!
# $ %'#%(%#%()
* + , # -
- --# $ . #/ #
(')0#/ , / $! #
, * 1,

$ 1
2, $ #3
* 4 5 # #
6 1$ (0
$5 1! # #
#, 1
!

!

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

-. /0 1 2+(3
45 $ 6 6
4 2+(3 # $ %
'
# # 2+(3

1
Competitive Team-Based Learning Vs.
Reciprocal Teaching of Reading in EFL Classes
Fatemeh Salari
MA in ELT, Mashhad,Iran
Seyed Mohammad Hassan Hosseini
PhD in TESOL, Mashhad, Iran

2
As an Iranian liberal educator, i am interested in
democratic Education and have a zest for awakening,
empowering, and emancipating the oppressed majority.
I succeeded to publish more than 130 bookticles during
my stay in India, in the course of pursuing my PhD, in
ELT. In my last book published by LAMBERT
ACADEMIC, Germany, in 2012. 2015, 2018, I have
suggested ‘language’ as a ‘liberating agent’ in my
seminal ‘Cognitive Socio-Political Language Learning
Theory’ based upon which i introduced my instructional
weapon, a weapon for the overthrow of dictatorial
regimes.
See the 17 minute introductory video @
https://youtu.be/cPtOUaIkJlk
Mrs Salari is, at present, teaching at some language
institutes as well as universities in Mashhad, Iran.
mhhosseini2020@gmail.com

3
DEDICATION
This study is dedicated to educators throughout the globe.

4
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our sincere appreciations to Dr Gh. Modarresi, at Quchan
University in Iran for his kind contribution.
We would also like to thank all those students who participated in our study, for the
experimental part of this thesis.

5
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS…………………………………………...…...…4
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………..….5
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………...…………….......9
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………..…..11
LIST OF ABBRIAVTIONS……………………………....……………………...13
ABSTRACT………………………………………………….…….....………....…14
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………..…..17
1.2 Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………………...18
1.3 Significance of the Study ………………………………………………..………..19
1.4 Research Questions and Hypothesis……………………………………………....20
1.5 Definition of the Key Terms…………………………………………………………..21
1.6 Limitations and Delimitation of the Study ………………………….…..………..22
1.7 Organization of the Whole Study ………………………………………..............23

6
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………..…....26
2.2 Cooperative Learning ……………………………………..….…26
2.2.1 Cooperative Learning Methods …………………………….27
2.2.1. A Competitive Team-Based Learning (CTBL)………....27
2.2.1.B Reciprocal Teaching of Reading (RTR)……………………………..28
2.2.1.B.a Why Reciprocal Teaching of Reading? ……………….30
2.3 Further Insights into Theoretical Cornerstones of Competitive Team-Based
Learning and Reciprocal Teaching of Reading …………………………...32
2.4 Further Insights into the Related Literature………..…...…34
2.4.1 Some Studies Related to the Effectiveness of RTR….…...35
2.4.2 Some Studies Related to the Effectiveness of CTBL………….38
2.4.3 Some Studies Related to the Effects of CL Methods on Attitudes of
Students……….……….40
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction………………………………………………...………...….…..44
3.2 Participants…………………………………………...……………………....…44
3.3 Instrumantations……………………….………………….………………….44
3.3.1 The Interchange Placement Test ………..45
3.3.2 The Questionnaire……..………………46
3.4 Procedure ………………………………..………………………………………47
3.4.1 Reciprocal Teaching of Reading and Reading…………………………………49

7
3.4.2 Competitive Team Based Learning and Reading……………………………..49
3.4.3 Distinguishing RTR and CTBL…………………………………………….50
3.5 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………51
3.6 Research Design ………………….………………………………………52
CHAPTER 4: CLASSIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
4.1 Introduction………….…………..……………………………………..…….54
4.1.1 Descriptive Statistics…………………………………………………….....54
4.1.1.A The Average of the Participants' Reading Performance in Experimental and Control
Groups………………………………………………………………..…55
4.1.1.B Language Learning and Class Structure Questionnaire............................55
4.1.1.B.a: Attitudes towards English Language Learning.....................................55
4.1.1.B.b: Attitudes towards Individualistic Class Structure.............................55
4.1.1.B.c: Attitudes towards Cooperative Learning...........................................55
4.1.1.B.d: Concerns with Regard to Cooperative Learning..................................55
4.1.1.B.e: Attitudes towards RTR..................................................................55
4.1.1.B.f: Attitudes towards CTBL ……………………………………...………56
4.1.2 Inferential Statistics......................................................................................58
4.1.2.A Addressing the First Question of the Research Study………………….59
4.1.2.B Language Learning and Class Structure Questionnaire............................62
4.1.2.B.a: Attitudes towards English Language Learning.....................................62
4.1.2.B.b: Attitudes towards Individualistic Class Structure..............................66
4.1.2.B.c: Attitudes towards Cooperative Learning............................................68
4.1.2.B.d: Concerns with Regard to Cooperative Learning..................................73
4.1.2.B.e: Attitudes towards RTR...................................................................77
4.1.2.B.f: Attitudes towards CTBL……………………………………………....81

8
4.2 Discussion……………………………………………....86
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
5.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………...…..89
5.2 Summary of the Findings ……………………….……………………….….….….89
5.3 Conclusion …………………………………………………...……………….…89
5.4 Practical Implications ……………………………………………………….…….91
5.5 Suggestions for Further Research ………………………………...……….………94
REFERENCES………………………………………………………...………...96
APPENDICES……………………………………………106

9
List of Tables
Table 3.1. Reliability Coefficients and Significance Levels of the Attitude Questionnaire
Administered………………………………7
Table 3.2. Correlations-Validity of the Attitude Total Scores with the Subcategories…7
Table 3.3 Distinguishing between RTR and CTBL……………………………7
Table 4.1 Pre-test Results for both Groups………………………………7
Table 4.2 The t-vale for the Pre-test of the Two Groups ………………………………7
Table 4.3 RTR Group’s Pre and Post tests Means………………………………7
Table 4.4 Paired t-test for RTR Group………………………………7
Table 4.5 Pre-test and Post-test Means of CTBL Group………………………………7
Table 4.6 Paired t-test for CTBL Group………………………………7
Table 4.7 Results of post-test for both Groups………………………………7
Table 4.8 The t-value for the Post-test of the Two Groups………………………………7
Table 4.9 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test………………………………….7
Table 4.10 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test …….……….………….7
Table 4.11 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test ……………….………….7
Table 4.21 (a) One-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test…………………………..7
Table 4.21 (b) Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances in the two groups……….7
Table 4.21 © Group statistics…………………………………………….……….7
Table 4.21 (d) Independent Samples Test …………………………7

10

11
List of Figures
Figure 3.1. Teaching and assessment process in CTBL class……7
Figure 4.1 The average of the participants' reading performance in experimental and control
groups……………………………………………….7
Figure 4.2 The average of participants' attitudes towards English language learning before
and after conducting the experiment in experimental group (CTBL class)
………......…….7
Figure 4.3 The average of students' attitudes towards English language learning before and
after conducting the experiment in control group (CGBL class)
…..................................7
Figure 4.4 The average of students' attitudes towards individualistic class structure before
and after conducting the experiment in experimental group (CTBL class)
………………………….7
Figure 4.5 The average of students' attitudes towards individualistic class structure before
and after conducting the experiment in control group (CGBL class)
……………......……………….7
Figure 4.6 The average of students' attitudes towards cooperative learning before and after
conducting the experiment in experimental group (CTBL class) …....................….7
Figure 4.7 The average of students' attitudes towards cooperative learning before and after
conducting the experiment in control group (CGBL class) ………………….7
Figure 4.8 The average of students' concerns with regard to cooperative learning before and
after conducting the experiment in experimental group (CTBL class)
……...………….7
Figure 4.9 The average of students' concerns with regard to cooperative learning before and
after conducting the experiment in control group (CGBL class)
……….........................….7
Figure 4.10 The average of students' attitudes towards CGBL before and after conducting
the experiment in experimental group (CTBL class)
…………….............……………….7
Figure 4.11 The average of students' attitudes towards CGBL before and after conducting

12
the experiment in control group (CGBL class) ………...................................….7
Figure 4.12 The average of students' attitudes towards CTBL before and after conducting the
experiment in experimental group (CTBL class)
……………………...................……….7
Figure 4.13 The average of students' attitudes towards CTBL before and after conducting the
experiment in control group (CGBL class)
……………………….................................…….7

13
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CL Cooperative Learning
CTBL Competitive Team-Based Learning
ELT English Language Teaching
EFL English as a Foreign Language
FL Foreign Language
IELTS International English Language Testing Syndicate
L2 Second Language
RTR Reciprocal Teaching of Reading
TM Traditional Method

14
A Brief Introduction to the Book
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 (2009, 2012, 2018) at Mashhad Education Office in Iran, and 'Reciprocal Teaching
of Reading' (RTR), developed by Palinscar, at the University of Michigan, and Brown
(1985), at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, on the reading comprehension of
Iranian EFL intermediate students. It was also tried to gage the attitude of the participants
towards these methods before and after the study.
After administering Interchange placement test to a total population of 75, and after
ensuring that the participants were at the intermediate level and that they were homogenous,
sixty students were selected, based on their scores in the pretest. Then, they were randomly
assigned to two experimental groups – thirty per group. Each class was divided into seven
teams of four – the two remaining students in each class worked in pairs. Before the
experiment, we conducted the Interchange reading test and the questionnaire. In the course
of experimentation, while the first experimental group was instructed via RTR method of
CL, the second experimental group was instructed via Hosseini's method of (language)
teaching (i.e., CTBL). At the end of the study the questionnaire was applied once again. The
reading comprehension test (posttest) was also used to assess the probable progress in the
reading comprehension ability of the students. The results on independent samples T-test
showed statistical significance at P≤0.05 level that can be attributed to the effect of CTBL
on the participants' reading comprehension achievements. That is, CTBL was more effective
than RTR in improving the reading comprehension ability of Iranian EFL intermediate

15
students. It was also found that the participants had developed more positive attitudes
towards CTBL.

17
1.1 Introduction
As an effective means of communication in today world context of globalization, reading
could also greatly contribute to the quality of the language one acquires/learns. In Iranian
classrooms of higher education, college and graduate students need efficient reading skills to
comprehend a mass of reading materials from various sources related to their studies. For Iranian
high-school students, as English foreign language (EFL) learners, reading is even more
important. This is due to the fact that they have to be highly competitive in the national
universities' entrance examination. Therefore, the ability to read and comprehend texts is very
important for Iranian students. In addition, high-school students need to improve their English
reading comprehension abilities to more advanced level because of the demanding expectations
for academic success in all areas of learning.
In spite of the significant importance of English, English Language Teaching (ELT),
particularly in reading comprehension classes/courses, has not been a success in Iran until
now (Hosseini, 2012). Some difficulties including large size of classes, limited reading
strategies, and particularly the methods of teaching reading comprehension in Iranian classrooms
causes the Iranian students’ English reading ability does not reach a very high level of
proficiency.
Hosseini (2012) proposes the idea that the teaching methods and approaches Iranian
educators avail themselves of in the course of teaching English language play a more
noteworthy role in this fiasco. He argues that in spite of the considerable developments in the
field of ELT, most of Iranian teachers are still applying the traditional methods and
approaches in their language classes. He continues that majority of Iranian teachers are using
a hybrid of grammar translation methods and audio lingual methods for the purpose of

18
teaching English language in their classes. The fact is that the mechanisms underlying such
classes do not have the potentiality to engage all of the students in the process of language
learning. Furthermore, the pivotal role of language learning strategies has been greatly
ignored.
It is in such a context that in recent years, the pendulum in language education is
shifting towards learner-centered models or approaches. This shift signals a new era in which
the significance of language learning strategies also is prioritized. A promising method to
traditional teaching of reading is Cooperative Learning (CL). CL could serve as an alternative
way of teaching for promoting reading abilities of students (Gomleksiz, 2007; Ning, 2011).
Prior research also suggests that CL has significant effects on developing students’ reading
skills (Pattanpichet, 2011).
The significance of CL also refers to the fact that in cooperative learning settings
students are more active and are encouraged to take more responsibility for their learning.
But the fact is that CL is a general term that refers to some teaching methods where students
work in groups on a certain activity in order to maximize one another’s learning and to
achieve certain shared learning goals (Johnson, Johnson, Smith, 1998). In Iran, however,
English reading instruction within the framework of CL has not been tried yet at the
intermediate level particularly when it comes to different CL methods such as Competitive
Team-Based Learning (CTBL) and Reciprocal teaching of Reading (RTR).
1.2 Statement of the Problem and Purpose of the Study
Reading comprehension is one of the most important skills to be developed and
enhanced in language learners. It is, perhaps, in such a context that to comprehend
appropriately is the main goal of TEFL in Iran. Nevertheless, it seems that a considerable
number of even the students who graduate from schools and even from universities are not

19
still satisfied with their reading performances. This calls for immediate action to be taken. As
it will be hypothesized in this research study, one of the main influential factors in our fiasco,
in TEFL, in Iran, relates to the contexts of our classes. It is a known fact that students in our
present traditional contexts of learning are passive and are not willing to take responsibility
for their own learning in the course of learning. And such behaviors contribute to their
failure.
There is no doubt today that CL methods are more effective than the traditional
methods in improving reading performance of learners. As it will be clarified, the effects of
CTBL and RTR methods of CL on students’ reading comprehension have been
repeatedly demonstrated and confirmed by studies conducted in L1 and L2 learning
environments. However, studies on this area with EFL students in Iran are none and far
between. Thus further investigation to examine whether the positive effect of CTBL and RTR
also holds true for improving Iranian students’ reading comprehension, still calls for
empirical validation.
In the present study, as such, this researcher has tried to evaluate the effectiveness of
CTBL and RTR on the reading comprehension of Iranian intermediate students. The
researcher selected CTBL to be compared with RTR in virtue of the fact that she is under the
impression that, in comparison to other methods of CL, these methods are the most effective
methods particularly for reading classes.
1.3 Significance of and Justification for the Study
This study focuses on an area in the arena of educational research which has been
overlooked by researchers particularly in Iran. The results of this study would contribute to
(Iranian) language educators’ knowledge of the quality of CL methods. Another significance
of this study refers to its focus on CTBL and RTR. The value of RTR for language classes

20
refers to the fact that it focuses on direct and explicit presentation of four main reading
strategies in group work oriented learning environments. The significance of CTBL for
language classes refers to its foci upon the systematic implementation of teamwork and
discussion, which are of paramount importance for language learning. Teamwork and
discussion also enhance direct and indirect transference of language learning strategies.
Importantly, the study delves into the effectiveness of two Western oriented
instructional strategies in an Asian context, in language classes in Iran. As researchers like
Momtaz and Garner (2010) have confirmed, in spite of the widespread research on the
effectiveness of CL methods in the West, there has been little research on their effectiveness
in non-Western educational environments, particularly in relation to EFL settings. This study
would answer the question ‘Whether CTBL and RTR would be effective in Iran?’ and if yes,
to what extent? Our findings, we hope, will also provide strong support and encouragement
for Iranian language educators to incorporate CL methods into their classrooms for the
development of particularly reading performance of Iranian students. Therefore, another
significant feature of this study is that it attempts to investigate the effectiveness of two CL
methods on the reading performance of intermediate students. This is important because this
area has also been neglected by Iranian researchers. Educational policy makers,
educationalists, researchers, syllabus designers, and material developers could also avail
themselves of the results of this study.
1.4 Research Questions and Hypotheses
This study was, thereby, an attempt to compare the effects of CTBL and RTR on the
reading performance of Iranian intermediate students. The purpose of the present study was
to answer the following questions:

21
RQ1: Was there any significant difference between the effects of CTBL and RTR teaching
methods on the intermediate EFL students' reading performance?
We also tried to answer the following question:
RQ2: Was there any significant difference in the students' attitudes towards CTBL and RTR
teaching methods before and after the experiments?
Based on these questions, the null hypotheses were formulated as under:
H01: There would be no significant difference between the effects of CTBL and RTR
teaching methods on the intermediate EFL students' reading performance.
H02: There would be no significant difference in the students' attitudes towards, CTBL and
RTR teaching methods before and after the experiments.
1.5 Definition of the Key Terms
Competitive Team-Based Learning (CTBL): Hosseini (2012, pp. 89-90) defines his
instructional innovation, CTBL, as an approach to teaching which motivates learners to
collaborate with their teammates in order to achieve their shared learning goals and prove
their superiority over other teams. Hosseini believes that CTBL's environments contribute to
students' knowledge (of the language), (language) learning strategies, social skills and
dispositions. In this study, CTBL is a method in teaching a foreign language specially for
teaching the reading skill that helps the students to be more active and more willing to take
responsibilities in their learning process. This is a competitive process as well. (See Hosseini,
2018)
Intermediate Level: Learners' reading proficiency has been divided into three main levels:
1) Elementary, 2) Intermediate, and 3) Advanced. In the present study, intermediate level

22
refers to the learners who are almost able to comprehend a text but not as accurate and as
fluent as advanced learners. They have still difficulty in comprehending what they read at the
intermediate level. (Jahanbazian, 2015, p.20). In this study, intermediate level students are in
age 16 to 21 who have studied English for 6 years. Students at this level have knowledge or
skill less than the students in advanced level.
Reading Comprehension: In this study, reading comprehension refers to the ability to
understand the text for main specific an intended information. We considered Chastain’s
(1988, p.217) idea that “reading involves comprehension; when readers are not
comprehending, they are not reading at all’. In this definition, she defines reading as a means
of getting meaning from the printed page; that is, when we read to increase our vocabulary or
improve our pronunciation and grammar, we do not read at all.
Reciprocal Teaching of Reading: Originally Palinscar, at the University of Michigan, and
Brown (1985, p.173), at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, coordinated their
efforts to launch the new version of RTR. Reciprocal teaching is a CL instructional method
that emphasizes explicit as well as systematic teaching of four comprehension strategies
namely 'predicting', 'questioning', 'summarizing', and 'clarifying' in the form of a dialogue
between teachers and students, in reading courses. Therefore, one major characteristic of this
method of CL refers to the emphasis it lays on explicit strategy training in reading courses, in
environments which appreciate the significance of social scaffolding in learning activities. In
this study, RTR refers to a method of teaching in which the students learn through groupwork
and achieve the shared learning goals by cooperative learning.
1.6 Limitations and Delimitations of the Study

23
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 addresses a
short implementation of CL methods, about two months, in an EFL environment where the
exposure to English is very limited. Six weeks is a rather short period to expect significant
gains in comprehending texts in a language. Also, the number of subjects on which these
results have been obtained is small (a total of only 60 across the two groups). With a larger
group which would be more representative of EFL learners’ community in Iran, it would be
possible to include a control group and possibly another treatment group exposed to a
different method of CL. The researcher was also limited to choosing her target group from
among male, rather than a mixture of male and female, students. Therefore, the results of this
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, in comparison with RTR, as this method has been
designed and developed by an Iranian scholar and so it might benefit Iranian students more
effectively than other methods of CL. One more point which should be clarified is that as a
number of researches have proved the superiority of CL methods over the traditional method,
comparing CTBL and RTR with the traditional method is excluded in this study. The
researcher also tried to contribute to the reading comprehension of intermediate students as
her own intermediate students have problems in their reading courses.
1.7 Organization of the Whole Study

24
In the first chapter of the thesis, the problem under study as well as the purpose
of the study has been shed light upon. The significance of and the justification for the
study have also been presented. After positing the research questions, limitations and
delimitations of the study have been discussed.
The significance of investigating and comparing the probable effects of CTBL and
RTR on the reading performance of Iranian students have been discussed in the second
chapter of the present research study. After reviewing empirical studies, the present gap in
the related literature has been shed light upon.
In the third chapter of the thesis, some information about the participants and
instrumentation has been provided. The procedure of data collection and analysis has also
been introduced. At the end, the design of the research study has been shed light upon.
In the fourth chapter of the study, after gathering the related data out of students’
responses in the questionnaire as well as the pretest and posttest, the researcher availed
herself of some statistical tools. Through SPSS (version 20), she used descriptive statistics
such as frequency, means, and standard deviation as well as inferential statistics like t-test to
analyze and interpret the data. This chapter, thereby, has dealt with the analysis of the data
collected through the application of the tools of the study and highlights the results in order to
pave the way for further discussion.
The 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.

25
Chapter II
Review of the Related Literature

26
2.1 Introduction
As noted, reading is a basic and complementary skill in any language classroom.
Reading is an important means by which not only new language skills are acquired but also
new information is gathered and comprehended. Today, in the era of information explosion,
it is not possible to deny the importance of reading. Importantly, as Hosseini (2012) argues,
reading can be considered as a means of cultivating many techniques of thinking and
evaluating, which are essential for understanding and solving problems in the real world
contexts. However, as mentioned, the fact is that reading instruction has not been a success so
far, especially in countries like Iran. As in the words of Hosseini, although Iranian
undergraduate learners have far less problems in selecting the best alternative in a multiple
choice test on reading comprehension, most of them are not able to locate or deduce an
implicitly mentioned idea in a given text demanded by open-ended questions. This is
because, he argues, they do not have the ability for evaluative interpretation of the texts.
Therefore, the researcher thought it would be worth investigating, in the present research
study, whether CTBL and RTR as CL methods could be conducive to this skill in Iranian
students. If the answer to this question is positive, which method will be more effective?
2. 2 Cooperative Learning
Cooperative learning is a method of teaching through which students are encouraged
to work together to achieve their shared learning goals. CL 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

27
opportunities for mutual interaction and negotiation. The belief is that such learning together
contexts bring with them rich and necessary opportunities for language learning. According
to Hosseini (2012), in view of the fact that students, in CL settings, need to exchange
information and advice in order to succeed in achieving their shared learning goals, CL has
some benefits particularly for reading classes resulting from social interaction between
students. Also, Mackey (2007) confirms the idea that classroom social interaction is beneficial to
overall language development of students. It has been observed that students in CL settings
interact and speak further and so achieve better in most cases than those who always keep
silent (Khadidja, 2010). McCafferty et al. (2006) have also commented that the significance
of CL for language classes is that it focuses on boosting the effectiveness of group work,
which has paramount effect on language learning. Consequently, CL has received an
extensive attention of ELT experts in recent years.
2.2.1 Cooperative Learning Methods
Cooperative learning as means of promoting student interaction which itself leads to the
development of social skills has many different methods chief amongst which are Student
Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD), Teams Games Tournaments (TGT), Competitive
Team-Based Learning (CTBL) and Reciprocal Teaching of Reading (RTR). As the last two
mentioned methods are the focused areas of this research study, we elaborate them in the
following sections:
2.2.1. A Competitive Team-Based Learning (CTBL)
‘Competitive Team-Based Learning’ (CTBL) is an approach to teaching language
which was developed by Seyed Mohammad Hassan Hosseini (2000, 2009, 2012). In classes
conducted through CTBL, the teacher presents the lesson and heterogeneous teams of four

28
put their efforts together and work on the introduced tasks to prove their superiority over
other teams. In class activities team members have no option but to try to be sure that each
member has mastered the assigned material because the teacher would randomly call upon a
student to answer for the team. Although in this method team members take the finals
individually as in other methods of CL, they take quizzes cooperatively. Hosseini states that
the philosophy beyond allowing students to take quizzes cooperatively is to subject them to
more opportunities for transference of skills and strategies in a metacognitive way through
listening to their teammates who are in actual fact thinking aloud. In CTBL, teams are
evaluated not only on their members’ improvements over their own past performances (as it
is in Student Teams Achievement Divisions) and over their same-level opponents in other
teams (as in Teams Games Tournaments), they are also recognized based on the extent to
which they outgain other teams. Special rewards would also be awarded both to best teams
with the highest averages and to the most challenging individuals. This kind of grading
system is used as an incentive to utilize competition for further cooperation amongst teams’
members. To lower affective filter of participants, teams that achieve above a designated
standard would pass the course. For more information about CTBL see Hosseini, 2018.
2.2.1.B Reciprocal Teaching of Reading (RTR)
Originally Palinscar, at the University of Michigan, and Brown (1985), at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, coordinated their efforts to launch the new
version of Reciprocal Teaching of Reading (RTR). They proposed RTR as a special
programme to suit poor readers who had not gained benefits from traditional reading
instructional methods in early levels of education. Reciprocal teaching is a CL instructional
strategy that emphasises explicit as well as systematic teaching of four comprehension
strategies namely 'questioning', 'clarifying', 'summarizing', and 'predicting' in the form of a

29
dialogue between teachers and students, in reading courses. Before continuing our
discussion let us explain these strategies in the following paragraph.
Questioning is when the text is read and questions are posed about the content. When
questioning the text, students are to concentrate on the main ideas and check their immediate
level of understanding. Clarifying is when in the course of reading the text, students are to
critically evaluate the meaning of unfamiliar words and phrases and to draw upon the collective
knowledge of the team members. In addition, they are to seek the essence of ideas, main ideas
and themes contained in the text. Summarising is when students are to re-state the main ideas
and themes in their own words to ensure that they have fully understood them. Predicting is
when at critical points in the reading of the text students are to pause to draw and test inferences
from the text about future content.
As noted, one major characteristic of Reciprocal Teaching of Reading (RTR) refers to
the emphasis it lays on strategy training in reading courses, in environments which
appreciate the significance of social scaffolding in learning activities. RTR highlights the
significance of modeling and guided practice, in which the instructor first models a set of
reading comprehension strategies and then gradually cedes responsibility for these
strategies to the students (Brown Palaincsar, 1989; Palincsar Brown, 1984).
Therefore, as Palincsar and Brown (1984) put it, reciprocal teaching is an instructional
approach that can be best characterized by three main features:
1. the scaffolding and explicit instruction which a teacher uses and which include guided
practice and modeling of comprehension-fostering strategies,
2. the four main reading strategies of predicting, generating questions, clarifying, and
summarizing, and
3. social interaction which provides opportunities for learners to improve their cognitive,
metacognitive and affective strategies and offers them chances to share ideas, increase

30
confidence, and learn from their more capable friends.
These three features help improve the students’ ability to resolve comprehension
difficulties, reach a higher level of thinking, build metacognition, and increase motivation. As a
result, students create new knowledge from what they internalize and develop their reading
potential. From these three features, students promote their metacognitive awareness: planning
before they read, comprehension-monitoring or control of their own reading process while
reading, and self-evaluation while reading and after reading, and if their self-evaluation points
to any difficulties, effective readers fix those problems using the same process: planning,
controlling, and evaluating.
Salimi Bani (2017) confirms the idea that RTR encourages students to take a more
active role in leading a group dialogue, and helps to bring more meaning to the text at a
personal and cognitive level. RTR is based on the assumption that knowledge and meaning are
the result of creative socializations arranged through negotiation and discourse among
teachers and students, or students and students. It should also be mentioned that the goals
of reciprocal teaching are for students to learn the reading comprehension strategies,
learn how and when to use the strategies, and become self-regulated in the use of these
strategies.
2.2.1.B.a Why Reciprocal Teaching of Reading?
As noted, we selected CTBL as it has been developed by an Iranian scholar. But we
selected RTR as no one can deny the significant importance of reading strategies for
successful reading. Despite the availability of many reading comprehension methods,
the current study has focused on reciprocal teaching as it focuses on explicit strategy
training in collaborative learning environments. Reciprocal teaching provides the reading
instructor with a useful tool for engaging students, individually and socially, in the

31
exploration and critical evaluation of texts. In addition, the use of RTR also
satisfies the criteria for promoting effective strategy use. These criteria, as Doolittle et. al.
(2006, p. 115) elaborate, include the following:
1. Strategy instruction is effective when students learn a strategy within the
contexts in which the strategy will eventually be employed, using
contextually relevant tasks.
2. Strategy instruction is effective when a new strategy is practiced with a wide
variety of tasks, in a wide variety of contexts, and on a continual basis.
3. Strategy instruction is effective when students are provided scaffolding
during early strategy use that is curtailed as students become more effective
in their strategy.
4. Strategy instruction is effective when instructors model effective
strategy use for students, especially when this modeling takes the form of
thinking aloud.
5. Strategy instruction is effective when students understand why
strategies are important and under what conditions specific strategies are
effective.
6. Strategy instruction is effective when students are taught to self-monitor
and self-evaluate their own strategy use and strategy results.
A number of other authors have commented on the strengths of RTR (Carter,
1997; Hart Speece, 1998; Hattie, 2009). First, the belief is that RTR is an open process. To
put it another way, naturally, the effective reading comprehension strategies are usually covert
and so weak readers are unaware of the strategies the successful readers among their peers
employ. The mechanism underlying RTR makes weak readers aware of some effective

32
reading comprehension strategies applied by their higher level peers. Another advantage of this
open process is that such situations provide the teacher with the opportunities to evaluate
each student’s development of the strategies and to provide specific feedback. Second, the
social nature of the process makes it enjoyable and age-appropriate. In addition this social
aspect reinforces the internalisation of skills and strategies. Third, the RTR process can be
adapted and taught to almost any age-group and can even improve the reading skills of
learning disabled students. Fourth, transferring responsibilities upon the students itself increases
the probability that basic reading skills will be internalised. Rotation of the leadership in
teams also which is one characteristic of such situations means that all team-members will
have the opportunity to internalise these skills. Fifth, the RTR process is supported by what
Vygotsky meant Zone of Proximal Development of each student. In the situations
occasioned by RTR, both the teacher and peers are available to scaffold individual students'
efforts for learning. Thus each student has the opportunity to develop reading skills and
strategies at their own rate. Therefore, as many researchers like Hattie (2009) have corroborated
RTR is an effective teaching method that significantly contributes to successful reading
comprehension.
2.3 Further Insights into Theoretical Cornerstones of Competitive Team-Based
Learning and Reciprocal Teaching of Reading
As noted, CL has evolved based on the theories of Constructivists. Constructivism
foregrounds the idea that learners should take responsibilities in the course of learning and
that teachers should act as a facilitators of learning. For example, neo-Piagetian theory
emphasizes on environments which support discovery and construction. It also stresses on the
importance of collaboration in learning.
Constructivism was further developed through the works of Vygotsky, Bruner, and

33
Papert. They believe that knowledge is dynamic and constantly changing. And learning is an
active process which involves the learners personal interpretations created through
experience with meaningful and authentic tasks and environments. But Lev Vygotsky
represents the learning theory of social constructivism, which is of growing importance for
instructors for CL environments. According to Vygotsky's theory, people construct their
(social) reality by interacting with other people. The theory leads to a strong emphasis on
peer tutoring in development where more knowledgeable members of a learning community
both teach and learn by helping the less knowledgeable. Another effect of the theory has been
the emphasis on knowledge building instead of knowledge reproduction.
Social constructivism, as a foundation for the use of reciprocal teaching, emphasizes
the social genesis of knowledge; that is, every function in the [student's] cultural
development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level
(Vygotsky, 1978):
Any function in the child’s cultural development appears twice, or on two planes.
First it appears on the social plane, and then on the psychological plane. First it
appears between people as an interpsychological category, and then within the child
as an intrapsychological category. This is equally true with regard to voluntary
attention, logical memory, the formation of concepts, and the development of
volition.... it goes without saying that internalisation transforms the process itself and
changes its structure and functions. Social relations or relations among people
genetically underlie all higher functions and their relationships. (p. 163)
In their article, Doolittle et. al. (2006) are of the view that this social genesis of
knowledge Construction is comprised of three primary assumptions: (a) knowledge and
meaning are constructed for the purposes of social adaptation, discourse, and goal
achievement, (b) knowledge and meaning are social creations and as such reflect social

34
negotiation and consensus, and (c) knowledge and meaning are active creations of
socialization. These three suppositions are evident in reciprocal teaching. CTBL and RTR
emphasize the instrumentalist supposition that knowledge is to be useful. Furthermore,
these methods are especially based on active socialization (i.e. interactions between instructor-
student and student-student) where the knowledge that is constructed from the given text is
negotiated within discourse communities and is not merely transferred from
instructor to student. To put it another way, reciprocal teaching inherent in the mentioned
CL methods (i.e., CTBL and RTR) emphasizes the role of language through interaction, and
communication.
For more comprehensive understanding of CTBL's theoretical foundations namely
Cognitive Socio-Political Language Learning theory and Multiple Input-Output hypothesis,
which have been presented by Dr Hosseini, and also for salient features of CTBL which
distinguish it from Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and the present innovative CL
methods and approaches, see Hosseini, 2018 or see the 17 minute video available at
http://www.aparat.com/v/i32tK
2.4 Further Insights into the Related Literature
Many researchers have tried to investigate the effectiveness of CL methods. For
example, in their study, Momtaz and Garner (2010) reported that the effects of cooperative
reading in enhancing the reading comprehension ability of university students were salient in
their study. Such a finding in relation of effectiveness of CL at the graduate level
corroborates those of Hosseini's PhD level research study that the average scores of
university students in CL were higher than those of students in a traditional teacher-oriented
English reading class.

35
Some researchers like Palincsar and Brown (1985) have averred that CL creates
situations wherein the text becomes more meaningful and important to students.
Consequently, students are encouraged to seek the help of others for comprehending key
points, which in turn increases their understanding of the whole text. In the same lines, a
number of researchers (e.g. Rabow et al., 1994; Totten, Digby, Russ, 1991) have stressed
that shared learning, in CL situations, gives students opportunities to engage in a variety of
discussion activities that engender critical thinking, which is favourable to their deeper
understanding of the material. Cloward (1967) has also claimed improvement of cognitive
gains of students in reading courses run through CL. Similar claims have been declared by
some other researchers like Hassinger and Via (1969). Clarke (1989, cited in Zhang, 2010)
has also reported that CL classroom spurred students to involve in language reading activities
more effectively.
In another study, Jacobs (1988) has stated that increased communication in
participatory learning settings, in the case of a reading class, befits students in two ways.
First, they would learn more about how to learn comprehension strategies. Second, they
would be persuaded to discuss and negotiate the meaning in their groups more often, which
means further oral proficiency. In the same lines, Joritz-Nakagawa (2006) confirmed that the
significance of application of CL to reading courses is that besides contributing to reading
skill, it brings the opportunities for oral practice of language.
2.4.1 Some Studies Related to the Effectiveness of RTR
Research by Pearson and Fielding (1991) has shown that instruction in
comprehension strategies is especially effective for students who exhibit poor
comprehension. Findings from a study done by Westera and Moore (1995), who used three
groups of students (those who received reciprocal teaching for a short period of time, those

36
who received reciprocal teaching for an extended period of time, and the control group,
which did not receive reciprocal teaching), indicated that students who received 12 to 16
reciprocal teaching sessions gained, on average, more than one age-equivalent year in tested
reading comprehension over a five-week period. In this study, 95% of the extended reciprocal
teaching students showed gains in comprehension, compared to 47% of students in the short
reciprocal teaching group and 45% of the students in the control group.
In his comparative study, Alfassi (2004) hypothesized that RTR method of CL
would have greater effects on students English reading comprehension in their language
courses. Therefore, two equivalent mainstream freshman classes of good readers were
randomly assigned to a two groups: an experimental group (RTR) consisting of 29 subjects,
and a control group (traditional literacy instruction) of 20 participants. Equivalent teachers,
who received six hours of training, outlined the material and managed the classes for 20
days. Both groups were assessed pre-, throughout, and post- intervention and maintenance
testing was completed. Experimenter-developed comprehension questions were used and rated
independently, generating a Cronbach’s alpha of .71 to .85. Participants were also assessed
using a standardized test. No effect size was given. A MANCOVA was carried out with
post testing, revealing a significant difference favoring the experimental group on reading
assessments and standardized measures. The experimental group significantly improved, both
experimenter-developed and standardized testing showed significant changes between pre-
and post-testing. Therefore, the educational benefits of incorporating RTR into the English
Language arts curriculum were verified.
In 2003, Clark carried out a 5-week research study to see the efficacy of reciprocal
teaching with adult high school students on reading comprehension. Fifteen students of mixed
abilities and ethnicities, aged sixteen to fifty, participated in the study. The instruments in this
study consisted of group discussions, written assignments, and surveys of the students’

37
opinions on reciprocal teaching. Written assignments and group discussions were analyzed.
The results from the surveys showed that 40% of the students stated that reciprocal teaching
improved their reading comprehension and 90% of them reported benefits from using reciprocal
teaching and preferred it to traditional instruction.
In another study, Konpan (2006) compared the reciprocal teaching with the
communicative language teaching on 12th
-grade students’ reading comprehension in Thailand.
The results of this study revealed that the English reading comprehension of the experimental
group (i.e., group who was taught with the reciprocal teaching method) was significantly
different, that is, it was higher than the one of the control group (i.e., the group who was
instructed through the communicative language teaching technique) at 0.05 level. Therefore, the
superiority of RTR over the communicative language teaching technique was confirmed.
In his one-group experimental design research study, Wisaijorn (2003) examined the
effects of reciprocal teaching on reading comprehension. The researcher used both quantitative
and qualitative methods: a pretest, a posttest, and a follow-up reading comprehension test; a
pre-questionnaire, a post-questionnaire, and a follow-up questionnaire; checklists; and journals.
Thirty-four 1st
-year university students of English for Academic Purposes in the northeastern
part of Thailand participated in the study. The results showed that reciprocal teaching improved
the students’ reading ability. Moreover, the students exhibited further gains in reading
comprehension in the follow-up test compared to the results from the post-test completed at the
end of the training, pointing to the fact that the four strategies in reciprocal teaching were still
used by the students in their reading even after the training.
In higher education, Rosenshine and Meister (1994) conducted a meta-analysis of 16
quantitative studies focusing on reciprocal teaching. Their study revealed that reciprocal
teaching was most effective for older students as well as those with poor comprehension
skills.

38
Finally, it should be mentioned at the end of this section that a number of other researches
on reciprocal teaching and its effects on the reading abilities of different levels and groups of
students has been extensively conducted with primary and college students (Fillenworth, 1995;
Palincsar David, 1990). The results of these studies also showed the positive effects of
reciprocal teaching on the participants’ reading comprehension abilities.
2.4.2 Some Studies Related to the Effectiveness of CTBL
A number of researches have illustrated the significance and effectiveness of
Competitive Team-Based Learning (CTBL). In his MA research study, he (Hosseini, 2000)
compared the effectiveness of his own approach (CTBL) with the Traditional Lecture
Method (TLM). He found significant results for the effectiveness of CTBL in improving the
reading comprehension of Iranian high school students. Also, he found that his method
contributed to the development of reading comprehension abilities of lower performers more
effectively than the TLM.
Hosseini's PhD research study (Hosseini, 2009), which was a comparative empirical
research study, sought to explore and examine the complex effects of his instructional
innovation, CTBL, with Learning Together and the Traditional Lecture Method (TLM) on
Iranian and Indian EFL/ESL undergraduate learners’: (a) reading comprehension in English,
(b) language learning strategies, (c) attitudes towards English language learning and the
select teaching methods, and (d) retention of information. All these objectives were addressed
with respect to different-level achievers of the target groups with the help of field studies and
experiments in Iran and India. It should be mentioned that Learning Together or Cooperative
Group-Based Learning (CGBL) method has been developed by Johnson and Johnson at the
University of Minnesota in the USA. It became evident from the analysis of the data gathered
that CTBL and CGBL served to (a) increase acquisition of texts contents, (b) widen

39
repertoire of language learning strategies, (c) generate positive attitudes, and (d) improve
retention of information, on the part of the target groups more significantly than the TLM.
Further analysis of the data revealed that whereas CGBL was substantially more effective in
developing the reading skills of the participants, CTBL was more successful in developing
their metacognitive and affective strategies. It was likewise noted that CTBL facilitated the
participants’ long-term retention of information or their depth of understanding of the texts
contents more effectively than CGBL. The results also indicated that it was CGBL, rather
than CTBL, that was more successful in Iran. But, in India, it was CTBL.
In another study, Hosseini (2012) found that CTBL contributed to the Language
Proficiency of Iranian EFL College Seniors more effectively than Structured Academic
Controversy method of Johnson brothers at the University of Minnesota in the USA. Also in
2012, in another study, Hosseini compared the effectiveness of his method with Group
Investigation, developed by Sharan and Sharan (1990) at Tel Avive University, in Israel, with
reference to the language proficiency of Iranian EFL intermediate students”. He found that
his method was more effective in promoting the language proficiency of Iranian EFL
intermediate students.
In her study, Jahanbazian (2015) intended to look and compare the possible effects of
CTBL with Learning Together (LT) – the most popular method of Cooperative Learning
(CL) _ on reading comprehension performance of Iranian EFL intermediate students. She
also wanted to measure the participant’s attitudes towards language learning, individualistic
class structure, CL, and the selected methods before and after the study. The results of the
study showed that CTBL had a more significant effect on improving the reading
comprehension performance of Iranian intermediate students. Analysis of the quantitative
questionnaire results showed that the participants generally tended towards supporting the

40
implementation of cooperative strategies. More specifically, the participants had more positive
attitudes towards CTBL rather than LT.
In his study, Akbarzadeh's (2017) compared the effectiveness of CTBL and STAD,
developed by Slavin and associates (1995) at Johns Hopkins University, in the US, on the
reading comprehension of Iranian EFL intermediate students. After conducting an IELTS
Reading test to a total population of 75, sixty students were selected, based on their scores in the
pretest. Then they were randomly assigned to control and experimental groups – thirty per
group. Each class was divided into seven teams of four – the two remained students in each
class worked in pairs. The control group was instructed via STAD technique, which is a well-
known technique of cooperative learning, while the experimental group were instructed via his
approach to (language) teaching (i.e., CTBL). The reading comprehension test (posttest) was
used at the end of the study to assess the probable progress in the reading comprehension
ability of the students. The results on an independent T-test showed statistical significance at
P≤0.05 level that can be attributed to the effect of CTBL on the participants' reading
comprehension achievement.
Finally, in her research study, Salimi Bani, (2017), evaluated and compared the
effects of CTBL and Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) on the
reading comprehension of Iranian intermediate EFL learners. She proved the superiority of
CTBL over CIRC in her reading classes.
2.4.3 Some Studies Related to the Effects of CL Methods on Attitudes of Students
Regarding the effects of CL methods on attitudes of students, Akinbobola (2009)
conducted a study to discover the attitude of students towards the use of cooperative,
competitive and individualistic learning strategies in Nigerian senior secondary school physics.
There were a total of one-hundred and forty (140) students taking part in the study who were

41
selected by a random sampling technique. A structured questionnaire titled Students’ Attitude
Towards Physics Questionnaire (SATPQ) on 4-point scale was used to collect the data. His
findings showed that CL strategy was the most effective in facilitating students’ attitude towards
physics. This was then followed by competitive strategies with the individualistic learning
strategies being seen to be the least facilitative. He concluded that poor student attitude toward
physics and poor learning environment and gender effect resulted in poor academic performance
(Ivowi, 1997 as cited in Akinbobola, 2009). Also, he found that in the present Nigerian
educational system, competition is valued over cooperative learning strategies.
In his PhD research study, Hosseini (2009) found that students had more positive
attitudes towards his approach to teaching (CTBL) rather than towards the traditional Lecture
Method or even toward Learning Together method of CL. Hosseini concluded that the result is
not surprising because in CTBL, students are trained on how to interact with their team members
positively, resolve disputes through compromise or mediation and encourage the best
performance of each member for the benefit of the team. He contends that when students
through CTBL mechanisms become more motivated and successful, they view the subject with a
very positive attitude because their self-esteem is enhanced.
Despite the abundance of research findings that verifies the advantage of RTR and
CTBL over other methods of teaching, no research, to date, has essayed to directly
investigate and compare the effectiveness of RTR and CTBL particularly in reading courses
in Iran. This research study has come to address this lacuna in the related literature. We hope
the results of the present research study could confirm the proved positive results of
teamwork, which is the focused area of RTR and CTBL, for Iranian English classes also.
That way this study would contribute to a paradigm shift, in the Iranian arena of teaching
methodology, through recalibrating Iranian language teachers towards the implementation of
CL methods in their language classes. Such a shift would be of a very crucial significance as

42
CL methods contribute not merely to academic success of students but to their future success
also, the ultimate results of which would be more civilized and compassionate societies and
so world peace.

44
3.1 Overview
In the present chapter of the thesis, some information about the participants and
instrumentation has been provided. The procedure of data collection and analysis has also
been introduced. At the end, the design of the research study has been shed light upon.
3.2 Participants/Corpus
Participants of this study were sixty Iranian intermediate EFL learners studying in
Golrizan language institute in Mashhad, Iran. They were in two separate classes, including
male learners, ranging in age from sixteen to twenty-one. They were all homogeneous with
regard to age, exposure to English, and educational background. All of the participants were
native speakers of Persian and for this reason, Kurdish and Turkish people were discarded.
They were using English as a foreign language for general purposes. They had studied
English for six years until now.
Two experimental classes were assigned. One class conducted through RTR and
another one through CTBL method, each including 30 subjects. The students in the RTR
class were allowed to build their teams of three or four members based on their interests. But
the students in CTBL class were divided into seven heterogeneous teams based on their
performance on the placement test. In other words, each team, in CTBL class, consisted of
four members: (a) one learner with a high placement test score, (b) the two others with
average placement test scores, and (c) another with a low placement test score. As noted, the
placement test was also used to confirm the homogeneity of two experimental groups.
3.3 Instrumentations

45
Before introducing the instrument, it should be noted that the main text book which
was used in this research was 3rd edition of Interchange 3 (Intermediate) by Jack C. Richards
with Jonathan Hall and Susan Proctor (2005). This textbook is used in Golrizan language
institute in Mashhad, Iran, for intermediate learners and it consists of 16 units. The main
purpose of this book is to integrate grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, listening, speaking,
reading and writing. Every unit of this book also contains a reading comprehension text,
which was focused upon in the experimental groups in the present research study.
3.3.1 The Interchange Placement Test
The Interchange placement test was administered at the initial stages of the present
research study. This test (Appendix A) was applied to demonstrate the level of the
participants and homogenization. The participants were tested in order to have two
homogenized groups of 30 participants each, based on their scores in the pretest. Sixty
learners, from among 75 learners, who scored within one standard deviation above and below
the mean, were selected. They were then divided into 2 groups.
The reading section of Interchange placement test was also used to check the reading
comprehension of the participants of this study before (pre-test) and after (post-test) the
experiment. The same test was given after the study, after a-16-session practice, to see the
effects of CTBL and RTR on two experimental groups. The test was similar both in format of
the questions and their level for the two groups. The test consisted of 3 sections with a total
of 70 questions:
Part 1: The Listening Section
Part 2: The Reading Section
Part 3: The Language Use Section

46
Learners had 50 minutes to answer the questions. The reason for using Interchange
placement test in the present study refers to the fact that it is internationally valid, reliable and
easy to administer.
It should, however, be mentioned that item facility and item discrimination has
already been calculated for this test. The reliability of the test was found as high as 0.92. As a
result of item analyses, no item was discarded.
3.3.2 The Questionnaire
Considering our second question in the present study, we required the participants in
the two groups to provide their opinions about language learning, cooperative learning, and
the two select CL methods at the beginning as well as at the end of the experiment. It should
be mentioned that the questionnaire survey technique we availed ourselves of is a very
effective tool since it enables large scale numerical data to be obtained over a short period of
time. It can also be easily administered. In this particular study, the researcher wanted to gain
numerical data to indicate students’ views on cooperative learning environments and methods.
The uni-dimensional Seven-Likert scale questionnaire used in the study was
developed by Hosseini (2009) and had 30 items. For the purpose of analyzing the gathered
data, the respondents were allowed to rate each item on a scale of seven options. Needless to
say, the reliability and validity of the questionnaire were already determined by the afore-
mentioned researcher. To put it another way, in order to calculate the internal reliability
coefficients of the questionnaire, Hosseini used Cronbach alpha, after the pretests in Iran and
in India (see Table 3.1).
Table 3.1
Reliability Coefficients and Significance Levels of the Attitude Questionnaire
Administered

47
As the table displays, overall reliability levels of .6847 and .6187 were
obtained for the groups in Iran and India respectively. And, the overall reliability coefficient
of the questionnaire for the two countries was obtained .7199.
After the attitude pretest was conducted, correlations among scores on each
category of the questionnaire and the total score and inter-correlations among categories
were obtained using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient to find the validity of
the attitude questionnaire (see Table 3.2).
Table 3.2
Correlations-Validity of the Attitude Total Scores with the Subcategories
Blocks Total Attitude
1 .670
2 .698
3 .600
4 .667
5 .668
6 .680
As Table 3.2 indicates, correlation coefficient between categories and total score
varied from .600 to .698, which showed a marked relationship between the categories with
the inventory.
3.4 Procedures
In the first session, in order to homogenize the participants according to their
language proficiency levels, the placement test was administered to 75 students. On the basis
of the information obtained, 60 students who were nearly at the midpoint were chosen as the
key informants. That is, scores that were very high or too low on the test were discarded.
Tool IRAN INDIA Overall
AC Sig. AC Sig. AC Sig.
Attitude S. .6847 HS .6187 HS .7199 HS

48
Therefore, the 60 homogeneous subjects were selected based on their performance on the
placement test to serve the study for a whole academic semester. The term included 18
sessions of 90 minutes each. It is worth mentioning that by putting very high or too low
scores aside, the effect of statistical regression were also eliminated.
The participants were then randomly (every other one) assigned to the two
experimental groups (i.e., CTBL and RTR). With the intention to minimize the reactive effect
of the experimental procedure, this researcher did not let this population know the fact that an
experiment was being conducted.
Students were ranked based on their performance and then cooperative groups were
formed. In each class at intermediate level, the seven students who scored highest on the
placement test were identified as high achievers and the seven students who scored lowest
were considered as low-achievers. The remained 16 students were identified as average-
achievers.
At this stage, we administered a seven Likert scale- questionnaire to the samples to
identify their attitudes towards language learning, individualistic class structure, CL, and
the select CL methods. Then we conducted the pre-test and began the experiment. While in
the RTR class, the students were permitted to shape their own teams of three to four members
based on their interests, in the CTBL class, the students were assigned to seven teams of one
high-achiever, one low-achiever and two average-achievers each. The reminded two students
worked in pairs. The reason for this type of team building in CTBL class was that it provided
opportunities for learners to peer-tutor and help each other to complete the shared learning
goals. After grouping the students, in RTR and CTBL groups, the goals of the experiment
and the class management techniques were explicated to the both classes.
During the course of experimentation, both the classes had the same instructor, the
same curriculum, and the same schedule of instruction. The difference was that while the

49
RTR class experienced a method of presentation that focuses upon explicit teaching of four
main reading strategies namely predicting, questioning, summarizing, and clarifying, the
participants in the CTBL class experienced systematic teamwork and discussions through
which they learned and acquired learning strategies directly and indirectly.
3.4.1 Reciprocal Teaching of Reading and Reading
As regards teaching a text, in a real classroom situation, in RTR class, having
activated students’ minds on the topic through different techniques, the teacher introduced the
text. To illustrate how the implementation of each of the aforementioned strategies helped
students in the comprehension of the passage, the teacher modeled her own process of
comprehending of the first paragraph of the text. She did it by thinking the process aloud.
Through this technique, students learned the target strategies – the strategies that the teacher
had already planned to teach. Students were then given the opportunity to try to follow the
same procedure for next paragraphs in their groups so as to internalise and master the
strategies. The point is that it was more proficient readers who took the first turns to
implement the strategies, by thinking aloud, in order to endow lower performers with more
opportunities to better understand the application of strategies. Group members also shared
their uncertainties about unfamiliar vocabularies, confusing text passages, and difficult
concepts and discussed more practical strategies to be applied for each problem.
3.4.2 Competitive Team Based Learning and Reading
As regards the process in CTBL class, the teaching and assessment process has been
illustrated in the below figure:

50
Figure 3.1
Teaching and assessment process in CTBL class; Adapted from Hosseini, 2012, p. 96.
As it is illustrated in the above figure, in CTBL class, after the teacher presented the
new lesson through different techniques and strategies, team members were required to work
individually first. Then they were asked to work in pairs. Later they were encouraged to work
as a team – with all their teams' members. And finally, at the end of the class time they had a
class-wide discussion. In the following session students had a quiz, which they had to take
individually. At the end of given time, the teacher collected some papers for correction and
then required students to take the same quiz with their partners – in pairs. After that, the
students were required to work on the same quiz in their teams – with all members of their
teams.
3.4.3 Distinguishing between RTR and CTBL
The researcher has tried to distinguish between RTR and CTBL in the table 3.3:
Teaching Phase
Assessment Phase

51
Table 3.3
Distinguishing between RTR and CTBL
RTR CTBL
Unsystematic implementation of groupwork Systematic implementation of teamwork
Direct/explicit presentation of four language
learning strategies
Explicit as well as implicit presentation of
language learning strategies
The approach to presentation goes through a)
teacher presentation, b) groupwork
The approach to presentation goes through a)
teacher presentation, b) individual work, c)
pair work, d) teamwork, e) class wide
discussion
As opposed to RTR which is an unsystematic implementation of groupwork and
emphasizes on direct and explicit presentation of four language learning strategies such as
‘summarizing’, ‘questioning’, ‘predicting’ and ‘clarifying’, the CTBL is a systematic
implementation of teamwork that emphasizes explicit as well as implicit presentation of
language learning strategies which goes through teacher presentation, individual work, pair
work, teamwork and class wide discussion.
Finally, at the end of the course, the questionnaire as well as the post test were administered.
3.5 Data analysis
In this study, the subject’s reading performance was considered as dependent variable
and RTR and CTBL as independent variables. We required students, in the experimental
groups, to take the questionnaire as well as the pre reading test at the initial stages of our
study. After the treatment, we wanted them to take the same questionnaire and test as the post
test. After gathering the related data out of students’ responses, we availed ourselves of some

52
statistical tools. Through SPSS (version 20), we used descriptive statistics such as frequency,
means, and standard deviation as well as inferential statistics like ANCOVA to analyze and
interpret the data.
Finally, in the last chapter, the study will be summarized, the findings will be
discussed, and some implications based on the findings of the study will be presented.
3.6 Research Design
The study was a quasi-experimental research which used the two group pre-test
treatment post-test design. While the participants' reading performance is the dependent
variable of the present study, CTBL and RTR are the two independent variables. As noted,
we asked students, in both experimental groups, to take the questionnaire as well as pre
reading test at the initial stage of the study. After the treatment, we wanted them to take the
same questionnaire and the post test. Regarding the kind of selection of the two groups,
randomization process practically assured equivalency in many ways. For example, some
variables like maturation, contemporary historical events, and pre-testing effects were
controlled as both the groups experienced an equal effect of these variables. Therefore, the
effects of these variables were equalized and cannot be mistaken in the effect of the
treatment. Intersession developments, extraneous variables that arise between pre-test and
post-test, were also balanced out due to the presence of randomized selected groups.

53
Chapter IV
Classification and Analysis of the Data

54
4.1. Introduction
As noted, at the end of the study, after gathering the related data out of students’
responses in the questionnaire as well as the pretest and posttest, the researcher availed
herself of some statistical tools. Through SPSS (version 20), she used descriptive statistics
such as frequency, means, and standard deviation as well as inferential statistics like t-test to
analyze and interpret the data. This chapter, thereby, deals with the analysis of the data
collected through the application of the tools of the study and highlights the results in order to
pave the way for further discussion.
4.1.1 Descriptive Statistics
4.2 Pre-Test Results for Both Groups
First of all, the means and variances of the two groups in pre-test were
calculated. See table 4.2.1.
Table 4.1
Pre-test Results for both Groups
Groups Number Mean Variance
CTBL 30 17.6 8.7
RTR 30 17.76 8.5
The means and variances of both groups in pre-test indicated that our two
samples had, though not exactly, the same dispersions from the means which
seemed to be suitable for our purpose in this research.
Next an independent t-test was used to verify the pre-test results on both
groups. See table 4.2.

55
Table 4.2
The t-vale for the Pre-test of the Two Groups
T-value Degree of Two-tailed T-value
Critical Freedom Probability Observed
2 58 0.05 -0.21
The value of the calculated t was -0.21 which was less than the value of the
t-critical (2) at 0.05 level of probability. Therefore, the two groups had little
difference.
4.3 RTR Group Pre-Test and Post-Test Means
The means obtained from the pre-test and post-test of the RTR group,
which are presented in table 4.3, indicated that there has been a little progress
in this group.
Table 4.3
RTR Group’s Pre and Post tests Means
pretest mean post-test mean
17.76 21.16
To find out the significance of the above difference a matched t-test was
conducted. See table 4.4.
Table 4.4
Paired t-test for RTR Group
Group X1 X2 S1 S2 D.F. T-ob.

56
RTR 17.76 21.16 2.93 5.42 29 -6.8
P0.05 t-critical 2.045
X1 = pretest mean X2 = posttest mean
S1 = pretest standard deviation S2 = posttest standard deviation
D.F. = Degree of Freedom T-Ob = T Observed
The results indicated significant difference between the RTR group
performances on both tests, because the observed t of -6.8 at a probability level of
P 0.05 exceeded the critical t of 2.045. (See also table 4.6.)
4.4 CTBL Group Pre-Test and Post-Test Means
The means gained from the pre-test and post-test of the CTBL group are
presented in table 4.5.
Table 4.5
Pre-test and Post-test Means of CTBL Group
pretest mean post-test mean
17.6 25.5
The results of the CTBL group’s means on both tests showed a
remarkably high difference which supported the positive correlation of CTBL and
Iranian EFL intermediate students’ reading comprehension.
To ascertain the results another paired t-test was conducted. See table
4.6.
Table 4.6
Paired t-test for CTBL Group

57
Group X1 X2 S1 S2 D.F. Tob.
Exp.G. 17.6 25.5 2.95 3.95 29 16.8
P0.05 t-critical 2.045
X1 = pretest mean X2 = posttest mean
S1 = pretest standard deviation S2 = posttest standard deviation
D.F. = Degree of Freedom T-Ob = T Observed
This time the t-observed (16.8) far exceeded the value of t-critical (2.045)
at a probability level of P0.05. This would support the aforementioned
hypothesis that CTBL has a significant effect on the reading comprehension of
Iranian EFL intermediate students.
4.5 Post-Test Results for Both Groups
At this stage, the means and variances of the two groups in post-test were
calculated. See table 4.7.
Table 4.7
Results of post-test for both Groups
Group Mean Variance
CTBL 25.5 15.6
RTR 21.16 29.3
The differences between the variances of the two groups showed
that the CTBL group remained to be more homogeneous. Moreover, the means
presented in table 4.5.1 illustrated significant differences between the two
groups. It seemed that the null hypothesis was firmly rejected.
To be sure, the results obtained from the post-test were subjected to an
independent t-test. See table 4.8.

58
Table 4.8
The t-value for the Post-test of the Two Groups
T-value Degree
of
Two-tailed T-value
Critical Freedom Probability Observed
2 58 0.05 16.8
Since the t-observed of 16.8, at a probability level of P0.05, far exceeded
critical t of 2, the null hypothesis was firmly rejected. Therefore, the result of the
independent t-test confirmed the positive relationship between CTBL and reading
comprehension of Iranian EFL intermediate students.
Now, it can be claimed that in our class’ settings, CTBL bears better
results than RTR and improves intermediate learners’ reading comprehension
abilities.
4.1.2 Inferential Statistics
Before continuing our discussions, we review this research study questions once more:
Q1: ‘Is there any difference between the intermediate EFL students who are taught with
CTBL and those who are taught with RTR in regard to their reading comprehension
performance?
We also try to answer the following question:
Q2: Is there any difference in the students' attitudes towards language learning, CL, and
CTBL and RTR before and after the experiments?

59
4.1.2.A Addressing the First Question of the Research Study
Q1: ‘Is there any difference between the intermediate EFL students who are taught with
CTBL and those who are taught with RTR in regard to their reading comprehension
performance?
For investigating the above research question, we applied a t-student test first. But
before using t-student test, we tested to see whether the two groups were normal in regard to
their reading comprehension performances. We also tested to see if the variances were equal
in these groups. For the former purpose, we applied One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test.
We also evaluated Equality of Variance test.
Table 4.9 (a)
One-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
Reading comprehension
performance in CTBL
Reading comprehension
performance in RTR
N 30 30
Normal Parametersa,b
Mean 24.7600 28.4643
Std.
Deviation
4.52106 5.18175
Most Extreme
Differences
Absolute .113 .145
Positive .072 .104
Negative -.113 -.145
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .566 .769
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .906 .595
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
As p-value (0.906) in Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test of reading comprehension
performance 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
performance in RTR group is higher than 0.05, that this group is normal is not rejected.

60
Then, we applied Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances in the two groups.
Table 4.9 (b)
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances in the Two Groups
As p-value (0.384) in Levene’s Test is higher than 0.05, that the variances in the two
groups are equal is not rejected.
At this stage, we conducted t-student test with the assumption of the equality of the
variances of the two groups. The results are as below:
Table 4.9 ©
Group Statistics
Group Statistics
Method N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Reading
comprehensio
n
performance
RTR 30 25.1071 4.41663 .83466
CTBL 30 28.4643 5.18175 .97926

61
Table 4.21 (d)
Independent Samples Test
As p-value (0.012) in t-student Test is less than 0.05, the assumption of the equality of
the average of reading comprehension performance in the two groups, with the assumption of
the equality of the variance of the two groups, is rejected. As it is understood from the table
because the average of reading comprehension performance in CTBL is higher than the
average of reading comprehension performance in RTR, therefore CTBL is more effective in
developing reading comprehension performance of students.
Levene's Test
for Equality
of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Differen
ce
Std.
Error
Differen
ce
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Reading
compre
hension
perform
ance
Equal variances
assumed
.770 .384 -2.609 54 .012 -3.35714 1.28671 -5.93683
-
.77745
Equal variances
not assumed
-2.609 52.678 .012 -3.35714 1.28671 -5.93832
-
.77597

62
4.1.2.B Language Learning and Class Structure Questionnaire, Developed by Hosseini
(2009)
In this section we will try to consider the second question of the research study:
Q2: Is there any difference in the students' attitudes towards language learning, CL, and
CTBL and RTR before and after the experiments?
We will go for the following parts of the questionnaire:
4.1.2.B.a: Attitudes towards English Language Learning
4.1.2.B.b: Attitudes towards Individualistic Class Structure
4.1.2.B.c: Attitudes towards Cooperative Learning
4.1.2.B.d: Concerns with Regard to Cooperative Learning
4.1.2.B.e: Attitudes towards RTR
4.1.2.B.f: Attitudes towards CTBL
4.1.2.B.a: Attitudes towards English Language Learning
At this part we want to see if CTBL has impacted the participants' attitudes towards language
learning?
Table 4.22
before conducting CTBL
method
after conducting CTBL
method
N 30 30
Normal
Parametersa,b
Mean 20,1456 28.2143
Std. Deviation 4.25447 4.08896
Most Extreme
Differences
Absolute 0.758 0.854
Positive 0.421 0.521
Negative -0.758 -0.854
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 1.985 1.254
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.933 0.854

63
As p-value (0.933) in Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test of the average of students' attitudes
towards CTBL before conducting the experiment in experimental group CTBL is higher than
0.05, that this group is normal is not rejected. Similarly, as p-value (0.854) in Kolmogorov-
Smirnov Test of the average of students' attitudes towards CTBL after conducting the
experiment in experimental group CTBL is higher than 0.05, that this group is normal is not
rejected.
At this stage, we conducted t-student test with the assumption of the equality of the variances
of the two groups. The results are as below:
Group Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
The average of students'
attitudes towards CTBL
before 30 20,1456 4.25447 .80402
after 30 28.2143 4.08896 .77274

64
As p-value (0.0245) in t-student Test is less than 0.05, the assumption of the
equality of the average of students' attitudes towards CTBL in the two groups, with the
assumption of the equality of the variance of the two groups, is rejected. As it is understood
from the table because the average of students' attitudes towards CTBL after conducting the
experiment in experimental group CTBL is higher than the average of students' attitudes
towards CTBL before conducting the experiment in experimental group CTBL , therefore ,
therefore it is concluded that CTBL has been effective in improving the participants' attitudes
towards language learning.
At this part we want to see if RTR has impacted the participants' attitudes towards language
learning?
Table 4.23
before conducting RTR
method
after conducting RTR
method
N 30 30
Normal
Parametersa,b
Mean 20,1456 25,1958
Most Extreme
Differences
Negative -0.854 -0.796
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df Sig.
(2-
tailed
)
Mean
Differen
ce
Std.
Error
Differenc
e
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
The average of
students'
attitudes towards
CTBL
Equal
variances
assumed
٠٫٧٥٤
٠٫٢
٩٥
-
2.345
٢١
0.0٢٤
5
8.0687 -0.16551 5.4587 9.1542
Equal
variances not
assumed
-
2.345
٢٢ 0.245 8.0687 -0.16551 5.4587 9.1542

65
As p-value (0.904) in Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test of the average of participants'
attitudes towards language learning before conducting the experiment in experimental group
RTR is higher than 0.05, that this group is normal is not rejected. Similarly, as p-value
(0.812) in Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test of the average of participants' attitudes towards
language learning after conducting the experiment in experimental group RTR is higher than
0.05, that this group is normal is not rejected.
Group Statistics
RTR N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
The average of participants'
attitudes towards language
before 30 20,1456 4.25447 .80402

66
learning after 30 25,1958 4.07569 .69892
As p-value (0.0285) in t-student Test is less than 0.05, the assumption of the equality
of the average of participants' attitudes towards language learning in the two groups, with the
assumption of the equality of the variance of the two groups, is rejected. As it is understood
from the table because the average of participants' attitudes towards language learning after
conducting the experiment in experimental group RTR is higher than average of participants'
attitudes towards language learning before conducting the experiment in experimental group
RTR , therefore it is concluded that RTR has been effective in improving the participants'
attitudes towards language learning.
4.1.2.B.b: Attitudes towards Individualistic Class Structure
At this part we want to see if RTR has impacted the participants' attitudes towards
individualistic learning?
Table 4.24
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df Sig.
(2-
tailed
)
Mean
Differen
ce
Std.
Error
Differenc
e
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
The average of
participants'
attitudes towards
language learning
Equal
variances
assumed
٠٫845
٠٫3
25
-
١.74
5
٢١
0.0٢8
5
5.0502 -0.17878 4.1257 7.6521
Equal
variances not
assumed
-
1,745
٢٢
0.028
5
5.0502 -0.17878 4.1257 7.6521

67
method
method
N 30 30
Normal
Parametersa,b
Mean 18.4568 14.1675
Most Extreme
Differences
Negative -0.654 -0.845
attitudes towards individualistic learning before conducting the experiment in experimental
group RTR is higher than 0.05, that this group is normal is not rejected. Similarly, as p-value
(0.865) in Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test of the average participants' attitudes towards
individualistic learning after conducting the experiment in experimental group RTR is higher
than 0.05, that this group is normal is not rejected.

68
Group Statistics
RTR N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
attitudes towards individualistic
learning
before 30 18.4568 4.46073 .84300
after 30 14.1675 5.18175 .75940
As p-value (0.0185) in t-student Test is less than 0.05, the assumption of the
equality of the average of participants' attitudes towards individualistic learning in the two
groups, with the assumption of the equality of the variance of the two groups, is rejected. As
it is understood from the table because the average of participants' attitudes towards
individualistic learning before conducting the experiment in experimental group RTR is
higher than the average of students' attitudes towards after conducting the experiment in
experimental group RTR , therefore it is concluded that with the experience of learning the
language through RTR, the participants are reluctant to learn the language through the
traditional system of education.
4.1.2.B.c: Attitudes towards Cooperative Learning
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df Sig.
(2-
tailed
)
Mean
Differen
ce
Std.
Error
Differenc
e
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
The average of
participants'
attitudes towards
individualistic
learning
Equal
variances
assumed
٠٫845
٠٫2
98
-
2.124
٢١
0.018
5
-4.2893 0.72102 -5.5423 -2.6541
Equal
variances not
assumed
-
2.124
٢٢
0.018
5
-4.2893 0.72102 -5.5423 -2.6541

69
At this part we want to see if CTBL has impacted the participants' attitudes towards
cooperative learning?
Table 4.25
before conducting CTBL
method
after conducting CTBL
method
N 30 30
Normal
Parametersa,b
Mean 18.4569 22.5679
Std. Deviation 3.46073 4.230175
Most Extreme
Differences
Negative -0.754 -0.645
attitudes towards cooperative learning before conducting the experiment in experimental
group CTBL is higher than 0.05, that this group is normal is not rejected. Similarly, as p-
value (0.801) in Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test of the average participants' attitudes towards
cooperative learning after conducting the experiment in experimental group CTBL is higher

70
Group Statistics
As p-value (0.0315) in t-student Test is less than 0.05, the assumption of the equality
of the average of participants' attitudes towards cooperative learning in the two groups, with
the assumption of the equality of the variance of the two groups, is rejected. As it is
understood from the table because the average of participants' attitudes towards cooperative
learning after conducting the experiment in experimental group CTBL is higher than the
average of participants' attitudes towards cooperative learning before conducting the
CTBL N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
attitudes towards cooperative
learning
before 30 18.4569 3.46073 .87300
after 30 22.5679 4.230175 .61240
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df Sig.
(2-
tailed
)
Mean
Differen
ce
Std.
Error
Differenc
e
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
The average of
participants'
attitudes towards
cooperative
learning
Equal
variances
assumed
0.797
0.3
55
-
1.954
٢١
0.031
5
4.111 0.77102 2.5412 5.1682
Equal
variances not
assumed
-
1.954
٢٢
0.031
5
4.111 0.77102 2.5412 5.1682

71
experiment in experimental group CTBL , therefore it is concluded that CTBL has been
effective in improving the participants' attitudes towards cooperative learning.
At this part we want to see if RTR has impacted the participants' attitudes towards
cooperative learning?
Table 4.26
method
method
N 30 30
Normal
Parametersa,b
Mean 21.1452 17.1541
Std. Deviation 3.16073 4.130175
Most Extreme
Differences
Absolute 0.8452 0.7452
Negative -0.8452 -0.7452
attitudes towards cooperative learning before conducting the experiment in experimental
group RTR is higher than 0.05, that this group is normal is not rejected. Similarly, as p-value
(0.823) in Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test of the average participants' attitudes towards
cooperative learning after conducting the experiment in experimental group RTR is higher

Here are the suggested tables for the document:Table 2.1. Key Features of Reciprocal Teaching of Reading and Competitive Team-Based LearningTable 2.2. Summary of Previous Studies on Reciprocal Teaching of Reading Table 2.3. Summary of Previous Studies on Competitive Team-Based LearningTable 2.4. Summary of Previous Studies on the Effects of Cooperative Learning Methods on Student AttitudesTable 3.1. Participants' InformationTable 3.2. Reliability and Validity of the Attitude QuestionnaireTable 4.1. Descriptive Statistics of Reading Performance and Attitude Scores Table 4.2. Independent Samples t

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Seyed Mohammad Hassan Hosseini

More from Seyed Mohammad Hassan Hosseini (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)