Competitive Team Based Learning in Conversation Classes

!
# $ #% ' $()*(%
+ , - . , ! '
$'% $*/00%1 2
2 . +3#
, 4 , , #
' .
+3# , 4

, , 4
, ., 4' , *5)
4 , , .
4
4
!

!

# $ %
'
()$ # # )(*+,$

-. /0 1 2+()
3$ / $ 4 4
3 2+() # $ %
'
# # 2+()

0
Competitive Team-Based Learning vs.
Student Teams-Achievement Divisions
Mojtaba Akbarzadeh
Dr Seyed Mohammad Hassan Hosseini

1
'U 60+ +RVVHLQL UHFHLYHGKLV 3K' LQ (QJOLVK /DQJXDJH
7HDFKLQJ +H KDV WDXJKW LQ GLIIHUHQW XQLYHUVLWLHV ERWK LQ ,UDQ DQG
RYHUVHDV +H LV LQWHUHVWHG LQ /LEHUDO (GXFDWLRQ DQG KDV D ]HVW IRU
DZDNHQLQJ HPSRZHULQJ DQG HPDQFLSDWLRQ RI WKH RSSUHVVHG
PDMRULW +H VXFFHHGHG WR SXEOLVK PRUH WKDQ DUWLFOHVERRNV
GXULQJ KLV PRQWKV VWD LQ ,QGLD LQ WKH FRXUVH RI SXUVXLQJ KLV
3K'DPLGVWDKRUULILQJKHOODQ,UDQLDQPDILDRFFDVLRQHGIRUKLP
'U +RVVHLQL KDV VXJJHVWHG ¶ODQJXDJH· DV D ¶OLEHUDWLQJ DJHQW· LQ KLV
¶RJQLWLYH6RFLR3ROLWLFDO/DQJXDJH/HDUQLQJ7KHRU 8QIRUWXQDWHO
VLQFHKHIRFXVHGXSRQWKHLPSRUWDQFHRIKLVWKHRUIRUHGXFDWRUVLQ
WRGDZRUOGFRQWH[WRI WUDQQKHKDVEHHQ REOLJHGWRWHDFKDWD
¶VFKRRO·¶IRUEDFNZDUGVWXGHQWV·LQ0DVKKDG,UDQ
Mojtaba Akbarzadeh received his MA in
English Language Teaching from Islamic
Azad University in Iran, in 2017. He has
taught in different schools, language
institutes and universities. He is interested in
teaching methodology and has succeeded to
publish some related articles. At present, he
is teaching in some language institutes in
Iran.

2
Introduction
This study was an experimental investigation on the effects of a new type of
cooperative learning (CL) method namely 'Competitive Team-Based Learning'
(CTBL), developed by Hosseini (2012) at Mashhad Education Office in Iran, and
'Student Teams-Achievement Divisions' (STAD), developed by Slavin (1977) at
Johns Hopkins University, in the US, on the reading comprehension of Iranian EFL
intermediate students. After conducting a PET proficiency test to a total population
of 75, 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. While the first experimental group was instructed via STAD method
of CL, the second experimental group was instructed via Hosseini's method of
(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 independent samples T-test showed statistical
VLJQLILFDQFHDW3”OHYHOWKDWFDQEHDWWULEXWHGWRWKHHIIHFWRI7%/RQWKH
participants' reading comprehension achievements. That is, CTBL was more effective
than STAD in improving the reading comprehension ability of Iranian EFL
intermediate students.
==============================

3
Dedicated to you who are the promise of God, the glory of the universe and
FRQWLQXDWLRQRI$OODK6XFKDVDQ(JSWLDQ¶VROGZRPDQZLWKDIHZVNHLQVRIDUQ
wanted to be among the lovers of Joseph (PBUH), with this hope I dedicate my
negligible wage to your true existence .

4
Table of Contents
%DFNJURXQGRI6WXG
6WDWHPHQWRIWKH3UREOHP
3XUSRVHRIWKH6WXG
5HVHDUFK4XHVWLRQDQG+SRWKHVLV
7KH6LJQLILFDQFHRIWKH6WXG
'HILQLWLRQRI.H7HUPV
/LPLWDWLRQVDQG'HOLPLWDWLRQVRIWKH6WXG
2YHUYLHZ
RRSHUDWLYH/HDUQLQJ0HWKRGV
2.2. 1 Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD)..........................................23
2.2.2 Competitive Team-Based Learning (CTBL)..................................................25
2.2.3 Some Related Researches...............................................................................27
2YHUYLHZ
3DUWLFLSDQWV
,QVWUXPHQWV
'HVLJQ
3URFHGXUH
'DWD$QDOVLV
2YHUYLHZ
4.2 Descriptive Statistics .........................................................................................57
4.2.1 The Average of the Participants' Reading Comprehension in the two
exprimental groups...............................................................................................57
4.3 Inferential Statistics...........................................................................................58
'LVFXVVLRQ
2YHUYLHZ
6XPPDURIWKH6WXG
RQFOXVLRQV
,PSOLFDWLRQVRIWKH6WXG
6XJJHVWLRQVIRU)XUWKHU5HVHDUFK
5HIHUHQFHV

5

Acknowledgements
First of all, we would like to express my sincere appreciations to Dr. Fatemipour.
This study could not have been completed without the wise guidance, helpful
suggestions, and accessible support from him.
We are also grateful to our dear family without whose inspiration and encouragement
we could not do the great task of writing this thesis. We are blessed to have such
kind families.

Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

7
Chapter I
Introduction


8
1.1 Background of Study
Reading has a significant contribution to human prosperity.
Reading is an effective means of communication in today's world
context of globalization. It is also a means for increasing the quality
of the language one acquires/learns. In academic fields in Iran, in
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 high-school
students, as English foreign language (EFL) learners, reading is
even more important since 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 a more advanced level
because of the demanding expectations for academic success in all
areas of learning.


9
As Hosseini (2012) puts it, despite the significant
importance of English in today world context of globalization,
English Language Teaching (ELT), the major focus of which is on
reading comprehension, has not been a success in Iran until now.
Some difficulties including large size of classes, limited reading
strategies, and particularly the methods of teaching reading
FRPSUHKHQVLRQLQ,UDQLDQFODVVURRPVFDXVHVWKH,UDQLDQVWXGHQWV¶
English reading ability does not reach a very high level of
proficiency.
In such context in recent years, one of the greatest changes
in foreign language education has been the shift from a teacher-
centered learning model to a learner-centered model. Cooperative
Learning (CL) methods, developed on the basis of learner-centered
methodology, give learners chances to participate in their own
learning more actively. In this learning method, small groups of
students work together to achieve a common goal. In fact, CL is a
successful teaching method in which small teams, encompassing
students with different levels of ability, use a variety of learning


10
activities to jointly improve their understanding of a subject. (Ning,
2011).
It was not until the mid-1960s that modern CL methods
were introduced. The application of CL to classroom teaching finds
its root in the 1970s when the United States began to design and
study CL models for classroom context (Liang, 2002). Today, due
to its rich history of theory, research and actual use in the
classroom, CL is applied in almost all school content areas and,
increasingly, in college and university contexts all over the world,
and is claimed to be an effective teaching method in foreign/
second language education by scholars (e.g. Hosseini, 2012, 2015,
Long Porter, 1985).
One thing that should be mentioned at the very beginning of
this study is that cooperative learning group is totally different from
group learning. It is a common belief that when students are
working in small groups, the teacher is using cooperative learning
group. But the fact is that merely putting students in a small group
is not cooperative learning group. Cooperative learning refers to a


11
set of highly structured, psychologically and sociologically based
methods that lead to learning and obtaining a learning goal
(Oxford, 1997).
%DVHGRQ6ODYLQ¶V FRRSHUDWLYHOHDUQLQJPRGHOZKHQ
students are motivated to learn and to encourage and help one
another, a stage is created for cognitive development. Vygotsky
(1978) argued that cooperation promotes learning because the
SURFHVVHQDEOHVOHDUQHUVWRRSHUDWHZLWKLQRQHDQRWKHU¶V]RQHRI
proximal development. Working with peers is academically
beneficial because, when learners are closer to one another in their
levels of development, they are able to explain things to each other
in a simpler way that is easier to be comprehended than being
explained by a person with a very different mental stage.
There are, however, different ways of group work or
cooperative learning that can be applied by classroom teachers.
This means that, CL learning is a general term that refers to a
number of instructional methods that focus on group work. Student
Teams-Achievement Division (STAD) is among the most popular


12
methods of CL. The truth, however, is that in spite of their
significant contribution to more comprehensive and real learning,
CL methods have their own deficiencies. Hosseini (2012) believes
that neglecting and even belittling the crucial importance of
'competition' in learning environments is one of the main problems
of the present methods of CL. In his point of view, another major
drawback of such methods refers to their inability for bringing
individual accountability of all team members. Unsystematic
implementation of group work is also among the main problems
with such methods that he mentions.
1.2. Statement of the Problem
Iranian English teachers have to encounter the problem of
how to organize the various needs of the mixed-level students in
their classes. Most teachers are facing large heterogeneous classes,
making it difficult to serve the needs of all the students in the class.
CL methods like STAD and particularly CTBL take advantage of
this heterogeneity, by encouraging students to learn from one


13
another and from more and less knowledgeable peers. Many studies
(Hatch, 1978; Hosseini, 2012, 2015 Long Porter, 1985) have
demonstrated the significant contribution of CL to the academic
success of students when it is compared to more traditional
methods of teaching.
In fact, the research results have shown that CL methods
enhance learning more than the individualized or competitive
methods. But the fact is that in Iran no attention, to the best of the
UHVHDUFKHU¶VNQRZOHGJHKDVEHHQJLYHQWRWKHLQYHVWLJDWLRQRIWKH
HIIHFWVRI7%/DQG67$'RQWKHLQWHUPHGLDWH()/OHDUQHUV¶
reading comprehension.
1.3. Purpose of the Study
Considering the positive outcomes of the implementation of
CL methods in heterogeneous classes in the West and also
considering the fact that such methods are not vastly implemented
in Iranian classes, the purpose of the present study was to
investigate the effects of two well-known CL methods namely


14
CTBL and STAD on the reading performance of intermediate EFL
students in Iran.
1.4. Research Question and Hypothesis
Therefore, the research question was formulated to be
answered in the present study:
RQ: Is there any significant difference between the effects of
CTBL and STAD teaching methods on the intermediate EFL
students' reading performance?
The research null hypothesis is formulated:
H0: There is no significant difference between the effects of CTBL
and STAD teaching methods on the intermediate EFL students'
reading performance.
1.5 The Significance of the Study
While CL as an effective instructional method could be the
best option for Iranian teachers as they could gain the best results
out of its implementation, it is not frequently and widely used in


15
Iran. So it is worth introducing this instructional method to Iranian
educators. Therefore, the significance of this study refers to the fact
that it focuses on an area in the field of educational research which
has been ignored by researchers particularly in Iran. The results of
this study would contribute to (Iranian) language educators. The
value of both the considered methods for language classes refers to
their focus upon group work and discussion which are most
important for language learning. Importantly, the study explores the
effectiveness of two Western oriented instructional methods in an
Asian context, in language classes in Iran. As researchers like
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
settings.Another significant feature of this study is that it attempts
to investigate the effectiveness of CL methods on the reading
performance of intermediate students. This is important because
this area has also been neglected by Iranian researchers. The


16
researcher hopes that all involved stakes such as language teachers,
material developers and researchers could take useful notes out of
the results of the present study.
1.6 Definition of Key Terms
1.6.1 Intermediate level. Learners' reading proficiency has
been divided into three main levels: 1) Elementary, 2) Intermediate,
and 3) Advanced. In the present study, intermediate level 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)
1.6.2 Reading comprehension. In this study, reading
comprehension refers to the ability to understand the text for main
and specific information. We considered Chastain's (1988) idea
WKDW³UHDGLQJLQYROYHVFRPSUHKHQVLRQZKHQUHDGHUVDUHQRW
comprehending, they are not reaGLQJDWDOO´ S ,QWKLV


17
definition, he defines reading as a means of getting meaning from
the printed page; that is, when we read to increase our vocabulary
or improve our pronunciation and grammar, we do not read at all.
1.6.3 Competitive team-based learning (CTBL).
Hosseini (2015) defines his method, CTBL, as a method of
teaching which encourages learners to learn in teams, wherein each
team member is motivated to assist other members in order to
achieve their shared learning goals, in the course of competing with
other teams in a competitive environment.
1.6.4 Student teams-achievement divisions (STAD).
Slavin (1986, p. 196) has defined five major components for
STAD, as his CL method:
1. teacher presentation
2. teams study
3. quizzes
4. individual improvement scores
5. team recognition


18
According to Hosseini, one major feature of STAD, which
distinguishes it from other CL methods, refers to the fact that
STAD focuses on intra-group cooperation only. It has no focus on
inter-group relationships ± it is neutral in this regard.
1.7 Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
As regards the limitations, the findings of this study could
not be safely generalized to longer implementations of CL methods
or to non-EFL environments as this study addressed a short
implementation of CL methods, about two months, in an EFL
environment where the exposure to English is very limited. Six
weeks was a rather short period to expect significant gains in
comprehending texts in a language. Also, the number of subjects on
which these results were obtained was small (a total of only 60
across the two groups). With a larger group which would be more
UHSUHVHQWDWLYHRI()/OHDUQHUV¶FRPPXQLWLQ,UDQLWZRXOGEH
possible to include a control group and possibly another treatment
group exposed to a different method of CL. The researcher was


19
also limited to choosing his target group from among male, rather
than a mixture of male and female, students. Therefore, the results
of this study could be generalized to male intermediate EFL
learners only.
With respect to the delimitations of the present study, the
researcher decided to investigate the effectiveness of CTBL 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 STAD with the
traditional method is excluded in this study. The researcher also
tried to contribute to the reading comprehension of intermediate
students as his own intermediate students have problems in their
reading courses.


20
Chapter II
Review of the
Related
Literature


21
2.1 Overview
After an introduction to CL methods, this chapter gives a
brief but to-the point description of the two selected CL methods in
this study namely STAD and CTBL. Then the researcher clarifies
the findings and results of the related literature and sheds light on
the present gap in the related literature. He argues that despite the
abundance of research findings that verifies the advantage of CL
over traditional methods of teaching, no research, to date, have
essayed to directly compare the effectiveness of CTBL and STAD.
2.2 Cooperative Learning Methods
Cooperative learning methods have emerged based on the
ideas of Constructivists. Constructivists emphasize the significant
role of social 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
opportunities for mutual interaction and negotiation. The belief is


22
that such learning together contexts bring with them rich and
necessary opportunities for language learning. As in the words of
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. (2006) have also commented that the significance of
CL for language classes is that it focuses on boosting the
effectiveness of group work, which has paramount effect on
language learning. Consequently, CL has received an extensive
attention of ELT experts in recent years.


23
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
1. Competitive Team-Based Learning (CTBL) (Developed by
Hosseini, 2000, 2012),
2. Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) (Developed by
Slavin, 1978),
3. Learning Together (LT) (Developed by Johnson Johnson,
1999),
4. Teams-Games-Tournaments (TGT) (Developed by Edwards
DeVries, 1972),
5. Group Investigation (GI) (Developed by Sharan Sharan, 1976,
1990),
6. Constructive Controversy (CC) (Developed by Johnson
Johnson, 1999),
7. Jigsaw (Developed by Aronson, et al., 1997),
8. Complex Instruction (CI) (Developed by Cohen, 1994),


24
9. Team Accelerated Instruction (TAI) (Developed by Slavin,
Leavey Madden, 1986),
10. Cooperative Structures (CS) (Developed by Kagan, 1989),
11. Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC)
(Developed by Stevens, et al., 1989).
Two of the more effective and significant methods of CL,
which have been focused upon in this study, may be briefly
introduced here below.
2.2. 1 Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD)
STAD, as the most direct methods of cooperative learning,
is one of the most important models of CL which is favorably
applied by teachers. STAD was developed by Robert Slavin and his
colleagues at Johns Hopkins University in 1978.
STAD has been used in varied subject areas such as math, language
arts, social studies, and science. In STAD (Slavin, 1995), students
are assigned to four-member learning teams that are mixed in


25
performance level, gender, and ethnicity. Slavin (1986) has defined
five major components for STAD:
1. class presentations
2.teams study
3. quizzes
4. individual improvement scores
5. team recognition
The teacher presents a lesson, and then students work within
their teams to make sure that all team members have mastered the
lesson. Finally, all students take individual quizzes on the material,
DWZKLFKWLPHWKHPDQRWKHOSRQHDQRWKHU6WXGHQWV¶TXL]VFRUHV
are compared to their own past averages, and points are awarded on
the basis of the degree to which students meet or exceed their own
earlier performance. These points are then summed to form team
scores, and teams that gain certain criteria may earn certificates or
other rewards.
As in the words of Hosseini (2012), in contrast to some
methods of CL like GI which are purely student-centered, STAD


26
pays more attention to the presence and the role of the teacher.
Therefore, it is likely to attract those teachers who do not like to
FRQVLGHUWKHLUVWXGHQWV¶FRQWULEXWLRQVWRPDNLQJLPSRUWDQW
decisions such as goal setting, group formation, and role
assignment. According to Hosseini, another feature of STAD,
which distinguishes it from other CL methods, refers to the fact that
STAD focuses on intra-group cooperation only. It has no focus on
inter-group relationships ± it is neutral in this regard.
2.2.2 Competitive Team-Based Learning (CTBL)
Competitive Team-Based Learning (CTBL) is a method of
CL which was developed by Hosseini (2012). In classes conduct
through CTBL, the teacher presents the lesson and heterogeneous
teams of four 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.


27
Although in this method team members take the finals individually
as in CIRC, TGT and STAD, they take quizzes cooperatively. He
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.
,Q7%/WHDPVDUHHYDOXDWHGQRWRQORQWKHLUPHPEHUV¶
improvements over their own past performances (as it is in CIRC
STAD) and over their same-level opponents in other teams (as in
TGT), 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
XWLOL]HFRPSHWLWLRQIRUIXUWKHUFRRSHUDWLRQDPRQJVWWHDPV¶
members. To lower affective filter of participants, teams that
achieve above a designated standard would pass the course.


28
2.2.3 Some Related Researches
Many researchers have conducted studies to find out how
EHWWHUWRXVH/LQGHYHORSLQJVWXGHQWV¶UHDGLQJVNLOOV,QWKHLU
study, Kazemi and Khalili-Sabet (2012) attempted to compare the
reading achievement of learners who received the jigsaw method of
instruction and that of those students who received the traditional
teacher-fronted method of teaching. To achieve the purpose of the
study, two intact classes were assigned randomly as the control and
experimental groups. The experimental group consisted of 40
freshman and sophomore intermediate level male (N=18) and
female (N=22) learners and the control group consisted of 38
freshman and sophomore intermediate level male (N=17) and
female (N=21) students. The control participants received the
traditional teacher-fronted method of teaching while the
experimental group participants were exposed to the jigsaw method
of teaching. After gathering the required data, the results of
independent samples T-test indicated statistically significant


29
differences (P= 0.000) between the experimental and control
groups. The researchers concluded that these positive results
attained were attributed to the major specificities of the cooperative
teaching such as positive interdependence, group formation,
individual accountability, social skills, and structuring and
structures.
Takallou and Veisi (2013) carried out a study in which they
investigated how CL influences the reading comprehension of EFL
learners. The study also surveyed the participants' attitudes toward
CL. The study involved 46 university students in two intact classes.
One was considered the experimental group (n=22), and the second
(n=24) the control group. In the control group, reading tasks were
carried out by students individually; in the experimental group,
these tasks were carried out in pairs. The study lasted 12 sessions
and involved the final exam as the post-test and an attitude survey
which was administered in the last session. Results of the study
VKRZHGWKDW/KDGDQRYHUDOOVLJQLILFDQWHIIHFWRQVWXGHQWV¶
reading comprehension; however, both the high- and low-achievers


30
in the experimental group expressed positive attitude toward
cooperative learning.
Nejadghanbar and Mohammadpour (2012) article reports the
results of their experimental investigation of the effect of a new
type of cooperative learning method, named Interest-Oriented
6WXGHQW7HDP$FKLHYHPHQW'LYLVLRQV ,267$' RQWKHVWXGHQWV¶
reading comprehension achievement of English as a foreign
language (EFL). In so doing, two classes (n=25) were assigned to
control and experimental conditions. Each class was divided into
four groups of three. The control group was instructed via STAD
method while the experimental group followed the same method
SOXVDGGLQJVWXGHQWV¶LQWHUHVWLQWKHLUJURXSLQJDQGFRRSHUDWLRQLH
,267$'PHWKRG,WZDVDVVXPHGWKDWFRQVLGHULQJVWXGHQWV¶
interest in their grouping and working together would lead to better
performance in reading. Two different domain referenced multiple-
choice reading comprehension tests were used to assess the reading
comprehension ability of the students on a pretest and posttest. The
results on an independent T-test showed statistical significance at


31
3”OHYHOWKDWZHUHDWWULEXWHG WRWKHHIIHFWRIDGGLQJVWXGHQWV¶
interest in cooperative learning on their reading comprehension
achievement.
In another study, RimaniNikou, Bonyadi and Ebrahimi
(2014) investigated the effect of STAD on language achievement of
Iranian EFL students across gender. The study was a quasi-
experimental research which used the two group pre-test post-test
design. A total of 80 females and male (48 females and 32 males)
EFL students at the intermediate level of English proficiency
studying in Jahad Daneshgahi Language Institute in Urmia, Iran,
were chosen and assigned to two groups based on the placement
test results. The sample was divided into two groups of
experimental group (n=40) and control group (n=40). The results of
the study showed that there was a statistical significant difference
at the level of 0.05 between the means of the performance of the
experimental and control groups on the achievement test for the
benefit of the experimental group. Therefore, the researchers
concluded that STAD could effectively be implemented to improve


32
WKHOHDUQHUV¶ODQJXDJHSURILFLHQF7KHUHVXOWVLQGLFDWHGWKDWWKHUH
ZHUHQRJHQGHUGLIIHUHQFHVLQVWXGHQWV¶ODQJXDJHDFKLHYHPHQWDIWHU
their being taught through STAD. Hence, ultimate result of the
study indicated that STAD was more effective instructional
paradigm for English as compared to the traditional method of
teaching. Due to its provision for higher learning engagement, it
proved to be an active learning strategy.
0RKVHQDQG-DPRXU¶V VWXGDLPHGDWH[SORULQg the
effect of applying STAD method on the vocabulary learning of
Iranian pre-intermediate EFL learners. To this end, the researcher
invited 50 students to participate in this experiment from
Aryanpour Language Center in Tehran, in which the researcher had
been teaching for two years. They were assigned to two groups.
Each group consisted of 25 participants, one experimental and one
control. The STAD method for learning vocabulary was applied to
the experimental group while the control group received no special
instruction and was taught using conventional ways. The results


33
through an independent t-test showed that at the end of the period
the experimental group scored higher than the control group.
In their study, Keshavarz, Shahrokhi and TalebiNejad
(2014) investigated the effect of CL methods on promoting
writing skill of Iranian EFL Learners. One hundred Iranian
English Foreign Language learners participated as initial population
of the study and 60 learners were selected after conducting a
proficiency Test. The participants were at the intermediate level in
compliance with Nelson English Language Proficiency Test. The
selected participants were randomly divided into two experimental
groups: STAD, Group Investigation (GI), and one control group
Conventional Instruction (CI). The procedure lasted for 16 weeks.
The statistical analysis of the results by one-way ANOVA showed
that the experimental groups (STAD and GI) performed better on
writing skills than the control group (CI).
In another study, Saniei and Najafi Ghadikolaei's (2015)
tried to investigate the effectiveness of STAD in enhancing Iranian
()/ (QJOLVKDVDIRUHLJQODQJXDJH OHDUQHUV¶NQRZOHGJHRI


34
collocations. Sixty-four intermediate learners in two intact groups
were selected as the participants of this study. They were proved
homogeneous after administering the Preliminary English Test
(PET) and then were assigned as an experimental and a control
group. Each group took a researcher-made, validated pretest of
collocations at the outset of the study whose reliability was
estimated as 0.83 through Cronbach alpha. The experimental group
received collocation instruction according to STAD procedures
while the control group was exposed to an individualistic
instruction. The content of the instruction was in accordance with
WKHFRQWHQWRIOHDUQHUV¶FRXUVHERRNIROORZHGEDVHWRI
researcher-made collocation tasks performed by both study groups
after receiving the instruction. At the end of the eight-session
treatment, the same researcher-made pretest was administered as
the post-WHVWDQGWKHVWXGHQWV¶SHUIRUPDQFHZDVDQDO]HGWKURXJK
an independent samples t-test. The results of data analysis showed
that STAD was a significantly effective cooperative method in
bringing about improved collocation performance.


35
Zarei and Keshavarz (2012) investigated the effects of the
STAD and 'Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition'
(CIRC) on reading achievement and vocabulary learning of Iranian
learners of English. 132 female Language learners of EFL
participated in the study at National Iran English Language (NIEL)
institute in Takestan. The four experimental groups were taught in
cooperative learning for one semester with methods of the STAD
and CIRC, the control groups were taught in a non-cooperative
method. Data collected through reading comprehension and
vocabulary post-tests were analyzed using four one-way ANOVA
procedures. The results indicated that the cooperative learning
model CIRC had statistically significant effects on reading
comprehension and vocabulary learning, particularly for
elementary EFL learners.
Khansir and Alipour (2015), in their study, determined the
impact of STAD on Iranian EFL Learners Listening
Comprehension. The total numbers of sixty Iranian students would
be select base on their performance on Oxford Placement Test


36
(OPT). For homogeneity of the learners, a proficiency test
(Edwards, 2007) was administered to select the participants of this
project. The Iranian students were in the age range of18 to 25
studying English as their foreign language in a language institute in
Bushehr city, Iran. Outcome of this research paper showed that
there was a statistically significant difference between the
SDUWLFLSDQWVRIFRQWURODQGH[SHULPHQWDOJURXSV¶VFRUHV W 50, p
0.05) on post-test., Farina Jamour2
In her study, Jahanbazian (2015) investigated the possible
effects of CTBL with Learning Together (LT) ± the most popular
method of Cooperative Learning (CL) -- on oral performance of
Iranian EFL intermediate students. She also wanted to measure the
participants' 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 oral performance of Iranian
intermediate students. Analysis of the quantitative questionnaire
results showed that the participants generally tended towards


37
supporting the implementation of cooperative strategies. More
specifically, the participants had more positive attitudes towards
CTBL rather than LT.ment of, Faculty
Hosseini (2000) investigated the kind of relationship, if any,
between CTBL, his instructional method, and the reading
comprehension of Iranian senior high school students. The study
was conducted to answer if there was any relationship between
7%/DQG,UDQLDQVHQLRUKLJKVFKRROVWXGHQWV¶UHDGLQJ
comprehension. Having administered the standardized reading test,
the researcher selected a group of 60 (out of 76) almost
homogeneous Iranian senior high school students and randomly
assigned them to control and experimental groups. Based on their
scores, the experimental class was divided into 10 almost
heterogeneous teams -- three members each. For 16 weeks, both the
groups received the same course materials, instructor, curriculum,
out of-class and in-class assignments, schedule of instruction and
equivalent methods of evaluation, but the experimental group
experienced language learning via CTBL rather than via the


38
Lecture Method as their counterparts in the control group. After 16
weeks again the reading test was administered to both the groups.
The obtained scores on pre-test and post-test will be analyzing
through different statistical procedures. The results, of the study,
rejected the null hypothesis and provided evidence supporting the
hypothesis that CTBL could have a significant effect on improving
the reading comprehension of Iranian senior high school students.
The statistics exhibited that all participants in general and lower
performers in particular - in CTBL class - outperformed their
counterparts in the comparison group.
Hosseini's (2009) PhD research study was a comparative
experimental research study which sought to explore and examine
the complex effects of CTBL, his instructional innovation, with
Learning Together (LT) of Johnsons, and the traditional chalk-and-
talk mode of presentation or Traditional Lecture Method (TLM) on
,UDQLDQDQG,QGLDQXQGHUJUDGXDWHOHDUQHUV¶ D UHDGLQJ
comprehension in English, (b) language learning strategies, (c)
attitudes towards English language learning and the select teaching


39
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
LT, contributed more effectively to the improvement of the
SDUWLFLSDQWV¶UHWHQWLRQRILQIRUPDtion. The study also provided
evidence that it was CTBL that more comprehensively contributed
to the success of the lower performers. Hosseini concludes that
CTBL 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.


40
Despite the abundance of research findings that verifies the
advantage of CL over traditional methods of teaching, no research,
to date, have essayed to directly compare the effectiveness of
CTBL and STAD. And the researcher has addressed this lacuna in
the related literature in the present study.


41
Chapter III
Method


42
3.1 Overview
This chapter tries to give an introduction to the participants,
instruments and design employed to pursue the objectives of the
present study. A detailed description of the procedure applied in
this study has also found a place in this chapter. The researcher has
also shed light on a brief introduction to data analysis, which is
elaborated in the next chapter.
3.2 Participants
Participants of this study were sixty Iranian intermediate
EFL learners studying in Shokuh institute in Amol, Iran. They were
in two separate classes, including both male and female learners,
ranging in age from sixteen to twenty-one. They were all
homogeneous with regard to age, ethnicity, exposure to English,
and educational and cultural background. All of the participants
were native speakers of Persian, and they used English as a foreign
language for general purposes. They have studied English for six
years until now. Two experimental classes were assigned. One


43
class conducted through (STAD) and another one through (CTBL)
method, each including 30 subjects. The students in the STAD
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 PET proficiency test. In other words, each team consisted of
four members: (a) one learner with a high PET score, (b) the two
others with average PET scores, and (c) another with a low PET
score. The PET was also used to confirm the homogeneity of two
experimental groups.
3.3. Instruments
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 Shokouh
language institute in Amol, Iran, for intermediate learners and it
consists of 16 units. The main purpose of this book is to integrate


44
reading, grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, listening, speaking,
and writing. Every unit of this book also contains a reading
comprehension text, which were focused upon in the experimental
groups in the present study.
The PET test was administered. This test was applied to
demonstrate the level of the participants and homogenization, and
also to check the reading comprehension of the participants of this
study before (pre-test) and after (post-test) the experiment. They
were tested in order to have 2 homogenized groups of 30
participants each, based on their scores in the pretest. The same
PET test was given after the study, after a-16-session practice (see
section 3.5), to see the effects of CTBL and STAD on two
experimental groups. The test was similar both in format of the
questions and their level for the two groups. The PET test consisted
of 4 skills with a total of 75 questions:
Part 1: Three Option Multiple Choice
Part 2: Matching
Part 3: True False


45
Part 4: Four Option Multiple Choice
Part 5: Multiple Choice Cloze
Learners had 30 minutes to answer the questions. The reason
for using PET test in the present study is the fact that it is
internationally valid, reliable and easy to administer. Additional
information regarding post-test is in appendix. A.
It should, however, be mentioned that item facility and item
discrimination were calculated for PET. The reliability of the test
was found as high as 0.92. As a result of item analyses, no item
was discarded. Regarding writing section of the test, content,
organization, vocabulary, and language use were four aspects of
writing which were rated. The rating was done on the basis of
criteria stated in the rating scale, and possible range of score was 0-
5. 60 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.


46
3.4 Design
The study was a quasi-experimental research which used the
two group pre-test treatment post-test design. While the
participants' reading performance was the dependent variable of the
present study, CTBL and STAD were the two independent
variables. Regarding the reading test, the researcher required
students, in both experimental groups, to take a pre reading test at
the initial stage of the study. After the treatment, he wanted them to
take 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.


47
3.5 Procedure
A week prior to the treatment, the PET proficiency test was
administered as a measure of homogeneity. After scoring the pre-
test (see 3.3 instruments), students were ranked based on their
performance and then cooperative groups were formed. In each
class 30 students at intermediate level, the five students who scored
highest on the pre-test were identified as high achievers and the
five students who scored lowest were considered as low-achievers.
The remaining 20 students were identified as average-achievers.
The researcher divided the participants into different level
achievers in order to provide almost heterogeneous teams who
could contribute further to the involvement of the participants
during the process of team discussion. While in the STAD 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 reason for this


48
type of team building in the CTBL class was that it would provide
opportunities for learners to peer-tutor and help each other to
complete the shared learning goals. After grouping the students, in
STAD and CTBL groups, the goals of the experiment and the class
management methods were explicated to the both classes.
Additional information regarding pre-test is in appendix A. It
should be reminded that the participants' scores on the reading
section of the PET were used to identify their level of reading
comprehension. During the 16-sessions of 90 minutes each 16 units
were covered.
In STAD class, the teacher presented a lesson in 10 minutes,
and then students worked within their teams to make sure that all
team members had mastered the lesson (30 minutes). As noted,
there were no inter-group relationships among groups in this class.
Finally, students took individual quizzes on the material in which
WKHFRXOGQRWKHOSRQHDQRWKHU PLQXWHV 6WXGHQWV¶TXL]VFRUHV
were compared to their own past averages, and points were granted
based on the degree to which students met or exceeded their own


49
earlier performance. These points were then summed to form team
scores, and teams that met the assigned criteria were rewarded.
As it is illustrated in the Figure 3.1, in CTBL class, after the
teacher presented the new lesson through different methods and
strategies, team members are required to work individually first.
They were then 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 they had a quiz, which they took individually. At
the end of allotted time, the teacher collected some papers for
correction and then required students to take the same quiz with
their partners ± in pairs. Finally, the students were asked to work on
the same quiz in their teams ± with all members of their teams.
Time allocated in CTBL class's teaching phase (60 minutes)
1. :DUPXS«« PLQXWH
2. 5HYLHZRIWKHIRUHJRLQJXQLW««
3. KHFNLQJ VWXGHQWV¶ KRPHZRUN ZLWK WKH KHOS RI WKH
brain......3


50
4. Overview......2
5. View
A. Pre-reading activities
D$FWLYDWLQJVWXGHQWV¶PLQGVRQWKHWRSLFWKURXJK
diffeUHQWVWUDWHJLHV««DQG
E7HDPGLVFXVVLRQ««
B. Reading activities
D,QGLYLGXDOSUDFWLFHRIWKHUHDGLQJSDVVDJH«
E:RUNLQJLQGDGV««DQG
F7HDPZRUN««
C. Post reading activities
a. Class-wide discussion of the topic««
E*LYLQJDVXPPDWLRQRIWKHQHZOHVVRQ««
Time allocated in CTBL class's testing phase (30 minutes)
1. Working on the test individually, and then the brain and the
researcher have random HYDOXDWLRQRIIHZLQGLYLGXDOV«
2. Pair work and peer pre-DVVHVVPHQW««
3. Team work, and then the researcher evaluates few teams
ZLWKWKHKHOSRIWKHEUDLQ««
4. 3URYLGHVVWXGHQWVZLWKWKHFRUUHFWDQVZHUV««
5. 3UHYLHZRIWKHQH[WXQLW««DQG
6. $VVLJQLQJKRPHZRUN««


52
distinguishing differences between STAD and CTBL have been
illustrated in the below table:
Table 3- 1
Distinguishing Differences between STAD and CTBL
STAD CTBL
1. Team members take
quizzes individually.
2. There are no intergroup
relationships.
3. Teams are evaluated on
WKHLUPHPEHUV¶
improvements over their
own past performances.
1. Team members take
quizzes collaboratively.
2. Teams compete against
each other.
3. Teams are evaluated not
RQORQWKHLUPHPEHUV¶
improvements over their
own past performances
and over their same-level
opponents in other teams,
they are also recognized


53
based on the extent to
which they outgain other
teams.
4. Special rewards would
also be awarded both to
the best teams with the
highest averages and to
the most challenging
individuals.
One more thing that should be mentioned is that the special
grading system in CTBL is used as an incentive to utilize
FRPSHWLWLRQIRUIXUWKHUFRRSHUDWLRQDPRQJVWWHDPV¶PHPEHUVLQDQ
of course, highly competitive environment. In addition, in order to
lower affective filter of participants, teams that achieve above a
designated standard would pass the course.


54
At the end of the experimental period, the post-test was
administered to the experimental groups. Additional information
about post-test is in appendix. B
3.6. Data Analysis
+DYLQJJDWKHUHGWKHUHODWHGGDWDRXWRIVWXGHQWV¶UHVSRQVHVWKH
researcher availed himself of some statistical tools. Through SPSS
(version 20), he used descriptive statistics such as frequency,
means, and standard deviation as well as inferential statistics like t-
test (independent samples t-test) to analyze and interpret the data.


55
Chapter IV
Results and
Discussion


56
4.1. Overview
As noted, at the end of the study, after gathering the related
GDWDRXWRIVWXGHQWV¶UHVSRQVHVLQWKHSUHWHVWDQGSRVWWHVWWKH
researcher availed himself of some statistical tools. Through SPSS
(version 20), he 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 pave the way
for further discussion.
It should be reminded that the purpose of the present study
was to answer the following question:
4µ,VWKHUHDQGLIIHUHQFHEetween the intermediate EFL students
who are taught with CTBL and those who are taught with STAD in
regard to their reading comprehension?


57
Based on this question, the null hypothesis was formulated
as under:
+µ7KHUHLVQRGLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHn the intermediate EFL students
who are taught with CTBL and those who are taught with STAD in
regard to their reading comprehension.
4.2 Descriptive Statistics
The descriptive statistics of the results for the research question are
as following:
4.2.1 The Average of the Participants' Reading Comprehension
in the two Experimental Groups
Table 4- 1
Group Statistics
Reading
comprehensi
on
Method N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
STAD 30 25.107 4.416 0.834
CTBL 30 28.464 5.181 0.979


58
As it is shown in the above table, the average of the
participants' reading comprehension in the experimental groups
(CTBL class) is higer than the average of the participants' reading
comprehension in the anotherexperimental group (STAD class).
4.3 Inferential Statistics

For investigating the research question, the researcher
applied a student-t test first. But before using student-t test, he
tested to see whether the two groups were normal in regard to their
reading comprehensions. He also tested to see if the variances were
equal in these groups. For the former purpose, the researcher
applied One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test. He also evaluated
Equality of Variance test.
Table 4- 2
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test.


59
Reading comprehension
in CTBL
Reading
comprehension in
STAD
N 30 30
Norma
l
Param
etersa,b
Mean 24.760 28.464
Std.
Deviation
4.521 5.181
Most
Extre
me
Differ
ences
Absolute 0.113 0.145
Positive 0.072 0.104
Negative -0.113 -0.145
Kolmogorov-
Smirnov Z
0.566 0.769
Asymp. Sig. (2-
tailed)
0.906 0.595
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
As p-value (0.906) in Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test of reading
comprehension in CTBL group is higher than 0.05, that this group
is normal is not rejected. Similarly, as p-value (0.595) in
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test of reading comprehension in STAD


60
group is higher than 0.05, that this group was normal is not
rejected.
$WWKLVVWDJHWKHUHVHDUFKHUDSSOLHG/HYHQH¶V7HVWIRU
Equality of Variances in the two groups.
Table 4- 3
/HYHQH¶V7HVWIRU(TXDOLWRI9DULDQFHVLQWKH7ZR*URXSV
Levene's
Equality of
Test for
Variances
Reading Skill Equal variances
assured Equal variances not
assured
F Sig.
0.770 0.384
As it is understood from the above table, as p-value (0.384)
LQ/HYHQH¶V7HVWLVKLJKHUWKDQWKDWWKHYDULDQFHVLQWKHWZR
groups were equal is not rejected.


61
At this juncture, the researcher conducted student-t test with
the assumption of the equality of the variances of the two groups.
The results are as below:
Table 4- 4
Independent Samples Test
Reading
comprehens
ion
Levene'
s Test
for
Equalit
y of
Varianc
es
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Si
g.
(2-
tai
le
d)
Me
an
Diff
ere
nce
Std.
Error
Diffe
rence
95%
Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Equal
variances
assumed
0.
77
0
0.3
84
-
2.6
09
54
0.
01
2
-
3.3
57
1.286 -5.936 -0.777
Equal
variances
not assumed
-
2.6
09
52.
678
0.
01
2
-
3.3
57
1.286 -5.938 -0.775


62
As p-value (0.012) in student-t test is less than 0.05, the assumption
of the equality of the average of reading comprehension 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 in CTBL is higher than the
average of reading comprehension in STAD, therefore it could be
concluded that CTBL is more effective in developing reading
comprehension of the Iranian EFL intermediate students.
4.4 Discussion
The results of the present study 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.
The results of this study are congruent with the findings of a
number of researchers in the related literature. Chief among these


63
researchers are Kazemi and Khalili-Sabet (2012), Takallou and Veisi
(2013), Nejadghanbar and Mohammadpour (2012), RimaniNikou,
Bonyadi and Ebrahimi (2014), Mohsenyand Jamour(2012),
Keshavarz, Shahrokhi and TalebiNejad (2014), Saniei and Najafi
Ghadikolaei (2015), Zarei and Keshavarz (2012), Khansir and
Alipour (2015, Jahanbazian (2015) and Hosseini (2000, 2009,
2012).
But the results of this study were not completely in line with
the findings of Nederhood (1986) who found no significant results
IRUDFDGHPLFDFKLHYHPHQWRIVWXGHQWVLQ/FODVVHV1HGHUKRRG¶V
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.
That some researchers have not been able to prove the
effectiveness of CL may refer to the fact that they have not
implemented effective structured CL methods. Palincsar and
Brown (1986) have maintained that effective structured CL creates


64
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 that shared learning, in cooperative
learning situations, gives students opportunities to engage in a
variety of discussion activities that cause critical thinking, which is
favourable to their deeper understanding of the material.
More specifically, as in the words of Hosseini (2012), one of
the main reasons for the success of CTBL, as a CL method, refers
to its dynamic nature. CTBL provides multiple opportunities for
input-output treatment whereby students have access to multiple
sources of input and output in meaningful situations. They receive
repeated input and feedback from a variety of sources through
teacher presentation, individual work, pair work, teamwork, and


65
class wide discussions, followed by peer pre assessment and team
evaluation.
On the other hand, CTBL contexts of learning, he continues,
naturally gives the students' positive attitudes towards language
learning, the teacher, and their learning environments and so
motivate them further. The point is that researchers like Oxford
(1990) have observed that students who have positive attitudes and
are better motivated use more (effective) learning strategies, which
enhance their academic success. And achievement of academic
JRDOVLQLWVWXUQDV+RVVHLQL SXWLWLQFUHDVHVVWXGHQWV¶
positive attitudes and their motivation which, in turn, affect their
engagement in the learning process and so contributes to their
learning.
Also, CTBL's team formation nature, which does not
encourage high achievers to dominate the learning process and
EULQJVHTXLWDEOHRSSRUWXQLWLHVIRUDOOWHDPV¶PHPEHUVIROORZLQJ
their shared learning goals, differentiates CTBL from STAD. In


66
CTBL, each team is usually consisted of four members, who are
designed to work in two pairs. Each pair includes one low
performer and one average scorer, or one average student and one
high achiever.
Furthermore, that the mechanisms underlying CTBL holds
every member of the teams accountable for their own leaning
contributed to the success of this innovative instructional method of
teaching. Moreover, such mechanisms motivated them to put their
efforts into the success of their team members during competing
with other teams in the classroom. They also motivated team
members to share their effective language learning strategies with
one another all of which contributed to the success of CTBL.
And finally, the evaluation system of CTBL increased effort
for all team members into sharing not merely their knowledge but
also their approaches to thinking, and (language) learning
strategies, in their highly structured teams. CTBL evaluation
system inspired high achievers to transfer their learning and


67
reasoning strategies to their team members excitedly and in more
effective ways which facilitated the course of empowerment of
their less skilled team members.


68
Chapter V
Conclusions and
Implications


69
5.1 Overview
This last chapter presents a summation of the present study.
Then, after elaborating the conclusion and pedagogical
implications, suggestions and recommendations to stakeholders
have also been put forth. At the end of the thesis, a detailed
bibliography of select list of books, journals, periodicals, etc. has
been included.
5.2 Summary of the Study
The fact is that, as Hosseini (2012) argues, reading instruction
has not been a success so far, especially in countries like Iran.
Although 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 draw
conclusions an implicitly mentioned idea in a given text demanded
by open-ended questions. They do not have the ability for


70
evaluative interpretation of the texts. Therefore, the researcher
thought it is worth investigating if CL could be useful to the skill of
reading comprehension more effectively than the traditional
methods applied in countries like Iran. It is based on such a
background that the researcher focused on comparing the
effectiveness of STAD and CTBL on improving the reading
comprehension of Iranian EFL intermediate students in the present
study.
5.3 Conclusions
In the present study, the researcher examined the effects of
STAD, developed by Slavin (1986), and CTBL, developed by
Hosseini (2009/20012), on the reading comprehension performance
of Iranian EFL intermediate learners. The researcher focused on CL
methods because, today, in academic situations, there seems to be a
move towards allowing students to be more directly involved in the
teaching / learning process.
The importance of CTBL for language classes refers to the


71
fact that it focuses on systematic teamwork. Successful teamwork
is conducive to the emergence of diverse and 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 comprehensions
developed meaningfully.
It should be reminded that the results of the present study
corroborates the idea that if the CTBL method is employed
thoroughly and systematically, it can significantly improve the
reading comprehension performance of Iranian EFL intermediate
students.
5.4 Implications of the Study
Based on the findings of the present study, it is suggested that
teachers avail their classes of CTBL, which focuses on utilizing
competition to the best advantage of teamwork. In addition, the
literature suggests that additional reasons may motivate the


72
instructors to use CTBL. For instance, increased interaction in
English and easy management of large classes may be motivating
factors for employing CTBL. Furthermore, CTBL's implementation
is the need of the hour due to the demands of the present world
context of globalization which is highly competitive. The ability to
work with others within a team and to develop interpersonal skills
might be another acceptable justification for implementing
CTBL, which has been developed by an Iranian scholar. But as
noted, successful implementation of CTBL requires structurally
planned teaching and learning activities.
Language teachers, syllabus designers, methodologists and
researchers should consider the fact that what differentiates CTBL
from other CL methods refers to the emphasis it puts on the
significance of 'competition', as a real world phenomenon, in
cooperative learning settings. As Hosseini (2012) argues, the
significance of competition should also be looked upon from
another different angle ± competition is an inevitable real world


73
phenomenon: Today world is highly multicultural, incredibly
complicated and of course developmentally and fiercely
competitive. The bare truth is thereby that, in addition to skills for
co-operation, survival in the present world context requires
enormous skills and capacities for competition (p. 87).
He continues that urgent and pragmatic overhauling of
syllabi and textbooks in our educational systems is the need of the
hour if students ought to face the challenges of globalization.
5.5 Suggestions for Further Research
Further related studies in Iranian EFL environments are
suggested. Such studies in schools of ministry of education
(elementary and pre-intermediate levels) and universities (advance
levels) where there are different students with different
backgrounds and attitudes may help the authorities of foreign
language learning in both ministries make decisions about


74
implementing CTBL in schools and universities. More
particularly, the researcher suggests language teachers and
researchers to investigate the effectiveness of Hosseini's method for
language teaching (i.e., CTBL) in relation to other methods of CL
on other skills and sub skills. Practical issues, unfortunately,
prevented the efforts, suggested in this section, in current study.
References
Aronson, E., Shelley, P. (1997). The jigsaw classroom: Building
cooperation in the classroom (2nd edition). New York:
Longman.
Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second language skills. USA:
Harcourt Brace Javanovich Inc.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for
productive small groups. Review of Educational Research,
64(1), 10-35.


75
Edwards, K. J., De Vries, D. L. (1972). Learning games and
student teams: Their effects on student attitudes and
achievement. New York: Johns Hopkins University.
Gomleksiz, M. N. (2007). Effectiveness of cooperative learning
(jigsaw II) method on teaching English as a foreign language
to engineering students (Case of Firat University, Turkey).
European Journal of Engineering Education, 32(5), 613-625.
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.


76
Hosseini, S. M. H. (2012). Beyond the present methods and
approaches to ELT/Education: The crucial need for a radical
reform. Tehran: Jungle Publications.
Jahanbazian, T. (2015).A Study into the Effects of 'Competitive
Team-Based Learning' and 'Learning Together' on the Oral
Performance of Intermediate EFL Learners, Unpublished MA
Thesis, Yasouj Islamic Azad University.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R. (1999).Learning together:
Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning.
Massachusetts: Allyn andBacon.
Johnson, D, W. Johnson, R, T. Stanne, M, B. (2000). Cooperative
Learning Methods, A Meta-Analysis. New York: University of
Minnesota.
Johnson, D. w., Johnson, R. T., Smith, K. A. (1998).
Cooperative learning returns to college. Change, 30 (4), 26-35.
Kagan, S. (1989).Cooperative Learning. Resources for teachers.
CA: Resources for Teachers.


77
Kazemi, M. Khalili-Sabet, M. (2012).Exploring the Iranian EFL
/HDUQHUV¶5HDGLQJPerformance: The Effect of Teaching Method,
International Journal of Applied Linguistics English Literature,
1(6), 11-18.
Keshavarz, S.M., Shahrokhi, M. TalebiNejad, M.R (2014).The
Effect of Cooperative Learning Techniques on Promoting Writing
Skill of Iranian EFL Learners, International Journal of Language
Learning and Applied Linguistics World 5(1), 2289-3245.
Khadidja K. (2010). The effect of classroom interaction on
GHYHORSLQJWKHOHDUQHU¶VVSHDNLQJ6NLOO Unpublished MA thesis-
Mentouri university.
Khansir, A.A. and Alipour, T. (2015). The Impact of Students
Team Achievement Divisions (STAD) on Iranian EFL Learners'
Listening Comprehension, Theory and Practice in Language
Studies, 5(8), 1710-1715.
Liang, T. (2002).Implementing cooperative learning in EFL
teaching: Process and effects. Unpublished PhD dissertation.


78
National Taiwan Normal University. Retrieved September 19, 2009
from http://www. Uefap.com/index.htm.
Long, M. H., Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, inter language
talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207±
228.
Mackey, A. (2007). The conversational interaction in second
language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McCafferty, E., (Eds.). (2006). Cooperative learning and second
language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mohseny, A. Jamour, F. (2012).The Impact of Student Team
Achievement Division on Vocabulary Learning of Iranian EFL Pre-
Intermediate Learners, ELT Voices India, 2(6), 20-32.
Nederhood, B. (1986). The effects of student team learning on
academic achievement, attitudes towards self and school, and
expansion of friendship bonds among middle school students.
Dissertation Abstract International, 47(4), 1175A. (DAR R OF
LIT).


79
Nejadghanbar, H. and Mohammadpour, L. (2012). On the Effect of
Interest-Oriented Student Team Achievement divisions on the
Reading Comprehension Achievement of English as a Foreign
Language, Journal of Academic and Applied Studies, 2(11),
21-33.
Ning, H. (2011). Adapting cooperative learning in tertiary ELT.
ELT Journal, 65(1), 60-70.
Oxford, R. (1997). Cooperative learning, collaborative learning and
interaction: Three communicative strands in the language
classroom. Modern Language, 81(4), 443-456.
Palincsar, A. S., Brown, A. L. (1986).Interactive teaching to
promote independent learning from text. The Reading Teacher,
39(8), 771±77.
Pattanpichet, F. (2011). The Effects of using collaborative learning
WRHQKDQFHVWXGHQWV¶English speaking achievement, Journal of
College Teaching Learning, 8(11), 1-10.
Richards, J. C., Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in
language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: CUP.


80
RimaniNikou, F., Bonyadi, A., and Ebrahimi, K. (2014). The Effect
of Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) on Language
Achievement of Iranian EFL Students across Gender, European
Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences,3(4), 936-
949.
Saniei, A. Najafi Ghadikolaei, F. (2015).The Contribution of
Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD) To Teaching
English Collocations to Intermediate Learners, International
Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World 8(2),
125-133
Sharan, Y. Sharan, S. (1990). Group investigation expands
cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 17-21.
Slavin, R. (1978). Student teams and comparison among equals:
Effects on academic performance and student attitudes. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 70, 532- 538.
Slavin, R. E. (1977). Student teams achievement Divisions: Effects
on Academic Performance, mutual Attraction, and Attitudes.
Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University.


81
Slavin, R. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and
practice. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Slavin, R. E., Leavey M. B. Madden, N. A. (1986). Team
accelerated instruction: Mathematics. Watertown, MA:
Charlesbridge.
Stevens, R., Slavin, R.E. Farnish, A.M. (1989).A Cooperative
Learning Approach to ElementaryReading and Writing Instruction:
Long-Term Effects. Baltimore, Md.:The Johns Hopkins University.
Takallou, F. and Veisi, S. (2013).Implementing Cooperative
Learning in a Reading Class, Report and Opinion, 5(1), 16-23.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Zarei, A.A. Keshavarz, J. (2012).On The Effects of Two Models
of Cooperative Learning on EFL Reading Comprehension and
Vocabulary Learning, MJLTM, 5(4), 11-21.

Competitive Team Based Learning in Conversation Classes

Competitive Team Based Learning in Conversation Classes

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Competitive Team Based Learning in Conversation Classes

Similar to Competitive Team Based Learning in Conversation Classes (20)

More from Seyed Mohammad Hassan Hosseini

More from Seyed Mohammad Hassan Hosseini (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Competitive Team Based Learning in Conversation Classes