Please ensure to search the title of my ARTicle and study it: My Transformative Edu-political Theories and Liberating Approach to Teaching

1. 2 + 2 > 4

2. My Aim is to introduce:
My 1. Didactic “Catalyst for Transformation and Change” (i.e., “Competitive Team-Based Learning” or CTBL) and its
theoretical foundations, my own Edu-Political Theories:
2. “Multiple Input-Output Hypothesis”
&
3. “Cognitive Socio-Political Language Learning Theory”
 Will also introduce my other innovations:
4. “Teams’ Tournaments” Method
5 & 6. “Unplanned Open Tasks” vs. “Unplanned Closed Tasks”
Let us watch my introductory video first.
ENSURE to search the title of my below SEMINAL ARTicle and study and share my IT:
Hosseini, S.M.H. (2023). My Transformative Edu-political Theories and Liberating Approach to Teaching.
International Journal of English Language Teaching, 11(2), 31-60. Also published by International Journal of
Applied Linguistics and English Literature, (2022), 11(3), 68-86.
 ----My books + around 50 bookticles, theses + Further Research

4. What contributed to my
liberating approach to teaching?

1. Failure of Education/ELT, in Iran as well as in the world
 Even after 3000 hours of formal language instruction, students are not able to use what they
have learnt. Nor are they ready for real Life/Work situations.
 GTM, CBI, WLL, TBLT, MI & particularly CLT are not holistic enough and are not able
to consider all effective aspects of language learning/living. Also, they are neglecting the fact
that our classes are fractions of the real world and so ignore competition, fair evaluation,
socio-political issues and developing socio-political competencies of tomorrow citizenry.
 That CLT, e.g., is, in the last analysis, able to develop merely communication abilities of
students suffices it enough to put forward the counter argument that it – in action – deems
students nothing more than animals. CLT's objective is a condescending look upon human
race because animals too are able to communicate if they are trained. CLT thus fails to
consider students as human beings.
2. Socio-Political Catastrophes
 The Iranian education regime, which is a psychological artifact for exploiting people, has
contributed to dictatorship & anarchism. Iran is the most corrupt regime in the region.
Muslims are the most depressed} 84% bloodshed caused by Muslims. 90% the Iranian youth
have left Islam + Brain Drain

5. Didactic Reasons for our Fiasco & Miseries:
1. Instructional Objectives;
2. Human Resources;
3. Instructional Materials;
4. Teaching Methods &
Approaches &
5. Evaluation Systems

6. Definition of Relevant Terms
 Methodology?
 Approach?
 Method?
 Technique?
 ------------------
 Language?
 Learning?
 Teaching?
 Teacher?
 Learner?
Methodology
Approach
Method
Technique

7. Historical Background to CTBL
 The Method Era

War Time Methods (Behaviorism)

Innovative Methods (Cognitivism)

Communicative Competence

…Constructivism…
 My (Hosseini) Edu-Political Perspective

8. The Method Era
 Traditional Lecture Method
 Grammar Translation Method
 The Reform Movement
 The Natural Method
 The Direct Method

9. War-Time Methods
 Reading Method
 -- Behaviourists --
 Aural-Oral Approach } Army Method
(Informant Method)
 Audio Lingual Method
 Situational Language Teaching

10. Innovative Methods
 Cognitivists: Language learning is a complicated mental
process.
 Parrot like imitation} meaningful language learning
 Habit formation} rule formation
 Affective Psychologists: Learners are “Whole Persons”}
Learner Centred Methods
 Cognitive Code Approach / Total Physical Response
Method
 Counselling Learning / Community Language Learning
 The Silent Way / SuggestOpedia
 Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach

11. Communicative Competence
of Hymes & ELT
 The stress was laid on functional and communicative aspects
of language rather than on structures and linguistic
competence of learners.
 Communicative Competence vs. Linguistic Competence:
1. Linguistic Comp. 2. Sociolinguistic/Sociocultural Comp.
 3.Strategic Comp. 4. Discourse Comp.
Communicative Language Teaching
Real communication includes three major features:
1. Information gap;
2. Choice, and
3. Feedback

12. Major Problem with CLT
 As elaborated, CLT has not been a success hitherto.
 Also, that CLT is, in the last analysis, able to develop
merely communication abilities of students suffices it
enough to put forward the counter argument that it – in
action – deems students nothing more than animals. CLT's
objective is a condescending look upon human race because
animals too are able to communicate even with us if they
are trained. CLT thus fails to consider students as human
beings.
 For other Drawbacks of CLT, see Chapter 2 of my 22th resource
book, published by Scholars’ Press.

13. Proposed Alternatives for CLT
 Multiple Intelligences
 Whole Language Learning
 Content-Based Instruction
 Task-Based Language Teaching

14. Main Problem with Proposed
Alternatives for CLT
They are not able to consider all effective
aspects of language learning.

15. Dawn of the 3rd Millennium & Constructivism
INCONSTRUCTIVISM VS. CONSTRUCTIVISM
 Teacher-centered Student-centered
 Transfer of knowledge Creation of knowledge
 Passive intake Active inquiry
 Individual learning process Cooperative learning process
 Survival skills Metacognitive skills
 Text-based learning Problem-based learning
 Product of teaching Process of learning

16. Constructivists believe that
 Language is a social phenomenon.
 Language is a means for communication.
 Learners should take responsibility for their own
learning, in the course of constructing knowledge.

17. Constructivists and New Trends (in ELT)
 Experiential Learning
 Problem-Based
Learning
 Collaborative Learning
 Interactive Learning
 Cooperative Learning

18. Cooperative Learning
 1. Individualistic Learning
Swimming Race
2. Individually Competitive
Ping Pong
Learning
3. Cooperative Learning
Basketball

19. Cooperative Learning Methods
 Learning Together
 Group Investigation
 Jigsaw
 Jigsaw II
 Reciprocal Teaching of
Reading
 Cooperative Integrated
Reading and
Composition
 Student Teams–
Achievement Divisions
 Teams-Games-
Tournaments
 Teams Tournaments
 Constructive
Controversy
 ---------------------------
 Some researchers CTBL
vs. …

20. Learning Together or CGBL
 Johnson J. @ University of Minnesota, USA
 Cross-group sharing / inter- and intra group relations….Explicit teaching
of social skills / group-skills based
 + interdependence / Individual & group accountability. / Face to face
Interaction. / Group skills and group processing
 Evaluation System: Swim or sink together!
 Evaluation System: All group members receive the same grade for their
group performance and for the level of their cooperation with other groups
- regardless of their actual grades.
 --------------------------------------------------------
 1. ‘Cooperative Learning Methods + 1: Research and Innovation’, Germany:
Scholars’ Press, 2013 / ISBN: 978-3-639-70309-2
 2. Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning Methods: A Study with Iranian and
Indian Undergraduate Learners. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31310.10566 .This is my
published PhD Thesis, which is available also at
http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in:8080/jspui/handle/10603/73487

21. Group Investigation
 Sharan & Sharan. Tel Aviv University, Israel
 The most democratic method of CL.
 Investigation}Interpretation of info. & …through
Group discussion}Group Project & presentation}
Intrinsic Motivation
 Evaluation System: Quality of their group
performance} + interdependence
---------------------------------
1. Hosseini, S. M. H. (2014). Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. Group
Investigation with Reference to the Language Proficiency of Iranian EFL
Intermediate Students. International Journal of Instruction, 7, 176-188.

22. Jigsaw I
 Aronson &Associates California University, USA
 The key: Creating a gap in students’ knowledge
which acts as a motivator for co-operation.
 Reading} Expert group discussion}Team report &
completing the jigsaw}Testing} Team recognition
 Evaluation System: Groups are evaluated by the
sum of their members’ scores on quizzes & tests
which they take individually.

23. Jigsaw II
 Slavin, York University, England
 In contrast to Jigsaw I, in Jig II each group
member should study all parts rather than a section
of the academic textual material….}expert
groups}home groups} classwide discussion
 Evaluation System: Individuals’ improvement
scores (the difference between the individuals’ last
test score and their base score). The ultimate score
of each group is calculated by the sum of its
members’ improvement scores.

24. Reciprocal Teaching of Reading
Palinscar (Michigan University.) & Brown(Illinois University), The US
Designed for poor readers
Strategy training: Predicting, Summarizing, Questioning, Clarifying
Modeling: Teacher thinks aloud } the Captains} more proficient readers….
Evaluation System: Groups are evaluated based on individuals’
performances on quizzes & tests.
-----------------------------------
Hosseini, S.M.H. & Salari, F. (2019). Competitive Team-Based Learning vs.
Reciprocal Teaching of Reading: A Study in Reading Classes. Journal of Language
Teaching and Research, 10(3), 489-500. DOI: 10.17507/jltr.1003.12 Retrieved
January 15, 2019, from
http://www.academypublication.com/ojs/index.php/jltr/article/view/jltr1003489500/1
898
Salari, F. (2018). The Effect of Competitive Team-Based vs. Reciprocal Program in
Reading Comprehension Ability of Iranian EFL Learners. Unpublished MA Thesis,
Quchan Islamic Azad University, Iran.

25. Cooperative Integrated
Reading and Composition
 Steven & Associates, Australia
◦ 1. Introducing the topic and the theme of the text;
◦ 2. Introducing the meaning of new words;
◦ 3. Reading silently and reading to a partner;
◦ 4. Analysing the text’s linguistic features;
◦ 5. Summarising the text, and
◦ 6. Practicing word recognition and spelling to the point of mastery.
 Evaluation System: Evaluation of students is based on
improvements in individual achievements that are calculated as a
group score.
 ----------------------------------------
 Salimi Bani, K. (2017). The Effect of Competitive Team-Based Learning (CTBL)
and Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) on the Reading
Comprehension of Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners. Unpublished MA Thesis,
Khorasgan (Isfahan) Islamic Azad University, Iran.

26. Student Teams-Achievement Divisions
 Slavin & Associates Johns Hopkins University, USA
 Intra but no intergroup relations: Neutral
 Authority of the teacher } All decisions by teacher
 1. Teacher presentation;
 2. Group study;
 3. Individual quizzes;
 4. Determining improvement points, and
 5. Group recognition.
 Evaluation System: Individuals are evaluated based on
their improvements over their own past performance on
quizzes and tests, which they take individually. Team
recognition is based on individuals’ improvements.
 ------------------------------------------
 1. Hosseini, S.M.H. & Akbarzadeh, M (2021). 'Competitive Team-based Learning' vs. ‘Student
Teams- Achievement Divisions' in a Reading Class, IJOTL-TL, 6(1), 73-92.
 2. Akbarzadeh, M (2017). A Study into the Effects of 'Competitive Team-Based Learning' And
‘Student Teams- Achievement Divisions' on The Reading Comprehension of Iranian EFL
Intermediate Students. Unpublished MA thesis, Islamic Azad University of Roudehen, Iran.

27. Teams-Games-Tournaments
 DeVries & Associates, Canada

 TGT is the developed version of STAD: Formal
quizzes & tests have been replaced by tournaments.
Also whereas STAD pays no attention to inter-group
competition, TGT suggests within-group
comparisons: Students vie against same-level
opponents in other teams.
 Evaluation System: is based on how group members
have done in comparison with their same-level
opponents. And the sum of team members’ grades will
stand for the team.

28. My “Teams’ Tournaments” Method
 I (Hosseini, 2009), in my PhD thesis, Iran
 TT is a developed form of a hybrid of STAD & TGT.
 In TT,
 I replaced tournaments by quizzes, tests, & exams.
 Evaluation System: I evaluate teams not just based on
their members’ improvements over their own past
performances as it is in STAD, but also in comparison
with their opponents in other teams as it is in TGT.

29. Constructive Controversy
 Johnson and Colleagues Minnesota University, USA
 CC or Learning through Discussion is based on planned & structured
controversy (discussion panels) and academic achievement.
 1. Choosing a topic
 2. Introduction
 3. providing instructional materials
 4.Structuring the controversy
 5.Conducting the controversy
 Evaluation System: Groups are recognized based on group production &
on the average of the members’ performance.
 ------------------------------------------
 Hosseini, S.M.H. (2012). A study of the effects of Competitive Team-Based Learning and Structured
Academic Controversy on the language proficiency of Iranian EFL college seniors. The ISI
International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology, 3, (4): 54-69.
DOI: 10.4018/javet.2012100105. Available at https://www.igi-
global.com/gateway/article/73802#pnlRecommendationForm

30. Benefits of CL Methods
 1. They promote student learning and academic
achievement;
 2. They increase student retention;
 3. They enhance student satisfaction with their
learning experience;
 4. They help students develop skills in oral
communication;
 5. They develop students' learning strategies and
 social skills;
 6. They promote student self-esteem, and
 7. They help to promote positive race relations.

31. Major Drawbacks of CL Methods (See my video)
 1. Deficiency in their evaluation systems, which contribute to
unsystematic groups and groupwork;
 A. The clever and more hard working students feel not adequately
 evaluated and appreciated, and
 B. There is room for 'social loafers' and 'free riders’.
 2. Ignoring or even devaluing competition, The proponents of these
methods think competition promotes negative attitudes among students
and discourages them from helping one another. (TGT } within group
comparisons); it encourages groups’ members to vie with their same-
level opponents from other groups.
 3. Overlooking the realities of the real world.
 These problems, in the long run, though, contribute to the formation of
unhealthy societies also.

32. I (Hosseini) believe
 Empowering students for successful living in the present complicated dog-eat-dog
world context of anxiety, racism, injustice, oppression, corruption, suppression,
terror and bloodshed and destruction which is at the same time highly multicultural,
incredibly complicated, and of course developmentally and fiercely competitive is
the necessary proviso for creating more civilized societies, compassionate
civilisations, and so sustainable futures and world peace. And the truth is that
particularly the conventional methods and approaches cannot help us meet such a
goal. It seems that it was destined such a wide divergence between what our
traditional education systems intend to make out of citizens and what their dream
worlds exact them to be could not go any longer. The deficiencies inherent in the
present traditional dictatorial didactic regimes, thereby, call for an urgent and
pragmatic reform. It is in such a context that i believe
 ***Educators, in the present complicated dog-eat-dog world context of racism, injustice,
oppression, corruption, suppression, terror and bloodshed and destruction, should play their roles
as intellectual sources of critical awareness and attitudinal change for uprooting any sources of
misdeed, betrayal, condescending look and Hitlerian outlook from among their societies. Teachers
are, thereby, AGENTS of social disorder, CHANGE and development. Hence the necessity of
realizing and the very need for redefining 'teaching,' which is the heart of modern democracy and
civilization, as a intricate 'edu-political process'. This process involves democratic thinking – at
the global level, and diplomatic acting – at the class level, if we want to contribute to global peace.

33. Therefore, from my point of view
 Teaching is a complicated edu-socio-political process
which plays its role as the heart of democracy and
civilization. Teaching is, thereby, more of an art rather than
science. -- The art of the application of other disciplines’
principles to the best advantage of our classes.
 Teachers should be frontiers of knowledge, and creators,
facilitators and orchestrators of opportunities; but they
should also be models of criticism and innovation. Most
importantly, they should be agents of critical awareness and
social change and development.
 Learners, as knowledge seekers, problem solvers, and
critical evaluators of ideas, events, persons, etc., should
have active participation in constructing just societies also.

34. ompetitive Team-Based Learning (CTBL) (See my video)
Search for “Dr Hosseini’s Didactic Weapon”. As noted in
the VIDEO, I (Hosseini) formulated my transformative
thoughts into CTBL, or my liberating approach to language
didactic/Education, in 2009 in the course of pursuing my
PhD in India. With a focus on the realities of the real world,
CTBL foregrounds the significance of effective teamwork
in competitive environments amidst democratic
atmospheres, as the very demand of tomorrow’s citizenry,
not only to foster academic progress of students but also to
more significantly contribute to their future success, both
academically and socially.

35. Competitive Team-Based Learning
(CTBL), S.M.H.Hosseini, 1994/2011/2018/2009 – Part 2
 As exhibited in the VIDEO, CTBL is a holistic contextualized
approach to teaching and learning that reflects the real world holism.
By reducing the discrepancy between what the present education
system makes out of our nations and what the realities of today world
context exacts them to be, it tries to compensate the deficiencies of the
present methods/approaches.
 Through CTBL, teachers can provide tomorrow citizenry with the
opportunity to feel the taste of democracy, develope their socio-
political competencies/awareness, and empower and turbo charge
their minds with critical approaches to analytical and divergent
thinking skills. It also motivates our citizens to systematically take the
course of action against any sources of misdeed, betrayal,
condescending look, Hitlerian outlook, oppression, corruption,
injustice, terror and bloodshed, and destruction from among their
communities at societal and international level.

36. Main Components of CTBL in
a (Reading) Class
 Teaching Phase
 Assessment Phase
Teacher
Presentation
Individual
Work Pair Work Teamwork
Classwide
Discussion
Independent
Work
Teacher
Evaluation
Peer Pre
Assessment
Teamwork
Team
Recognition

37. CTBL and Instructional Materials
 The materials used in CTBL environments should
have the capacity to increase the quantity, quality,
frequency, and variety of language practice, and
more importantly, promote the power of team
learning. The materials should be interesting,
varied, conceptual, appropriately authentic,
communicative, interactive, goal oriented, and
engaging.

38. CTBL & Class Activities
 Group activities that include exchanging ideas,
clarification of meanings to each other, risk taking,
hypothesis testing, plan/decision making, problem
solving, resolution of discrepancies, and making
judgments about the achieved progress (i.e.,
developmental evaluation) are emphasised. Among
such activities are describing pictures, games, role
plays, team tournaments, class-wide discussions, and
of course real-life oriented activities like shopping,
camping, delivering interactive lectures, etc.

39. Some Relaxing (Follow-Up) Activities
for Classes Run via CTBL
 Songs / Lectures /
Interviews / TV or
Internet Shows
 Proverbs
 Games
 Tournament Games
 Comparisons
 Critical Evaluation
 Role Playing

40. Tasks in CTBL environments should
have the capacity
 Hosseini, S.M.H. (2007). Task Based Language Instruction: Unplanned Open Tasks
vs. Unplanned Closed Tasks with reference to Writing Achievement of Iranian EFL
University Students, Journal of Perspectives in Education, 23 (1), 43–48. Available
at my RG & Book
 ----------------------------------------
 1. To generate opportunities for learning;
 2. To provide the need for cooperation and joint activity;
 3. To be favourable to critical and divergent thinking or
 creativity, and elicit useful communication;
 4. To cause a motive for competition among teams and keep
 all teams in a state of dynamic perseverance, and
 5. To contribute to higher level learning and reasoning
 strategies, quality of performance, and long-term
 retention.

41. CTBL & the Syllabus
 CTBL prioritises the significance of the
'interactional' view of language, the developed
combination of structural and functional views of
language inherent in functional-notional syllabus,
and so appreciates both the knowledge of
‘appropriate use of meaningful language’ and the
ability to ‘manage discourse interactions’.

42. CTBL and Continuous Evaluation System
Numbered-Heads Together..................
At the end of each class/lesson, team recognition could be
done by averaging the score of the randomly-selected
member of the team on his performance in the same
test/exam and the average of his other teammates’
performances in the last test/exam. To put it another way, if,
in a team of four members, the randomly-selected member’s
mark is 80 (out of 100), and the three other team members’
are 70, 60, and 50 respectively (an average of 60), then the
randomly-selected member’s grade would be 70 (the
average of 80 & 60). This grade could also be considered for
his team. This strategy emphasises on positive
interdependence in the evaluation system of CTBL.
Furthermore, that students take the quizzes cooperatively
in CTBL classes re-enhances positive interdependence
among teams' members.

43. CTBL and Non-Continuous Evaluation Syste
At the end of each semester, the evaluation of each team member is computed
based on the following four criteria, which should be explained to students at the
initial stages of the course:
 1. 40% with reference to the individual's own score in the same
 test/exam;
 2.10% with reference to the individual's improvement score (i.e. the
 difference between his score in the same test/exam and his base
 score, which is the average of his past scores);
 3. 20% with reference to the level the individual outperforms the
 average of his same-level opponents in other teams, and
 4. 30% with reference to the individual's team performance in the
 same team/exam, which is calculated by averaging the
 individual's team members' scores.

44. Salient Features of CTBL
 Adherence to the Learning Culture
 Criterion-Based Team Formation
 Effective Materials, Tasks, and Activities
 Face-to-Face Mutual Interaction
 Interpersonal and Collaborative Skills
 Positive Interdependence
 Team, Competition, Task, Goal, Exam,
Reward, Rule, Resource-Based
Interdependence
 Individual Accountability
 Vie against self, same level opponents,
individually testing, individual tasks,
assigning roles, random selection, rewards
for individual contributions to team
success, exclusion of weak team leaders
 Equal Participation
 Small-sized teams, rotating roles, multiple-
ability tasks, applying activities that
require info from all team members
 Simultaneous Interaction
 Pairing team members, individually test
taking
 Team Processing of Interaction
 Continuity of Team Interaction

45. How i teach (via CTBL) to contribute to
 1. Creativity of mind
 2. Critical and higher order thinking
 3. Risk taking (in the process of thinking)
 4. Socio-political
awareness/knowledge/competence
 Learning strategies and Social skills
 Instilling democratic norms and principles

46. Why do i emphasize on increasing students’
political knowledge?
 First of all, all our holy imams were politicians. Moreover, I
believe political discourse is the foundation of modern
democracy. Also I agree with Bertolt Brecht, who accentuates
 The worst illiterate is the political illiterate, he doesn’t hear, doesn’t
speak, nor participates in the political events. He doesn’t know the
cost of life, the price of the bean, of the fish, of the flour, of the rent,
of the shoes and of the medicine, all depends on political decisions.
The political illiterate is so stupid that he is proud and swells his chest
saying that he hates politics. The imbecile doesn’t know that, from his
political ignorance is born the prostitute, the abandoned child, and the
worst thieves of all, the bad politician, corrupted and flunky of the
national and multinational companies.

47. Theoretical Foundations of CTBL
 The Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1985)
 The Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985)
 Affective Filter Hypothesis (Krashen, 1985)
 Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996)
 Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 2001)
 Multiple Input-Output Hypothesis (Hosseini, 2010)
 Andragogy Theory (Knowles, 1984)
 Motivational Theories (Slavin, 1995)
 Behavioral Learning Theories (Skinner, 1968)
 The Elaboration Theory (Wittrock, 1978)
 Speech Theory (Candlin & Widdowson,1987)
 Soci-linguistic Theory (Bernstein, 1970)
 Sociological Theory (Allen, 1976)
 Engagement Theory --------------
 Cognitive Theories (John Dewy, 1983)
 Socio-cognitive Theories (Jean Piaget, 1932)
 Cognitive Socio-cultural Theories (Vygotsky, 1978)
 Cognitive Socio-Political Language Learning Theory
 (Hosseini, 2010/2019/2020)

 Search for for above title and for: “My Liberating Approach
Edu-Political Theories”

48. For my Multiple Input-Output Hypothesis, See S.M.H.Hosseini, 2010/
Theory of Language of my Liberating Approach to Teaching (i.e., CTB
Cognitive Socio-Political Language Learning Theory (Hosseini, 2010/2
As opposed to Constructivists and creators of present Cooperative Learning
Methods, I believe
 1. As a fraction of the macrocosm, our classes, should reflect the realities of the real
world. } and in the real world we have Competition, fair evaluation, & Political
issues, etc., which should be appreciated as real world phenomena.
 2. Inter-group Competition should be encouraged in cooperative learning
environments for motivating group members for further involvement and intra-group
collaboration in the course of shared learning.
 3. Language is a socio-political phenomenon, not merely a social phenomenon.
 4. Language is not merely a means for communication, but it also is a means for any form of
reform: Language is a liberating agent. To put it another way, language is a means for
thinking as without the application of language (either verbally or mentally) we are not able
to think. And it is our thoughts that shape our attitudes. The point is that there is POWER in
attitudes as they have enormous impact upon our beliefs, and beliefs influence and go forth in
our actions, and actions lead on to our destiny. Language is, thereby, a liberating agent as it
contributes to reasoning, personal growth and social change and development. Language is a
means for any form of reform.
 5. Learners should take responsibility not only for their own learning in the course of
constructing knowledge but for their lives in the course of constructing just societies
also. I mean, they should feel accountable in the society. Therefore, we should avail

49. Techniques for Boosting
the Effectiveness of CTBL
 Three-Minute Review
 Team Pair Solo
 Think-Pair-Share
 Solve-Pair-Share
 Send-A-Problem
 RoundRobin
 RoundTable
 Thinking-Aloud Pair Problem-
Solving
 Structured Problem Solving
 Drill Review Pairs
 Three-Step Interview
 Circle the Sage
 Numbered Heads Together

50. Contrary to approaches like ‘CLT’, CTBL (see my Video)
 1. Has strong and unique theoretical foundations;
 2. Supplies pragmatic guidelines to effective and systematic implementation of teamwork, which is of
paramount importance for the success of language classes;
 3. Systematically caters to learners with different ability ranges and learning styles;
 4. Is not restricted to the PPP model of presentation as I have introduced another P which stands for
Personalising what is learnt by the part of learners;
 5. Appreciates the significance of multiple sources of input and output and some other crucial context
variables like motivation and active as well as total engagement of all learners in the learning process;
 6. Generates highly relaxing and at the same time motivating learning atmospheres for more effective
language acquisition and learning;
 7. Conveys crystal-clear views regarding the learning process and the mechanisms under which effective
language learning occurs;
 8. Is not limited to a particular view of language learning or a particular type of syllabus;
 9. Facilitates simultaneous development of all aspects of communicative competence of students, including
their socio-political competence, which has been overlooked by even modern educational theories and
approaches like CLT;
 10. Takes great care of moral and human values, and
 11. Never forgets the idea that learners are human beings as it does not focus on merely enabling learners to
communicate: CTBL is cognizant of the fact that successful living in the present real world settings and being
able to face the realities of this dynamic and complicated competitive world demands something more than
the appropriate use of the language in benign environments. (See Hosseini, 2007)

51. As Opposed to Collaborative Learning and
Interactive Learning,
 1. Is highly detailed, organized, structured, and
 strategic;
 2. Is directed towards technicality – psychological and
 socio-political oriented techniques and strategies are
 prioritised;
 3. Advocates more direct training of students to
 function properly in ‘teams’ rather than in groups;
 4. Teaches students to be critical, and
 5. Prepares learners for today context of competition.

52. Contrary to EXPL,PBL &CL Methods,
my liberating approach to teaching
 1. Helps the best students feel satisfied and puts an end to their objection
 and unwillingness to contribute their efforts into the success of their
 groups;
 2. Enforces individual accountability of all group members, and thus limits the
 scope for social loafers and free riders;
 3. Brings for students not merely a zest for true and active shared learning but
 further opportunities to be more clearly aware of their capacities and
 capabilities in a broader sense also;
 4. Equips students for current globalized environment which requires workforce
 and citizens who are competent in skills like teamwork, conflict management,
 and successful collective decision making amidst competitive environments, and
 5. Contributes to learning humanitarian democratic values and hence to the
 elimination of dictatorship and apartheid which means the development of live,
 humane, healthy, creative, and civilised societies and world peace. (See Hosseini,
 2012, 2018, 2019)

53. Rationale Behind the Success of CTBL
1. Dynamic nature of CTBL in environments which appreciate multiple
whose, discussion through different stages, and valuing language as a
whole;
2. Essential features of CTBL - Materials and tasks; Team formation;
Learning culture; Individual accountability, & Equal participation;
3. Teaching techniques and class activities;
4. Learning environments;
5. Appreciating all facets of language & oral and written communication;
6. Process of learning;
7. Evaluation system.
 Also study “Theoretical Foundations of Competitive Team-Based
Learning”, Published at Canadian International Journal of English
Language Teaching, 3(2010): 229 - 243. DOI:10.5539/elt.v3n3p229
 Hosseini, S.M.H. (2023). My Transformative Edu-political
Theories and Liberating Approach to Teaching. International
Journal of English Language Teaching, 11(2), 31-60. Also
published by International Journal of Applied Linguistics and
English Literature, (2022), 11(3), 68-86.

54. THANK YOU
4
Ur Patience
For my bookticles and CV, see my website at
S.M.H.Hosseini, PhD in English Language Teaching Methodology
from Mysore U, India.
Nov. 2022