RONG SUN1,*.
1, Yantai Vocational College，No. 2018 Binhai Middle Road, Laishan District, Yantai, Shandong Province 264003, China.
Abstract
This randomized controlled trial investigated the transfer effects of classical Chinese narrative structure instruction on contemporary students’ historical thinking abilities, addressing the gap between traditional pedagogical approaches and modern cognitive skill development. The study employed a parallel-group design with 304 undergraduate participants randomly assigned to either experimental group receiving Zuo Zhuan narrative structure instruction or control group receiving conventional historical writing pedagogy over an eight-week intervention period. Comprehensive assessment protocols measured argumentative logic competency, narrative recognition capabilities, and cognitive transfer effects through validated instruments and rubric-based evaluations. The experimental group demonstrated substantial improvements from baseline (M = 65.4) to post-intervention assessment (M = 104.5), representing a 59.8% enhancement in historical thinking ability scores. Waterfall analysis revealed cumulative effects across narrative components, with chronological sequencing (+8.2), narrative coherence (+7.3), and causal linkage (+7.1) contributing most significantly to cognitive development. Effect size analysis indicated large treatment effects (d = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.67-1.04) across argumentative dimensions, with logical structure construction showing the strongest enhancement (d = 0.91). Correlation network analysis revealed robust interconnections between narrative elements and argumentative competencies (r = 0.53-0.85, p < 0.001), suggesting shared cognitive mechanisms underlying transfer effects. These findings demonstrate that classical Chinese narrative pedagogies serve as effective cognitive scaffolds for enhancing analytical reasoning capabilities, providing empirical support for integrating traditional textual analysis with contemporary educational frameworks in cross-cultural learning environments.
Keywords: Classical Chinese narrative; Historical thinking; Cognitive transfer; Argumentative logic; Cross-cultural pedagogy
1. Introduction
The intersection of narrative form and cognitive processes has become a critical area of study in educational research, particularly on how narrative comprehension affects higher-order thinking capacity. Recent advances in cognitive science indicate that narrative forms basically organize working cognition and influence the manner in which individuals work with and organize sophisticated information[1]. Recent neuroscientific research suggests that narrative comprehension engages dynamic neural and cognitive state changes beyond simple text understanding[2]. This growing body of evidence suggests that narrative structures function as active inference machines, integrating cognitive and social operations to provide adaptive learning processes[3]. These findings imply that story forms have innate pedagogical potential that is yet to be fully exploited in institutional learning environments, particularly in disciplines requiring sophisticated analytical thought[4].
The development of critical thinking competencies within educational frameworks has also emerged as increasingly relevant, especially within systems where traditional teaching methodologies meet up with contemporary learning requirements. Examination of research that has tracked Chinese critical thinking progress within educational settings illustrates ongoing tension between legacy teaching methodology and new pedagogical breakthroughs[5]. Classical Chinese writings, particularly early texts such as the Zuo Zhuan, are very sophisticated narrative and analytic forms that have shaped intellectual discourse over time[6]. These writings display complex integration of narrative elements with rigorous analytic reason, and thus may imply potential implications for modern educational practice. However, careful analysis of means through which classical narrative modes might enhance present learning results, in particular regarding implementation to specific cognitive skill acquisition, is lacking.
Historical reasoning and thought are trans-disciplinary skills that require students to develop high-level analytical abilities with a synthesis of several cognitive mechanisms. Studies of investigating cognitive skill acquisition using historical study show remarkable differences in learning efficacy when employing diverse teaching methodologies[7]. The cognitive science framework for narrative theory provides insightful light regarding how narrative comprehension mechanisms may support intricate reasoning processes[8]. Evidence indicates that processes of causal reasoning involved in narrative comprehension share important properties with analytical thinking involved in historical and argumentative writing[9]. Contemporary scholarship on early Chinese historiography, and particularly the Zuo Zhuan tradition, illuminates complex techniques for integrating narrative presentation and analytical argumentation[10, 11].
The use of historical consciousness in school environments has also produced important relations between narrative comprehension and processes of meaning-making in historical education. In-depth literature reviews on historical education show that students’ ability to make meaningful connections between the past and present hangs in large measure on their narrative processing skill[12]. Narratology theories of cognitive science suggest that narrative comprehension involves higher-level cognitive processes which can be transferred in analytical contexts[13]. Neuroimaging studies have demonstrated narrative comprehension to produce higher-level neural networks involved in higher-level cognitive processing [14]. These findings corroborate theoretic accounts that offering narrative-centred pedagogical strategies could enhance students’ historical thinking and analytical reasoning ability[15].
Despite growing recognition of the cognitive significance of narrative structure, past research has revealed several serious limitations that restrict our understanding of its educational uses. Current narrative comprehension studies usually focus on individual cognitive processes rather than examining potential transfer effects to supporting analysis skills[16]. Pedagogical inquiry into historical argumentation usually emphasizes content strategies without considering the potential contributions of narrative processing capacities[17]. Empirical studies of traditional Chinese texts in school contexts remain largely descriptive, with no systematic investigation of their pedagogical effects[18]. Contemporary educational research design continues to fail to provide robust causal links between pedagogical intervention and measures of learning[19]. The integration of narrative coherence and complex reasoning capability requires more sophisticated empirical research to identify clear educational implications[20].
This research addresses those gaps in a randomized controlled trial to examine the transfer effects of instruction in Zuo Zhuan narrative structure on students’ argumentative logic ability in historical writing. The research rigorously tests whether direct instruction in ancient Chinese narrative techniques will enhance students’ arguments of coherence in historical analysis. By the application of systematic experimental design, the research here assists in an explanation of how ancient narrative forms can be utilised in contemporary pedagogy. The findings hold implications for teaching across cultures and offer empirical justification for cognitive gain in the integration of traditional textual analysis with modern writing pedagogy, which may interest curriculum developers in history education and writing pedagogy.
2. Method
2.1 Randomized Controlled Trial Design
The trial was a randomised controlled trial with the objective to test Zuo Zhuan’s narrative structure transfer effects on the argumentative logic of historical writing in students (Figure 1). In accordance with research design guidelines for education intervention studies[21], a parallel-group design with equal allocation ratios was adopted, which enhanced the methodological rigour and minimized selection bias. Randomisation into an experimental group to receive instruction based on the Zuo Zhuan narrative structure or a control group to receive conventional teaching on historical writing was conducted using computer-generated random sequences. This is best practice in assessing educational interventions for skill acquisition in academic subjects.
The study integrated comprehensive baseline measures and pre- and post-intervention measures to examine the intricate impacts of instruction on reasoning abilities regarding arguments. Driven by cognitive engagement theories, this study tactically incorporated a number of assessment time points based on standards of immediate and long-term learning[22]. It was in complete compliance with CONSORT standards in the experiment process, which reported the flow of participants through every phase and allowed detailed evaluation of the intervention’s effect within strong inferential statistical designs. This type of approach systematically inserts the question that attempts to determine if instruction by way of utilizing classical Chinese narrative techniques can sharpen the ability of contemporary students to reason in writing on historical topics into their argumentation schema that has the component of logic informing scholarly discourse for the sake of understanding cross-cultural teaching/learning framework transfer pedagogical boundaries.
Figure 1. CONSORT Flow Diagram: Randomized Controlled Trial Design
2.2 Participant Recruitment and Grouping Strategy
This research used a focused participant recruitment strategy targeting undergraduate humanities students to sample for the purposes of studying transfer effects in narrative structure. The research also set wide inclusion criteria across education level, academic year, and language proficiency as outlined in Table 1. These criteria were adopted with a view to ensuring control over sample homogeneity and minimising possible confounding variables. Participants had to be Chinese ‘native’ or near-native speakers with some general familiarity with historical eras, but those with a significant amount of prior experience with classical Chinese literature or those with diagnosed learning disabilities were excluded in order to obtain valid test results free of ceiling effect distortions. The recruitment strategy aimed at second or third undergraduate-year students of history and literature majors first because students at these levels were likely to have had adequate background knowledge yet remained receptive to instructional approaches. All the volunteers also agreed to regular attendance throughout the eight-week intervention duration, with an expected minimum level of 80% session attendance that was essential for protocol adherence, exposure to experimental manipulation.
Table 1. Participant Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
| Criteria Type | Inclusion Criteria | Exclusion Criteria |
| Educational Background | Undergraduate students in history, literature, or related humanities majors | Students with prior formal training in classical Chinese literature analysis |
| Academic Standing | Currently enrolled in second or third year | Students on academic probation or with incomplete course requirements |
| Language Proficiency | Native or near-native proficiency in Chinese | Non-Chinese speakers or those with limited reading comprehension |
| Prior Knowledge | Basic familiarity with Chinese historical periods | Extensive prior exposure to Zuo Zhuan or classical historiography |
| Cognitive Status | No diagnosed learning disabilities affecting reading comprehension | Self-reported learning disabilities impacting text analysis |
| Participation Commitment | Available for complete intervention period (8 weeks) | Unable to attend minimum 80% of scheduled sessions |
| Informed Consent | Written informed consent provided | Declined participation or withdrew consent |
Following successful recruitment, participants underwent comprehensive baseline assessments to verify group equivalence and establish pre-intervention competency levels across multiple domains. As demonstrated in Table 2, randomization procedures achieved successful balance between experimental and control groups across demographic characteristics, academic backgrounds, and cognitive measures, with all comparisons yielding non-significant differences (p > 0.05). The assessment battery incorporated validated instruments for measuring historical writing competency, argumentative logic skills, and critical thinking dispositions, drawing upon established frameworks for evaluating chronological thinking abilities[23]. Baseline scores revealed comparable performance levels between groups in historical writing (experimental: M = 72.8, SD = 8.3; control: M = 73.2, SD = 7.9) and argumentative logic (experimental: M = 68.4, SD = 9.1; control: M = 69.1, SD = 8.7), confirming that observed post-intervention differences could be attributed to treatment effects rather than pre-existing group disparities. This methodological rigor establishes the foundation for robust causal inference regarding the efficacy of Zuo Zhuan narrative structure instruction.
Table 2. Baseline Characteristics Comparison Between Experimental and Control Groups
| Characteristic | Experimental Group (n=148) | Control Group (n=156) | p-value | Effect Size (Cohen’s d) |
| Demographics | ||||
| Age (years), M ± SD | 20.3 ± 1.2 | 20.1 ± 1.4 | 0.412 | 0.15 |
| Gender (Female), n (%) | 83 (56.0) | 97 (62.0) | 0.543 | – |
| Academic Background | ||||
| Major (History), n (%) | 95 (64.0) | 90 (58.0) | 0.543 | – |
| GPA, M ± SD | 3.42 ± 0.38 | 3.39 ± 0.41 | 0.687 | 0.08 |
| Pre-intervention Assessments | ||||
| Historical Writing Score, M ± SD | 72.8 ± 8.3 | 73.2 ± 7.9 | 0.793 | 0.05 |
| Argumentative Logic Score, M ± SD | 68.4 ± 9.1 | 69.1 ± 8.7 | 0.689 | 0.08 |
| Classical Text Familiarity (1-10), M ± SD | 4.2 ± 1.6 | 4.0 ± 1.8 | 0.562 | 0.12 |
| Cognitive Engagement | ||||
| Reading Comprehension Score, M ± SD | 78.6 ± 6.4 | 79.1 ± 6.8 | 0.697 | 0.08 |
| Critical Thinking Disposition, M ± SD | 85.3 ± 7.2 | 84.9 ± 7.6 | 0.787 | 0.05 |
2.3 Intervention Protocol and Assessment Instruments
This study utilised a purposely crafted intervention design that separated the experiences of the experimental and control groups in order to evaluate the impact of Zuo Zhuan narrative structure instruction on the development of argumentative logic. As presented in Table 3, the experimental group was trained using classical narratives to include time sequence, causality, and moral analysis while the control group was trained using traditional historiography with chronological ordering and presentation without analysis. Both study groups were made equivalent regarding lengths of sessions (90 minutes × 16 sessions over 8 weeks) to keep exposure time constant and maintain experimental rigour. The design of the research was guided by logic in educational research design[24]such that pedagogical differences were controlled reflections of theoretical opposition and not chance.
The measurement protocol included all relevant assessment tools necessary to gather data regarding immediate learning results and long-term transfer effects in various cognitive domains. Study design included pre- and post-intervention testing for the experimental group that included an argumentation logic test and a narrative structure recognition task. The control group went through traditional historical writing tests with rubric-derived qualitative measures. Evaluation rubrics moored reason-based qualitative coding to safeguard inter-rater reliability on a number of evaluation dimensions, while peer review and session tape protocols civil service instructional fidelity frameworks together provided assurance of consistency in delivery methods. This multifaceted framework allowed for examining whether classical Chinese narrative frameworks can be employed as an instructional support for developing contemporary students’ competencies in argumentative writing.
Table 3. Intervention Protocol Comparison Between Experimental and Control Groups
| Component | Experimental Group (Zuo Zhuan Narrative Structure) | Control Group (Traditional Historical Writing) |
| Core Content | Classical narrative elements: temporal sequencing, causal linkage, character development, moral evaluation | Conventional historiographic methods: chronological organization, factual presentation, source analysis |
| Pedagogical Approach | Narrative structure analysis → cognitive mapping → transfer application | Direct instruction → practice exercises → feedback correction |
| Session Duration | 90 minutes × 16 sessions over 8 weeks | 90 minutes × 16 sessions over 8 weeks |
| Primary Materials | Selected Zuo Zhuan passages with structured analysis worksheets | Standard historical writing textbooks and exemplars |
| Learning Activities | Narrative deconstruction, structure identification, argumentation mapping, transfer exercises | Traditional essay writing, source evaluation, peer review, instructor feedback |
| Cognitive Focus | Pattern recognition, analogical reasoning, structural transfer, metacognitive awareness | Content knowledge, writing mechanics, source criticism, academic conventions |
| Assessment Method | Pre/post argumentation logic tests, narrative structure recognition tasks, transfer evaluation | Pre/post historical writing assessments, traditional rubric-based evaluation |
| Instructor Training | 20-hour specialized training in narrative structure pedagogy and transfer theory | Standard historical writing instruction methods and assessment criteria |
| Quality Control | Session recordings, fidelity checklists, standardized materials, peer observation | Lesson plan adherence, grading rubric consistency, inter-rater reliability checks |
| Expected Outcome | Enhanced argumentative logic through narrative structure transfer | Improved historical writing within conventional framework |
3. Results
3.1 Baseline Characteristics and Group Equivalence Testing
Prior to examining the intervention effects, this study conducted comprehensive baseline comparisons between the experimental and control groups to ensure the validity of randomization. As illustrated in Figure 2, the forest plot demonstrates remarkable balance across all measured demographic and academic characteristics. The effect sizes for all baseline variables ranged from -0.06 to 0.15, indicating negligible differences between groups. Specifically, age demonstrated an effect size of 0.15 (95% CI: -0.24, 0.54, p = 0.562), while gender distribution showed an effect size of -0.06 (95% CI: -0.45, 0.33, p = 0.543). Academic performance indicators, including GPA (d = 0.08, p = 0.687), historical writing scores (d = 0.05, p = 0.793), and argumentative logic scores (d = 0.08, p = 0.689), exhibited similarly small effect sizes with confidence intervals consistently spanning zero.
The remaining baseline measures further confirmed successful randomization, with classical text familiarity (d = 0.12, p = 0.697), reading comprehension scores (d = 0.08, p = 0.687), and critical thinking disposition (d = 0.05, p = 0.412) all demonstrating non-significant differences. All p-values exceeded the conventional significance threshold of 0.05, with values ranging from 0.412 to 0.793. This comprehensive baseline equivalence provides robust evidence that any observed post-intervention differences can be attributed to the experimental manipulation rather than pre-existing group disparities, thereby establishing a solid foundation for subsequent analyses of intervention effectiveness.
Figure 2. Baseline Characteristics: Between-Group Comparisons
This study successfully recruited 304 participants who were randomly assigned to either the control group (n=156) or the experimental group (n=148). The randomization procedure effectively achieved balanced distribution across all measured baseline characteristics, demonstrating the methodological rigor of the experimental design. Statistical analyses revealed no significant differences between the two groups on any of the examined variables, confirming that the random assignment protocol was successfully implemented and that subsequent intervention effects could be attributed to the treatment rather than pre-existing group differences.
Regarding demographic characteristics, participants ranged in age from 18 to 25 years, with both groups exhibiting comparable age distributions as shown in Figure 3(a). The statistical comparison yielded no significant difference between the control and experimental groups (ns), indicating successful age-related randomization. The gender composition revealed a higher proportion of female participants (60%) compared to male participants (40%) across the entire sample, as illustrated in Figure 3(b). This gender distribution reflects typical enrollment patterns in educational research studies and remained consistent across both experimental conditions.
Figure 3. Baseline Characteristics Distribution. (a) Age Distribution; (b) Gender Distribution; (c) Academic Background Distribution; (d) Cognitive Abilities Comparison
The academic background analysis demonstrated considerable diversity among participants, with representation spanning five major disciplinary areas as depicted in Figure 3(c). Liberal Arts constituted the largest group with 81 participants (42 control, 39 experimental), followed by Sciences with 73 participants (38 control, 35 experimental). Engineering, Business, and Other disciplines contributed 60, 55, and 35 participants respectively, with each category maintaining proportional distribution between the control and experimental conditions. This multidisciplinary representation enhances the generalizability of the research findings across different academic domains.
Cognitive abilities assessment revealed remarkably similar baseline performance across six key dimensions, as presented in the radar chart in Figure 3(d). Both groups demonstrated comparable scores in Reading Comprehension, Critical Thinking, Writing Skills, Logic Reasoning, Text Analysis, and Argument Evaluation, with mean scores ranging from 60 to 70 points across all measures. The overlapping patterns of the two groups’ performance profiles confirm that participants entered the study with equivalent cognitive capabilities, thereby establishing a solid foundation for evaluating the differential effects of the subsequent experimental intervention.
3.2 Differential Analysis of Argumentative Logic Competency
The differential analysis of argumentative logic competency revealed substantial improvements in the experimental group following the Zuo Zhuan narrative structure intervention. As shown in Figure 4(a), while the control group maintained relatively stable performance levels from pre-test (M = 72.1, SD = 8.5) to post-test (M = 69.8, SD = 7.2), the experimental group demonstrated significant enhancement from baseline (M = 65.4, SD = 10.2) to post-intervention assessment (M = 78.9, SD = 12.1), yielding a statistically significant group × time interaction effect (p < .001). This marked divergence in trajectories suggests that exposure to classical Chinese narrative structures effectively facilitated the development of argumentative reasoning capabilities beyond conventional historical writing instruction.
The magnitude of intervention effects across specific argumentative dimensions provided compelling evidence for the pedagogical value of narrative structure training. As illustrated in Figure 4(b), the overall effect size reached 0.85 (95% CI: 0.67-1.04), indicating a large treatment effect according to Cohen’s conventions. Particularly noteworthy was the impact on logical structure construction (d = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.72-1.08), which demonstrated the strongest enhancement among measured components. Critical analysis (d = 0.72), counter-argument development (d = 0.79), and conclusion quality (d = 0.83) similarly exhibited substantial improvements, while evidence evaluation showed moderate yet significant gains (d = 0.68). These differentiated effect patterns suggest that narrative structure instruction particularly strengthens structural coherence and argumentative organization in students’ historical writing.
Figure 4. Argumentation Logic Ability Difference Analysis. (a) Pre-Post Intervention Comparison; (b) Effect Sizes and 95% Confidence Intervals
The longitudinal analysis presented in Figure 5 reveals compelling evidence for the differential impact of Zuo Zhuan narrative structure instruction on both argumentative logic and narrative recognition capabilities. The experimental group demonstrated a marked upward trajectory in argumentative logic scores, progressing from baseline (M = 68.4, SD = 1.2) to week 8 (M = 85.8, SD = 1.4), while the control group exhibited minimal improvement from baseline (M = 69.2, SD = 1.1) to week 8 (M = 72.3, SD = 1.3). This divergence became statistically significant by week 4, as indicated in the figure, with the experimental group maintaining accelerated growth throughout the intervention period. The consistent widening of the performance gap between groups suggests that narrative structure instruction not only enhances immediate learning outcomes but also facilitates sustained cognitive development in argumentative reasoning.
Particularly noteworthy is the parallel improvement observed in narrative structure recognition scores for the experimental group, which increased from baseline (M = 4.2, SD = 0.3) to week 8 (M = 9.1, SD = 0.4), while the control group showed negligible change from baseline (M = 4.0, SD = 0.3) to week 8 (M = 5.0, SD = 0.3). This dual enhancement pattern indicates that exposure to classical Chinese narrative frameworks simultaneously develops both domain-specific recognition skills and transferable argumentative competencies. The synchronous improvement across both cognitive dimensions provides robust evidence that narrative structure instruction serves as an effective pedagogical mechanism for fostering integrated analytical capabilities in historical writing contexts.
Figure 5. Intervention Effects on Dual Cognitive Outcomes Over Time
3.3 Quantitative Assessment of Narrative Strategy Transfer Effects
The quantitative assessment of narrative strategy transfer effects revealed distinct patterns of cognitive skill enhancement across different dimensions, as illustrated in Figure 6. The heat map demonstrates that temporal sequencing and structural coherence exhibited the strongest transfer effects to argumentative competencies, with effect sizes reaching 0.91 and 0.89 respectively for logical structure construction. This finding suggests that students who mastered the chronological ordering and organizational frameworks characteristic of Zuo Zhuan narratives demonstrated superior ability to construct logically coherent arguments in their historical writing. Causal linkage similarly showed robust transfer effects across multiple argumentative dimensions (d = 0.71-0.88), indicating that understanding narrative causality mechanisms substantially enhanced students’ analytical reasoning capabilities.
Conversely, character development and moral evaluation dimensions displayed moderate transfer effects (d = 0.55-0.73), suggesting these narrative elements contributed less directly to argumentative skill development. The heat map’s gradient patterns reveal that transfer effects were most pronounced for structural aspects of argumentation, including logical structure, counter-argument development, and overall coherence, while evidence evaluation showed comparatively modest gains. These differential transfer patterns provide empirical support for the hypothesis that specific narrative strategies function as cognitive scaffolds, with structural and causal elements serving as particularly effective bridges between narrative comprehension and argumentative reasoning in academic writing contexts.
Figure 6. Transfer Effects of Narrative Strategies on Argumentative Competencies
The correlation network analysis presented in Figure 7 reveals intricate interconnections between narrative structural elements and argumentative competencies, providing compelling evidence for the cognitive mechanisms underlying transfer effects. As shown in the figure, the network demonstrates substantial correlations across all measured dimensions, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.53 to 0.85 (mean r = 0.68, p < 0.001). The visualization illustrates particularly robust associations between temporal sequencing and critical analysis (r ≥ 0.80), as well as between causal linkage and logical structure construction, indicating that these narrative elements serve as foundational cognitive scaffolds for argumentative reasoning development. The density of strong correlations (represented by thick green lines) suggests that narrative comprehension and argumentative logic share overlapping cognitive processes that facilitate cross-domain transfer.
The network topology further reveals that logical structure and critical analysis function as central nodes within the argumentative competency cluster, exhibiting the highest connectivity with narrative elements. This pattern indicates that these argumentative dimensions are most susceptible to enhancement through narrative structure instruction. Conversely, evidence evaluation demonstrates comparatively moderate correlations with narrative elements, suggesting domain-specific constraints on transfer effectiveness. The comprehensive interconnectedness observed across the network supports the theoretical framework proposing that classical Chinese narrative structures activate cognitive mechanisms that systematically enhance students’ capacity for constructing coherent arguments in historical writing contexts.
Figure 7. Correlation Network: Narrative Structure and Argumentative Ability
The waterfall analysis presented in Figure 8 demonstrates the cumulative enhancement effects of individual Zuo Zhuan narrative components on students’ historical thinking ability development. As shown in the figure, the systematic integration of classical narrative elements yielded a substantial overall improvement of 39.1 points, representing a 59.8% enhancement from the baseline score of 65.4 to the final achievement of 104.5 points. The sequential contribution pattern reveals that chronological sequencing provided the most substantial initial boost (+8.2 points), followed by narrative coherence (+7.3 points) and causal linkage (+7.1 points), indicating these structural elements serve as foundational cognitive scaffolds for historical reasoning development.
The progressive accumulation of effects across narrative dimensions illustrates the synergistic nature of classical Chinese textual pedagogy in fostering analytical capabilities. Temporal structure (+6.4 points) and moral evaluation (+5.8 points) contributed moderate yet significant enhancements, while character development (+4.3 points) demonstrated the most modest improvement among measured components. This differentiated impact pattern suggests that structural and organizational aspects of Zuo Zhuan narratives transfer more effectively to historical thinking contexts than character-focused elements. The consistent upward trajectory depicted in the waterfall visualization provides compelling evidence that sequential mastery of narrative components creates multiplicative rather than merely additive learning benefits.
Figure 8. Effects of Zuo Zhuan Structure on Historical Thinking
4. Discussion
The findings of this randomized controlled trial affirm that classical Chinese narrative structures, in this instance those derived from the Zuo Zhuan, are effective cognitive scaffolds to support the historical thinking abilities of contemporary students. The dramatic improvement quantified in argumentative logic competence (effect size d = 0.85) presents solid evidence that pedagogical designs of very remote historical eras hold significant transferable value in teaching and learning today[25]. This study adds to the knowledge of how traditional educational practices integrate advanced pedagogical values that are still applicable in learning environments today [26]. The underlying mental mechanisms of the observed transfer effects dovetail with current theories of knowledge transfer and domain-general skill acquisition, especially concerning cognitive skill improvement in higher education[27].
From the cross-cultural education perspective, this study enlightens the potential integration of indigenous Chinese pedagogical approaches with international contemporary pedagogical structures[28]. The effective transfer of ancient story-telling abilities to contemporary argumentative writing illustrates that cultural pedagogical practices have cognitively universal foundations above the specific culture[29]. This finding is significant for multicultural learning environments where multiple pedagogical traditions could be combined to enhance the achievement outcomes of students[30]. Empirical support for the combination of traditional Asian pedagogical practices with Western analytical paradigms comes from this study with suggestions that cross-cultural pedagogical synthesis can lead to more significant learning gains compared to monocultural education practices[31]. Systematic enhancement being witnessed across a number of argumentative dimensions suggests that narrative-based pedagogical interventions can be applied extensively across humanities disciplines to promote analytical writing abilities[32].
The waterfall effect of analysis revealing cumulative impacts on narrative structures substantiates the view that conventional textual pedagogy operates through systematic thought processes and not discrete skill mastery. This finding provides evidence for theoretical models which posit that conventional forms of education, particularly those premised on Confucian pedagogical philosophies, facilitate the process of transferable mental capabilities that go beyond mastery of content in specific domains[33]. The neurocognitive underpinnings of narrative comprehension and the link with higher-level cognitive processing provide additional theoretical support for such empirical results, in particular, to the involvement of posterior medial episodic network in narrative comprehension[34]. The research exemplifies that treatment with structured narrative elements triggers rudimentary cognitive processes involved with logical reasoning and argumentation building, in line with contemporary models of cross-cultural language teaching policies and their cognitive implications [35].
The practical consequences for contemporary historical education are considerable, particularly in contexts of multiculturalism and developing critical thinking and analytical reasoning competencies[36]. The research demonstrates that pedagogy of narrative can be an effective complement to traditional pedagogy for historians, performing critical students’ competence in constructing well-supported-in-texts and facilitating their engagement in sophisticated historical thinking[37]. This finding responds to persisting questions about the effectiveness of conventional pedagogical practices in developing higher-order thinking abilities, particularly in problem-solving environments that require discipline-specific tactical proficiency[38]. The efficacy of narrative-based pedagogic interventions in being successfully used validates for radical pedagogical practices that integrate antiquated textual analysis with contemporary pedagogical objectives[39].
In acknowledgment of these restrictions, this research recognizes a number of methodological limits on generalizability. This study only sampled undergraduate humanities students in a single context, and the external validity of results applies only to varied educational levels and subject matter domains. The eight-week intervention helps to establish short-term effects, but provides little information regarding long-term sustainability of improvements. Also, the research tested transfer effects in a fairly circumscribed area of historical composition, and the issue of how widely it applies to other analytical environments remains uncertain. These are a reflection of wider limitations in the design and conduct of cross-cultural research, especially with respect to ethical issues and methodological propriety in multicultural educational environments[40].
Future research must investigate longitudinal persistence of narrative-based cognitive training and test for transfer effects to broader subject domains. Cross- studiess based on diverse classical textual traditions may unveil some universal principles of narrative-based pedagogy as well as culture-dependent factors that condition transfer effectiveness. Insights into optimal instructional duration and intensity would yield evidence-based practical guidelines for instructional delivery by teachers. In addition, neuroimaging studies have the potential to provide deeper insight into the cognitive mechanisms underlying narrative-to-argumentative transfer, perhaps revealing underlying principles with applications in broader education. Cross-cultural replication experiments would better enable the understanding of worldwide generalizability of ancient narrative pedagogies to other education systems and cultural contexts.
5. Conclusion
The findings of this randomised controlled trial strongly support the idea that classical Chinese narratives, especially the Zuo Zhuan, are powerful tools for instruction and enhancing contemporary students’ thinking skills with respect to history. The study shows enhanced systematic exposure to a canonical narrative structure improves learners’ logic skills with argumentation up to 0.85 effect sizes on multiple cognitive dimensions. Learning of narrative constituents stepwise is identified through waterfall analysis, showing multiplicatively positive learning effects having baseline scores of 65.4 to achieving an end score of 104.5 points. This empirical evidence demonstrates the adaptability of classical pedagogic practices putting texts first in providing timeless scaffolding methods transferable way beyond temporal and cultural boundaries for enhancing education theory and practice.
The implications for the teaching of history go further to encompass questions relating to narrative cognition and cross-cultural knowledge transfer. The work demonstrates how premodern Chinese pedagogical approaches engage basic cognitive capabilities required both for analytical thinking and for argument construction. The transfer effects observed from narrative to argumentative reason are powerful support for the view that literary interpretation and scholarly composition mobilize common cognitive abilities. This study expands understanding about how older traditions of teaching influence modern instructional practice, particularly in multicultural settings where approaches of instruction from different cultures are blended to support teaching efficacy.
Furthermore, this evidence offers real-world application in which teachers can be provoked to integrate contemporary chronological analysis and up-to-date analytical instruction to enhance students’ cognitive architecture to the fullest. Through reasoned analysis, teachers are offered evidence-based reports that systematically advance the critical thinking capacities through textual analysis of ancient Chinese works, illustrating exposure-driven enhancement in argumentative reasoning skill. Such trends should be investigated both longitudinally and in wider educational environments. There is evidence that there is long-term significance in terms of cross-cultural pedagogical integration in the form of indigenous wisdom blended with contemporary frameworks for building higher-order analytical reasoning skills among multicultural learners.
References
[1] L. R. Beach, “The narrative structure of working cognition: Combining the Theory of Narrative Thought and Conviction Narrative Theory,” Theory & Psychology, p. 09593543241290460, 2024.
[2] H. Song, B.-y. Park, H. Park, and W. M. Shim, “Cognitive and neural state dynamics of narrative comprehension,” Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 41, no. 43, pp. 8972-8990, 2021.
[3] N. Bouizegarene, M. J. Ramstead, A. Constant, K. J. Friston, and L. J. Kirmayer, “Narrative as active inference: an integrative account of cognitive and social functions in adaptation,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 15, p. 1345480, 2024.
[4] L. Kouneni, “Narrative Space and Possible Worlds: Encountering Ancient Narratives from a Cognitive Science Perspective.”
[5] Y. Xie, J. Smith, and M. Davies, “The evolution of critical thinking in Chinese education context: Policy and curriculum perspectives,” International Studies in Sociology of Education, pp. 1-24, 2025.
[6] A. Plaks and M. Nylan, Zuo Tradition/Zuozhuan: Commentary on the” Spring and Autumn Annals”. University of Washington Press, 2016.
[7] C. J. Gómez, G. Solé, P. Miralles, and R. Sánchez, “Analysis of cognitive skills in History textbook (Spain-England-Portugal),” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 11, p. 521115, 2020.
[8] D. Herman, “Narrative theory and the cognitive sciences,” Narrative Inquiry, 2001.
[9] C. R. Fletcher and C. P. Bloom, “Causal reasoning in the comprehension of simple narrative texts,” Journal of Memory and language, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 235-244, 1988.
[10] Y. Pines, M. Kern, and N. Luraghi, “Introduction: Zuozhuan and the Beginnings of Chinese Historiography,” in Zuozhuan and Early Chinese Historiography: Brill, 2023, pp. 1-20.
[11] Y. Pines, M. Kern, and N. Luraghi, Zuozhuan and Early Chinese Historiography. Brill, 2023.
[12] N. Popa, “Operationalizing historical consciousness: A review and synthesis of the literature on meaning making in historical learning,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 92, no. 2, pp. 171-208, 2022.
[13] D. Herman, “Narratology as a cognitive science,” Image and Narrative, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-31, 2000.
[14] E. Simony et al., “Dynamic reconfiguration of the default mode network during narrative comprehension,” Nature communications, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 12141, 2016.
[15] R. Thorp and A. Persson, “On historical thinking and the history educational challenge,” Educational Philosophy and Theory, vol. 52, no. 8, pp. 891-901, 2020.
[16] B. Merker, K. Williford, and D. Rudrauf, “The integrated information theory of consciousness: A case of mistaken identity,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 45, p. e41, 2022.
[17] C. Van Boxtel and J. Van Drie, “Historical reasoning: Conceptualizations and educational applications,” The Wiley international handbook of history teaching and learning, pp. 149-176, 2018.
[18] K. Vogelsang, ““Times Have Changed”: History beyond the Zuozhuan,” in Zuozhuan and Early Chinese Historiography: Brill, 2023, pp. 289-324.
[19] J. D. Parra and D. B. Edwards Jr, “Challenging the gold standard consensus: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and their pitfalls in evidence-based education,” Critical Studies in Education, vol. 65, no. 5, pp. 513-530, 2024.
[20] M. Foldager et al., “Narrative coherence and mentalizing complexity are associated in fictive storytelling and autobiographical memories in typically developing children and adolescents,” Cognitive Development, vol. 71, p. 101484, 2024.
[21] S. E. Rimm-Kaufman, E. G. Merritt, C. Lapan, J. DeCoster, A. Hunt, and N. Bowers, “Can service-learning boost science achievement, civic engagement, and social skills? A randomized controlled trial of Connect Science,” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, vol. 74, p. 101236, 2021.
[22] S. Li, “Measuring cognitive engagement: An overview of measurement instruments and techniques,” International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 63-76, 2021.
[23] O. Ofianto and T. Z. Ningsih, “Assessment Instrument Development for a Chronological Thinking Skills with the Rasch Model,” AL-ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 1160-1166, 2021.
[24] C. Wheatley et al., “Fit to Study: Reflections on designing and implementing a large-scale randomized controlled trial in secondary schools,” Trends in Neuroscience and Education, vol. 20, p. 100134, 2020.
[25] Q. Chen, “Enhancing cross‐cultural educational awareness: experimental study on immersive experiences using virtual reality,” British Educational Research Journal, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 687-704, 2025.
[26] K. W. Clark and R. S. Jain, The liberal arts tradition: A philosophy of Christian classical education. Classical Academic Press, 2021.
[27] D. Billing, “Teaching for transfer of core/key skills in higher education: Cognitive skills,” Higher education, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 483-516, 2007.
[28] M. Jeon, D. Dimitriou, and E. J. Halstead, “A systematic review on cross-cultural comparative studies of sleep in young populations: the roles of cultural factors,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 18, no. 4, p. 2005, 2021.
[29] Y.-D. Li, Y. Pan, and B. Z. Kwek, “Century-long evolution of Chinese oral communication teaching and research,” International Journal of Chinese Education, vol. 13, no. 3, p. 2212585X241307033, 2024.
[30] M. Minkov et al., “Comparative culturology and cross-cultural psychology: How comparing societal cultures differs from comparing individuals’ minds across cultures,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 164-188, 2024.
[31] A. M. de Albuquerque Moreira, J.-J. Paul, and N. Bagnall, “The contribution of comparative studies and cross-cultural approach to understanding higher education in the contemporary world,” Intercultural studies in higher education: Policy and practice, pp. 1-20, 2019.
[32] M. Y.-P. Peng, Y. Feng, X. Zhao, and W. Chong, “Use of knowledge transfer theory to improve learning outcomes of cognitive and non-cognitive skills of university students: Evidence from Taiwan,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 12, p. 583722, 2021.
[33] C. Wang, “Resurgence of Confucian education in contemporary China: Parental involvement, moral anxiety, and the pedagogy of memorisation,” Journal of Moral Education, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 325-342, 2023.
[34] M. Ritchey and R. A. Cooper, “Deconstructing the posterior medial episodic network,” Trends in cognitive sciences, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 451-465, 2020.
[35] X. Jingyi and A. De Dios, “Multicultural integration and future pathways: an analysis of Chinese language education policies and practices in Philippine public secondary schools,” Current Issues in Language Planning, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 139-168, 2025.
[36] N. P.-K. Lo, “Cross-cultural comparative analysis of student motivation and autonomy in learning: perspectives from Hong Kong and the United Kingdom,” in Frontiers in Education, 2024, vol. 9: Frontiers Media SA, p. 1393968.
[37] P. Miralles-Sánchez, J. Rodríguez-Medina, and R. Sánchez-Ibáñez, “Evaluation of didactic units on historical thinking and active methods,” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1-11, 2024.
[38] C. Foster, “Problem solving in the mathematics curriculum: From domain‐general strategies to domain‐specific tactics,” The Curriculum Journal, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 594-612, 2023.
[39] M. Xue et al., “Narrative medicine as a teaching strategy for nursing students to developing professionalism, empathy and humanistic caring ability: a randomized controlled trial,” BMC medical education, vol. 23, no. 1, p. 38, 2023.
[40] A. Raza, “Navigating the Labyrinth: Ethical Dilemmas in Cross-Cultural Research-A Scholarly Exploration,” Social Science Review Archives, vol. 1, no. 03, pp. 9-17, 2024.