A Critical Review of Studies on Coopetition in Educational Settings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is interesting in that it addresses the issue of the power of 'binaries' in bifurcating issues into black and white, though does not yet make this explicit. The fact that it addresses not one or the other of cooperation/competition but the benefits and challenges of them together, is refreshing. The argument is laid out well, and is developed well. 

In the Methodology section, around Line 129, it states "The first few articles were analyzed to provide..." but there is no reference as to HOW the analysis occurred. Was it manually? Using software of some kind? Did you use hard copies to mark up the themes? - etc. This needs more detail so the reader can be reassured that due process has been carried out. 

I would like to see a final Concluding paragraph at the end, as it currently ends with limitations. It needs a pithy and succinct paragraph that points to the article's main findings and importance.

I think a key positive value of coopetition has been missed, which is that academia, as well as politics and other fields, is too keen on using binaries to 'divide and conquer'. That is, coopetition provides a rationale for blending the cooperative and competitive elements of educational practices.

There are several, around 15-20, minor English language edits needed throughout. Examples only given here:

Line 54 - "to that the incentive to free ride" - syntax needs fixing.

Line 58 "intergroup competition has shown to strengthen" should be "has BEEN shown".

There are several minor issues - needs a good edit, but basically OK

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your effort and time in providing insightful feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered your comments, and in the following section, we provide our responses to each point. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes, highlighted in blue. We hope that the revised manuscript adequately addresses the raised concerns.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is interesting in that it addresses the issue of the power of 'binaries' in bifurcating issues into black and white, though does not yet make this explicit. The fact that it addresses not one or the other of cooperation/competition but the benefits and challenges of them together, is refreshing. The argument is laid out well, and is developed well. 

In the Methodology section, around Line 129, it states "The first few articles were analyzed to provide..." but there is no reference as to HOW the analysis occurred. Was it manually? Using software of some kind? Did you use hard copies to mark up the themes? - etc. This needs more detail so the reader can be reassured that due process has been carried out. 

RESPONSE

We are grateful for the reviewer’s feedback and suggestion on the coding process. As recommended, more details about the data analysis have now been added to the Methodology section, as follows:

“The analysis consisted of multiple rounds of manual coding. Hard copies were used to mark up the emerging categories. The first few articles were typically analyzed to provide tentative categories. The process of generating tentative categories began with an initial review of the articles, during which the researchers took notes, highlighted key phrases or ideas, and jotted down initial impressions of the content. These notes and impressions were then used to develop preliminary codes or categories that captured the essence of the data.

Once the tentative categories were established, the researcher could begin the process of applying them to subsequent articles. Each new article was carefully scrutinized to determine which tentative categories it belonged to, and whether it introduced new themes or concepts that may require the creation of additional categories. By continually revising and refining the categories, the researchers were able to identify and describe the underlying patterns and themes that were present in the data, and develop a comprehensive understanding of the research question at hand.” (see lines 141-154 on pages 3-4)

I would like to see a final Concluding paragraph at the end, as it currently ends with limitations. It needs a pithy and succinct paragraph that points to the article's main findings and importance.

RESPONSE

We are thankful for the reviewer’s thoughtful suggestion. A concluding paragraph has now been added to the end of this manuscript, as follows:

“This article provides a comprehensive review of the extant studies on utilizing a coopetitive approach to facilitate learning in educational settings. The review identifies three categories of research topics: (a) organization of coopetition, (b) medium and coopetition, and (c) application of coopetition in education, and discusses each category in detail. The article examines each category in depth and draws attention to the potential benefits of both zero-sum and social-comparison designs for enhancing education, particularly in computer-mediated settings. Coopetition has been shown to be effective in cognitive, affective, social, and management domains. Compared with the binary thinking that creates divisions, coopetition provides a rationale for blending the cooperative and competitive elements of educational practices. By embracing the concept of coopetition, we can create a more balanced environment that encourages collaboration among individuals while still maintaining a healthy competitive spirit. This approach can fuel innovation, creativity, and productivity in education. However, more research is needed to better understand the possible drawbacks and limitations of coopetition and to compare it with collaborative learning or competitive learning. Overall, this article highlights the importance of considering a coopetitive approach that leverages the strengths of both collaboration and competition, while minimizing each one's weaknesses, to enhance students' learning in educational settings.” (see lines 659 to 676 on page 15)

I think a key positive value of coopetition has been missed, which is that academia, as well as politics and other fields, is too keen on using binaries to 'divide and conquer'. That is, coopetition provides a rationale for blending the cooperative and competitive elements of educational practices.

RESPONSE

We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s insightful perspective on the value of coopetition. As suggested, we have incorporated the following sentences to the manuscript:

“Compared with the binary thinking that creates divisions, coopetition provides a rationale for blending the cooperative and competitive elements of educational practices. By embracing the concept of coopetition, we can create a more balanced environment that encourages collaboration among individuals while still maintaining a healthy competitive spirit. This approach can fuel innovation, creativity, and productivity in education.” (see lines 666-671 on page 15)

There are several, around 15-20, minor English language edits needed throughout. Examples only given here:

Line 54 - "to that the incentive to free ride" - syntax needs fixing.

RESPONSE

Thanks for the reviewer’ comment.

“Maintaining effective collaboration can be costly due to that the incentive to free ride on other group member’s efforts could ultimately result in a decay of collaboration altogether.”

The sentence above has now been revised, as follows:

“Maintaining effective collaboration can be challenging, as there is often an incentive for group members to free ride on the efforts of others, which can ultimately lead to the breakdown of collaboration altogether.” (see lines 54-56 on page 2)

Line 58 "intergroup competition has shown to strengthen" should be "has BEEN shown".

RESPONSE

We are thankful for the reviewer’s valuable feedback. This sentence has now been revised.

“……, intergroup competition has been shown to strengthen the moral emotions of anger and guilt associated with group members violating collaborative norms,……” (see lines 58-59 on page 2)

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a comprehensive study on competition in the educational setting. I think this topic is very good, but there are many problems in the research.

First of all, the authors point out that this is a critical review. So how is he different from general literature review or systematic review? If it is a critical review, where is the targeted description of the full text?

Second, there are various forms of competition in the educational setting. In short, there are cooperative competition among students, independent competition, competition among teachers and so on. But obviously, these well-known dimensions are not all included in this study, so I doubt the results. Or the authors should be more clear about the content and concept of their research, and the existing description is not clear. Then this change is accompanied by a clear revision of your title.

Third, about the selection of samples. I think the authors have screened in many databases, but what are your screening criteria? Even I think you have included many "non-competitive" keywords.

Fourth, about the presentation of the results. Although any review is enlightening in basic statistics, it is difficult to discuss the research focus in depth. This study also has this problem. There are a lot of basic statistics and descriptions, but there are no specific research results and inspiring writing, which is a very fatal problem in a review.

Fifth, discussion. As I said before, this is a critical review. But the full text does not point out any research value and reflection.

Finally, it is obvious that this study does not involve any bioethical issues, and it is not necessary to provide ethical review, so it is recommended to remove it.

need some revised

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your effort and time in providing insightful feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered your comments, and in the following section, we provide our responses to each point. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes, highlighted in blue. We hope that the revised manuscript adequately addresses the raised concerns.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a comprehensive study on competition in the educational setting. I think this topic is very good, but there are many problems in the research.

First of all, the authors point out that this is a critical review. So how is he different from general literature review or systematic review? If it is a critical review, where is the targeted description of the full text?

RESPONSE

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewer for the comment on the review approach. More information has now been included in the manuscript, as follows:

“A critical review approach was utilized in this study as it aims for a critical evaluation of a piece of literature, which involves identifying its strengths and weaknesses, assessing its credibility and relevance, and providing a balanced and informed perspective on its significance. In contrast, a systematic review is to provide a comprehensive summary of the available evidence on a particular topic, which can inform policy and practice decisions. While both approaches are often used in review studies, a critical review goes beyond summarizing the evidence and includes a critique and reflection of the topic under study. Additionally, a critical review often adopts emerging coding strategies, while a systematic follows a pre-defined coding protocol.” (see lines 130-138 on page 3)

Second, there are various forms of competition in the educational setting. In short, there are cooperative competition among students, independent competition, competition among teachers and so on. But obviously, these well-known dimensions are not all included in this study, so I doubt the results. Or the authors should be more clear about the content and concept of their research, and the existing description is not clear. Then this change is accompanied by a clear revision of your title.

PRESPONSE

We are grateful for the reviewer’ thoughtful feedback.

Indeed, there are multiple types of competition in different fields of research and practice. But they were not the focus of this study. The present study focused on reviewing the prior studies that combine collaboration and competition in education to facilitate student learning, rather than those that only adopted collaboration or competition strategies. Therefore, only the findings related to the application of the coopetition approach in education were reported in this study. To minimize possible misunderstanding, the following information has now been added to the manuscript:

“The current study aimed to specifically review literature that integrates collaboration and competition in educational settings to enhance student learning, rather than focusing solely on studies that utilized either collaboration or competition strategies in isolation.” (see lines 107-109 on page 3)

Third, about the selection of samples. I think the authors have screened in many databases, but what are your screening criteria? Even I think you have included many "non-competitive" keywords.

RESPONSE

We are thankful for the reviewer’s comment on the screening criteria. The keywords that were not related to competition or collaboration, such as “computer or internet or online or web”, “learn*”, “study*”, etc., were used to specify the research settings and fields of application of coopetition. To minimize potential confusion, the following inclusion criteria have now been refined:

“The literature was searched by using the combinations of the following keywords…”

“…… (a) studies are conducted in the educational domain, while those in the fields of conflict management and business are not considered; (b) they fit the criteria that help identify studies on coopetition as listed above; (c) they are peer-reviewed journal papers, conference articles, dissertations, or book chapters.”  (see lines 120-123 on page3)

Fourth, about the presentation of the results. Although any review is enlightening in basic statistics, it is difficult to discuss the research focus in depth. This study also has this problem. There are a lot of basic statistics and descriptions, but there are no specific research results and inspiring writing, which is a very fatal problem in a review.

RESPONSE

We are deeply grateful to the reviewer for the informative and valuable comment on the reporting of research results.

This review paper has categorized findings of prior studies into three clusters, including (a) Organization of coopetition, (b) Medium and coopetition, and (c) Application of coopetition in education. Each category has been reported in detail in the Result section. To facilitate readers’ understanding of this concept, we have summarized each category in the Discussion section (see page 11), as follows:

“5. Discussion

Overall, three main categories of research topics emerged as a result of the analysis: (a) Organization of coopetition, (b) Medium and coopetition, and (c) Application of coopetition in education. These categories will then be discussed in relation to their importance to the educational field.

5.1. Summary of organization of coopetition

Studies on coopetition in the educational field were organized primarily through two ways (see Figure 1): (a) zero-sum coopetition (N=15 out of 33) and (b) social-comparison coopetition (N=13 out of 33). Very few studies were categorized as unstructured coopetition due to the vague and unjustifiable design of collaboration and competition…….

5.2. Summary of medium and coopetition

In sum, this section shows that the number of studies carried out in the computer-mediated settings (63%) far surpasses that in conventional face-to-face settings (see Figure 2). It is nevertheless acknowledged here that what determines the learning effectiveness is not the medium per se, but the design of instruction [53], specifically, how collaboration and competition are designed and operationalized through the instructional medium…….

5.3. Summary of application of coopetition in education

Coopetition has been found to be applied to the cognitive, affective, social domains and educational management, and has been shown to be quite effective. Nevertheless, research attention has been too separated in these domains, it would be very difficult to gain deep insight as to how collaboration and competition, respectively and together, affect students’ learning and policy-makers’ decision-making.……

5.4. Critique of research on coopetition in educational settings

The concept of coopetition has attracted substantial attentions from researchers in the business field in recent years. Ever since, the journal of Industrial Marketing Management published a special issue (issue 2, volume 43) for coopetition in 2014, the research focus is no longer staying at the level of proving the effectiveness of coopetition or comparing it with either collaboration or competition. Increasing effort is spent on exploring effective coopetition strategies. However, research on coopetition in educational settings is still in its infancy, and the term itself is not widely recognized. .……” (see pages 11-13)

Fifth, discussion. As I said before, this is a critical review. But the full text does not point out any research value and reflection.

RESPONSE

We are thankful for the reviewer’s valuable feedback. As suggested, we have now included a paragraph to present the critical review approach, as follows:

“A critical review approach was utilized in this study as it aims for a critical evaluation of a piece of literature, which involves identifying its strengths and weaknesses, assessing its credibility and relevance, and providing a balanced and informed perspective on its significance. In contrast, a systematic review is to provide a comprehensive summary of the available evidence on a particular topic, which can inform policy and practice decisions. While both approaches are often used in review studies, a critical review goes beyond summarizing the evidence and includes a critique and reflection of the topic under study. Additionally, a critical review often adopts emerging coding strategies, while a systematic follows a pre-defined coding protocol. ” (see lines 130-138 on page 3)

We also refined the discussion of current research on coopetition in “Section 5.4 Critique of research on coopetition in educational settings”.

In addition, the research value and the researchers’ reflection on current studies regarding coopetition are presented in “Section 6. Implications”, as follows:

“This review paper critically examines extant studies on coopetition in the educational field to gain a deeper understanding of how the concept has been utilized to enhance education. Originating from the business field, coopetition has long existed in the educational area, but has yet to be widely adopted in the classroom. This is largely due to the pervasive prejudice against competition [48,84], and a current craze on collaboration, which ultimately leads to attention being mainly placed on collaboration-related practice and research. Despite these current trends, this review has indicated that a hybrid approach utilizing the strengths of both approaches may be a better option to facilitate learning in varied educational settings. The insights presented in this review should assist classroom practitioners seeking to enhance their students’ learning experience. The review also provides researchers with a starting point from which to draw on when planning a future research project utilizing coopetition. ” (see lines 593-604 on page 14)

“Several implications can be derived from the preceding studies for educational researchers and practitioners. Firstly, while collaboration is widely acknowledged as a crucial 21st-century skill, it is equally important to teach students how to engage in constructive competition. Coopetition offers a practical learning environment where students can learn to collaborate and compete simultaneously, thereby better preparing them for future challenges.

Secondly, although coopetition has different forms, the learning design is suggested to follow the form of intergroup competition coupled with intragroup collaboration. This may largely combine the advantages associated with collaboration and competition to produce the synergy for students’ learning, while avoiding the potential drawbacks of both. 

Thirdly, ICTs have the potential to facilitate coopetition in educational settings. The careful use of them may aid the implementation of coopetition. Thoughtful designs of coopetition through ICTs may largely decrease the potential drawbacks of competition, such as causing pressure and anxiety, and facilitate collaboration to be more effective.”  (see lines 609-623 on page 14)

Finally, it is obvious that this study does not involve any bioethical issues, and it is not necessary to provide ethical review, so it is recommended to remove it.

RESPONSE

We are grateful for the reviewer’s kind suggestion. As recommended, the statement has now been removed from the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I agree with the changes made by the authors. Congratulations.