Professional Documents
Culture Documents
!
"
"#
$%&&'#%&(%#%&()
*
+ ,
#
-
-
--#
$.
#/
#
"
(')0#/
, /
$!#
,
*
1,
$
1
2,
$
#3
*
4
5#
#
6
1$
(0&
$5 1!
#
#
#,
1
!
!
!
"
#
$
%
&
'
()$
#
#)(*+,$
-.
" /0
12+(3
45
$
66
4 2+(3 "
#
$
%
& '
#
#2+(3
Competitive Team-Based Learning Vs.
Reciprocal Teaching of Reading in EFL Classes
Fatemeh Salari
MA in ELT, Mashhad,Iran
1
As an Iranian liberal educator, i am interested in
democratic Education and have a zest for awakening,
empowering, and emancipating the oppressed majority.
I succeeded to publish more than 130 bookticles during
my stay in India, in the course of pursuing my PhD, in
ELT. In my last book published by LAMBERT
ACADEMIC, Germany, in 2012. 2015, 2018, I have
suggested ‘language’ as a ‘liberating agent’ in my
seminal ‘Cognitive Socio-Political Language Learning
Theory’ based upon which i introduced my instructional
weapon, a weapon for the overthrow of dictatorial
regimes.
See the 17 minute introductory video @
https://youtu.be/cPtOUaIkJlk
mhhosseini2020@gmail.com
2
DEDICATION
3
Acknowledgements
We would also like to thank all those students who participated in our study, for the
experimental part of this thesis.
4
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS…………………………………………...…...…4
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………..….5
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………...…………….......9
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………..…..11
LIST OF ABBRIAVTIONS……………………………....……………………...13
ABSTRACT………………………………………………….…….....………....…14
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………..…..17
5
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………..…....26
Students……….……….40
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction………………………………………………...………...….…..44
3.2 Participants…………………………………………...……………………....…44
3.3 Instrumantations……………………….………………….………………….44
6
3.4.2 Competitive Team Based Learning and Reading……………………………..49
4.1 Introduction………….…………..……………………………………..…….54
4.1.1 Descriptive Statistics…………………………………………………….....54
4.1.1.A The Average of the Participants' Reading Performance in Experimental and Control
Groups………………………………………………………………..…55
7
4.2 Discussion……………………………………………....86
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
5.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………...…..89
REFERENCES………………………………………………………...………...96
APPENDICES……………………………………………106
8
List of Tables
Table 3.1. Reliability Coefficients and Significance Levels of the Attitude Questionnaire
Administered………………………………7
Table 3.2. Correlations-Validity of the Attitude Total Scores with the Subcategories…7
Table 3.3 Distinguishing between RTR and CTBL……………………………7
Table 4.1 Pre-test Results for both Groups………………………………7
Table 4.2 The t-vale for the Pre-test of the Two Groups ………………………………7
Table 4.3 RTR Group’s Pre and Post tests Means………………………………7
Table 4.4 Paired t-test for RTR Group………………………………7
Table 4.5 Pre-test and Post-test Means of CTBL Group………………………………7
Table 4.6 Paired t-test for CTBL Group………………………………7
Table 4.7 Results of post-test for both Groups………………………………7
Table 4.8 The t-value for the Post-test of the Two Groups………………………………7
Table 4.9 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test………………………………….7
Table 4.10 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test …….……….………….7
Table 4.11 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test ……………….………….7
Table 4.12 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test ……………….………….7
Table 4.13 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test ……………….………….7
Table 4.14 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test ……………….………….7
Table 4.15 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test ……………….………….7
Table 4.16 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test ……………….………….7
Table 4.17 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test ……………….………….7
Table 4.18 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test ……………….………….7
Table 4.19 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test ……………….………….7
Table 4.20 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test ……………….………….7
Table 4.21 (a) One-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test…………………………..7
Table 4.21 (b) Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances in the two groups……….7
Table 4.21 © Group statistics…………………………………………….……….7
Table 4.21 (d) Independent Samples Test …………………………7
Table 4.22 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test ……………….………….7
9
Table 4.23 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test ……………….………….7
Table 4.24 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test ……………….………….7
Table 4.25 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test ……………….………….7
Table 4.26 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test ……………….………….7
Table 4.27 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test ……………….………….7
Table 4.28 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test ……………….………….7
Table 4.29 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test ……………….………….7
Table 4.30 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test ……………….………….7
Table 4.31 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test ……………….………….7
Table 4.32 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test ……………….………….7
10
List of Figures
Figure 3.1. Teaching and assessment process in CTBL class……7
Figure 4.1 The average of the participants' reading performance in experimental and control
groups……………………………………………….7
Figure 4.2 The average of participants' attitudes towards English language learning before
and after conducting the experiment in experimental group (CTBL class)
………......…….7
Figure 4.3 The average of students' attitudes towards English language learning before and
after conducting the experiment in control group (CGBL class)
…..................................7
Figure 4.4 The average of students' attitudes towards individualistic class structure before
and after conducting the experiment in experimental group (CTBL class)
………………………….7
Figure 4.5 The average of students' attitudes towards individualistic class structure before
and after conducting the experiment in control group (CGBL class)
……………......……………….7
Figure 4.6 The average of students' attitudes towards cooperative learning before and after
conducting the experiment in experimental group (CTBL class) …....................….7
Figure 4.7 The average of students' attitudes towards cooperative learning before and after
conducting the experiment in control group (CGBL class) ………………….7
Figure 4.8 The average of students' concerns with regard to cooperative learning before and
after conducting the experiment in experimental group (CTBL class)
……...………….7
Figure 4.9 The average of students' concerns with regard to cooperative learning before and
after conducting the experiment in control group (CGBL class)
……….........................….7
Figure 4.10 The average of students' attitudes towards CGBL before and after conducting
the experiment in experimental group (CTBL class)
…………….............……………….7
Figure 4.11 The average of students' attitudes towards CGBL before and after conducting
11
the experiment in control group (CGBL class) ………...................................….7
Figure 4.12 The average of students' attitudes towards CTBL before and after conducting the
experiment in experimental group (CTBL class)
……………………...................……….7
Figure 4.13 The average of students' attitudes towards CTBL before and after conducting the
experiment in control group (CGBL class)
……………………….................................…….7
12
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CL Cooperative Learning
CTBL Competitive Team-Based Learning
ELT English Language Teaching
EFL English as a Foreign Language
FL Foreign Language
IELTS International English Language Testing Syndicate
L2 Second Language
RTR Reciprocal Teaching of Reading
TM Traditional Method
13
A Brief Introduction to the Book
This study was an experimental investigation on the effects of a new type of cooperative
Hosseini (2009, 2012, 2018) at Mashhad Education Office in Iran, and 'Reciprocal Teaching
Iranian EFL intermediate students. It was also tried to gage the attitude of the participants
After administering Interchange placement test to a total population of 75, and after
ensuring that the participants were at the intermediate level and that they were homogenous,
sixty students were selected, based on their scores in the pretest. Then, they were randomly
assigned to two experimental groups – thirty per group. Each class was divided into seven
teams of four – the two remaining students in each class worked in pairs. Before the
experiment, we conducted the Interchange reading test and the questionnaire. In the course
of experimentation, while the first experimental group was instructed via RTR method of
CL, the second experimental group was instructed via Hosseini's method of (language)
teaching (i.e., CTBL). At the end of the study the questionnaire was applied once again. The
reading comprehension test (posttest) was also used to assess the probable progress in the
reading comprehension ability of the students. The results on independent samples T-test
showed statistical significance at P≤0.05 level that can be attributed to the effect of CTBL
on the participants' reading comprehension achievements. That is, CTBL was more effective
than RTR in improving the reading comprehension ability of Iranian EFL intermediate
14
students. It was also found that the participants had developed more positive attitudes
towards CTBL.
15
Chapter I
Introduction
16
1.1 Introduction
could also greatly contribute to the quality of the language one acquires/learns. In Iranian
classrooms of higher education, college and graduate students need efficient reading skills to
comprehend a mass of reading materials from various sources related to their studies. For Iranian
high-school students, as English foreign language (EFL) learners, reading is even more
important. This is due to the fact that they have to be highly competitive in the national
universities' entrance examination. Therefore, the ability to read and comprehend texts is very
important for Iranian students. In addition, high-school students need to improve their English
reading comprehension abilities to more advanced level because of the demanding expectations
particularly in reading comprehension classes/courses, has not been a success in Iran until
now (Hosseini, 2012). Some difficulties including large size of classes, limited reading
strategies, and particularly the methods of teaching reading comprehension in Iranian classrooms
causes the Iranian students’ English reading ability does not reach a very high level of
proficiency.
Hosseini (2012) proposes the idea that the teaching methods and approaches Iranian
educators avail themselves of in the course of teaching English language play a more
noteworthy role in this fiasco. He argues that in spite of the considerable developments in the
field of ELT, most of Iranian teachers are still applying the traditional methods and
approaches in their language classes. He continues that majority of Iranian teachers are using
a hybrid of grammar translation methods and audio lingual methods for the purpose of
17
teaching English language in their classes. The fact is that the mechanisms underlying such
classes do not have the potentiality to engage all of the students in the process of language
learning. Furthermore, the pivotal role of language learning strategies has been greatly
ignored.
shifting towards learner-centered models or approaches. This shift signals a new era in which
way of teaching for promoting reading abilities of students (Gomleksiz, 2007; Ning, 2011).
Prior research also suggests that CL has significant effects on developing students’ reading
The significance of CL also refers to the fact that in cooperative learning settings
students are more active and are encouraged to take more responsibility for their learning.
But the fact is that CL is a general term that refers to some teaching methods where students
work in groups on a certain activity in order to maximize one another’s learning and to
achieve certain shared learning goals (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998). In Iran, however,
English reading instruction within the framework of CL has not been tried yet at the
appropriately is the main goal of TEFL in Iran. Nevertheless, it seems that a considerable
number of even the students who graduate from schools and even from universities are not
18
still satisfied with their reading performances. This calls for immediate action to be taken. As
it will be hypothesized in this research study, one of the main influential factors in our fiasco,
in TEFL, in Iran, relates to the contexts of our classes. It is a known fact that students in our
present traditional contexts of learning are passive and are not willing to take responsibility
for their own learning in the course of learning. And such behaviors contribute to their
failure.
There is no doubt today that CL methods are more effective than the traditional
environments. However, studies on this area with EFL students in Iran are none and far
between. Thus further investigation to examine whether the positive effect of CTBL and RTR
also holds true for improving Iranian students’ reading comprehension, still calls for
empirical validation.
In the present study, as such, this researcher has tried to evaluate the effectiveness of
CTBL and RTR on the reading comprehension of Iranian intermediate students. The
researcher selected CTBL to be compared with RTR in virtue of the fact that she is under the
impression that, in comparison to other methods of CL, these methods are the most effective
This study focuses on an area in the arena of educational research which has been
overlooked by researchers particularly in Iran. The results of this study would contribute to
of this study refers to its focus on CTBL and RTR. The value of RTR for language classes
19
refers to the fact that it focuses on direct and explicit presentation of four main reading
strategies in group work oriented learning environments. The significance of CTBL for
language classes refers to its foci upon the systematic implementation of teamwork and
discussion, which are of paramount importance for language learning. Teamwork and
discussion also enhance direct and indirect transference of language learning strategies.
Importantly, the study delves into the effectiveness of two Western oriented
Momtaz and Garner (2010) have confirmed, in spite of the widespread research on the
effectiveness of CL methods in the West, there has been little research on their effectiveness
would answer the question ‘Whether CTBL and RTR would be effective in Iran?’ and if yes,
to what extent? Our findings, we hope, will also provide strong support and encouragement
for Iranian language educators to incorporate CL methods into their classrooms for the
significant feature of this study is that it attempts to investigate the effectiveness of two CL
methods on the reading performance of intermediate students. This is important because this
area has also been neglected by Iranian researchers. Educational policy makers,
educationalists, researchers, syllabus designers, and material developers could also avail
This study was, thereby, an attempt to compare the effects of CTBL and RTR on the
reading performance of Iranian intermediate students. The purpose of the present study was
20
RQ1: Was there any significant difference between the effects of CTBL and RTR teaching
RQ2: Was there any significant difference in the students' attitudes towards CTBL and RTR
H01: There would be no significant difference between the effects of CTBL and RTR
H02: There would be no significant difference in the students' attitudes towards, CTBL and
Competitive Team-Based Learning (CTBL): Hosseini (2012, pp. 89-90) defines his
collaborate with their teammates in order to achieve their shared learning goals and prove
their superiority over other teams. Hosseini believes that CTBL's environments contribute to
students' knowledge (of the language), (language) learning strategies, social skills and
dispositions. In this study, CTBL is a method in teaching a foreign language specially for
teaching the reading skill that helps the students to be more active and more willing to take
responsibilities in their learning process. This is a competitive process as well. (See Hosseini,
2018)
Intermediate Level: Learners' reading proficiency has been divided into three main levels:
21
refers to the learners who are almost able to comprehend a text but not as accurate and as
fluent as advanced learners. They have still difficulty in comprehending what they read at the
intermediate level. (Jahanbazian, 2015, p.20). In this study, intermediate level students are in
age 16 to 21 who have studied English for 6 years. Students at this level have knowledge or
understand the text for main specific an intended information. We considered Chastain’s
(1988, p.217) idea that “reading involves comprehension; when readers are not
comprehending, they are not reading at all’. In this definition, she defines reading as a means
of getting meaning from the printed page; that is, when we read to increase our vocabulary or
efforts to launch the new version of RTR. Reciprocal teaching is a CL instructional method
between teachers and students, in reading courses. Therefore, one major characteristic of this
method of CL refers to the emphasis it lays on explicit strategy training in reading courses, in
this study, RTR refers to a method of teaching in which the students learn through groupwork
22
As regards the limitations, the findings of this study could not be safely generalized to
short implementation of CL methods, about two months, in an EFL environment where the
exposure to English is very limited. Six weeks is a rather short period to expect significant
gains in comprehending texts in a language. Also, the number of subjects on which these
results have been obtained is small (a total of only 60 across the two groups). With a larger
group which would be more representative of EFL learners’ community in Iran, it would be
possible to include a control group and possibly another treatment group exposed to a
different method of CL. The researcher was also limited to choosing her target group from
among male, rather than a mixture of male and female, students. Therefore, the results of this
With respect to the delimitations of the present study, the researcher decided to
investigate the effectiveness of CTBL, in comparison with RTR, as this method has been
designed and developed by an Iranian scholar and so it might benefit Iranian students more
effectively than other methods of CL. One more point which should be clarified is that as a
number of researches have proved the superiority of CL methods over the traditional method,
comparing CTBL and RTR with the traditional method is excluded in this study. The
23
In the first chapter of the thesis, the problem under study as well as the purpose
of the study has been shed light upon. The significance of and the justification for the
study have also been presented. After positing the research questions, limitations and
The significance of investigating and comparing the probable effects of CTBL and
RTR on the reading performance of Iranian students have been discussed in the second
chapter of the present research study. After reviewing empirical studies, the present gap in
In the third chapter of the thesis, some information about the participants and
instrumentation has been provided. The procedure of data collection and analysis has also
been introduced. At the end, the design of the research study has been shed light upon.
In the fourth chapter of the study, after gathering the related data out of students’
responses in the questionnaire as well as the pretest and posttest, the researcher availed
herself of some statistical tools. Through SPSS (version 20), she used descriptive statistics
such as frequency, means, and standard deviation as well as inferential statistics like t-test to
analyze and interpret the data. This chapter, thereby, has dealt with the analysis of the data
collected through the application of the tools of the study and highlights the results in order to
The last chapter presents a summation of the present study. Then, after elaborating the
have also been put forth. At the end of the thesis, a detailed bibliography of select list of
24
Chapter II
25
2.1 Introduction
Reading is an important means by which not only new language skills are acquired but also
new information is gathered and comprehended. Today, in the era of information explosion,
it is not possible to deny the importance of reading. Importantly, as Hosseini (2012) argues,
evaluating, which are essential for understanding and solving problems in the real world
contexts. However, as mentioned, the fact is that reading instruction has not been a success so
far, especially in countries like Iran. As in the words of Hosseini, although Iranian
undergraduate learners have far less problems in selecting the best alternative in a multiple
choice test on reading comprehension, most of them are not able to locate or deduce an
because, he argues, they do not have the ability for evaluative interpretation of the texts.
Therefore, the researcher thought it would be worth investigating, in the present research
study, whether CTBL and RTR as CL methods could be conducive to this skill in Iranian
students. If the answer to this question is positive, which method will be more effective?
2. 2 Cooperative Learning
to work together to achieve their shared learning goals. CL methods have emerged based on
interaction in learning. From their point of view, language learning is a kind of problem
solving activity which occurs more effectively in situations where learners have the
26
opportunities for mutual interaction and negotiation. The belief is that such learning together
contexts bring with them rich and necessary opportunities for language learning. According
to Hosseini (2012), in view of the fact that students, in CL settings, need to exchange
information and advice in order to succeed in achieving their shared learning goals, CL has
some benefits particularly for reading classes resulting from social interaction between
students. Also, Mackey (2007) confirms the idea that classroom social interaction is beneficial to
overall language development of students. It has been observed that students in CL settings
interact and speak further and so achieve better in most cases than those who always keep
silent (Khadidja, 2010). McCafferty et al. (2006) have also commented that the significance
of CL for language classes is that it focuses on boosting the effectiveness of group work,
Cooperative learning as means of promoting student interaction which itself leads to the
development of social skills has many different methods chief amongst which are Student
Team-Based Learning (CTBL) and Reciprocal Teaching of Reading (RTR). As the last two
mentioned methods are the focused areas of this research study, we elaborate them in the
following sections:
which was developed by Seyed Mohammad Hassan Hosseini (2000, 2009, 2012). In classes
conducted through CTBL, the teacher presents the lesson and heterogeneous teams of four
27
put their efforts together and work on the introduced tasks to prove their superiority over
other teams. In class activities team members have no option but to try to be sure that each
member has mastered the assigned material because the teacher would randomly call upon a
student to answer for the team. Although in this method team members take the finals
individually as in other methods of CL, they take quizzes cooperatively. Hosseini states that
the philosophy beyond allowing students to take quizzes cooperatively is to subject them to
more opportunities for transference of skills and strategies in a metacognitive way through
listening to their teammates who are in actual fact thinking aloud. In CTBL, teams are
evaluated not only on their members’ improvements over their own past performances (as it
is in Student Teams Achievement Divisions) and over their same-level opponents in other
teams (as in Teams Games Tournaments), they are also recognized based on the extent to
which they outgain other teams. Special rewards would also be awarded both to best teams
with the highest averages and to the most challenging individuals. This kind of grading
system is used as an incentive to utilize competition for further cooperation amongst teams’
members. To lower affective filter of participants, teams that achieve above a designated
standard would pass the course. For more information about CTBL see Hosseini, 2018.
programme to suit poor readers who had not gained benefits from traditional reading
28
dialogue between teachers and students, in reading courses. Before continuing our
Questioning is when the text is read and questions are posed about the content. When
questioning the text, students are to concentrate on the main ideas and check their immediate
level of understanding. Clarifying is when in the course of reading the text, students are to
critically evaluate the meaning of unfamiliar words and phrases and to draw upon the collective
knowledge of the team members. In addition, they are to seek the essence of ideas, main ideas
and themes contained in the text. Summarising is when students are to re-state the main ideas
and themes in their own words to ensure that they have fully understood them. Predicting is
when at critical points in the reading of the text students are to pause to draw and test inferences
appreciate the significance of social scaffolding in learning activities. RTR highlights the
significance of modeling and guided practice, in which the instructor first models a set of
reading comprehension strategies and then gradually cedes responsibility for these
strategies to the students (Brown & Palaincsar, 1989; Palincsar & Brown, 1984).
Therefore, as Palincsar and Brown (1984) put it, reciprocal teaching is an instructional
1. the scaffolding and explicit instruction which a teacher uses and which include guided
2. the four main reading strategies of predicting, generating questions, clarifying, and
summarizing, and
3. social interaction which provides opportunities for learners to improve their cognitive,
metacognitive and affective strategies and offers them chances to share ideas, increase
29
confidence, and learn from their more capable friends.
These three features help improve the students’ ability to resolve comprehension
difficulties, reach a higher level of thinking, build metacognition, and increase motivation. As a
result, students create new knowledge from what they internalize and develop their reading
potential. From these three features, students promote their metacognitive awareness: planning
before they read, comprehension-monitoring or control of their own reading process while
reading, and self-evaluation while reading and after reading, and if their self-evaluation points
to any difficulties, effective readers fix those problems using the same process: planning,
Salimi Bani (2017) confirms the idea that RTR encourages students to take a more
active role in leading a group dialogue, and helps to bring more meaning to the text at a
personal and cognitive level. RTR is based on the assumption that knowledge and meaning are
the result of creative socializations arranged through negotiation and discourse among
teachers and students, or students and students. It should also be mentioned that the goals
of reciprocal teaching are for students to learn the reading comprehension strategies,
learn how and when to use the strategies, and become self-regulated in the use of these
strategies.
selected RTR as no one can deny the significant importance of reading strategies for
the current study has focused on reciprocal teaching as it focuses on explicit strategy
instructor with a useful tool for engaging students, individually and socially, in the
30
exploration and critical evaluation of texts. In addition, the use of RTR also
satisfies the criteria for promoting effective strategy use. These criteria, as Doolittle et. al.
during early strategy use that is curtailed as students become more effective
in their strategy.
strategy use for students, especially when this modeling takes the form of
thinking aloud.
strategies are important and under what conditions specific strategies are
effective.
1997; Hart & Speece, 1998; Hattie, 2009). First, the belief is that RTR is an open process. To
put it another way, naturally, the effective reading comprehension strategies are usually covert
and so weak readers are unaware of the strategies the successful readers among their peers
employ. The mechanism underlying RTR makes weak readers aware of some effective
31
reading comprehension strategies applied by their higher level peers. Another advantage of this
open process is that such situations provide the teacher with the opportunities to evaluate
each student’s development of the strategies and to provide specific feedback. Second, the
social nature of the process makes it enjoyable and age-appropriate. In addition this social
aspect reinforces the internalisation of skills and strategies. Third, the RTR process can be
adapted and taught to almost any age-group and can even improve the reading skills of
learning disabled students. Fourth, transferring responsibilities upon the students itself increases
the probability that basic reading skills will be internalised. Rotation of the leadership in
teams also which is one characteristic of such situations means that all team-members will
have the opportunity to internalise these skills. Fifth, the RTR process is supported by what
occasioned by RTR, both the teacher and peers are available to scaffold individual students'
efforts for learning. Thus each student has the opportunity to develop reading skills and
strategies at their own rate. Therefore, as many researchers like Hattie (2009) have corroborated
comprehension.
foregrounds the idea that learners should take responsibilities in the course of learning and
that teachers should act as a facilitators of learning. For example, neo-Piagetian theory
emphasizes on environments which support discovery and construction. It also stresses on the
Constructivism was further developed through the works of Vygotsky, Bruner, and
32
Papert. They believe that knowledge is dynamic and constantly changing. And learning is an
active process which involves the learners personal interpretations created through
experience with meaningful and authentic tasks and environments. But Lev Vygotsky
represents the learning theory of social constructivism, which is of growing importance for
(social) reality by interacting with other people. The theory leads to a strong emphasis on
both teach and learn by helping the less knowledgeable. Another effect of the theory has been
the social genesis of knowledge; that is, "every function in the [student's] cultural
development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level"
(Vygotsky, 1978):
Any function in the child’s cultural development appears twice, or on two planes.
First it appears on the social plane, and then on the psychological plane. First it
appears between people as an interpsychological category, and then within the child
volition.... it goes without saying that internalisation transforms the process itself and
changes its structure and functions. Social relations or relations among people
genetically underlie all higher functions and their relationships. (p. 163)
In their article, Doolittle et. al. (2006) are of the view that this social genesis of
meaning are constructed for the purposes of social adaptation, discourse, and goal
achievement, (b) knowledge and meaning are social creations and as such reflect social
33
negotiation and consensus, and (c) knowledge and meaning are active creations of
socialization. These three suppositions are evident in reciprocal teaching. CTBL and RTR
these methods are especially based on active socialization (i.e. interactions between instructor-
student and student-student) where the knowledge that is constructed from the given text is
instructor to student. To put it another way, reciprocal teaching inherent in the mentioned
CL methods (i.e., CTBL and RTR) emphasizes the role of language through interaction, and
communication.
which have been presented by Dr Hosseini, and also for salient features of CTBL which
distinguish it from Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and the present innovative CL
methods and approaches, see Hosseini, 2018 or see the 17 minute video available at
http://www.aparat.com/v/i32tK
example, in their study, Momtaz and Garner (2010) reported that the effects of cooperative
reading in enhancing the reading comprehension ability of university students were salient in
corroborates those of Hosseini's PhD level research study that the average scores of
34
Some researchers like Palincsar and Brown (1985) have averred that CL creates
situations wherein the text becomes more meaningful and important to students.
Consequently, students are encouraged to seek the help of others for comprehending key
points, which in turn increases their understanding of the whole text. In the same lines, a
number of researchers (e.g. Rabow et al., 1994; Totten, Digby, & Russ, 1991) have stressed
discussion activities that engender critical thinking, which is favourable to their deeper
understanding of the material. Cloward (1967) has also claimed improvement of cognitive
gains of students in reading courses run through CL. Similar claims have been declared by
some other researchers like Hassinger and Via (1969). Clarke (1989, cited in Zhang, 2010)
has also reported that CL classroom spurred students to involve in language reading activities
more effectively.
participatory learning settings, in the case of a reading class, befits students in two ways.
First, they would learn more about how to learn comprehension strategies. Second, they
would be persuaded to discuss and negotiate the meaning in their groups more often, which
means further oral proficiency. In the same lines, Joritz-Nakagawa (2006) confirmed that the
comprehension. Findings from a study done by Westera and Moore (1995), who used three
groups of students (those who received reciprocal teaching for a short period of time, those
35
who received reciprocal teaching for an extended period of time, and the control group,
which did not receive reciprocal teaching), indicated that students who received 12 to 16
reciprocal teaching sessions gained, on average, more than one age-equivalent year in tested
reading comprehension over a five-week period. In this study, 95% of the extended reciprocal
teaching students showed gains in comprehension, compared to 47% of students in the short
reciprocal teaching group and 45% of the students in the control group.
would have greater effects on students English reading comprehension in their language
courses. Therefore, two equivalent mainstream freshman classes of good readers were
who received six hours of training, outlined the material and managed the classes for 20
days. Both groups were assessed pre-, throughout, and post- intervention and maintenance
testing was completed. Experimenter-developed comprehension questions were used and rated
independently, generating a Cronbach’s alpha of .71 to .85. Participants were also assessed
using a standardized test. No effect size was given. A MANCOVA was carried out with
post testing, revealing a significant difference favoring the experimental group on reading
assessments and standardized measures. The experimental group significantly improved, both
and post-testing. Therefore, the educational benefits of incorporating RTR into the English
In 2003, Clark carried out a 5-week research study to see the efficacy of reciprocal
teaching with adult high school students on reading comprehension. Fifteen students of mixed
abilities and ethnicities, aged sixteen to fifty, participated in the study. The instruments in this
study consisted of group discussions, written assignments, and surveys of the students’
36
opinions on reciprocal teaching. Written assignments and group discussions were analyzed.
The results from the surveys showed that 40% of the students stated that reciprocal teaching
improved their reading comprehension and 90% of them reported benefits from using reciprocal
In another study, Konpan (2006) compared the reciprocal teaching with the
The results of this study revealed that the English reading comprehension of the experimental
group (i.e., group who was taught with the reciprocal teaching method) was significantly
different, that is, it was higher than the one of the control group (i.e., the group who was
instructed through the communicative language teaching technique) at 0.05 level. Therefore, the
superiority of RTR over the communicative language teaching technique was confirmed.
In his one-group experimental design research study, Wisaijorn (2003) examined the
effects of reciprocal teaching on reading comprehension. The researcher used both quantitative
and qualitative methods: a pretest, a posttest, and a follow-up reading comprehension test; a
Thirty-four 1st-year university students of English for Academic Purposes in the northeastern
part of Thailand participated in the study. The results showed that reciprocal teaching improved
the students’ reading ability. Moreover, the students exhibited further gains in reading
comprehension in the follow-up test compared to the results from the post-test completed at the
end of the training, pointing to the fact that the four strategies in reciprocal teaching were still
quantitative studies focusing on reciprocal teaching. Their study revealed that reciprocal
teaching was most effective for older students as well as those with poor comprehension
skills.
37
Finally, it should be mentioned at the end of this section that a number of other researches
on reciprocal teaching and its effects on the reading abilities of different levels and groups of
students has been extensively conducted with primary and college students (Fillenworth, 1995;
Palincsar & David, 1990). The results of these studies also showed the positive effects of
compared the effectiveness of his own approach (CTBL) with the Traditional Lecture
Method (TLM). He found significant results for the effectiveness of CTBL in improving the
reading comprehension of Iranian high school students. Also, he found that his method
Hosseini's PhD research study (Hosseini, 2009), which was a comparative empirical
research study, sought to explore and examine the complex effects of his instructional
innovation, CTBL, with Learning Together and the Traditional Lecture Method (TLM) on
Iranian and Indian EFL/ESL undergraduate learners’: (a) reading comprehension in English,
(b) language learning strategies, (c) attitudes towards English language learning and the
select teaching methods, and (d) retention of information. All these objectives were addressed
with respect to different-level achievers of the target groups with the help of field studies and
experiments in Iran and India. It should be mentioned that Learning Together or Cooperative
Group-Based Learning (CGBL) method has been developed by Johnson and Johnson at the
University of Minnesota in the USA. It became evident from the analysis of the data gathered
that CTBL and CGBL served to (a) increase acquisition of texts contents, (b) widen
38
repertoire of language learning strategies, (c) generate positive attitudes, and (d) improve
retention of information, on the part of the target groups more significantly than the TLM.
Further analysis of the data revealed that whereas CGBL was substantially more effective in
developing the reading skills of the participants, CTBL was more successful in developing
their metacognitive and affective strategies. It was likewise noted that CTBL facilitated the
contents more effectively than CGBL. The results also indicated that it was CGBL, rather
than CTBL, that was more successful in Iran. But, in India, it was CTBL.
In another study, Hosseini (2012) found that CTBL contributed to the Language
Proficiency of Iranian EFL College Seniors more effectively than Structured Academic
Controversy method of Johnson brothers at the University of Minnesota in the USA. Also in
2012, in another study, Hosseini compared the effectiveness of his method with Group
Investigation, developed by Sharan and Sharan (1990) at Tel Avive University, in Israel, with
reference to the language proficiency of Iranian EFL intermediate students”. He found that
his method was more effective in promoting the language proficiency of Iranian EFL
intermediate students.
In her study, Jahanbazian (2015) intended to look and compare the possible effects of
CTBL with Learning Together (LT) – the most popular method of Cooperative Learning
also wanted to measure the participant’s attitudes towards language learning, individualistic
class structure, CL, and the selected methods before and after the study. The results of the
study showed that CTBL had a more significant effect on improving the reading
questionnaire results showed that the participants generally tended towards supporting the
39
implementation of cooperative strategies. More specifically, the participants had more positive
In his study, Akbarzadeh's (2017) compared the effectiveness of CTBL and STAD,
developed by Slavin and associates (1995) at Johns Hopkins University, in the US, on the
Reading test to a total population of 75, sixty students were selected, based on their scores in the
pretest. Then they were randomly assigned to control and experimental groups – thirty per
group. Each class was divided into seven teams of four – the two remained students in each
class worked in pairs. The control group was instructed via STAD technique, which is a well-
known technique of cooperative learning, while the experimental group were instructed via his
approach to (language) teaching (i.e., CTBL). The reading comprehension test (posttest) was
used at the end of the study to assess the probable progress in the reading comprehension
ability of the students. The results on an independent T-test showed statistical significance at
P≤0.05 level that can be attributed to the effect of CTBL on the participants' reading
comprehension achievement.
Finally, in her research study, Salimi Bani, (2017), evaluated and compared the
effects of CTBL and Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) on the
reading comprehension of Iranian intermediate EFL learners. She proved the superiority of
conducted a study to discover the attitude of students towards the use of cooperative,
competitive and individualistic learning strategies in Nigerian senior secondary school physics.
There were a total of one-hundred and forty (140) students taking part in the study who were
40
selected by a random sampling technique. A structured questionnaire titled Students’ Attitude
Towards Physics Questionnaire (SATPQ) on 4-point scale was used to collect the data. His
findings showed that CL strategy was the most effective in facilitating students’ attitude towards
physics. This was then followed by competitive strategies with the individualistic learning
strategies being seen to be the least facilitative. He concluded that poor student attitude toward
physics and poor learning environment and gender effect resulted in poor academic performance
(Ivowi, 1997 as cited in Akinbobola, 2009). Also, he found that in the present Nigerian
In his PhD research study, Hosseini (2009) found that students had more positive
attitudes towards his approach to teaching (CTBL) rather than towards the traditional Lecture
Method or even toward Learning Together method of CL. Hosseini concluded that the result is
not surprising because in CTBL, students are trained on how to interact with their team members
positively, resolve disputes through compromise or mediation and encourage the best
performance of each member for the benefit of the team. He contends that when students
through CTBL mechanisms become more motivated and successful, they view the subject with a
Despite the abundance of research findings that verifies the advantage of RTR and
CTBL over other methods of teaching, no research, to date, has essayed to directly
investigate and compare the effectiveness of RTR and CTBL particularly in reading courses
in Iran. This research study has come to address this lacuna in the related literature. We hope
the results of the present research study could confirm the proved positive results of
teamwork, which is the focused area of RTR and CTBL, for Iranian English classes also.
That way this study would contribute to a paradigm shift, in the Iranian arena of teaching
CL methods in their language classes. Such a shift would be of a very crucial significance as
41
CL methods contribute not merely to academic success of students but to their future success
also, the ultimate results of which would be more civilized and compassionate societies and
so world peace.
42
Chapter III
Methodology
43
3.1 Overview
In the present chapter of the thesis, some information about the participants and
instrumentation has been provided. The procedure of data collection and analysis has also
been introduced. At the end, the design of the research study has been shed light upon.
3.2 Participants/Corpus
Participants of this study were sixty Iranian intermediate EFL learners studying in
Golrizan language institute in Mashhad, Iran. They were in two separate classes, including
male learners, ranging in age from sixteen to twenty-one. They were all homogeneous with
regard to age, exposure to English, and educational background. All of the participants were
native speakers of Persian and for this reason, Kurdish and Turkish people were discarded.
They were using English as a foreign language for general purposes. They had studied
Two experimental classes were assigned. One class conducted through RTR and
another one through CTBL method, each including 30 subjects. The students in the RTR
class were allowed to build their teams of three or four members based on their interests. But
the students in CTBL class were divided into seven heterogeneous teams based on their
performance on the placement test. In other words, each team, in CTBL class, consisted of
four members: (a) one learner with a high placement test score, (b) the two others with
average placement test scores, and (c) another with a low placement test score. As noted, the
placement test was also used to confirm the homogeneity of two experimental groups.
3.3 Instrumentations
44
Before introducing the instrument, it should be noted that the main text book which
was used in this research was 3rd edition of Interchange 3 (Intermediate) by Jack C. Richards
with Jonathan Hall and Susan Proctor (2005). This textbook is used in Golrizan language
institute in Mashhad, Iran, for intermediate learners and it consists of 16 units. The main
reading and writing. Every unit of this book also contains a reading comprehension text,
which was focused upon in the experimental groups in the present research study.
The Interchange placement test was administered at the initial stages of the present
research study. This test (Appendix A) was applied to demonstrate the level of the
participants and homogenization. The participants were tested in order to have two
homogenized groups of 30 participants each, based on their scores in the pretest. Sixty
learners, from among 75 learners, who scored within one standard deviation above and below
the mean, were selected. They were then divided into 2 groups.
The reading section of Interchange placement test was also used to check the reading
comprehension of the participants of this study before (pre-test) and after (post-test) the
experiment. The same test was given after the study, after a-16-session practice, to see the
effects of CTBL and RTR on two experimental groups. The test was similar both in format of
the questions and their level for the two groups. The test consisted of 3 sections with a total
of 70 questions:
45
Learners had 50 minutes to answer the questions. The reason for using Interchange
placement test in the present study refers to the fact that it is internationally valid, reliable and
easy to administer.
It should, however, be mentioned that item facility and item discrimination has
already been calculated for this test. The reliability of the test was found as high as 0.92. As a
the two groups to provide their opinions about language learning, cooperative learning, and
the two select CL methods at the beginning as well as at the end of the experiment. It should
effective tool since it enables large scale numerical data to be obtained over a short period of
time. It can also be easily administered. In this particular study, the researcher wanted to gain
numerical data to indicate students’ views on cooperative learning environments and methods.
developed by Hosseini (2009) and had 30 items. For the purpose of analyzing the gathered
data, the respondents were allowed to rate each item on a scale of seven options. Needless to
say, the reliability and validity of the questionnaire were already determined by the afore-
mentioned researcher. To put it another way, in order to calculate the internal reliability
coefficients of the questionnaire, Hosseini used Cronbach alpha, after the pretests in Iran and
Table 3.1
46
Tool IRAN INDIA Overall
As the table displays, overall reliability levels of .6847 and .6187 were
obtained for the groups in Iran and India respectively. And, the overall reliability coefficient
of the questionnaire for the two countries was obtained .7199.
After the attitude pretest was conducted, correlations among scores on each
category of the questionnaire and the total score and inter-correlations among categories
were obtained using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient to find the validity of
the attitude questionnaire (see Table 3.2).
Table 3.2
As Table 3.2 indicates, correlation coefficient between categories and total score
varied from .600 to .698, which showed a marked relationship between the categories with
the inventory.
3.4 Procedures
language proficiency levels, the placement test was administered to 75 students. On the basis
of the information obtained, 60 students who were nearly at the midpoint were chosen as the
key informants. That is, scores that were very high or too low on the test were discarded.
47
Therefore, the 60 homogeneous subjects were selected based on their performance on the
placement test to serve the study for a whole academic semester. The term included 18
sessions of 90 minutes each. It is worth mentioning that by putting very high or too low
The participants were then randomly (every other one) assigned to the two
experimental groups (i.e., CTBL and RTR). With the intention to minimize the reactive effect
of the experimental procedure, this researcher did not let this population know the fact that an
Students were ranked based on their performance and then cooperative groups were
formed. In each class at intermediate level, the seven students who scored highest on the
placement test were identified as high achievers and the seven students who scored lowest
achievers.
identify their attitudes towards language learning, individualistic class structure, CL, and
the select CL methods. Then we conducted the pre-test and began the experiment. While in
the RTR class, the students were permitted to shape their own teams of three to four members
based on their interests, in the CTBL class, the students were assigned to seven teams of one
high-achiever, one low-achiever and two average-achievers each. The reminded two students
worked in pairs. The reason for this type of team building in CTBL class was that it provided
opportunities for learners to peer-tutor and help each other to complete the shared learning
goals. After grouping the students, in RTR and CTBL groups, the goals of the experiment
and the class management techniques were explicated to the both classes.
During the course of experimentation, both the classes had the same instructor, the
same curriculum, and the same schedule of instruction. The difference was that while the
48
RTR class experienced a method of presentation that focuses upon explicit teaching of four
main reading strategies namely predicting, questioning, summarizing, and clarifying, the
participants in the CTBL class experienced systematic teamwork and discussions through
which they learned and acquired learning strategies directly and indirectly.
activated students’ minds on the topic through different techniques, the teacher introduced the
text. To illustrate how the implementation of each of the aforementioned strategies helped
students in the comprehension of the passage, the teacher modeled her own process of
comprehending of the first paragraph of the text. She did it by thinking the process aloud.
Through this technique, students learned the target strategies – the strategies that the teacher
had already planned to teach. Students were then given the opportunity to try to follow the
same procedure for next paragraphs in their groups so as to internalise and master the
strategies. The point is that it was more proficient readers who took the first turns to
implement the strategies, by thinking aloud, in order to endow lower performers with more
opportunities to better understand the application of strategies. Group members also shared
their uncertainties about unfamiliar vocabularies, confusing text passages, and difficult
concepts and discussed more practical strategies to be applied for each problem.
As regards the process in CTBL class, the teaching and assessment process has been
49
Teaching Phase
Assessment Phase
Figure 3.1
Teaching and assessment process in CTBL class; Adapted from Hosseini, 2012, p. 96.
As it is illustrated in the above figure, in CTBL class, after the teacher presented the
new lesson through different techniques and strategies, team members were required to work
individually first. Then they were asked to work in pairs. Later they were encouraged to work
as a team – with all their teams' members. And finally, at the end of the class time they had a
class-wide discussion. In the following session students had a quiz, which they had to take
individually. At the end of given time, the teacher collected some papers for correction and
then required students to take the same quiz with their partners – in pairs. After that, the
students were required to work on the same quiz in their teams – with all members of their
teams.
The researcher has tried to distinguish between RTR and CTBL in the table 3.3:
50
Table 3.3
RTR CTBL
The approach to presentation goes through a) The approach to presentation goes through a)
discussion
emphasizes on direct and explicit presentation of four language learning strategies such as
language learning strategies which goes through teacher presentation, individual work, pair
Finally, at the end of the course, the questionnaire as well as the post test were administered.
In this study, the subject’s reading performance was considered as dependent variable
and RTR and CTBL as independent variables. We required students, in the experimental
groups, to take the questionnaire as well as the pre reading test at the initial stages of our
study. After the treatment, we wanted them to take the same questionnaire and test as the post
test. After gathering the related data out of students’ responses, we availed ourselves of some
51
statistical tools. Through SPSS (version 20), we used descriptive statistics such as frequency,
means, and standard deviation as well as inferential statistics like ANCOVA to analyze and
Finally, in the last chapter, the study will be summarized, the findings will be
discussed, and some implications based on the findings of the study will be presented.
The study was a quasi-experimental research which used the two group pre-test
treatment post-test design. While the participants' reading performance is the dependent
variable of the present study, CTBL and RTR are the two independent variables. As noted,
we asked students, in both experimental groups, to take the questionnaire as well as pre
reading test at the initial stage of the study. After the treatment, we wanted them to take the
same questionnaire and the post test. Regarding the kind of selection of the two groups,
randomization process practically assured equivalency in many ways. For example, some
variables like maturation, contemporary historical events, and pre-testing effects were
controlled as both the groups experienced an equal effect of these variables. Therefore, the
effects of these variables were equalized and cannot be mistaken in the effect of the
treatment. Intersession developments, extraneous variables that arise between pre-test and
post-test, were also balanced out due to the presence of randomized selected groups.
52
Chapter IV
53
4.1. Introduction
As noted, at the end of the study, after gathering the related data out of students’
responses in the questionnaire as well as the pretest and posttest, the researcher availed
herself of some statistical tools. Through SPSS (version 20), she used descriptive statistics
such as frequency, means, and standard deviation as well as inferential statistics like t-test to
analyze and interpret the data. This chapter, thereby, deals with the analysis of the data
collected through the application of the tools of the study and highlights the results in order to
First of all, the means and variances of the two groups in pre-test were
Table 4.1
The means and variances of both groups in pre-test indicated that our two
samples had, though not exactly, the same dispersions from the means which
Next an independent t-test was used to verify the pre-test results on both
54
Table 4.2
The value of the calculated t was -0.21 which was less than the value of the
t-critical (2) at 0.05 level of probability. Therefore, the two groups had little
difference.
The means obtained from the pre-test and post-test of the RTR group,
which are presented in table 4.3, indicated that there has been a little progress
in this group.
Table 4.3
17.76 21.16
To find out the significance of the above difference a matched t-test was
Table 4.4
55
RTR 17.76 21.16 2.93 5.42 29 -6.8
P>0.05 t-critical 2.045
P > 0.05 exceeded the critical t of 2.045. (See also table 4.6.)
The means gained from the pre-test and post-test of the CTBL group are
Table 4.5
remarkably high difference which supported the positive correlation of CTBL and
To ascertain the results another paired t-test was conducted. See table
4.6.
Table 4.6
56
Group X1 X2 S1 S2 D.F. Tob.
Exp.G. 17.6 25.5 2.95 3.95 29 16.8
P>0.05 t-critical 2.045
This time the t-observed (16.8) far exceeded the value of t-critical (2.045)
At this stage, the means and variances of the two groups in post-test were
Table 4.7
that the CTBL group remained to be more homogeneous. Moreover, the means
of
2 58 0.05 16.8
critical t of 2, the null hypothesis was firmly rejected. Therefore, the result of the
independent t-test confirmed the positive relationship between CTBL and reading
Now, it can be claimed that in our class’ settings, CTBL bears better
abilities.
Before continuing our discussions, we review this research study questions once more:
Q1: ‘Is there any difference between the intermediate EFL students who are taught with
CTBL and those who are taught with RTR in regard to their reading comprehension
performance?
Q2: Is there any difference in the students' attitudes towards language learning, CL, and
58
4.1.2.A Addressing the First Question of the Research Study
Q1: ‘Is there any difference between the intermediate EFL students who are taught with
CTBL and those who are taught with RTR in regard to their reading comprehension
performance?
For investigating the above research question, we applied a t-student test first. But
before using t-student test, we tested to see whether the two groups were normal in regard to
their reading comprehension performances. We also tested to see if the variances were equal
in these groups. For the former purpose, we applied One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test.
performance in CTBL group is higher than 0.05, that this group is normal is not rejected.
performance in RTR group is higher than 0.05, that this group is normal is not rejected.
59
Then, we applied Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances in the two groups.
As p-value (0.384) in Levene’s Test is higher than 0.05, that the variances in the two
At this stage, we conducted t-student test with the assumption of the equality of the
Table 4.9 ©
Group Statistics
Group Statistics
Method N Mean Std. Std. Error Mean
Deviation
Reading RTR 30 25.1071 4.41663 .83466
comprehensio
n CTBL 30 28.4643 5.18175 .97926
performance
60
Table 4.21 (d)
As p-value (0.012) in t-student Test is less than 0.05, the assumption of the equality of
the average of reading comprehension performance in the two groups, with the assumption of
the equality of the variance of the two groups, is rejected. As it is understood from the table
because the average of reading comprehension performance in CTBL is higher than the
61
4.1.2.B Language Learning and Class Structure Questionnaire, Developed by Hosseini
(2009)
In this section we will try to consider the second question of the research study:
Q2: Is there any difference in the students' attitudes towards language learning, CL, and
At this part we want to see if CTBL has impacted the participants' attitudes towards language
learning?
Table 4.22
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
62
As p-value (0.933) in Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test of the average of students' attitudes
towards CTBL before conducting the experiment in experimental group CTBL is higher than
0.05, that this group is normal is not rejected. Similarly, as p-value (0.854) in Kolmogorov-
Smirnov Test of the average of students' attitudes towards CTBL after conducting the
experiment in experimental group CTBL is higher than 0.05, that this group is normal is not
rejected.
Then, we applied Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances in the two groups.
As p-value (0.295) in Levene’s Test is higher than 0.05, that the variances in the two
At this stage, we conducted t-student test with the assumption of the equality of the variances
Group Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
63
Levene's t-test for Equality of Means
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df Sig. Mean Std. 95% Confidence
(2- Differen Error Interval of the
tailed ce Differenc Difference
) e Lower Upper
The average of Equal
students' ٠٫٢ - 0.0٢٤
variances ٠٫٧٥٤ ٢١ 8.0687 -0.16551 5.4587 9.1542
attitudes towards ٩٥ 2.345 5
assumed
CTBL
Equal
-
variances not ٢٢ 0.245 8.0687 -0.16551 5.4587 9.1542
2.345
assumed
As p-value (0.0245) in t-student Test is less than 0.05, the assumption of the
equality of the average of students' attitudes towards CTBL in the two groups, with the
assumption of the equality of the variance of the two groups, is rejected. As it is understood
from the table because the average of students' attitudes towards CTBL after conducting the
experiment in experimental group CTBL is higher than the average of students' attitudes
towards CTBL before conducting the experiment in experimental group CTBL , therefore ,
therefore it is concluded that CTBL has been effective in improving the participants' attitudes
At this part we want to see if RTR has impacted the participants' attitudes towards language
learning?
Table 4.23
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
64
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 2.458 2.125
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.904 0.812
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
attitudes towards language learning before conducting the experiment in experimental group
RTR is higher than 0.05, that this group is normal is not rejected. Similarly, as p-value
language learning after conducting the experiment in experimental group RTR is higher than
Then, we applied Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances in the two groups.
As p-value (0.325) in Levene’s Test is higher than 0.05, that the variances in the two
At this stage, we conducted t-student test with the assumption of the equality of the variances
Group Statistics
RTR N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
The average of participants'
before 30 20,1456 4.25447 .80402
attitudes towards language
65
learning after 30 25,1958 4.07569 .69892
As p-value (0.0285) in t-student Test is less than 0.05, the assumption of the equality
of the average of participants' attitudes towards language learning in the two groups, with the
assumption of the equality of the variance of the two groups, is rejected. As it is understood
from the table because the average of participants' attitudes towards language learning after
conducting the experiment in experimental group RTR is higher than average of participants'
attitudes towards language learning before conducting the experiment in experimental group
RTR , therefore it is concluded that RTR has been effective in improving the participants'
At this part we want to see if RTR has impacted the participants' attitudes towards
individualistic learning?
Table 4.24
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
66
before conducting RTR after conducting RTR
method method
N 30 30
Normal Mean 18.4568 14.1675
Parametersa,b Std. Deviation 4.46073 5.18175
Absolute 0.654 0.845
Most Extreme
Positive 0.421 0.542
Differences
Negative -0.654 -0.845
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 3.145 2.745
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.945 0.865
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
group RTR is higher than 0.05, that this group is normal is not rejected. Similarly, as p-value
individualistic learning after conducting the experiment in experimental group RTR is higher
Then, we applied Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances in the two groups.
As p-value (0.298) in Levene’s Test is higher than 0.05, that the variances in the two
At this stage, we conducted t-student test with the assumption of the equality of the variances
67
Group Statistics
RTR N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
The average of participants'
before 30 18.4568 4.46073 .84300
attitudes towards individualistic
learning after 30 14.1675 5.18175 .75940
As p-value (0.0185) in t-student Test is less than 0.05, the assumption of the
equality of the average of participants' attitudes towards individualistic learning in the two
groups, with the assumption of the equality of the variance of the two groups, is rejected. As
it is understood from the table because the average of participants' attitudes towards
higher than the average of students' attitudes towards after conducting the experiment in
experimental group RTR , therefore it is concluded that with the experience of learning the
language through RTR, the participants are reluctant to learn the language through the
68
At this part we want to see if CTBL has impacted the participants' attitudes towards
cooperative learning?
Table 4.25
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
group CTBL is higher than 0.05, that this group is normal is not rejected. Similarly, as p-
cooperative learning after conducting the experiment in experimental group CTBL is higher
Then, we applied Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances in the two groups.
69
As p-value (0.355) in Levene’s Test is higher than 0.05, that the variances in the two
At this stage, we conducted t-student test with the assumption of the equality of the variances
Group Statistics
CTBL N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
The average of participants'
before 30 18.4569 3.46073 .87300
attitudes towards cooperative
learning after 30 22.5679 4.230175 .61240
As p-value (0.0315) in t-student Test is less than 0.05, the assumption of the equality
of the average of participants' attitudes towards cooperative learning in the two groups, with
the assumption of the equality of the variance of the two groups, is rejected. As it is
understood from the table because the average of participants' attitudes towards cooperative
learning after conducting the experiment in experimental group CTBL is higher than the
70
experiment in experimental group CTBL , therefore it is concluded that CTBL has been
At this part we want to see if RTR has impacted the participants' attitudes towards
cooperative learning?
Table 4.26
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
group RTR is higher than 0.05, that this group is normal is not rejected. Similarly, as p-value
cooperative learning after conducting the experiment in experimental group RTR is higher
Then, we applied Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances in the two groups.
71
As p-value (0.375) in Levene’s Test is higher than 0.05, that the variances in the two
At this stage, we conducted t-student test with the assumption of the equality of the variances
Group Statistics
RTR N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
The average of participants'
before 30 21.1452 3.16073 .87300
attitudes towards cooperative
learning after 30 ١٧٫١٥٤١ 4.130175 .61240
72
As p-value (0.0275) in t-student Test is less than 0.05, the assumption of the equality
of the average of participants' attitudes towards cooperative learning in the two groups, with
the assumption of the equality of the variance of the two groups, is rejected. As it is
understood from the table because the average of participants' attitudes towards cooperative
learning before conducting the experiment in experimental group RTR is higher than the
experiment in experimental group RTR , therefore it is concluded that RTR has not been
At this part we want to see if CTBL has impacted the participants' concerns about
cooperative learning?
Table 4.27
concerns about cooperative learning before conducting the experiment in experimental group
CTBL is higher than 0.05, that this group is normal is not rejected. Similarly, as p-value
73
(0.8214) in Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test of the average participants' concerns about
cooperative learning after conducting the experiment in experimental group CTBL is higher
Then, we applied Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances in the two groups.
As p-value (0.302) in Levene’s Test is higher than 0.05, that the variances in the two
At this stage, we conducted t-student test with the assumption of the equality of the variances
Group Statistics
CTBL N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
the average of participants'
before 30 19.5789 4.25687 0.7458
concerns about cooperative
learning after 30 24.1685 5.230175 0.81234
74
The average of Equal
participants' 0.8625 0.3 - 0.031
variances ٢١ 4.5896 0.973305 2.1458 6.1547
concerns about 61 02 3.215 56
assumed
cooperative
learning Equal
- 0.031
variances not ٢٢ 4.5896 0.973305 2.1458 6.1547
3.215 56
assumed
As p-value (0.03156) in t-student Test is less than 0.05, the assumption of the equality
of the average of participants' concerns about cooperative learning in the two groups, with the
assumption of the equality of the variance of the two groups, is rejected. As it is understood
from the table because the average of the average of participants' concerns about cooperative
learning after conducting the experiment in experimental group CTBL is higher than the
average of the average of participants' concerns about cooperative learning before conducting
the experiment in experimental group CTBL , therefore it is concluded that CTBL has
impacted the participants' concerns about cooperative learning. That is to say, it has
At this part we want to see if RTR has influenced the participants' concerns about
cooperative learning?
Table 4.28
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
75
As p-value (0.9045) in Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test of the average of participants'
concerns about cooperative learning before conducting the experiment in experimental group
RTR is higher than 0.05, that this group is normal is not rejected. Similarly, as p-value
cooperative learning after conducting the experiment in experimental group RTR is higher
Then, we applied Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances in the two groups.
As p-value (0.316) in Levene’s Test is higher than 0.05, that the variances in the two
At this stage, we conducted t-student test with the assumption of the equality of the variances
Group Statistics
RTR N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
the average of participants'
before 30 19.5789 4.25687 0.7458
concerns about cooperative
learning after 30 22.1468 4.152722 0.72316
76
Levene's t-test for Equality of Means
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df Sig. Mean Std. 95% Confidence
(2- Differen Error Interval of the
tailed ce Differenc Difference
) e Lower Upper
The average of Equal
participants' 0.8 0.3 - 0.012
variances ٢١ 2.5679 -0.1041 1.1524 4.1526
concerns about ٥٤٦ ١٦ 2.985 5
assumed
cooperative
learning Equal
- 0.012
variances not ٢٢ 2.5679 -0.1041 1.1524 4.1526
2.985 5
assumed
As p-value (0.0125) in t-student Test is less than 0.05, the assumption of the equality
of the average of participants' concerns about cooperative learning in the two groups, with the
assumption of the equality of the variance of the two groups, is rejected. As it is understood
from the table because the average of the average of participants' concerns about cooperative
learning after conducting the experiment in experimental group RTR is higher than the
average of the average of participants' concerns about cooperative learning before conducting
the experiment in experimental group RTR, Therefore it is concluded that RTR has not
impacted the participants' concerns about cooperative learning. That is to say, it has not
At this part we want to see if CTBL has impacted the participants' attitudes towards
RTR?
Table 4.29
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
77
N 30 30
Normal Mean 20.4856 17.2689
Parametersa,b Std. Deviation 3.45876 4.59867
Absolute ٠٫935 0.825
Most Extreme
Positive 0.754 0.623
Differences
Negative -0.935 -0.825
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 2.251 1.154
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.9253 0.7952
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
attitudes towards RTR before conducting the experiment in experimental group CTBL is
higher than 0.05, that this group is normal is not rejected. Similarly, as p-value (0.7952) in
conducting the experiment in experimental group CTBL is higher than 0.05, that this group is
Then, we applied Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances in the two groups.
As p-value (0.297) in Levene’s Test is higher than 0.05, that the variances in the two
At this stage, we conducted t-student test with the assumption of the equality of the variances
Group Statistics
CTBL N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
78
The average of participants' before 30 20.4856 3.45876 0.78694
attitudes towards RTR
after 30 17.2689 4.59867 0.79648
As p-value (0.0254) in t-student Test is less than 0.05, the assumption of the equality
of the average of participants' attitudes towards RTR in the two groups, with the assumption
of the equality of the variance of the two groups, is rejected. As it is understood from the
table because the average of participants' attitudes towards RTR before conducting the
experiment in experimental group CTBL is higher than the average of participants' attitudes
towards RTR after conducting the experiment in experimental group CTBL, therefore it is
concluded that after experiencing learning the language through CTBL, the participants are
not willing to experience RTR in their classes. They prefer CTBL to RTR.
At this part we want to see if RTR has influenced the participants' attitudes about this
method?
Table 4.30
79
before conducting RTR after conducting RTR
method method
N 30 30
Normal Mean 20.4856 16.4587
Parametersa,b Std. Deviation 4.23561 3.98572
Absolute ٠٫٨٥٤ ٠٫٧٢٥
Most Extreme
Positive 0.625 0.524
Differences
Negative -0.854 -0.725
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 4.125 3.152
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.9758 0.8635
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
attitudes about this method before conducting the experiment in experimental group RTR is
higher than 0.05, that this group is normal is not rejected. Similarly, as p-value (0.8635) in
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test of the average the participants' attitudes about this method after
conducting the experiment in experimental group RTR is higher than 0.05, that this group is
Then, we applied Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances in the two groups.
As p-value (0.325) in Levene’s Test is higher than 0.05, that the variances in the two
At this stage, we conducted t-student test with the assumption of the equality of the variances
80
Group Statistics
RTR N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
As p-value (0.0152) in t-student Test is less than 0.05, the assumption of the equality
of the average of the participants' attitudes about this method in the two groups, with the
assumption of the equality of the variance of the two groups, is rejected. As it is understood
from the table because the average of the participants' attitudes about this method before
conducting the experiment in experimental group RTR is higher than the average of the
average of the participants' attitudes about this method after conducting the experiment in
experimental group RTR, therefore it is concluded that after experiencing learning the
language through RTR, the participants are not willing to experience RTR in their classes any
further. This means that they do not see RTR effective enough.
81
At this part we want to see if CTBL has impacted the participants' attitudes towards
this method?
Table 4.31
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
attitudes about this method before conducting the experiment in experimental group CTBL is
higher than 0.05, that this group is normal is not rejected. Similarly, as p-value (0.7852) in
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test of the average the participants' attitudes about this method after
conducting the experiment in experimental group CTBL is higher than 0.05, that this group is
Then, we applied Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances in the two groups.
82
As p-value (0.297) in Levene’s Test is higher than 0.05, that the variances in the two
At this stage, we conducted t-student test with the assumption of the equality of the variances
Group Statistics
CTBL N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
As p-value (0.0265) in t-student Test is less than 0.05, the assumption of the equality
of the average of the participants' attitudes about this method in the two groups, with the
assumption of the equality of the variance of the two groups, is rejected. As it is understood
from the table because the average of the participants' attitudes about this method after
conducting the experiment in experimental group CTBL is higher than the average of the
participants' attitudes about this method before conducting the experiment in experimental
group CTBL, therefore it is concluded that after experiencing learning the language through
83
CTBL, the participants are willing to experience CTBL in their classes. This means that they
At this part we want to see if RTR has influenced the participants' attitudes towards
CTBL?
Table 4.32
participants' attitudes towards CTBL before conducting the experiment in experimental group
RTR is higher than 0.05, that this group is normal is not rejected. Similarly, as p-value
towards CTBL after conducting the experiment in experimental group RTR is higher than
Then, we applied Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances in the two groups.
84
As p-value (0.369) in Levene’s Test is higher than 0.05, that the variances in the two
At this stage, we conducted t-student test with the assumption of the equality of the variances
Group Statistics
RTR N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
The average of the influenced
before 30 20.4856 3.45876 0.78694
the participants' attitudes towards
CTBL after 30 23.1654 3.7859 0.79548
85
As p-value (0.0١٩٥) in t-student Test is less than 0.05, the assumption of the equality
of the average of influenced the participants' attitudes towards CTBL in the two groups, with
the assumption of the equality of the variance of the two groups, is rejected. As it is
understood from the table because the average of the influenced the participants' attitudes
towards CTBL after conducting the experiment in experimental group RTR is higher than the
average of the influenced the participants' attitudes towards CTBL before conducting the
learning the language through RTR, the participants are willing to experience CTBL in their
classes. This means that they see CTBL more effective than RTR. This tendency is perhaps
due to the disadvantages and the problems inherent in RTR. For example, as noted, in this
method of CL all group members receive the same grades regardless of their degree of
contributions to their groups' success. In other words, that the free riders and hard workers
receive the same grades, in this method, hard workers will be demotivated and free riders will
not take heed of their responsibilities any further. Therefore the atmosphere in classes run
4.2 Discussion
through CTBL greatly affects the success of reading courses. Comparing achievements for
the two groups, through matched and independent t-tests, the researcher found that the
CTBL class highly outperformed the RTR class. The observed t-value (16.8) far exceeded
the critical t-value (2) at 58 degree of freedom at p >0. 05 level of significance. It was clear that
much more individual learning and understanding had occurred in the CTBL class than in
RTR class. Specifically, lower performers made best use of their team mates’ reading
86
Analysis of the quantitative questionnaire results also showed that the participants
specifically, the participants had more positive attitudes towards CTBL rather than RTR.
The results of the present study, thereby, rejected the null hypothesis and provided
evidence supporting the hypothesis that CTBL can have a more significant effect on
improving the reading comprehension of Iranian EFL intermediate students. Analysis of the
quantitative questionnaire results also showed that the participants generally tended towards
The results of this study are congruent with the findings of a number of researchers in
the related literature. Chief among these researchers are Hosseini (2000, 2009, 2012),
Jahanbazian (2015), Akbarzadeh (2017), Akinbobola (2009) and Salimi Bani (2017). But the
results of this study were not completely in line with the findings of Nederhood (1986) who
study was a meta-analysis of 34 studies, which attempted to find out the effects of CL on
reading comprehension, language arts, and mathematics of 1145 middle school students in
114 classrooms. Also, the results of this study were not completely in line with the findings of
Johnson and Johnson (1989) and Akinbobola (2009) that found that CL strategy promotes more
========================
87
Chapter V
88
5.1 Overview
This last chapter presents a summation of the present study. Then, after
to stakeholders have also been put forth. At the end of the thesis, a detailed bibliography of
Despite many different and modern methods of teaching reading comprehension used
by EFL teachers, our efforts seem to be profitless. The main reason of our fiasco, as
hypothesized in this research, relates to the context of our classes which contributes to
the present study, we decided to avail our classes of the significant role of Competitive
Team-Based learning (CTBL), which encourages team members to collaborate with their
teammates in order to outperform other teams, and Reciprocal Teaching of Reading (RTR),
This study revealed that the CTBL class highly outperformed the RTR class. As noted,
it was clear that much more individual learning and understanding had occurred in the CTBL
class than in RTR class. Specifically, lower performers made best use of their team mates’
reading comprehension abilities and strategies. It was also indicated that the participants
generally had more positive attitudes towards CTBL rather than RTR.
5.3 Conclusion
89
To sum up, in this research we examined the effects of CL methods namely CTBL and
RTR on the reading comprehension performance of Iranian EFL intermediate learners. The
move towards allowing students to be more directly involved in the teaching / learning process.
The results of the study corroborates the idea that if the CTBL method is employed thoroughly
The importance of CTBL for language classes refers to the fact that it focuses on
creative ideas and strategies, which are favorable to the reading comprehension of learners. In
view of the fact that students, in CTBL settings, need to exchange information, strategies and
advice in order to succeed in achieving their shared learning goals, their reading
CTBL is not limited to merely developing the ability of students for appropriate use of
founders of the present instructional methods and approaches like CLT. CTBL, he continues,
has a far broader and much more realistic outlook as he is of the opinion that successful
survival in the present real world settings and being able to face the realities of this dynamic
and complicated competitive world demands something more than the appropriate use of the
language in benign environments. Hosseini believes that through applying CTBL, teachers
have enormous opportunities to impact upon thinking styles and approaches of tomorrow
citizenry which affects our destinies. Hosseini is also of the stand that in CTBL settings,
where using the language to learn it rather than learning to use it is encouraged, students learn
to take responsibility not only for their own learning in the course of constructing knowledge
90
For more comprehensive understanding of CTBL's theoretical foundations and it's
salient features which distinguish it from Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and the
present innovative methods and approaches, see Hosseini, 2012/2018 or see the 17 minute
Despite the results of the present study, the researcher thinks, it is surprising that our
classroom practice is so much oriented toward traditional methods. It is time for the
discrepancy to be reduced between what research indicates is effective in teaching and what
This study provided data that reflects the essentials of our classrooms. The results
provided by the present study may be of some help to both theoreticians and practitioners in
the field of TEFL. At the level of theory, our findings confirmed Vygotsky’s Zone of
learning. It also supported Jacobs et al. (1996) belief that cooperative learning can be useful
for FL/SL acquisition by providing opportunities for input and output treatment.
5.4.1 Implication for Language Teachers. At the level of practice, the results yielded
through the study may be helpful to language teachers. Although using new methods is
paramount and effective in learning, teachers should not neglect the significant impact of
occasioned in such environments brings about many positive results particularly for the
91
implementation and success of their innovations. Therefore, teachers should be aware that
the process of learning is not a smooth one. In other words, their efforts would be in vain, by
insisting on their traditional “chalk and talk” system of class management. As Block (1998)
also confirms, through the implementation of the traditional method in their classes, teachers
are distorting the process of learning by chewing up the text for students and not allowing them
Since the CTBL proved to be useful in actual classroom procedure with EFL
Iranian students in the present study, EFL teachers may easily adopt this method in their
reading courses to advance the students’ reading abilities. It appears that a general
understanding of the principles of CTBL can help teachers to develop a range of tactics
which will enable their language classes to become fully bonded, motivated, activated, and
One more thing which should be mentioned is that language teachers should be
encouraged to use CTBL in the reading class, providing an effective, alternative to learning
how to construct meanings from the texts and how to work collaboratively in the context of
group discussion. In the process, students’ self-regulatory and monitoring skills can
addition, the literature suggests that additional reasons may motivate the instructors to use
CTBL. For instance, the ability to work with others in competitive environments and to
today world classes. Increased interaction in English and easy management of large classes
92
'Competitive Team-Based Learning' in Conversation Classes
settings, where they will draw upon their experiences and skills to
through CTBL.
93
'Competitive Team-Based Learning' in Conversation Classes
CTBL's benefits into consideration and try to expand and even enrich its
94
'Competitive Team-Based Learning' in Conversation Classes
teaching and other methods and approaches with regard to other skills
and sub skills rather than reading. Such studies in schools of ministry
mind, and nation building and more civilised societies. These areas
===================
95
'Competitive Team-Based Learning' in Conversation Classes
REFERENCES
Roudehen, Iran
Senior Secondary
Individualistic Learning
96
'Competitive Team-Based Learning' in Conversation Classes
http://www.eric.ed.gov.
14–25.
Comprehension in Higher
Understanding of Texts,
118.
97
'Competitive Team-Based Learning' in Conversation Classes
32(5), 613-625
acquisition. Oxford:
Journal of Educational
meta-analyses relating
98
'Competitive Team-Based Learning' in Conversation Classes
Hassinger, J., & Via, M. (1969). How much does a tutor learn
through teaching
44.
University, Iran.
team-based
229 - 243.
http//www.ccsenet.org/journal/index/php/elt/article/viewFile/7
236/5588
99
'Competitive Team-Based Learning' in Conversation Classes
based learning'
100
'Competitive Team-Based Learning' in Conversation Classes
learning in a university
M.,
Thailand.
101
'Competitive Team-Based Learning' in Conversation Classes
LIT)
Barr, M. Kamil, P.
Publishing.
102
'Competitive Team-Based Learning' in Conversation Classes
Toronto.
S. (1994). Learning
103
'Competitive Team-Based Learning' in Conversation Classes
and
comprehension
Khorasgan (Isfahan)
cooperative learning.
Totten, S., Sills, T., Digby, A., & Russ, P. (1991). Cooperative
learning: A guide to
University Press.
104
'Competitive Team-Based Learning' in Conversation Classes
2015, from
http://adt.caul.edu.au/homesearch/find/?recordid=131086.
105
'Competitive Team-Based Learning' in Conversation Classes
Appendix A
mhhosseini2020@gmail.com
106
'Competitive Team-Based Learning' in Conversation Classes
Appendix B
assessment; therefore, make sure that you answer every question very
complete this questionnaire. If you have any questions, let the teacher
107
'Competitive Team-Based Learning' in Conversation Classes
decide very carefully on any one option that best shows your feeling.
for me.
1. hard 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 easy
108
'Competitive Team-Based Learning' in Conversation Classes
2. frustrating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 relaxing
3.not enjoyable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
enjoyable
4. de-motivating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
motivating
on one option that best shows your feeling. Circle the number from 1
statement.
statement.
109
'Competitive Team-Based Learning' in Conversation Classes
statement.
INDIVIDUALLY.
disagree
decide on one option that best shows your feeling. Circle the number
disagree
110
'Competitive Team-Based Learning' in Conversation Classes
disagree
disagree
solutions.
disagree
partner than by
working alone.
disagree
and critical
attitude.
disagree
111
'Competitive Team-Based Learning' in Conversation Classes
12. In group work I do NOT learn some social skills and strategies
essential for
academic success.
disagree
with others.
disagree
others.
disagree
superior to me.
disagree
112
'Competitive Team-Based Learning' in Conversation Classes
and being
assessed.
disagree
17. Cooperative learning does NOT make me think more about how
to do better.
disagree
my own
capacities better.
disagree
113
'Competitive Team-Based Learning' in Conversation Classes
each statement, decide on one option that best shows your feeling.
disagree
disagree
disagree
disagree
disagree
114
'Competitive Team-Based Learning' in Conversation Classes
disagree
disagree
disagree
disagree
disagree
RTR. After studying the statement, decide on one option that best
115
'Competitive Team-Based Learning' in Conversation Classes
sheet, please.
strategies.
disagree
CTBL. After studying the statement, decide on one option that best
sheet, please.
116
'Competitive Team-Based Learning' in Conversation Classes
disagree
======================================
117
'Competitive Team-Based Learning' in Conversation Classes
Appendix C
118
'Competitive Team-Based Learning' in Conversation Classes
ﭼﮑﯿﺪه
اﯾﻦ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﺗﻼﺷﯽ ﺑﻮد ﺑﺮای ﺑﺮرﺳﯽ ﺗﺎﺛﯿﺮات "ﯾﺎدﮔﯿﺮی ﺗﯿﻤﯽ رﻗﺎﺑﺘﯽ"
) (Competitive Team Based Learningﮐﮫ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ دﮐﺘﺮ ﺣﺴﯿﻨﯽ
) (٢٠١٢در ﻣﺸﮭﺪ طﺮاﺣﯽ و اراﯾﮫ ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ و روش ﮐﺎر ﮔﺮوھﯽ
ﭘﺎﻟﯿﻨﺴﮑﺎر و ھﻤﮑﺎران ﺑﮫ ﻧﺎم روش "ﯾﺎدﮔﯿﺮی دو طﺮﻓﮫ" Reciprocal
) (Teaching of Readingﮐﮫ در داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﻣﯿﺸﯿﮕﺎن آﻣﺮﯾﮑﺎ طﺮاﺣﯽ و
اراﯾﮫ ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ ﺑﺮ ﻣﮭﺎرت ﺧﻮاﻧﺪن و درک ﻣﻄﻠﺐ زﺑﺎن آﻣﻮزان ﺳﻄﺢ
ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ اﯾﺮاﻧﯽ .ھﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦ ﺗﻼش ﺷﺪ ﮐﮫ ﺗﺎﺛﯿﺮ اﯾﻦ دو روش ﺗﺪرﯾﺲ ﺑﺮ ﻧﮕﺮش
زﺑﺎن آﻣﻮزان ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﮫ اﯾﻦ دو روش ﺗﺪرﯾﺲ ﻗﺒﻞ و ﺑﻌﺪ از اﯾﻦ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﺳﻨﺠﯿﺪه
ﺷﻮد.
ﺑﺮای اﯾﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﻮر ﯾﮏ ﭘﯿﺶ آزﻣﻮن اﺳﺘﺎﻧﺪارد ﺗﻌﯿﯿﻦ ﺳﻄﺢ از ﺳﺮی ﮐﺘﺎب
ھﺎی اﯾﻨﺘﺮﭼﻨﺞ ﺑﯿﻦ ٧٥زﺑﺎن آﻣﻮز ﻣﻮﺳﺴﮫ زﺑﺎن ﮔﻠﺮﯾﺰان ﻣﺸﮭﺪ اﺟﺮا ﺷﺪ ﮐﮫ
ھﺪف از آن ﺗﻌﯿﯿﻦ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻣﮭﺎرت ھﺎی زﺑﺎﻧﯽ اﯾﻦ زﺑﺎن آﻣﻮزان ﺑﻮد .ﺷﺼﺖ
زﺑﺎن آﻣﻮز از ٧٥زﺑﺎن آﻣﻮز ﺑﺮ ﻣﺒﻨﺎی ﻧﻤﺮاﺗﺸﺎن در ﭘﯿﺶ آزﻣﻮن اﻧﺘﺨﺎب
ﺷﺪﻧﺪ و ﺑﮫ طﻮر اﺗﻔﺎﻗﯽ ﺑﮫ دو ﮔﺮوه آزﻣﺎﯾﺶ و ﺷﺎھﺪ )ھﺮ ﮔﺮوه ٣٠ﻧﻔﺮ(
119
'Competitive Team-Based Learning' in Conversation Classes
ﺗﻘﺴﯿﻢ ﺷﺪﻧﺪ .در ﻣﺮﺣﻠﮫ ﺑﻌﺪ ﯾﮏ ﭘﯿﺶ آزﻣﻮن اﺳﺘﺎﻧﺪارد ﺗﻌﯿﯿﻦ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻣﮭﺎرت
ﺧﻮاﻧﺪن و درک ﻣﻄﻠﺐ زﺑﺎن آﻣﻮزان اﺟﺮا ﺷﺪ.
در طﻮل ١٦ھﻔﺘﮫ زﺑﺎن آﻣﻮزان در ﮐﻼس آزﻣﺎﯾﺶ ﺑﮫ واﺳﻄﮫ روش
ﺗﺪرﯾﺲ ﺣﺴﯿﻨﯽ ﺑﮫ ارﺗﻘﺎی ﻣﮭﺎرت ﺧﻮاﻧﺪن و درک ﻣﻄﻠﺐ ﺧﻮد ﭘﺮداﺧﺘﻨﺪ در
ﺣﺎﻟﯽ ﮐﮫ زﺑﺎن آﻣﻮزان در ﮐﻼس ﺷﺎھﺪ ﺑﮫ واﺳﻄﮫ روش ﺗﺪرﯾﺲ ﭘﺎﻟﯿﻨﺴﮑﺎر و
ھﻤﮑﺎراﻧﺶ ﺑﮫ اﯾﻦ اﻣﺮ ﭘﺮداﺧﺘﻨﺪ .در ﭘﺎﯾﺎن ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﭘﺲ آزﻣﻮن در ھﺮ دو
ﮐﻼس اﺟﺮا ﺷﺪ ﺗﺎ ﺗﻔﺎوت اﺣﺘﻤﺎﻟﯽ ﺑﯿﻦ دو ﮔﺮوه ﺑﻌﺪ از ١٦ھﻔﺘﮫ ﺳﻨﺠﯿﺪه
ﺷﻮد .ﺗﺠﺰﯾﮫ و ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ داده ھﺎ ﻧﺸﺎن داد ﮐﮫ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻣﮭﺎرت ﺧﻮاﻧﺪن و درک
ﻣﻄﻠﺐ زﺑﺎن آﻣﻮزان در ﮔﺮوه آزﻣﺎﯾﺶ ﺑﺎﻻﺗﺮ از ﺳﻄﺢ ﻣﮭﺎرت ﺧﻮاﻧﺪن و
درک ﻣﻄﻠﺐ زﺑﺎن آﻣﻮزان در ﮔﺮوه ﺷﺎھﺪ ﺑﻮد .اﯾﻦ ﺑﺪان ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﺑﻮد ﮐﮫ روش
ﺗﺪرﯾﺲ "ﯾﺎدﮔﯿﺮی ﺗﯿﻤﯽ رﻗﺎﺑﺘﯽ" دﮐﺘﺮ ﺣﺴﯿﻨﯽ ﺗﺎﺛﯿﺮ ﭼﺸﻤﮕﯿﺮﺗﺮی از روش
ﭘﺎﻟﯿﻨﺴﮑﺎر و ھﻤﮑﺎراﻧﺶ ﺑﺮ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻣﮭﺎرت ﺧﻮاﻧﺪن و درک ﻣﻄﻠﺐ زﺑﺎن
آﻣﻮزان داﺷﺖ .ھﻤﯿﻨﻄﻮر ﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﺷﺪ ﮐﮫ ﻧﮕﺮش زﺑﺎن آﻣﻮزان ﺑﮫ روش
دﮐﺘﺮ ﺣﺴﯿﻨﯽ ﻣﺜﺒﺖ ﺗﺮ ﺑﻮد.
120