculum
Reform and Implementing All-Round
Education as a paramount mission.
Available at:
http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A26/jcj_k
cjcgh/201404/t20140408_167226.html
Ma, H. (2003). The concept, core elements, and
significance of cooperative learning.
Studies in Foreign Education,
2003(5):16-19. Available at:
https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract
?v=-4s28oSk47_7PE7fITc3XM-
rvfQa35bKpRFbIDGj2huc_1nqGlXOGn8
NCIOEaXvQUe7xPm29_Nf5hBPsbCT-
kgpt6zm6AguXRigPJkz1hAMG_IbwF8V
egaV_RoVxLJPkgTspDUHXIEWDxxpZ
wGCHbYhWOQgFdL_lAmy-
M5CXByY3UoI_6dM50A==&uniplatfor
m=NZKPT&language=CHS
*Ning, H., & Hornby, G. (2010). The
effectiveness of cooperative learning in
teaching English to Chinese tertiary
learners. Effective Education, 2(2):99-116.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415532.2010.52
2792
*Ning, H., & Hornby, G. (2013). The impact of
cooperative learning on tertiary EFL
learners’ motivation. Educational Review,
66(1):108-124. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.
853169
*Pan, C. Y., & Wu, H. Y. (2013). The
cooperative learning effects on English
reading comprehension and learning
motivation of EFL freshmen. English
Language Teaching, 6(5):13-27. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n5p13
Panitz, T. (1999). Collaborative versus
Cooperative Learning: A Comparison of
the Two Concepts Which Will Help Us
Understand the Underlying Nature of
Interactive Learning. Available at:
http://home.capecod.net/~tpanitz/tedsartic
les/coopdefinition.htm
*Peng, H., Jiang, Y., & Ma, S. (2020). An
empirical analysis of the effectiveness of
collaborative learning in a flipped
classroom: Using the “Computer
Networks and Applications” course for
college students as an example. Distance
Education in China, 2020(1):62-72. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.13541/j.cnki.Chinade.
2020.01.006
Sharan, Y. (2014). Learning to cooperate for
cooperative learning. Annals of
Psychology, 30(3):802-807. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.201
211
Sharan, Y. (2018). My Personal and Professional
Involvement with Cooperative Learning.
In. Collaborative Learning in a Global
World. Information Age Publishing.
Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
329738034_My_Personal_and_Profession
al_Involvement_with_Cooperative_Learn
ing_2018_Information_Age_Publishing
Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning.
Review of Educational Research,
50(2):315-342. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430500023

Zhou. (New Zealand). The Application of Cooperative Learning in Chinese Education.
SIEF, Vol.25, No.1, 2024 4075
15
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Cooperative learning and
the cooperative school. Educational
Leadership, 45(3):7-13.
Slaven, R. E. (1994). Cooperative Learning: A
global perspective. (Chinese Translation
by T. Wang). Shandong Education
Research, 1994(1):75-79. Available at:
https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract
?v=8XtZWovJaITalYadMicBfSOdHBxP
wIIlYOk4-geklmuRDf-
Ac6jzuTX3b6CDEQOmGX-
vYz1LF4qswf0UGrwobYkvzD3VjCib2kr
e_5CNWeaqpq1SB9U1mkOc_UbZVM6u
e5Hjxj_YioMewTTKIyeCso5P5gzmvWx
c9ZeDeiSqJvHgji0wlgRsZQ==&uniplatf
orm=NZKPT&language=CHS
*Song, Y. (2012). The Application of the Jigsaw
method of cooperative learning in
chemistry teaching. Education in
Chemistry, 2012(9):23-26.
Stevens, R. J., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M.
(1991). The effects of cooperative
learning and direct instruction in reading
comprehension strategies on main idea
identification. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 83(1):8-16. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.83.1.8
*Tan, S. (2015). Group cooperative learning in
junior secondary physics education with
the mentoring system. Teaching
Reference of Middle School Physics,
44(14):68-69. Available at:
https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract
?v=8XtZWovJaITPiu2iIAI4JtFMWvjP2e
NJuIl1lF7LmZqEVV9AWEDbTtxW5xeJ
2MgNOOtWWoNhGAM2UG7JIVXY7cf
jJ-xOEhYPu-
zAZO_NyxD6vRbmMYTHu19o-
E1aexBLDL1GTf9addrqDBo5mwQC8IJs
UgDVSOSf6vQXJL7Hf7_zFoq-
RjObfg==&uniplatform=NZKPT&langua
ge=CHS
*Tan, X. (2015). Research on the application of
cooperative learning in rural middle
school English teaching. Journal of
Language Teaching and Research,
6(4):847-854. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0604.19
Trung, D. N., & Truong, D. X. (2023). The
benefits of cooperative learning: an
overview. Technium Education and
Humanities, 4:78-85. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47577/teh.v4i.8709
*Wang, C. (2007). Cooperative learning in rural
primary schools. Global Education,
2007(11):86-91.
Wang, T. (2002). An overview of cooperative
learning. Journal of the Chinese Society
of Education, 2002(1):32-35. Available at:
https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract
?v=-
4s28oSk478VhlOffnK2z6ZI1UxzMrdpok
XhahtIQEzDnPWoI3FHULUMyHYf4nn
6GBdsX6n6-ohDmxJSPgF_avi65ftECF-
8MSpozCIWHSaAnhj-4-
7RDyHWiPP0kpRtV6ea3wuJrgybt4mIN
m72CRWV1AVRGcaX2L6aGflxq_PhEJ
9RN85w_g==&uniplatform=NZKPT&la
nguage=CHS
Wang, W., Dong, Y., & Yang, M. (2020). The
impact of cooperative learning on student
learning outcomes: A meta-analysis based
on 48 experimental or quasi-experimental
studies. Journal of Shanghai Educational
Research, 2020(7):34-40+59. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.16194/j.cnki.31-
1059/g4.2020.07.008
Wittrock, M. C. (1978). The cognitive
movement in instruction. Educational
Psychologist, 13(1):15-29. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/004615278095291
92
*Wu, R. & He, G. (2014). The effectiveness of
cooperative learning in college English
writing teaching. Foreign Language
Education, 2014(3):44-47. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.16362/j.cnki.cn61-
1023/h2014.03.021
*Xiao, C. & Chongda. (2014). An experimental
study of the application of cooperative
learning in college English teaching:
Using Tibet University as an example.
Journal of Tibet University (Social
Sciences Edition), 2014(3):169-176. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.16249/j.cnki.1005-
5738.2014.03.006
Xu, J. & Yang, J. (2023). A scoping review of
technology-enabled cooperative learning
in foreign language instruction.
Technology-Enhanced Foreign Language
Education, 2023(2):42-48+111. Available
at:
https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract
?v=-
4s28oSk479FvYiT8fDJGLdCeEeuGkwpf
-Xlp-laVDce-
hqK4J9YeNimzvyZa9DgXUyvxlBl6iu39
nKsdWO4VKWw_7AzaU6vctZJJBg5NK
FeSJKIbWghtrJkqVKCDKifAMZ2jQmc
pjRoXApPUISOfd6oaM-3Vafp-
5O2HCI4K9df6nlI0Vh04Q==&uniplatfor
m=NZKPT&language=CHS
*Xu, X., Wang, X., & Gu, X. (2017). Group
cooperative learning in the smart

Zhou. (New Zealand). The Application of Cooperative Learning in Chinese Education.
SIEF, Vol.25, No.1, 2024 4076
classroom. Open Education Research,
2017(4):112-120. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.13966/j.cnki.kfjyyj.201
7.04.011
*Xu, Y. (2016). Boosting the teaching outcomes
of the “Plant Quarantine” classes by
group study. Journal of Environmental
Entomology, 2016(3):665-668.
*Yan, Y. (2023). The application of group
cooperative learning in Junior secondary
geography teaching under the “Double
Reduction” policy. Teaching Reference of
Middle School Geography, 2023(31):29-
31. Available at:
https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract
?v=8XtZWovJaISo5YfwdcIkqkDcJU5Y4
WhAOgrsz9vGJUoet_IoKtdDuXDprbKO
MgU8P8x479NfNLmvMiF_hIomPHrtC0
gceIz2e8SB-irKq71risuBTpgk0-
BwGzCLu_sIb3loJJtzhLl6xRTwan9gzPm
63nl6tMi8Jbl4sNpPrjgYS5SsPAkmyA==
&uniplatform=NZKPT&language=CHS
Yang, X. (2023). A historical review of
collaborative learning and cooperative
learning. TechTrends, 67(4):718-728.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-
00823-9
*Yin, J. & Shen, G. (2016). Task-driven group
cooperative learning in microbiology
teaching. Microbiology China,
2016(2):410-416. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.13344/j.microbiol.china
.150396
*You, X. (2016). The application of case
teaching and cooperative learning in
college clinical rehabilitation classes.
Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation
Medicine, 2016(4):465-466.
*Zhang, H. (2009). Cooperative learning in
volleyball teaching as a compulsory
course. Journal of Shenyang Sport
University, 2009(1):75-77.
*Zhang, H. & Zhao, W. (2009). The application
of collaborative learning in the secondary
information technology classes. Modern
Educational Technology, 2009(9):47-50.
Zhang, K., Zhou, X., & Yu, C. (2021). A meta-
analysis of the effectiveness of
cooperative learning. Journal of PLA
University of Foreign Languages,
2021(4):95-104+160. Available at:
https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract
?v=-
4s28oSk47_n_310AOVEzJBTkARlPGZ
DyA76KcUskyyvBswSnYah6sz7bA4HO
7IEeBCo4x_t4ogmAWlAKZbuwX3r1XP
T5v0_RcgIxVW_pmh3ubL06BqGxmGG
PygYZmYbw0eCAPB0ghEw3ba67lh9v
MrM5HID6P-JMjJW-
lqSWbEhJpIxoiRDEA==&uniplatform=
NZKPT&language=CHS
*Zhang, L. (2014). PBL-based online
collaborative learning activities using role
scripts and problem prompts. Distance
Education in China, 2014(2):36-40+96.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.13541/j.cnki.Chinade.2
014.02.007
*Zhang, L., Ayres, P., & Chan, K. (2011).
Examining different types of collaborative
learning in a complex computer-based
environment: A cognitive load approach.
Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1):94-
98. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.038
*Zhang, X. (2013). The application of
cooperative learning in the geography
class and students’ comments. Teaching
Reference of Middle School Geography,
2013(Z1):45-46.
*Zhao, L. (2023). The application of scheduled
learning program-based cooperative
learning in biology teaching: Using
“Human Genetic Diseases” as an example.
Teaching of Middle School Biology,
2023(32):31-33.
Zeng, Q. (2000). Basic elements of cooperative
learning. Journal of Subject Education,
2000(6):7-12. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14082/j.cnki.1673-
1298.2000.06.002
*Zhong, B. & Huang, S. (2022). The application
of dynamic grouping in college robotics
education. Modern Educational
Technology, 2022(3):61-70.
Received: October 11, 2024
Revised: October 25, 2024
Accepted: November 05, 2024