INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
The Status and Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning Strategies at  
Haramaya University: A Case Study of the College of Education and  
Behavioral Sciences  
1 Abdi Nugusa Gursha, 2 Ahmed Mousa Ahmed  
1 Department of Adult Education and Community Development, College of Education and Behavioral  
Sciences, Haramaya University, Ethiopia  
2 Department of Curriculum Management and Instruction, Faculty of Education Amoud university,  
Somaliland  
DOI : https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2025.1412000141  
Received: 29 December 2025; Accepted: 09 January 2026; Published: 20 January 2026  
ABSTRACT  
This study assessed the status of cooperative learning strategies at Haramaya University, focusing on the  
College of Education and Behavioral Sciences. A qualitative research design was employed, utilizing  
interviews, focus group discussions (FGDs), and observations for data collection. The study involved 80  
participants, including students from four departments, department heads, the college dean, and the Academic  
Assessment and Quality Assurance director. Third-year students were specifically chosen for their relevant  
experience with cooperative learning. Findings indicated that the implementation of cooperative learning  
strategies has significantly declined and become ineffective since the COVID-19 outbreak. Key factors  
contributing to this decline included distancing policies, lack of commitment, instructor workload, additional  
administrative duties, student interest, time constraints, inadequate supervision, lack of awareness, poor  
classroom facilities, and insufficient support. The study emphasizes the importance of cooperative learning for  
enhancing student performance, suggesting that students benefit from peer learning at their own pace rather  
than solely from instructors. It calls for all stakeholders, including students and administrative bodies, to  
prioritize the effective practice and implementation of cooperative learning strategies.  
Key words: Cooperative learning, status, effectiveness, strategy, practice, implementation  
INTRODUCTION  
Cooperative learning (CL) has emerged as a critical pedagogical strategy in higher education, emphasizing  
collaborative engagement among students to improve educational outcomes. CL, a structured group work with  
individual accountability, promotes academic achievement and social skill development (Trần, 2019).  
According to research, students who participate in cooperative learning outperform those who participate in  
traditional learning settings in terms of academic performance, critical thinking skills, and motivation (Aliem  
et al., 2019). The theoretical foundations of CL are based on constructivist learning theories, particularly those  
proposed by Vygotsky and Dewey, who advocate for learning as a social process in which knowledge is  
constructed through interaction (Lu et al., 2019).  
Despite the widely acknowledged benefits of cooperative learning, there is still a significant gap in  
understanding its implementation and effectiveness in specific educational contexts, particularly in Ethiopian  
higher education institutions like Haramaya University. Previous research has identified a number of  
challenges associated with the practical application of CL, such as inadequate instructor training, a lack of  
resources, and insufficient student motivation (Awofala & Lawani, 2020). For example, Hiko (2014) found  
that, while cooperative learning is recognized as beneficial for academic and social development, its  
implementation at Haramaya University is hampered by factors such as a lack of awareness and motivation  
among both students and faculty. Similarly, Seyoum and Molla (2022) discovered that instructors frequently  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1647  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
fail to fulfill their roles as facilitators due to heavy workloads and large class sizes, complicating the successful  
implementation of CL strategies (Awofala & Lawani, 2020).  
Furthermore, existing literature reveals that the effectiveness of cooperative learning varies across disciplines  
and educational settings. According to studies, while some students thrive in cooperative environments, others  
struggle due to anxiety, a lack of understanding of group dynamics, and unequal participation. The researchers  
also stated that poor attitudes and uneven contributions among group members significantly hampered  
participation in cooperative assignments (Leon et al., 2021). This discrepancy in results raises serious concerns  
about the contextual factors that influence the success of cooperative learning initiatives.  
In light of these findings, the current study seeks to investigate the status and efficacy of cooperative learning  
strategies in the College of Education and Behavioral Sciences at Haramaya University. By filling gaps in the  
literature, this study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how cooperative learning is practiced,  
the challenges faced by both students and instructors, and the overall impact on student learning outcomes. The  
findings will not only add to the existing body of knowledge about cooperative learning, but will also provide  
practical recommendations for improving its implementation in higher education settings.  
The study attempted to answer the following basic research questions;  
1. What is the status of cooperative learning strategy in the study area ?  
2. What is the practice of cooperative learning strategy in the study area?  
3. What are the major challenges of cooperative learning strategy in the defined study area?  
The significance of cooperative learning for students is profound. Research (Essien, 2015) indicates that  
students who engage in CL often achieve higher academic performance and develop critical thinking skills  
compared to their peers in traditional learning settings. The collaborative nature of CL not only enhances  
academic outcomes but also promotes the development of essential social skills, such as communication,  
teamwork, and conflict resolution. These skills are crucial for personal and professional success in today's  
interconnected world. Furthermore, collaborative learning can boost student motivation and engagement by  
instilling a sense of belonging and accountability among peers. However, it is important to recognize that not  
all students thrive in cooperative environments; some may experience anxiety or struggle with group  
dynamics, emphasizing the importance of thoughtful implementation that takes into account individual  
differences.  
Future researchers will benefit greatly from studying cooperative learning, especially in underexplored  
contexts such as Ethiopian higher education institutions like Haramaya University. The varying effectiveness  
of CL across disciplines and settings provides opportunities to investigate the contextual factors influencing  
its success. By identifying best practices and addressing challenges associated with CL implementation,  
researchers can add to the growing body of literature on effective educational strategies. This research can  
also help educators and institutions understand how to improve collaborative learning experiences for all  
students, ensuring that the benefits of CL are maximized.  
Policymakers must understand the implications of cooperative learning in order to develop supportive  
educational policies. Recognizing the benefits of CL allows policymakers to develop frameworks that  
promote collaborative learning environments and allocate resources for training programs that provide  
educators with the skills needed for effective implementation. Furthermore, addressing instructors'  
challenges, such as limited resources and heavy workloads, can lead to more equitable educational  
opportunities for students. Policymakers play an important role in creating an educational environment that  
values collaboration, resulting in better learning outcomes and preparing students for success in a rapidly  
changing world.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1648  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
Theoretical Framework  
The theoretical framework of cooperative learning (CL) is grounded in constructivist learning theories, which  
emphasize the social nature of learning and the importance of interaction among learners. Central to this  
framework are the ideas posited by Vygotsky and Dewey, who argue that knowledge is constructed through  
social interactions and collaborative efforts among students (Chen, 2023). This perspective aligns with the  
assertion that cooperative learning not only enhances academic performance but also fosters critical thinking  
and social skills, which are essential for success in contemporary educational and professional environments  
Research has consistently shown that students engaged in cooperative learning outperform their peers in  
traditional learning settings across various disciplines. For instance, studies indicate that cooperative learning  
strategies lead to improved academic achievement and greater motivation among students (Toklucu & Tay,  
2016). The effectiveness of these strategies can be attributed to several key elements identified in the  
literature, including positive interdependence, individual accountability, and the development of social skills  
(Wu, 2018). These elements create a structured environment where students can collaborate effectively,  
thereby enhancing their learning experiences.  
However, the implementation of cooperative learning is not without challenges. In the context of Ethiopian  
higher education, particularly at Haramaya University, several barriers hinder the effective application of CL  
strategies. Research highlights issues such as inadequate instructor training, insufficient resources, and a lack  
of motivation among students (Guo, 2014). For example, Hiko (2014) noted that both students and faculty  
often lack awareness of cooperative learning principles, which negatively impacts its implementation.  
Furthermore, Seyoum and Molla (2022) found that large class sizes and heavy workloads for instructors  
complicate the facilitation of cooperative learning, leading to less effective student engagement.  
The literature also reveals that the effectiveness of cooperative learning can vary significantly depending on  
the educational context and the individual characteristics of students. Some students may thrive in  
cooperative settings, while others may experience anxiety or struggle with group dynamics, which can  
impede their participation (Korres, 2019). This variability underscores the necessity for educators to consider  
the diverse needs of their students when implementing cooperative learning strategies. In conclusion, the  
theoretical framework of cooperative learning is deeply rooted in constructivist principles that advocate for  
collaborative engagement as a means of enhancing educational outcomes. While the benefits of CL are well-  
documented, understanding its practical application within specific contexts, such as Haramaya University, is  
crucial for maximizing its effectiveness. Future research should focus on identifying best practices and  
addressing the challenges associated with CL implementation, thereby contributing to a more nuanced  
understanding of cooperative learning in higher education.  
METHODOLOGY  
Research Design  
The study employs an Explanatory Research Design. In the explanatory sequential research design, the  
researcher prioritizes quantitative data collection and analysis (QUAN). This is accomplished by introducing it  
early in the study and making it a key component of data collection. A small qualitative (qual) component is  
typically added in the second phase of the research. The explanatory sequential design researcher gathers  
quantitative data first in the sequence. This is followed by secondary qualitative data collection, which is then  
interpreted.  
In short, quantitative data is followed by qualitative data, and strategies that use one research method to  
elaborate on or expand the findings of another (Creswell, 2003). To achieve the study's objectives, this study  
will use a mixed research design, specifically a sequential explanatory design.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1649  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
Explanatory Sequential Design  
Qualitative  
Data collection  
and Analysis  
Quantitative  
Follow up with  
Interpretation  
Data collection  
2012:54
and analysis  
Figure 2: Explanatory Sequential Design  
Thus, mixed methods research is an approach to a study that involves collecting both quantitative and  
qualitative data, integrating the two types of data, and employing distinct designs that may include  
philosophical assumptions and theoretical frameworks for the study (John, 2014).  
As a result, depending on the nature of the research questions, both qualitative and quantitative data will be  
collected using closed-ended and open-ended questionnaires, as well as semi-structured interviews with  
sample EPUs (John, 2014; Creswell, 2009). In short, the current study will use a mixed design in terms of  
paradigm, design, methods, data sources, data collection methods, and data analysis.  
Description of the Study Area  
The College of Education and Behavioral Sciences (CEBS) is one of the university's nine colleges, along with  
the Haramaya Institute of Technology and the Sports Science Academy. CEBS became a full-fledged college  
in 2003, and it now offers BA, MA, and PhD programs in regular and non-regular modalities (regular, CEP,  
and summer) across four departments: Adult Education and Community Development (AECD), Educational  
Planning and Management (EdPM), Psychology, and Special Needs Education (SNE).  
Sources of Data  
The primary data sources were students from the four departments, department heads, the college's dean, and  
the university's Academic Assessment and Quality Assurance (AAQA) director. Secondary data sources  
included a review of the literature, articles published in the area, and an AAQA expert report.  
Subjects of the Study  
The target study population included undergraduate college students, department heads, the college dean, and  
the AAQA director.  
Sample Size and Sampling Techniques  
Because the study was a case study, the college of education and behavioral sciences was chosen for  
convenience, and because different learning approaches and strategies are the fruits of education, it is clear that  
CEBS was purposefully chosen to investigate the status of cooperative learning. The college has second and  
third-year students. There were no first or fourth-year students at the college. During the course of this study,  
first-year students attended a generic program known as the 'freshman program,' while fourth-year students  
were not admitted to college. The college's third-year students in each department were specifically chosen  
because they have more experience with cooperative learning than second-year students. As a result, only  
third-year students have had a better experience staying in college since the introduction of the four-year  
program. Furthermore, the heads of each department, the college's dean, and the Director of Academic  
Assessment and Quality Assurance (AAQA) were purposefully selected. This is because the aforementioned  
officers were in charge of facilitating, tracking, monitoring, and controlling cooperative learning.  
The total study population was 80, which included 74 college students, four department heads, a college dean,  
and the university's AAQA director. Availability sampling techniques were used in every department. This  
was due to the small number of students in each department, which was usually around twenty. As a result, all  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1650  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
students were enrolled in the departments of Adult Education and Community Development (AECD = 16),  
Educational Planning and Management (EdPM = 19), Psychology (20), and Special Needs Education (19). As  
a result, the study's population and sample size were equal, with 80 participants.  
Table below indicates the number of students in each department  
Gender  
Department  
AECD  
EdPM  
11  
Psych.  
13  
SNE  
14  
5
G/Total  
53  
M
15  
1
F
8
7
21  
Total  
16  
19  
20  
19  
74  
Table: 1- number of students in each department  
Instruments of Data Collection  
The researcher collected data using three methods: interviews, focus group discussions, and observations.  
Interview: An interview is one method of data collection in qualitative research for investigating the case  
under study. Interviews were conducted with department heads, the college's dean, and the director of  
Academic Assessment and Quality Assurance (AAQA). Interviews are necessary to collect data from face-to-  
face informants (Opdenakker, 2006).Thus, an interview was conducted with a total of six participants (four  
department heads, a college dean, and the director of Haramaya University's AAQA directorate). After  
receiving verbal consent from each interviewee, data were manually recorded using a notebook. The interview  
lasted approximately 15 to 20 minutes for each respondent, and was guided by a manually developed interview  
guide.  
A Focus Group Discussion (FGD) was conducted with groups of students from each department. First, the  
students received an orientation on the topic from the head departments. The students were then divided into  
groups of four to five for the purpose of this study. Finally, the discussion topics (questions) were presented  
for ten minutes. The Jigsaw method was used, in which each group was given one or two different questions in  
the same session. However, the same question was administered to the other sessions/departments in order to  
gain a thorough understanding of the issue.  
Observations were made to see how cooperative learning was practiced. Observation is an essential  
component of qualitative research in the social sciences, including education (Tjora, 2006; Rossman & Rallis,  
2010).Observations were conducted in the classroom to see how cooperative learning was actually practiced.  
Cooperative learning was not limited to the classroom. Students could use it outside the classroom, such as in  
shelters, dormitories, or libraries. However, the researcher discovered that classroom observation was more  
suitable for this study. Observation was guided by a checklist. As a result, each subject's observation sessions  
lasted three periods. Observation and interview responses establish validity across data sources.  
Ethical Issues  
Ethical literacy encourages researchers to understand and address ethical issues that arise during the research  
process (Dooly et al., 2017). Qualitative research, particularly studies in educational contexts, frequently raises  
ethical concerns because the study design involves human subjects, some of whom are children (for example,  
data collected in primary education classrooms). It is not always easy for young researchers to predict where  
ethical issues may arise while developing their research project (Wiles, 2012).  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1651  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
During the interview process in qualitative research, the findings show that anonymity, voluntary participation,  
privacy, confidentiality, the option to opt out, and avoiding the misuse of findings are ethical considerations  
that the researcher must adhere to. The findings also indicate that deontology and utilitarianism, rights, and  
virtue are the primary theories that underpin ethical considerations in research (Nii Laryeafio & Ogbewe,  
2023).  
In terms of ethical considerations, each study participant was asked for their consent to participate in the study.  
First, the interviewer introduced himself, explained the purpose of the study, and stated that the expected time  
was short. Second, the interviewer assured the informants that their data would be kept confidential and  
anonymous, and he informed them of the expected duration of their interview. Finally, each interview session  
concluded with an expression of gratitude.  
Data Discussion and Presentation Method  
The data was analyzed qualitatively using the following procedures. First, the moderator (researcher) obtained  
consent from the heads of each department. Second, he organized students into groups of five. However,  
because the number of students may not always be a factor of five, there was the possibility of (members in  
each department). That is, as shown in the table below, the number of students in a group is five less one (4  
students) and five plus one (6 students). Finally, discussion questions were distributed to each group, as shown  
in the following table.  
Table 2: number of students in a group and number of groups  
Department  
Description  
AECD  
EdPM  
19  
Psych.  
20  
SNIE  
19  
G/Total  
No of students 16  
74  
No of  
2x5,1x6  
3x5,1x4  
4x5  
3x5,1x4  
members  
No of groups  
3
4
4
4
15  
The above table shows the representation of group numbers in each department  
Table 3: representation of departments and number of FGDs  
S/No. Department FGD  
representation  
FGD1  
FGD2  
FGD3  
FGD4  
1
2
3
4
AECD  
EdPM  
EdPM  
EdPM  
X
X1  
Y1  
Z1  
S1  
X2  
Y2  
Z2  
S2  
X3  
Y3  
Z3  
S3  
X4  
Y4  
Z4  
S4  
Y
Z
S
Following this, the researcher moved on to the discussion. The two basic questions were then discussed in  
parallel across 15 groups from all four departments. Accordingly, the discussion of each question is presented  
as follows:  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1652  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
Discussions Regarding the Practice of Cooperative Learning Strategy  
Discussion Point #1. Questions Regarding Students’ Practice of Cooperative Learning Strategy  
When we looked at this question, we found seven (7) closed-ended and two (2) open-ended discussion points.  
Following the discussion, "YES/NO" responses were generated for the closed-ended questions. The first  
question investigates whether students had a formal group for the cooperative learning strategy. In this regard,  
all of the FGD groups responded with "No". This means that the students had no formal group for the  
cooperative learning strategy. Because the answer to this question was negative, the five discussion points that  
followed, numbered from 1.1 to 1.5, were excluded. As a result, it is unnecessary to consider the discussion  
outputs within the specified sections.  
When we look at the negatively generated discussion points under discussion items 2.1 and 2.2, 11 out of 15  
FGDs responded "YES" to discussion point 2.1. That means they had no cooperative learning strategy at all.  
However, a total of four FGD groups (one from the AECD department, one from EdPM, and two from SNIE)  
responded "NO," indicating that they practiced CLS. However, the FGD groups were given the opportunity to  
express their ideas when their discussion response was "NO," indicating that they "practiced CLS." Then, the  
FGD groups write down their answers to how they practiced the CLS as follows:  
"They practice CLS in group assignments, group works, group activities, class activities."  
This indicates that CLS practice was very low; it was not deliberate or formal in nature. However, students  
practice it not as a learning mechanism, but rather to complete a specific activity for a short period of time.  
Moreover, if there were no activities like assignment, group work, class activities, group activities and other  
activities that do not invite students for group work, there is no way to practice cooperative learning  
mechanism. And cooperative learning practice was idle, ineffective and poor. Therefore, here one can  
understand that CLS is poorly practiced, ineffective, and it was not formally established. Moreover, it was not  
used as students’ learning strategy.  
Discussion Point #2. Questions Regarding Teachers’ use of CLS or not  
Students were asked to discuss whether or not teachers use CLS. In all departments, there were 15 FGD  
groups. Out of 15 FGDs. Nine FGD groups responded "NO," with the remaining six responding "YES." That  
is, two FGD groups from AECD (X1 and X3), two FGD groups from EdPM (Y2 and Y3), three FGD groups  
from Psychology (Z1, Z3, and Z4), and two FGD groups from SNIE (S2 and S4) yielded the discussion output  
"NO." Again, the six FGD groups, one from AECD (X2), two from EdPM (Y1 and Y4), one from Psychology  
(Z2), and two from SNIE (S1 and S3), yielded the discussion output "YES."  
Discussion  
point  
Response No of FGD in No of FGD No of FGD in  
No of FGD in  
SNIE replied  
AECD replied in  
EdPM Psychology  
replied  
replied  
Do  
teachers YES  
X2  
Y1&Y4  
Y2 & Y3  
Z2  
S1& S3  
S2 & S4  
use cooperative  
learning  
NO  
X1 & X3  
Z, Z3 & Z4  
strategy?  
As can be seen from the FGD discussion results, the 6:9 "YES to NO" response indicates that teachers use  
CLS to some extent. However, the majority do not use it. As a result, this can also be used to determine  
whether or not CLS is effective.(Neuman and Wright, 1999).  
In response to this question, students were also asked to write down their ideas if their answer was "YES,"  
which indicates that teachers use the cooperative learning strategy "how?" Regarding this question, six FGD  
groups responded "YES" and wrote down their ideas. All six FGD groups wrote down their ideas, and teachers  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1653  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
used CLS when assigning group projects and holding group discussions. Furthermore, two focus group  
discussions revealed that teachers use CLS during class activities.  
From this discussion, we can conclude that teachers use CLS during assignments, group work, and class  
activities. Group assignments are frequently written by all six "YES" FGD respondents. This means that  
teachers mostly practice CLS through group assignments. As a result, this suggests that CLS is being practiced  
at a minimal level.  
Discussions Regarding the Challenges of Cooperative Learning Strategy (CLS)  
Students were asked to discuss and write down the CLS challenges as part of this discussion. As a result, the  
FGD groups were given a discussion point on the challenges of CLS. The majority of the 15 FGD groups then  
shared their discussion points in a similar manner. As a result, the researcher presented all of the points in  
summary format. The majority of FGD groups that discussed the challenges of CLS stated that "some students  
do not like group learning." According to (Riener & Willingham, 2010), students have varying learning styles.  
Individuals have different learning styles, which are their 'natural, habitual, and preferred way(s) of absorbing,  
processing, and retaining new information and skills'. (Reid 1995:viii), cited in Hatami (2013).  
Another point raised by some FGD groups as a CLS challenge was that "students have differing motives and  
desires in group learning." Other issues raised by students during the FGD included "it can create conflict  
between students." The most significant issue raised by the FGD was that "fast learner students are  
discouraged or dissatisfied in the CLS." Furthermore, another point raised by FGD participants was that  
"students have no equal pace in understanding the subject matter." This idea is supported by (Riener &  
Willingham, 2010), and students use their abilities in various ways (Sternberg, 1999). In class, students are  
divided into three learning ability groups: slow learner, medium learner, and fast learner. Thus, students have  
varying abilities. Finally, one FGD group raised as a challenge to CLS that "CLS has political implication." It  
is possible that the CLS was imposed by hierarchical administrative structures rather than based on individual  
interests.  
Interview Data Discussion and Presentation  
The interview guideline included two general questions designed to elicit information about the effectiveness  
and challenges of cooperative learning strategies. As a result, the first oral question investigated the  
effectiveness of cooperative learning practice, which was supported by three questions, two of which were  
closed-ended with a yes/no response and one with the mention of determinant factors. The second oral  
question focused on the factors to be mentioned as major challenges.  
The interview questions were distributed to the college dean, four department heads, and the director of the  
Academic Assessment and Quality Assurance (AAQA) directorate office. This was because the department  
heads were in charge of implementing, supervising, and monitoring the cooperative learning strategy. The  
college dean was also in charge of monitoring and overseeing activities at the college level, as well as  
receiving reports on cooperative learning practices. The AAQA office holder was responsible for overseeing,  
controlling, monitoring, and evaluating cooperative learning practices across the university. These responsible  
bodies were interviewed using similar questions to elicit their perspectives on cooperative learning practice.  
The interview questions and responses were structured as follows:  
Discussion of Interview Responses Regarding Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning Strategy Practice  
Question # 1: Do you practice cooperative learning strategy?  
Respondents provided similar responses to this question because they all use cooperative learning strategies. In  
support of this, the college dean stated as follows:  
Cooperative learning strategy is the core learning method of the college. Students are encouraged to learn  
collaboratively. Students have structured group learning called cooperative learning group. Students stay in  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1654  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
the same group once they are formed into groups until they will graduate. Sometimes, group numbers were  
given as G1, G2, G3, …in the class. These groups are permanent and they are formed by the departments. The  
group members were assigned based on the students’ ability basis. That is, students’ previous performance or  
results, grades were considered in order to make the group heterogeneous ability. The number of the students  
in the group is five as a policy directive. However, sometimes the number of students in the class may not  
exactly five, it could be four or six. Therefore, a minimum of four or a maximum of six numbers of students in  
some groups were tolerated.  
Regarding this question, all of the department heads provided similar responses. They replied that they all  
practice and use cooperative learning strategies. The dean responded that it is the department heads'  
responsibility to rearrange students into groups, identify students' abilities based on previous results, form  
groups, monitor and supervise them.  
Furthermore, the response from the AAQA officer revealed the same information. The AAQA officer  
confidently responded that the cooperative learning strategy was and continues to be widely used in  
universities. As one of the university's colleges, the College of Education and Behavioral Sciences (CEBS)  
employs the cooperative learning strategy. According to the director's response, one of the AAQA office's  
primary responsibilities is to supervise, monitor, and evaluate the institution's cooperative learning strategy.  
For this purpose, one AAQA expert was assigned to each college to report on daily learning activities in  
accordance with cooperative learning implementation. As a result, colleges were notified about the status of  
class conductance and cooperative learning implementation.  
This is due to two factors: i) the AAQA director provided such a response, most likely after considering the  
overall practice of CLS in the university, which, when combined, may be effective. ii) The dean also  
responded in this manner because the CLS practice is implemented at the classroom level and he may not be  
directly involved in the activity himself. He expressed his idea as a general principle of the institution.  
Question #2: Do you think the practice of cooperative learning strategy is effective?  
Regarding this question, all of the department heads genuinely stated that the effectiveness is poor. Some  
department heads even stated that the previous question about the practice was not addressed in a formal  
manner. However, because teachers divide students into groups and assign activities to them in some way, this  
is considered cooperative learning. As they mentioned, all instructors give group assignments, which is  
considered cooperative learning. According to the department heads, since the Corona virus outbreak  
(COVID-19), practice has been extremely poor, and there is currently no formal grouping of students.  
Regarding this question, the dean and AAQA director were slightly more confident in their practice, but not in  
the effectiveness of the cooperative learning strategy (CLS). According to their response, the reason they were  
unable to say effective was that, due to the COVID-19 outbreak and its nature, no student or instructor was  
forced to effectively implement the CLS. Monitoring and evaluation were also loose.  
Qauestion #3: What delineating factors can you mention as the reasons for the poor practice of the CLS and  
what can you suggest?  
Regarding this question, respondents replied different responses. The responses were presented as follow:  
Lack of commitment; In this regard, both the college dean and the AAQA director responded similarly, citing  
instructors' lack of commitment to effectively practicing CLS. As they stated, instructors do not usually use  
cooperative learning strategies. Their commitment is loose.  
Instructor’s Load - The department heads responded that one of the major factors influencing instructors'  
effectiveness in practicing cooperative learning is their workload.  
Administrative Assignment As stated by all department heads, administrative assignments or position burden  
are another factor that affects instructors' ability to practice CLS effectively. They claimed that the heads'  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1655  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
administrative responsibilities prevented them from effectively practicing the CLS. According to them, this  
had a significant impact on the CLS's effective practice at the department level. This was due to the fact that  
their heads were so preoccupied with administrative tasks that they failed to monitor and supervise the CLS  
practices of the other instructors. On the other hand, they fail to implement effective CLS practices on their  
own.  
Students’ load and interest - Another concern raised by department heads was that students may be burdened  
by various assignments or activities assigned by their instructors. This had an impact on the effectiveness of  
CLS. The heads also identified student interest as a factor influencing the effectiveness of the CLS. According  
to the heads' theory, students have no interest at all. They don't want to work in groups. This is because most  
fast learners (students) do not wish to participate in CLS. They believe that having a low learner style affects  
their performance.  
Shortage of Time – One of the factors that impeded instructors' effective CLS practice was a lack of time.  
Department heads noticed that instructors were running out of time to cover their courses due to a variety of  
factors, most notably an institutional calendar change. Sometimes, especially since the outbreak of COVID-19,  
the university has accidentally changed its normal academic calendar numerous times. This discouraged  
instructors from effectively using the CLS. Other factors that significantly contributed to poor CLS practice  
included instructors' personal, social, psychological, and economic factors.  
Loose Supervision and Monitoring Mechanism – According to the AAQA director, loose supervision and  
monitoring mechanisms were another factor that had a significant impact on the effective practice of CLS.  
According to the office director, school leaders and departments fail to supervise and monitor the use of  
cooperative learning strategies. The departments do not strictly adhere to the CLS practice, regardless of  
whether instructors apply it or students use it in their daily activities.  
Lack of Awareness - According to the AAQA director, the most significant cause of poor CLS performance  
was a lack of awareness about the CLS. Both instructors and students lack a thorough understanding of the  
CLS. Some instructors are unfamiliar with the term CLS. As a result, they are unfamiliar with the formation  
and practice of CLS groups. Similarly, unless they are oriented, all students do not understand what CLS is or  
how it works. According to the director, this gap was created by the heads of the relevant departments or  
schools, though his office shares it in part.  
Discussion of Interview Responses Regarding the Challenges of Cooperative Learning Strategy  
Question #3: What challenges do you face when exercising cooperative learning strategy?  
Regarding this question, most of the respondents produced similar responses. The responses, which were  
identified as challenges of CLS were stated bellow:  
Instructors Poor Commitment - all the respondents, meaning the dean, the AAQA and the heads of the  
departments similarly replied that instructors were not committed enough to practice CLS effectively. Teachers  
were not committed. Thus, instructors’ poor or lack of commitment highly affects the effective practice of the  
CLS.  
Poor Supervision and Monitoring Mechanism – Another barrier to effective CLS practice has been identified  
as a lack of supervision and monitoring mechanisms. The department heads, university management, and other  
external bodies such as HERQA (Higher Education Relevance and Quality Assurance Ministry of Education)  
and other stakeholders make little or no contribution to supervising and monitoring the CLS.  
COVID-19 Policy Guideline/Principles - One of the most difficult aspects of CLS was the Policy  
Guideline/Principles established against COVID-19. According to these principles, students were not to sit in  
groups, and there had to be at least two meters between them. Students should not share their learning materials.  
Thus, it completely prohibited students from sitting together. As a result, this was a determining factor in  
blocking CLS practice.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1656  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
Classroom Facilities - Other respondents identified inadequate classroom facilities as a barrier to effective CLS  
practice. As they mentioned, some classroom settings are not conducive to cooperative learning. They have  
fixed seats, making it difficult to arrange students in groups in the classroom.  
Lack of Support – Regarding this point, the department heads stated that both instructors and students do not  
receive the necessary support from the relevant bodies, such as AAQA and higher management.  
Students Interest – The heads and AAQA also mentioned the students' interest. That is, students are not  
interested in effectively practicing CLS. As a result, this was identified as a significant issue.  
Perception of Instructors - another challenging factor strongly raised by the heads was that instructor’s  
perception on CLS. According to their reply, almost all instructors perceive CLS as imposed by the government  
or higher officials. Hence, instructors lack commitment to practice it effectively.  
The AAQA Poor Planning, Supervision and Monitoring Mechanism – a) Department heads report that  
AAQA does not adequately train and supervise university instructors and program leaders in implementing the  
CLS. It is only effective at monitoring and evaluating the CLS. Thus, AAQA was only responsible for  
monitoring. The directorate office performed poorly in terms of planning and supervision. As a result, these are  
some of the challenges that instructors face when implementing CLS effectively.  
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION  
In summary, the study found that the status of cooperative learning strategies is extremely low. The practice  
existed, as did the implementation, and the need and interest of university management bodies were present.  
However, the practice was extremely low, resulting in low status. Furthermore, the effectiveness of  
cooperative learning has been very low since the COVID-19 outbreak. Many factors influenced these,  
including COVID-19 police guidelines, a lack of awareness, interest, commitment, supervision and follow-up,  
a poor learning facility, a teacher's workload, insufficient time, a lack of support, and others. Cooperative  
learning entails students working together to achieve common goals, and this sense of interdependence drives  
group members to assist and support one another. When students work together, they learn to listen to others,  
give and receive help, reconcile differences, and solve problems democratically. However, simply putting  
students in small groups and telling them to work together does not guarantee that they will cooperate. Groups  
must be structured so that members work together to reap the academic and social benefits that this approach  
to learning is widely credited with. The teacher's role in promoting cooperative learning in the classroom is  
critical to its success. This includes understanding how to structure cooperative learning in groups, such as  
group size and composition, task type, expectations for student behavior, individual and group responsibilities,  
and the teacher's role in monitoring both the process and the outcomes of the group experience.(palmer et al.,  
2017)  
REFERENCES  
1. Aliem, R., Sabry, S., & MohyEl-Deen, H. (2019). Utilization of jigsaw cooperative learning strategy  
on  
maternity nursing students' attitude and achievement. American Journal of Nursing Science,  
8(6), 361. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajns.20190806.22  
2. Awofala, A. and Lawani, A. (2020). Examining the efficacy of co-operative learning strategy on  
undergraduate students’ achievement in mathematics. Ijpte International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher  
Education, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.20961/ijpte.v4i1.33402  
3. Chen, L. (2023). Internet of things (iot) based investigation between instructors' insight of constructivist  
learning theory and learners performance analysis in higher vocational accounting training. International  
Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication, 11(6s), 217-227.  
https://doi.org/10.17762/ijritcc.v11i6s.6824  
4. Chen, Q. (2023). The influence of constructivist learning style on college students' learning of basic  
subjects. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media, 22(1),  
https://doi.org/10.54254/2753-7048/22/20230334  
327-  
334.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1657  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
5. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd  
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  
https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=1529808  
6. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Sage Publications, Inc. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-13604-000  
7. Dooly, M., Moore, E., & Vallejo, C. (2017). Research ethics. Research-Publishing. Net.  
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED573618  
8. Hatami, S. (2012) Learning Styles. ELT Journal, 67, 488-490. - References - Scientific Research  
Publishing. (n.d.). https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2960215  
9. Hiko, M. K. (2014). Cooperative Learning Practices in College of Education and Behavioral Sciences  
in  
Haramaya University, Ethiopia. International Journal of Science and  
https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v3i11/U1VCMTQzMw==.pdf  
Research  
(IJSR),  
3(11).  
10. Kim, H. and Kim, B. (2022). Effects of situation-based flipped learning and gamification as combined  
methodologies in psychiatric nursing education: a quasi-experimental study.  
https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10040644  
Healthcare,  
10(4),  
644.  
11. Toklucu, S. and Tay, B. (2016). The effect of cooperative learning method and systematic  
teaching  
on  
students’ achievement and retention of knowledge in social studies lesson. Eurasian Journal of  
Educational Research, 16(66), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2016.66.18  
12. Tjora, A. H. (2006). Writing small discoveries: an exploration of fresh observers’ observations. Qualitative  
Research, 6(4), 429–451. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1468794106068012  
13. Korres, K. (2019). Multivariable analysis methods on identifying factors and groups of students in the  
environment of the discovery learning/constructivistic approach using cognitive tools. European Journal  
of Engineering and Technology Research, 7-12. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejers.2019.0.cie.1289  
14. León, A., Camacho-Lazarraga, P., Guerrero-Puerta, M., Puerta, L., Alías, A., Aguilar-Parra, J.,  
…
&
Trigueros, R. (2021). Development and validation of a questionnaire on motivation for cooperative  
playful learning strategies. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3),  
960. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18030960  
15. Lu, Y., Liu, W., Wu, T., Sandnes, F., & Huang, Y. (2019). A study of problem solving using blocks  
vehicle in a steam course for lower elementary levels., 49-57. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35343-  
8_6  
16. Neuman, G. A., & Wright, J. (1999). Team effectiveness: beyond skills and cognitive ability. Journal of  
Applied Psychology, 84(3), 376. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999- 05190-006  
17. Nii Laryeafio, M., & Ogbewe, O. C. (2023). Ethical consideration dilemma: systematic review of ethics in  
qualitative data collection through interviews. Journal of Ethics in Entrepreneurship and Technology, 3(2),  
94–110. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/jeet-09-2022-0014/full/html  
18. Opdenakker, R. (2006). Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques in qualitative research.  
Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research,7(4).https://www.qualitative-  
research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/175  
19. Palmer, G., Peters, R., & Streetman, R. (2017). Ch. 7 Cooperative Learning. Instructional Methods,  
Strategies and Technologies to Meet the Needs of All Learners.  
https://dev.pressbooks.usnh.edu/teachingdiverselearners/chapter/cooperative-learning-2/  
20. Riener, C., & Willingham, D. (2010). The myth of learning styles. Change: The Magazine of Higher  
Learning, 42(5), 32–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2010.503139  
21. Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2010). Everyday ethics: Reflections on practice. International Journal of  
Qualitative Studies in Education, 23(4), 379–391. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-15238-001  
22. Rivera-Pérez, S., Fernández-Río, J., & Gallego, D. (2020). Effects of an 8-week cooperative learning  
intervention on physical education students’ task and self-approach goals, and emotional intelligence.  
International Journal of Environmental Research and  
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010061  
Public  
Health,  
18(1),  
61.  
23. Seyoum, Y., & Molla, S. (2022). Research Article Teachers’ and Students’ Roles in Promoting  
Cooperative Learning at Haramaya, Dire Dawa, and Jigjiga Universities,  
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2022/7334592  
Ethiopia.  
24. Sternberg, R. J. (1999). The theory of successful intelligence. Review of General Psychology, 3(4), 292–  
316. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1037/1089-2680.3.4.292  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1658  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
25. Torre, D., Daley, B. J., Picho, K., & Durning, S. J. (2017). Group concept mapping: An approach to  
explore group knowledge organization and collaborative learning in  
senior medical students. Medical  
Teacher, 39(10), 1051–1056. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159x.2017.1342030  
26. Trần, V. (2019). Does cooperative learning increase students’ motivation in learning?. International  
Journal of Higher Education, 8(5), 12.  
https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n5p12  
27. Wiles, R. (2012). What are qualitative research ethics? Bloomsbury Academic.  
https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/58724/9781849666534.pdf?s equence=1  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1659