A Study of the Effects of Competitive Team-Based Learning and Structured Academic Controversy on the Language Proficiency of Iranian EFL College Seniors Seyed Mohammad Hassan Hosseini, PhD (TESOL) E-mail: mhhosseini73@yahoo.com • This article was published at the International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology, 3 (2012): 54-69. See http://beyondelt.blogfa.com

1. A Study of the Effects of Competitive Team-Based Learning and
Structured Academic Controversy on the Language Proficiency of
Iranian EFL College Seniors
Seyed Mohammad Hassan Hosseini, PhD (TESOL)
E-mail: mhhosseini73@yahoo.com
• This article was published at the International Journal of Adult Vocational
Education and Technology, 3 (2012): 54-69.
The present paper reports on an experimental study which intended to look into and
compare the possible effects of this researcher’s instructional innovation, Competitive
Team-Based Learning (CTBL), with Structured Academic Controversy (SAC) – the
most popular method of Cooperative Learning (CL) -- on language proficiency of
Iranian EFL college students. This goal, the intention to compare the effects of the
select teaching methods on the dependent variable of the study, was addressed with
respect to different-level achievers (i.e., low, average, and high achievers) of the target
group in the field study, in Iran.
Out of a total population of 68, forty almost homogeneous EFL junior college students
at Bojnord Azad University, in Iran, were selected to serve the study, after conducting
a test of English language proficiency. The subjects were randomly put into control
and experimental groups. While the control group were taught through SAC, the
experimental group experienced learning the English language through CTBL. Having
taken the posttest, the means and the t-values were determined for the two groups and
then compared. The results of the statistical analyses of the data obtained at the end of
the study accredited the superiority of CTBL over SAC in terms of its effect on
improving the target group’s language proficiency. Likewise, the outcomes signified
that contrary to SAC which benefited high achievers, CTBL best befitted low to
average achievers. This researcher discusses the probable causes for the results of the
study, sheds light on the pedagogical implications, and suggests recommendations for
further research.
Key words: Competitive Team-Based Learning, Structured Academic Controversy,
Modern ELT /Education, Language Proficiency
INTRODUCTION
Although the legacy of the past focus on educational pedagogy still persists in
many parts of the world, the pendulum in the sphere of EFL/ESL has begun to
swing in new directions concurrent with the process of globalisation, at the
dawn of the third millennium. TESOL has accommodated a paradigm shift
from text-based towards context-focused pedagogy and approaches.
Interactive approaches to learning and teaching, rather than teacher-fronted

2. chalk-and-talk modes of presentation, are becoming a felt need. Though it may
take some more years for some Asian countries like Iran to ensure that
interactive and context-based pedagogy becomes a general policy in the field
of education at all graded levels, there are signs of hope. Impediments apart
because of several factors, new directions in TESOL are likely to usher in new
wisdom against the old and the familiar. Particularly Asian contexts and the
contexts in the Middle East demand so. Change is the essence of time, and
changes are inevitable. Some modern approaches like CL are rapidly evolving
and gaining momentum and significance. Constructivists’ views on learning
like those of John Dewey, Jean Piaget, and Lev Semenovich Vygotsky
foreground the significance of such new approaches in ELT sphere. Based on
the premise that language use and language learning are interactive activities,
constructivists emphasize the importance of ‘social interaction and
interdependence’ in learning situations holding the view that what is learnt
about language is in actuality a reflection of interactions. That is, language
learning best occurs in situations which encourage negotiation and elaboration
of meaning.
Cooperative Learning in the sphere of ELT, according to Richards and
Rodgers (2001), is perceived as “a way of promoting communicative
interaction in the classroom” and “is seen as an extension of the principles of
Communicative Language Teaching” (p. 193). Oxford (1997) defines CL as “a
set of highly structured, psychologically and sociologically based techniques”
(p.444) which mingles the cognitive and the affective aspects of learning and
accentuates the active engagement and contribution of the participants in the
learning process. However, CL is a common term that represents a number of
educational methods. Despite their significant contribution to more
comprehensive and real learning, CL methods have their own deficiencies.
Neglecting and even belittling the crucial importance of 'competition' in
learning environments is one of their main problems. Another major drawback
of the present methods of CL refers to their inability for bringing individual
accountability of all team members. Unsystematic implementation of
groupwork is also among the main problems with such methods. (See
Hosseini, 2012) In the present study, this researcher has tried to evaluate the
effectiveness of CTBL, which has tackled such problems, vis-à-vis SAC
method of CL on language proficiency of Iranian college students. This
researcher selected SAC to be compared with his method in virtue of the fact
that he is under the impression that, in comparison to other methods of CL,
this method is the most popular method particularly among language teachers.
PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT STUDY
The purpose of the present study was to answer the following question:
2

3. Q: ‘Is there a difference between the Iranian junior college students who have
been taught with CTBL and those who have been taught with SAC in regard to
their language proficiency (vocabulary, grammar, reading comprehension, and
speaking)? This question was likewise addressed to the target groups' different
achievers’ language proficiency.
Based on this question, the null hypotheses were formulated as well.
STRUCTURED ACADEMIC CONTROVERSY (SAC)
Scholars like Johnson and Johnson (1979) have had significant contribution to
the development of SAC or Constructive Controversy (CC). The prominent
focus of CC is on the positive influences planned and structured controversy
could have on academic achievement and social relationships of class
participants. CC is, in fact, an extension of another method of CL known as
Learning Through Discussion (LTD). LTD is fundamentally based on
discussion panels on variety of desired-to-learners topics, which may be
posed, for example, by a student, the teacher, or through a video or audio
programme. Higher order questions and analysis of viewpoints that demand
abstract thinking are emphasized and encouraged in this method. Such type of
questions and activities exact more than remembering and expressing of
factual or descriptive statements. They require evaluation of causes and
effects, generalization, and relating of ideas, concepts, and principles all of
which are believed to be conducive to deeper and more effective learning.
Johnson et al. (1986) recommended teachers to take heed of the below five
primary steps in implementing CC in their classes:
1. Introduction: The introduction should incorporate a clear
description of a group’s task and the phases of the controversy
procedure along with the collaborative skills, which students are
expected to use during each phase. Definition of the position to be
advocated and a summary of the key arguments should also be
taken into account by teachers.
2. Choosing a topic: Teachers should bear in mind that the topic
should sound interesting to students, and be supported with at least
two well - documented sides of argument.
3. Providing instructional materials: Teachers should consider the
kind of materials that could support and elaborate the arguments in
3

4. different ways.
4. Structuring the controversy: Assigning students to groups of four,
dividing each group members into two pairs (dyads) who take
opposing positions on the topic to be discussed, and requiring each
group to reach a consensus on the issue and turn in a group report
on which all members will be evaluated are the steps teachers
should consider in this phase.
5. Conducting the controversy: This phase includes planning
positions, presenting positions, arguing the issue, practising
perspective reversal, and arriving at a decision.
As it is realised, in this method, discussants should always be supplied with
well-documented positions and some further references, if needed. They
should also be provided with some guidelines for more helpful discussions.
Each session, an interesting but challenging topic which foregrounds
polemical discussions is introduced. The teacher may also have a brief review
of key vocabularies while introducing the general theme of the text or topic.
Then groups of four members are divided into two pairs to discuss and develop
one side of the argument. Afterwards, the two dyads meet to discuss the topic
for the purpose of achieving more knowledge of the topic. Pairs then switch
sides and develop arguments for the opposite side of the same issue in order to
gain a thorough understanding of the topic in question from different
dimensions. Later, they put the topic on the stage for a class-wide debate, for
further exploration and deeper understanding. This stage affords them
opportunities to criticize and challenge others. They will also be challenged to
defend their ideas. Identification of merits and disadvantages of the theme in
question, discussion of theme through different vantage points, and evaluation
of the type of presentation by the author are some of the activities in this
method.
Regarding the evaluation system of SAC, students are evaluated mostly based
on their group production. This evaluation system increases positive
interdependence among participants.
COMPETITIVE TEAM-BASED LEARNING
Competitive Team-Based Learning is a holistic contextualized approach to
teaching and learning that reflects the real world holism. As a fundamentally
4

5. different approach to ELT/Education, CTBL tries to produce a more realistic
depiction of the real-world norms and settings in the classroom, as the
microcosm, in order to more effectively connect learners to the real world, the
macrocosm. This way CTBL reduces the discrepancy between what the
present education system makes out of our nations and what the realities of
today world context exacts them to be. CTBL foregrounds the significance of
effective teamwork amidst highly competitive environments, as the very
demand of tomorrow’s citizenry, in an atmosphere which emphasises
adherence to a ‘learning culture’ not only to foster academic progress of
people/students but also to more significantly contribute to their future
success, both academically and socially.
In CTBL, students of potentially diverse backgrounds with different attitudes,
(language) learning strategies, styles, proficiencies, and abilities shape
heterogeneous teams of usually 4 members each and try working together in a
highly 'competitive motivational dialogic-based learning environment. They
work in an atmosphere which emphasises their adherence to some pre
established principles (i.e., this researcher’s ethos and manifesto). The
mechanism underlying this educational approach holds each team member
accountable for his or her own learning, growth, and development and
encourages them to do their part of the work effectively. It, at the same time,
spurs them to ask other members to do likewise and also help them
enthusiastically in order to improve their learning towards achieving their
common learning goals. Team members are likewise systematically spurred
into further collaboration and scaffolding the learning of each other in order to
compete not merely against their same-level opponents in other teams, as it is
in Teams-Games-Tournaments (TGT), developed by Scholars like DeVries and
Edwards (1974), and Slavin (1991), but also against their teams. All team
members, therefore, engage themselves fully (cognitively, emotionally, and
intellectually) and actively participate and tactfully contribute in the process of
shared learning in order to solve a problem, complete a task, and/or create a
product through activities like exchanging ideas, clarification of meanings to
each other, and diplomatic resolution of discrepancies. They try to be sure that
each member has mastered the assigned material for this researcher would, at
times, randomly call upon a student to represent his or her team. If so, the
selected member of the respective team should also provide reasons for his or
her answer(s) to the teacher before the class participants.
It is important to note that teams are evaluated not just on their members’
improvements over their own past performances, as it is in Cooperative
Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC), developed by Stevens et al.
(1978), and Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD), developed by
Slavin and associates at Johns Hopkins University (1978). Neither are they
evaluated merely over their same-level opponents in other teams, as it is in
TGT. They are also recognized based on the extent to which they outgain other
5

6. teams. Further, special rewards are also awarded to the best teams with the
highest averages in order to motivate team members for more effective
cooperation, and simultaneously encourage competition among teams. For
example, teams that prove their superiority for three periods will receive ‘A’
marks for their members’ final exam regardless of their actual grades – on the
condition that they secure the minimum standard. Although appreciation of the
best team(s) is also valued in some methods like STAD, TGT, and Teams
Tournaments (TT), developed by this researcher (1994/2010), this component
is not as much seriously and directly injected in these methods as it is in
CTBL. Recognition of the best team(s) is a formal part of CTBL evaluation
system. CTBL evaluation system, thereby, not only pushes team members to
make any effort to improve their own performances and outperform their peer-
level opponents in other teams. It also encourages them to pool their efforts
together to surpass other teams as well in order to prove their fair superiority
in the class and get the special rewards, which may include securing the
highest mark for all team members in recognition of their effective
collaboration and perseverance.
Likewise, to maximize the contribution of the captains or team leaders, who
are high achievers, to the success of their teams, they will be rewarded with
high marks as the recognition of their devotion, perseverance, and
commitment to their responsibilities and tasks if all their team members shine
on tests and exams and prove an acceptable progress in comparison to their
past performances. Teams’ performances are also regularly reported on a
teams’ recognition chart on the notice board of the classroom which as well
announces the names of outstanding and most challenging individuals alike.
Besides, the first two to six, depending on the number of students in the class,
best students are recognised as the brains or motivators who will assist this
researcher, as the teacher, in course of teaching. When teams have problems,
for instance, they must consult the brains first. The teacher is the last resource.
The brains openly receive the teams’ representatives for any kind of academic
help. The important point is that every main exam’s results lead unto the
replacement of these brains as well as teams’ leaders by those who prove their
superiority over them, in CTBL learning-for-all fair environments. To lessen
individuals’ anxiety levels or to contribute further to lowering their affective
filters, teams that secure the least acceptable rank would pass the course --
provided their members should not be below the minimum standard. The
average of teams members’ grades is the basis for this decision.
The evaluation system of CTBL, therefore, is against undifferentiated group
grading for teamwork as it is in Johnsons’ methods where all team members
receive the same grade regardless of differences in contributions to the total-
team/class effort. In CTBL motivational incentives are encouraged to sustain
the individual efforts and immersion in the process of learning in team
6

7. activities and furthering cooperation of team members in the course of
learning.
Also, although in CTBL team members take final exams individually as it is in
CIRC, STAD, and TGT, they take midterm exams, tests, or quizzes
cooperatively. The main philosophy beyond allowing students to take some
exams, tests, or quizzes collaboratively is to subordinate testing to teaching:
Apart from its contribution to positive interdependence, this strategy subjects
students to more opportunities for transference of skills, strategies, thinking
styles and approaches, attitudes, and so forth in a meta-cognitive way (e.g.,
through listening to their teammates who are in actual fact thinking aloud).
As understood, contrary to the conventional methods and approaches, the
procedure in classes run through CTBL is not a 'loose anything goes' one. It is
highly structured and systematic. For the summary of the procedure followed
in a (reading) class run through this researcher’s instructional approach, see
Figure 1.
Figure 1 Main components of CTBL
As indicated in Figure 1, the procedure for presenting a unit/lesson, in CTBL
classes, follows two phases each of which incorporates five main components.
As it is realised, the activities follow a regular cycle.
The mechanism underlying CTBL provides all team members not just with the
opportunity but with the need for perseverance, collaboration, and joint
activity as well. It also intends to keep all teams in a state of dynamic
perseverance in a win-win situation for all learning and social atmosphere in
the classroom which is highly supportive, relaxing, communicative,
referential, effective, and developmentally motivating and appropriate. Such
productive and engaging learning conditions, which ensure and scaffold
involvement of all learners in the process of shared (language) learning, not
merely generate short-term results along with learning and excellence in the
learning. They also supply students with the opportunities to acquire and
7
Teaching
Phase
Assessment
Phase

8. internalise more effective tactics and methods for obtaining knowledge and
solving problems, and in the process develop their communicative
competence. Furthermore, such situations stimulate students to more
effectively and comprehensively exercise their brain cells in higher order and
incisive analytical thinking skills rather than lower forms of mental
behaviour/thinking, and, in the process, come up with fresher, more
innovative, and more powerful ideas, in order to construct new knowledge.
Competitive Team-Based Learning focuses upon deleting certain damaging
problems of traditional methods, so as to suit particularly the specific
requirements of language classes in the present world context. CTBL has been
offered to language classes in order to enrich and enhance the process of
language learning. This is possible through a win-for-all dynamics ushered in
by the role of the teacher as facilitator, creator, and orchestrator of
opportunities for comprehensible input-output treatment for learners’
comprehensive development and growth, which comes about with their total
engagement and active participation and contribution in class activities.
English language learning via CTBL has been viewed as an act of learning the
language together through activities like negotiating, clarifying, expanding,
elaborating, synthesizing, paraphrasing, and summarizing and as an act of
learning to share language learning skills and strategies by equipping students
to learn it as a FL or as a L2 through critical and creative thinking. CTBL best
benefits especially language classes as it, unlike the conventional approaches,
particularly seat-work teacher dominated approaches, underscores the value of
some pivotal factors of critical importance to language learning and language
use. Among such factors are affective aspects of learning (e.g., emotional state
of students' minds including their affective filter and attitudes, and learning
environment), meaningful interaction, exposure of students to comprehensible
input in the target language and language learning strategies, attention,
purposeful communication, and multiple sources of input and output. Some
other crucial significant context variables like motivation and active
engagement of all learners in the process of language learning are also
appreciated in CTBL semi/authentic, analytical, and suggestive feedback-rich
relaxing environments. CTBL, thereby, is of high value for language classes in
the sense that the mechanism underlying it is naturally highly favourable to
language acquisition and the development of all aspects of communicative
competence of students. More importantly, it contributes effectively to the
critical sensitivity of students and the quality of their understanding and
reasoning and thus to the accuracy of their long-term retention, which is a
criterion for real learning. CTBL intends to make (language) learning a more
vivid, interesting, motivating, and goal oriented exercise.
8

9. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Cooperative Learning has an extensive history. Although its origin has been
traced to the first century, it was first applied in Education in the 1920s in
Germany (Cooper, 1979). John Dewey (1940) who placed the emphasis on
education as a means of teaching citizens the ways of living cooperatively so
as to sustain a healthy society they long for has had his impact on the advent of
CL. It was, however, in accordance with the emergence of new philosophies of
learning that the interest in CL re-emerged specifically in the early 1970s.
Since then, the number of researches has dramatically increased in many parts
of the world including America, England, Australia, Canada, Holland, Mexico,
and Scotland to delve into inner layers of CL from different angles.
Researchers like David Johnson and Roger Johnson at the University of
Minnesota, Shlomo Sharan and Yael Sharan, at Tel Aviv University, in Israel,
and Robert Slavin at Johns Hopkins, who have spearheaded the research
undertaken in this area, have considerably contributed to the enrichment and
development of CL and its methods.
Joyce and Weil (2003) have assumed that the synergy generated in
participatory learning settings brings in feelings of connectedness among
students, particularly a feeling that their power in their teams is more cogent
than when they are alone. This kind of feeling causes ripple effects generating
more positive energy in them and motivates them for further achievement of
their shared learning goals. And the attainment of their goals enhances their
levels of self-confidence along with a feeling that they are respected and
appreciated. The two researchers are also of the view that such settings are
conducive to the emergence of diverse and creative ideas, which are
favourable to the creation of more intellectual persons. Researchers like
Pandian (2007) have appreciated the significance of such situations in
cooperative learning settings especially for the education of physically
disabled or mentally backward students.
In view of the fact that students, in cooperative learning settings, need to
exchange information and advice in order to succeed in achieving their shared
learning goals, CL is believed to facilitate more communication (Yager et al.,
1985), which is one of the main concerns of TESOL for the attainment of its
goals. A growing body of research has indicated that, compared to the
traditional lecture method (TLM) and individually competitive learning, CL is
more favourable to SLA (Hatch, 1978; Long and Porter, 1985; Pica et al.,
1987; Zhang, 2010) and EFL/ESL learners’ higher levels of communicative
competencies (Bejarano et al., 1997). To justify the contribution of CL to
SLA, Kagan (as cited in Ghaith and Yaghi, 1998), has argued that “language
9

10. acquisition is determined by a complex interaction of a number of critical
input, output, and context variables” and that CL “has a dramatic positive
impact on almost all the variables critical to language acquisition” (p. 223).
McCafferty et al. (2006) have also commented that the significance of CL for
language classes is that it focuses on boosting the effectiveness of groupwork.
To emphasize the importance of the context of learning, within the scope of
CL, for the acquisition of language, TESOL (1997) acknowledged:
Language is learnt most effectively when it is used in significant and
meaningful situations as learners interact with others to accomplish
their purposes. Language acquisition takes place as learners engage in
activities of a social nature with opportunities to practice language
forms for a variety of communicative purposes. Language acquisition
also takes place during activities that are of a cognitive and intellectual
nature where learners have opportunities to become skilled in using
language for reasoning and mastery of challenging new information.
(p. 7)
Consequently, CL has received an extensive attention of ELT experts in recent
years. Language specialists have focused upon the effectiveness of CL in EFL
and ESL classrooms since the advent of Communicative Language Teaching
(CLT) on the premise that language is best learnt when it is used for
communication in social contexts.
Jacobs et al. (1996) found that L2 learners had more language practice
opportunities and displayed a wider range of language functions in team or
pair work than in teacher-fronted classes. According to them, CL offers
opportunities for premodified input that focuses on meaning in lower-anxiety
contexts, interactionally modified input, and comprehensible output. Jacobs
(1988) has reported that CL, in comparison with traditional methods:
1. Increases the quantity of language students use,
2. Enhances the quality of the language they use,
3. Equalizes the learning opportunities for all students, and
4. Creates a less threatening learning environment for language use.
A number of researchers have also reported the contribution of CL to critical
thinking, which they have mentioned to have positive relationship with
language learning (see Hosseini, 2000/2012) This is, as it was noted, possible
because, as Angelo (1995) declared, “intentional application of rational higher
order thinking skills such as analysis, synthesis, problem recognition and
problem solving, inference, and evaluation” (p. 6), which are common
practices in cooperative language learning settings (Cooper, 1995), are
characteristics of critical thinking. Beyer (1995) has defined critical thinking
as “making reasoned judgments” (p. 8), which are encouraged in cooperative
language learning settings. And Liang et al. (1998) have suggested that the
10

11. success of CL in language classes is by virtue of the fact that “cooperative
learning offers L2 learners more opportunities for interaction in L2” (p. 14).
And finally, Dolan, et al. (1979) reported on a study undertaken by
Abercombie that compared CL with traditional method of teaching: They
mentioned that CL not only increased academic achievement of participants, it
also improved objectivity and flexibility of their thinking. They reported the
following results of CL classes for students:
1. The ability to discriminate between facts and opinions;
2. The ability to resist false conclusions;
3. The ability to generate and consider alternative solutions to problems,
4. The ability to consider each and every problem as if it were new, and
to be less adversely influenced by previous impression which may not
be relevant to the tackling of the problem in hand. (p. 230)
Apart from the advantages reported in favour of CL, a closer investigation into
the related literature brings to light a fair number of counter arguments within
research findings. For example, as regards different-level achievers, there are
some incongruities in research findings on the level different achievers can
gain or even lose in CL classes. Murfitt and Thomas (as cited in Topping,
1998), have indicated that low performers benefit much more than high
achievers out of participatory learning situations. But others like Dalton (1990)
have argued that working in CL groups benefits high achievers more than
others. Yet scholars of repute like Slavin (1995) have declared that CL has no
significant influence on high achievers’ academic performances. Even some
like Allen (1991) have claimed that in CL situations high achievers are
actually losing their precious time which they could use in other ways to better
their prospects. Researchers like Webb (1989), however, do not agree with the
idea that high achievers cannot reap advantages out of cooperative learning
settings. Webb contended that high achievers also gain benefits out of CL.
Experts like Richards and Rodgers have gone further and claimed that
advanced students obtain more advantages from CL than others by virtue of
the fact that they have more opportunities for articulation and explanation of
their own ideas.
Despite the abundance of research findings that verifies the advantage of CL
over traditional methods of teaching, very few researches, to date, have
essayed to directly compare the effectiveness of CTBL, which has recently
exacted the most interesting and hotly debated controversies, and other popular
CL methods like SAC. This researcher himself has tried to fill this gap in the
literature via carrying out different researches in the last decade. This
researcher’s MA and PhD research studies are among such studies. His PhD
research study (Hosseini, 2009), for example, was a comparative experimental
research study which sought to explore and examine the complex effects of
11

12. CTBL with SAC of Johnsons, and the traditional chalk-and-talk mode of
presentation or Traditional Lecture Method (TLM) on Iranian and Indian
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. It became evident
from the analyses of the data gathered that the two select CL methods served
to (a) increase acquisition of texts contents, (b) widen repertoire of language
learning strategies, (c) generate positive attitudes, and (d) improve the
retention of information, on the part of the target groups more significantly
than the TLM. One important result of the study was that it was CTBL that
was more successful in developing the participants' metacognitive and
affective strategies. It was likewise noted that CTBL, rather than SAC,
contributed more effectively to the improvement of the participants’ retention
of information. The study also provided evidence that it was CTBL that more
comprehensively contributed to the success of the lower performers.
The significant finding that CTBL was more effectively conducive to the
development of particularly metacognitive and affective strategies adds to the
value of this method because according to a number of researchers like
Graham (1997), these strategies are the most helpful strategies for effective
learning. This is because such strategies naturally call for more mental
engagement of the participants in course of learning. The significance of
metacognitive strategies lies in the help they can provide (language) learners to
take control of their own learning and so build up their independence and
autonomy. More importantly, meta-cognition naturally involves critical
thinking, which is the very requirement for not merely language learning and
academic success but also for successful living especially in today world
context. Affective strategies are likewise favourable to intellectual motivation
and development of cognition and hence language and thinking abilities of
participants. That CTBL contributed more significantly to the participants’
long-term retention was also a significant result because it conveyed the idea
that this method developed the capability of the participants to apply their
knowledge to new tasks after a long interval, which is the criterion for
effective learning. In other words, CTBL was conducive to genuine learning
more effectively than the Johnsons' method.
Competitive Team-Based Learning, in sum, facilitated the development of
learning-how-to-learn skills and long-term retention rather than survival skills
and recognition memory of the participants, and significantly enhanced the
quality of knowledge the participants acquired.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The significance of the present study lies in its effort for comparing the
effectiveness of this researcher’s own instructional approach with one of the
12

13. most popular CL methods, which has been developed in the US. The value of
both the methods for language classes refers to their focus upon the pivotal
role of groupwork and discussion in language learning. Importantly, the study
delves into the effectiveness of these two Western oriented instructional
approaches in an Asian context, in language classes in Iran. As researchers like
Momtaz and Garner (2010) and this researcher (Hosseini, 2000/2010) 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 in
non-Western educational environments, particularly in relation to EFL and
ESL. Another significant feature of this study is that it attempts to investigate
the effectiveness of CL methods at university classes. This is important
because the dominant belief is that the implementation of CL at university
level is not feasible. This is, perhaps, the main reason as to why most of
researches have been focused on the effectiveness of CL at elementary and
intermediate levels. In addition, the present study intends to go deeper into the
gains different achievers may obtain out of different CL methods.
METHOD
Sample of the Study
Sixty eight EFL junior college students at Bojnord Azad University, in
Bojnord, in Iran, were the initial subjects. From among these participants a
homogeneous group of 40, who were tried to be at the same level in their
language proficiency, were selected based on their performance on the pre-test
to serve as the subjects for the present study. All subjects were female between
19 – 21 years of age. And they had studied English for seven years hitherto.
Materials
Instructional Materials
In this study, students' own textbook, ‘English for Students of Engineering’,
was used. It consisted of eight units each of which was covered within two
sessions of 90 minutes each. The topics included a range from ‘Lasers’ to
‘Civil Engineering’ which were all interesting to the participants.
That students' own textbook was employed in the present study could possibly
have some merits: 1) Participants paid more attention to it rather than some
outside materials; 2) Difficulty level of the passages was geared to the level of
participants; and 3) Through using the participants’ own textbook, they most
probably could not guess they were participating in a study.
Testing Materials
A version of Comprehensive English Language Test (CELT) was
administered as the pre- and post-test in order to obtain the level of language
proficiency of the target groups in the present study. This internationally
13

14. recognized test of language proficiency had already been piloted on a similar
group of 17 students. The test consisted of 75 vocabulary items, 75 structure
items, and 24 reading comprehension items for three passages. All the items
were ‘multiple choice items’, and students had 90 minutes to do it. The reasons
for employing this test were twofold: 1) Its format was familiar to the target
groups of this study, which in turn brought the ‘unfamiliarity of the test’ effect
under control, and 2) Its level of difficulty was acceptable for Iranian students.
Additionally, to examine the participants’ conversational abilities, an oral test,
which this researcher had already developed, was employed. This test was
based on the content of students' book. It included four warm-up questions and
seven target questions. The target items were pilot tested with a similar
population at another college, and based on the results of the pilot test the
question prompts were revised.
Design and Procedure
A ‘Randomised Control-Group Pretest- Posttest Design’ was applied to serve
the purpose of the present study. This researcher selected this design because
randomisation process practically assures equivalency in many ways. For
example, some internal variables like maturation, contemporary historical
events, and pre-testing effects were controlled as both the groups experienced
an equal effect of these variables. Hence, the effects of these variables are
equalized and cannot be mistaken in the effect of treatment. Intersession
developments, extraneous variables that arise between pre-test and post-test,
were also balanced out, due to the presence of randomised selected groups.
In the first session, in order to homogenize the participants according to their
language proficiency levels, the pre-test was administered to 68 students. On
the basis of the information obtained, 40 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. Therefore, the 40 homogeneous
subjects were selected based on their performance on the pre-test to serve the
study for a whole academic semester. The term included 16 weeks, two
sessions of 90 minutes each a week. It is worth mentioning that by putting very
high or very low scores aside, the effect of statistical regression was also
eliminated. The participants were then randomly (every other one) assigned to
the experimental and control groups. With the intention to minimize the
reactive effect of the experimental procedure, this researcher did not let this
population know the fact that an experiment was being conducted. Afterwards,
the experimental group’s participants, in the CTBL class, were ranked in three
clusters of high achievers, average scorers, and low performers on the basis of
their performance in the pre-test. Subsequently, they were randomly allotted to
six teams so that each team had equal members of high-, average-, and low-
achievers. The remained two learners worked in pair. In the control group (in
14

15. the SAC class), the participants were allowed to shape their own favourite
teams. Next, teams’ members, in both the classes, were arranged in specific
face-to-face settings. At this juncture, the importance and basic elements of
both the methods were highlighted and explained to the respective target
groups.
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 control group experienced language learning through SAC, the
experimental group experienced learning of the language through CTBL.
Participants, in the experimental group, also used a collaborative answering
technique called ‘Think, Pair, Share’. In this activity, after the teacher poses a
problem or question, students are required to ‘think’ over the given problem
individually in a limited time and then ‘pair up’ to discuss their ideas. They are
then asked to try to reach to a shared solution to the problem with their team
members. And lastly, they are expected to ‘share’ and negotiate their ideas
class-wide. The significance of this activity lies in the weight it puts on ‘wait-
time’ in course of learning and thereby contributing to active involvement of
students in the learning process. Additionally, it ushers in meaningful and
mutual communication and negotiation of meaning and ensures
comprehensible input and immediate feedback, in an environment of relaxed
learning for the acquisition of the language to occur.
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
After conducting the pre-test, an independent t-test was applied to verify the
pre-test results for both the groups (see Table 1).
Table 1 The data derived from the pre-test for both the groups
Groups N X S D T
Cont. G. 20 3.23 2.36 0.18
Exp. G. 20 3.1 2.17
D.F.= 38 P ≤ .05 t-critical =1.68
As indicated in table 1, the value of the calculated t was 0.18 which was less
than the value of the t-critical (1.68) at 0.05 level of probability. Thus, the two
groups had little differences which were considered suitable for the purpose of
the present study.
At the end of the study, the results of computing the means of the post-test of
both the groups were tabulated:
Table 2 The data derived from the post-test for both the groups
Groups N X S D T
Cont. G. 20 10.77 2.31 4.33
15

16. Exp. G. 20 14.08 2.55
D.F.=38 P ≤ .05 t-critical =1.68
As shown in table 2, the results revealed that the t-observed (4.33) far
exceeded the value of the t-critical (1.68) at a probability level of P ≤ 0.05
which meant there had been a significant difference between the control and
the experimental groups’ performance on the post-test. Therefore, the
significant impact of CTBL on Iranian junior college students' language
proficiency was statistically proved. That is, compared to SAC, CTBL brought
far better results for Iranian junior college students in terms of developing their
language proficiency.
And as table 3 illustrates, the results of computing the t-observed for each skill
surpassed the value of the t-critical at a probability level of P ≤ 0.05.
Table 3 The data derived from the post-test for both the groups for (sub) skills
Dependent Variables Groups X SD t.O. D.F.
Vocabulary
Cont. G. 2.82 1.36 1.71 38
Exp. G. 3.47 1.03
Grammar Cont. G. 2.77 1.55 1.76 38
Exp. G. 3.56 1.41
Reading Compréhension
Cont. G. 2.1 1.28 2.07 38
Exp. G. 2.97 1.4
Speaking
Cont. G. 3.25 1.31 2.4 38
Exp. G. 4.02 0.78
As table 3 indicates, CTBL has most significantly facilitated the development
of speaking abilities (t-observed = 2.4) of the target group of the present study.
Likewise, as shown in table 4, the data obtained from the pre- and the post-test
for the performance of high-, average-, and low- achievers of both the classes
were tabulated, analysed, and compared.
Table 4 The means of both the groups’ high, average, and low achievers in the
pre-and the post-tests
Pre-test Post-test Difference
Groups Cont. G. Exp. G. Cont. G. Exp. G. Cont. G. Exp. G.
Low Performers 19.2 18.74 23.69 28.48 4.49 9.47
Average Scorers 16 15.9 18.85 22.41 2.85 6.51
High Achievers 7.25 11 8.93 13.36 1.68 2.36
16

17. As it is illustrated in the above table, compared to SAC, CTBL had best
contributed to the development of language proficiency of low to average
performers.
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
This study was conducted to probe the possible effects of this researcher’s
instructional approach, Competitive Team-Based Learning (CTBL), as
opposed to Structured Academic Controversy (SAC) method of CL, on
language proficiency of Iranian junior college students. It also aimed at
delving into the effects of the two teaching methods on the language
proficiency of the target group’s different achievers. After comparing
achievement for the two groups, it was found that the participants who were
taught through CTBL highly outperformed those who were taught through
SAC. The observed t-value (4.33) far exceeded the critical t-value (1.68) at 38
degree of freedom at p 05.0≤ level of significance. It was likewise noticed
that much more individual learning and understanding had occurred in the
CTBL class in comparison with SAC. Also, it was interesting to note a
simultaneous increase in the students' prejudice (e.g., their persistence, with a
high motivation which sustained during the course, to ensure that each of their
team members had achieved a thorough understanding of whatever was being
discussed) and their tolerance of their opponents in CTBL class. This was
mostly due to the evaluation system and the leaning culture of this researcher’s
pedagogical approach.
The main reason for the success of CTBL may refer to the mechanism
underlying it. As noted, CTBL's highly structured settings hold all class
participants accountable and unleash their dammed creativity to the extent
possible and pave the way to new opportunities and real knowledge, and, of
course, make them really realise the joy of real learning in semi/authentic real-
world oriented situations.
As regards the second part of the research question, though all teams' members
made use of CTBL motivational and dialogic based settings, lower performers/
the marginalised students cultivated the best results out of the opportunities
this method provided them. But SAC best benefited high achievers. The
success of lower performers in CTBL class can be due to the sort of the
learning environment occasioned by the mechanism underlying this method.
CTBL evaluation system and its formula for team formation, for instance,
emphasize and facilitate active involvement of all participants, instead of the
few best or most extrovert students as it is in methods like SAC, in the
learning process. Contrary to the structures of groups in other methods of CL,
the kind of team formation in CTBL does not allow high achievers to dominate
17

18. their groups' activities. As high achievers, lower performers have the
opportunities to talk, reason, and elaborate the material and their thoughts in
ways that others could understand them. More speaking opportunities per se is
believed to be predictable of better SLA. CTBL situations solicit lower
performers' higher levels of cognition which in turn results to higher levels of
comprehending and understanding the material and consequently to the
improvement of their language proficiency. That is, in such situations they
have the opportunities to unlearn and/or relearn and deepen their
understandings of the material through tutoring and articulation of their
thoughts – they learn through teaching.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The importance of education particularly higher education as the necessary
condition for creating progressive and peaceful societies is dramatically
increasing in current rapidly changing global information environment. The
fact is that in order to achieve its main goals, academia has no option but to
move with the constant flux in the context of ongoing globalisation and
consider the realities of living in such a competitive-oriented context. And
English language can be appreciated as a powerful tool in such a context to
pursuit of such goals. Educators should realise that the English language is no
longer recognised as the language spoken in America, Australia, or England,
for instance. Nor is it deemed as a FL or a L2 any more. Also, gone are the
days when it was considered as the language of libraries which rendered
curriculum developers put the emphasis on merely reading in education
systems, as it is in countries like Iran. Rather, it is regarded as the language of
economy, politics, survival, mobility, and prosperity in this globe. The
significance of this international lingua franca (ELF) lies in the fact that it is a
critical prerequisite for obtaining global recognition via expressing intensions
and sharing values (Hosseini, 2007). In the light of this backdrop, this
researcher means to say that in the present world context
1. The development of language skills ought to be geared towards
communicative competence inasmuch as students need to develop their
language proficiency so that they could participate in the global
communication process more effectively, and
2. The stakeholders in the arena of Education should prioritise the significant
importance of interactive approaches to language learning and language
teaching. Such methods and approaches better reflect the realities of today
world context and so have the capacity to more comprehensively prepare
students for living in the present arena of globalisation.
This study provided data that reflects the needs of our classrooms and the real
world settings. The results provided by the present study can be of some help
18

19. to educators and especially EFL/ESL teachers. A thorough understanding of
the principles of CL methods in general and CTBL in particular can help them
to develop a range of tactics for creating more motivating as well as relaxing
and process-oriented learning environments for the (language) learning to
occur which would enable their classes to become fully bonded, motivated,
activated, and engaged in the process of language learning.
One of the significant characteristics of this researcher’s instructional approach
refers to the fact that it highlights the importance of motivation among class
participants. Additionally, the mechanism underlying this method limits the
scope for social loafers and free riders who have the potential to endanger
societies, let alone learning environments. Another significant feature of
CTBL is that it has systematically prioritized the element of ‘competition’ in
participatory learning settings, which could also be supported by virtual
learning environments (see Hosseini, 2009), in order to reflect the realities of
today world. In CTBL contexts, students can acquire, learn, practice, and
develop skills needed both for language learning/academic success and for
more peaceful living in real competitive world situations, a task which is
seldom achieved through the traditional modes of education. CTBL has,
thereby, the capacity to better contribute not just to academic success of
students but also to their future professional and life success in the present-
world context, which exacts workforce/citizens who are empowered and
equipped for co-operation amidst competitive environments. CTBL can be
appreciated in the sense that it prioritises the idea of teamwork as the very
demand of tomorrow’s citizenry and the outcomes students are likely to reap
out of teamwork, in course of time. It promotes their social behaviours and so
facilitates social cohesion, interdependence, collective and critical thinking,
and co-existence. It enables and equips students towards responsible social
citizenship and experiencing a sense of interpersonal fellowship and human
solidarity.
The paradox and of course the beauty of this researcher’s didactic innovation
refers to the fact that despite its surface structure, which seems to best benefit
high achievers who are in the habit of dominating their milieu, it is, in essence,
a method for harnessing this groups' potentials to the best advantage of the
lower performers without yet neglecting the former groups' zest and motivation
for continuing to shrine as the best in learning/living-for-all environments.
CTBL is, thereby, in essence, a method for the empowerment of the oppressed,
who are almost always the majority in today world context. And the point is
that the empowerment of the Other contributes to their liberation which results
in the transformation/elimination of the minority/dictators, who have been in
the habit of treating them as their possessions.
19

20. The results of this study might, as well, be of some help to material developers
to design and incorporate more motivating and challenging materials,
activities, and exercises in accordance with CTBL objectives. Material
developers should develop their materials in such a way that ensures more
effective involvement of all team members in the process of learning for
achieving their shared learning goals in competitive environments, in order to
reap much more results out of class activities. Material developers, in word of
one syllable, should plan to supply students with the opportunities to learn
more about learning and to make more effective transitions to real world
settings, if they want to contribute to sustainable futures. Researchers are also
suggested to explore and compare the effects of CTBL vis-à-vis other
conventional methods through different dimensions. Far more research is
required to detect unknown areas and results of CTBL in different parts of the
world with different socio-cultural/economical/political backgrounds.
REFERENCES
Bejarano et al., (1997). The skilled use of interaction strategies: Creating a framework
for improved small group communicative interaction in the language classrooms.
System, 25(2): 203–214.
Cooper, C. L. (1979). Learning from others in groups: Experiential learning
approaches. London: Associated Business Press.
DeVries, D., & Edwards, K. (1974). Student teams and learning games: Their effects on cross-
race and cross-sex interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66: 741–749.
Dewey, J. (1940). Education today. New York: Greenwood Press.
Dolan et al., (1979). Improving reading through group discussion activities. In E.
Lunzer & K. Gardner (Eds.), The effective use of reading (pp. 228–266). London:
Schools Council.
Ghaith, G. M., & Yaghi, H. M. (1998). Effect of cooperative learning on the
acquisition of second language rules and mechanics. System, 26: 223–234.
Hatch, E. M. (Ed.). (1978). Second language acquisition: A book of readings. Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
Hosseini, S. M. H. (2000). The effects of competitive team-based learning on the
reading comprehension of high school students. Unpublished MA Dissertation.
Garmsar Azad University, Iran.
Hosseini, S. M. H. (2009). Effectiveness of cooperative learning methods: A study
with Iranian and Indian undergraduate learners. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Mysore
University, India.
Hosseini, S. M. H. (2010). Theoretical foundations of competitive team-based
learning. Canadian Journal of English Language Teaching, 3(3): 229 - 243. Also,
[Online] Available at:
http: //www.ccsenet.org/journal/index/php/elt/article/viewFile/7236/5588
20

21. Hosseini, S. M. H. (2012). Beyond the present methods and approaches to
ELT/Education: The crucial need for a radical reform. Tehran: Jungle
Publications.
Jacobs, G. (1988). Cooperative goal structure: A way to improve group activities. ELT
Journal, 42(2): 97–100.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1979). Conflict in the classroom: Controversy and
learning. Review of Educational Research, 49: 51-70.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1986). Academic conflict among
students: Controversy and learning. In R. S. Feldman (Ed.), The social psychology of
education: Current research and theory (pp. 199–231).
Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (2003). Models of teaching (5th ed.). New Delhi: Prentice-Hall
of India.
Liang et al., (1998). Issues of CL in ESL classes: A literature review. TESL Canada
Journal, 15(2): 13–23.
McCafferty et al., (Eds.). (2006). Cooperative learning and second language teaching.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Momtaz, E. & Garner, M. (2010). Does collaborative learning improve EFL students’
reading comprehension? Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching, 1(1): 15-36.
Oxford, R. (1997). Cooperative Learning, Collaborative Learning, and Interaction.
The Modern Language Journal, 81: 443-452.
Pandian, M. (2007, August 8). Cooperative learning incorporating computer-mediated
communication: Participation, perceptions, and learning outcomes in a deaf
education classroom. Language in India. Retrieved October 15, 2007, from
http://www.languageinindia.com/aug2007/deafcommunication.htm/
Pica et al., (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21:
737–758.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching
(2nd ed.). Cambridge: CUP.
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Group rewards make groupwork .Educational Leadership, 5,
89–91.
Stevens, R. J., Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E. & Farnish, A. M., (1987). Cooperative
integrated reading and composition: Two field experiments. Reading Research Quarterly,
22:433-454.
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. (1997). ESL standards for pre-
K-12 students. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Topping, K. (1998). The peer tutoring handbook: Promoting co-operative learning.
Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books, Croom Helm.
Yager et al., (1985). Oral discussion groups-to-individual transfer and achievement in
cooperative learning groups. Journal of Educational psychology, 77 (1): 60–66.
Zhang, Y. (2010). Cooperative language learning and foreign language learning and
teaching. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(1): 81–83.
21

22. =============
22