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

+3#
  , 4

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

 4 

      

 4

 
  

 

 ! " "


 
 
  
 

     

      
!

 
 
  
 

     


      
!

 "
#$









 



 



 











 
 



















 









 


 






 

 





 





 







 



























 
 

 

 






 


 

 

 




 !







"
 
# 
$




%




&  

' 
()
$




#

#
)(*+,
$










  

-
.
 


" 
/
0

1
2+()

 
3
$ 
/




$  
4
4 

 
3
2+()
"
 
# 
$




%




&  

' 






#

#
2+()
Competitive Team-Based Learning vs.
Student Teams-Achievement Divisions

Mojtaba Akbarzadeh

Dr Seyed Mohammad Hassan Hosseini

0
 'U 60+ +RVVHLQL UHFHLYHG KLV 3K'  LQ (QJOLVK /DQJXDJH
7HDFKLQJ +H KDV WDXJKW LQ GLIIHUHQW XQLYHUVLWLHV ERWK LQ ,UDQ DQG
RYHUVHDV +H LV LQWHUHVWHG LQ /LEHUDO (GXFDWLRQ DQG KDV D ]HVW IRU
DZDNHQLQJ HPSRZHULQJ DQG HPDQFLSDWLRQ RI WKH RSSUHVVHG
PDMRULW\ +H VXFFHHGHG WR SXEOLVK PRUH WKDQ  DUWLFOHVERRNV
GXULQJ KLV  PRQWKV VWD\ LQ ,QGLD LQ WKH FRXUVH RI SXUVXLQJ KLV
3K' DPLGVW D KRUULI\LQJ KHOO DQ ,UDQLDQ PDILD RFFDVLRQHG IRU KLP
'U +RVVHLQL KDV VXJJHVWHG ¶ODQJXDJH· DV D ¶OLEHUDWLQJ DJHQW· LQ KLV
¶&RJQLWLYH6RFLR3ROLWLFDO/DQJXDJH/HDUQLQJ7KHRU\
8QIRUWXQDWHO\
VLQFHKHIRFXVHGXSRQWKHLPSRUWDQFHRIKLVWKHRU\IRUHGXFDWRUVLQ
WRGD\ ZRUOG FRQWH[W RI W\UDQQ\ KH KDV EHHQ REOLJHG WR WHDFK DW D
¶VFKRRO·¶IRUEDFNZDUGVWXGHQWV·LQ0DVKKDG,UDQ

Mojtaba Akbarzadeh received his MA in

English Language Teaching from Islamic
Azad University in Iran, in 2017. He has
taught in different schools, language
institutes and universities. He is interested in
teaching methodology and has succeeded to
publish some related articles. At present, he
is teaching in some language institutes in
Iran.

1
Introduction

This study was an experimental investigation on the effects of a new type of

cooperative learning (CL) method namely 'Competitive Team-Based Learning'

(CTBL), developed by Hosseini (2012) at Mashhad Education Office in Iran, and

'Student Teams-Achievement Divisions' (STAD), developed by Slavin (1977) at

Johns Hopkins University, in the US, on the reading comprehension of Iranian EFL

intermediate students. After conducting a PET proficiency test to a total population

of 75, sixty students were selected, based on their scores in the pretest. Then, they

were randomly assigned to two experimental groups ± thirty per group. Each class

was divided into seven teams of four ± the two remaining students in each class

worked in pairs. While the first experimental group was instructed via STAD method

of CL, the second experimental group was instructed via Hosseini's method of

(language) teaching (i.e., CTBL). The reading comprehension test (posttest) was used

at the end of the study to assess the probable progress in the reading comprehension

ability of the students. The results on independent samples T-test showed statistical

VLJQLILFDQFHDW3”OHYHOWKDWFDQEHDWWULEXWHGWRWKHHIIHFWRI&7%/RQWKH

participants' reading comprehension achievements. That is, CTBL was more effective

than STAD in improving the reading comprehension ability of Iranian EFL

intermediate students.

==============================

2
Dedicated to you who are the promise of God, the glory of the universe and

FRQWLQXDWLRQRI$OODK6XFKDVDQ(J\SWLDQ¶VROGZRPDQZLWKDIHZVNHLQVRI\DUQ

wanted to be among the lovers of Joseph (PBUH), with this hope I dedicate my

negligible wage to your true existence .

3
 Table of Contents

%DFNJURXQGRI6WXG\ 
6WDWHPHQWRIWKH3UREOHP 
3XUSRVHRIWKH6WXG\ 
5HVHDUFK4XHVWLRQDQG+\SRWKHVLV 
7KH6LJQLILFDQFHRIWKH6WXG\ 
'HILQLWLRQRI.H\7HUPV 
/LPLWDWLRQVDQG'HOLPLWDWLRQVRIWKH6WXG\ 
2YHUYLHZ 
&RRSHUDWLYH/HDUQLQJ0HWKRGV 
2.2. 1 Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD) .......................................... 23

2.2.2 Competitive Team-Based Learning (CTBL) .................................................. 25

2.2.3 Some Related Researches ............................................................................... 27

2YHUYLHZ 
3DUWLFLSDQWV 
,QVWUXPHQWV 
'HVLJQ 
3URFHGXUH
'DWD$QDO\VLV 
2YHUYLHZ
4.2 Descriptive Statistics ......................................................................................... 57

4.2.1 The Average of the Participants' Reading Comprehension in the two

exprimental groups ............................................................................................... 57

4.3 Inferential Statistics ........................................................................................... 58

'LVFXVVLRQ 
2YHUYLHZ 
6XPPDU\RIWKH6WXG\ 
&RQFOXVLRQV 
,PSOLFDWLRQVRIWKH6WXG\ 
6XJJHVWLRQVIRU)XUWKHU5HVHDUFK 
5HIHUHQFHV 

4
 



Acknowledgements

First of all, we would like to express my sincere appreciations to Dr. Fatemipour.

This study could not have been completed without the wise guidance, helpful

suggestions, and accessible support from him.

We are also grateful to our dear family without whose inspiration and encouragement

we could not do the great task of writing this thesis. We are blessed to have such

kind families.

5
6
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD


Chapter I
Introduction

7
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD


1.1 Background of Study

Reading has a significant contribution to human prosperity.

Reading is an effective means of communication in today's world

context of globalization. It is also a means for increasing the quality

of the language one acquires/learns. In academic fields in Iran, in

classrooms of higher education, college and graduate students need

efficient reading skills to comprehend a mass of reading materials

from various sources related to their studies. For high-school

students, as English foreign language (EFL) learners, reading is

even more important since they have to be highly competitive in

the national universities' entrance examination. Therefore, the

ability to read and comprehend texts is very important for Iranian

students. In addition, high-school students need to improve their

English reading comprehension abilities to a more advanced level

because of the demanding expectations for academic success in all

areas of learning.

8
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

As Hosseini (2012) puts it, despite the significant

importance of English in today world context of globalization,

English Language Teaching (ELT), the major focus of which is on

reading comprehension, has not been a success in Iran until now.

Some difficulties including large size of classes, limited reading

strategies, and particularly the methods of teaching reading

FRPSUHKHQVLRQLQ,UDQLDQFODVVURRPVFDXVHVWKH,UDQLDQVWXGHQWV¶

English reading ability does not reach a very high level of

proficiency.

In such context in recent years, one of the greatest changes

in foreign language education has been the shift from a teacher-

centered learning model to a learner-centered model. Cooperative

Learning (CL) methods, developed on the basis of learner-centered

methodology, give learners chances to participate in their own

learning more actively. In this learning method, small groups of

students work together to achieve a common goal. In fact, CL is a

successful teaching method in which small teams, encompassing

students with different levels of ability, use a variety of learning

9
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

activities to jointly improve their understanding of a subject. (Ning,

2011).

It was not until the mid-1960s that modern CL methods

were introduced. The application of CL to classroom teaching finds

its root in the 1970s when the United States began to design and

study CL models for classroom context (Liang, 2002). Today, due

to its rich history of theory, research and actual use in the

classroom, CL is applied in almost all school content areas and,

increasingly, in college and university contexts all over the world,

and is claimed to be an effective teaching method in foreign/

second language education by scholars (e.g. Hosseini, 2012, 2015,

Long & Porter, 1985).

One thing that should be mentioned at the very beginning of

this study is that cooperative learning group is totally different from

group learning. It is a common belief that when students are

working in small groups, the teacher is using cooperative learning

group. But the fact is that merely putting students in a small group

is not cooperative learning group. Cooperative learning refers to a

10
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

set of highly structured, psychologically and sociologically based

methods that lead to learning and obtaining a learning goal

(Oxford, 1997).

%DVHGRQ6ODYLQ¶VFRRSHUDWLYHOHDUQLQJPRGHOZKHQ

students are motivated to learn and to encourage and help one

another, a stage is created for cognitive development. Vygotsky

(1978) argued that cooperation promotes learning because the

SURFHVVHQDEOHVOHDUQHUVWRRSHUDWHZLWKLQRQHDQRWKHU¶V]RQHRI

proximal development. Working with peers is academically

beneficial because, when learners are closer to one another in their

levels of development, they are able to explain things to each other

in a simpler way that is easier to be comprehended than being

explained by a person with a very different mental stage.

There are, however, different ways of group work or

cooperative learning that can be applied by classroom teachers.

This means that, CL learning is a general term that refers to a

number of instructional methods that focus on group work. Student

Teams-Achievement Division (STAD) is among the most popular

11
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

methods of CL. The truth, however, is that in spite of their

significant contribution to more comprehensive and real learning,

CL methods have their own deficiencies. Hosseini (2012) believes

that neglecting and even belittling the crucial importance of

'competition' in learning environments is one of the main problems

of the present methods of CL. In his point of view, another major

drawback of such methods refers to their inability for bringing

individual accountability of all team members. Unsystematic

implementation of group work is also among the main problems

with such methods that he mentions.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

Iranian English teachers have to encounter the problem of

how to organize the various needs of the mixed-level students in

their classes. Most teachers are facing large heterogeneous classes,

making it difficult to serve the needs of all the students in the class.

CL methods like STAD and particularly CTBL take advantage of

this heterogeneity, by encouraging students to learn from one

12
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

another and from more and less knowledgeable peers. Many studies

(Hatch, 1978; Hosseini, 2012, 2015& Long & Porter, 1985) have

demonstrated the significant contribution of CL to the academic

success of students when it is compared to more traditional

methods of teaching.

In fact, the research results have shown that CL methods

enhance learning more than the individualized or competitive

methods. But the fact is that in Iran no attention, to the best of the

UHVHDUFKHU¶VNQRZOHGJHKDVEHHQJLYHQWRWKHLQYHVWLJDWLRQRIWKH

HIIHFWVRI&7%/DQG67$'RQWKHLQWHUPHGLDWH()/OHDUQHUV¶

reading comprehension.

1.3. Purpose of the Study

Considering the positive outcomes of the implementation of

CL methods in heterogeneous classes in the West and also

considering the fact that such methods are not vastly implemented

in Iranian classes, the purpose of the present study was to

investigate the effects of two well-known CL methods namely

13
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

CTBL and STAD on the reading performance of intermediate EFL

students in Iran.

1.4. Research Question and Hypothesis

Therefore, the research question was formulated to be

answered in the present study:

RQ: Is there any significant difference between the effects of

CTBL and STAD teaching methods on the intermediate EFL

students' reading performance?

The research null hypothesis is formulated:

H0: There is no significant difference between the effects of CTBL

and STAD teaching methods on the intermediate EFL students'

reading performance.

1.5 The Significance of the Study

While CL as an effective instructional method could be the

best option for Iranian teachers as they could gain the best results

out of its implementation, it is not frequently and widely used in

14
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

Iran. So it is worth introducing this instructional method to Iranian

educators. Therefore, the significance of this study refers to the fact

that it focuses on an area in the field of educational research which

has been ignored by researchers particularly in Iran. The results of

this study would contribute to (Iranian) language educators. The

value of both the considered methods for language classes refers to

their focus upon group work and discussion which are most

important for language learning. Importantly, the study explores the

effectiveness of two Western oriented instructional methods in an

Asian context, in language classes in Iran. As researchers like

Hosseini (2000, 2010) have confirmed, in spite of the widespread

research on the effectiveness of CL methods in the West, there has

been little research on their effectiveness in non-Western

educational environments, particularly in relation to EFL

settings.Another significant feature of this study is that it attempts

to investigate the effectiveness of CL methods on the reading

performance of intermediate students. This is important because

this area has also been neglected by Iranian researchers. The

15
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

researcher hopes that all involved stakes such as language teachers,

material developers and researchers could take useful notes out of

the results of the present study.

1.6 Definition of Key Terms

1.6.1 Intermediate level. Learners' reading proficiency has

been divided into three main levels: 1) Elementary, 2) Intermediate,

and 3) Advanced. In the present study, intermediate level refers to

the learners who are almost able to comprehend a text but not as

accurate and as fluent as advanced learners. They have still

difficulty in comprehending what they read at the intermediate

level. (Jahanbazian, 2015)

1.6.2 Reading comprehension. In this study, reading

comprehension refers to the ability to understand the text for main

and specific information. We considered Chastain's (1988) idea

WKDW³UHDGLQJLQYROYHVFRPSUHKHQVLRQZKHQUHDGHUVDUHQRW

comprehending, they are not reaGLQJDWDOO´S,QWKLV

16
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

definition, he defines reading as a means of getting meaning from

the printed page; that is, when we read to increase our vocabulary

or improve our pronunciation and grammar, we do not read at all.

1.6.3 Competitive team-based learning (CTBL).

Hosseini (2015) defines his method, CTBL, as a method of

teaching which encourages learners to learn in teams, wherein each

team member is motivated to assist other members in order to

achieve their shared learning goals, in the course of competing with

other teams in a competitive environment.

1.6.4 Student teams-achievement divisions (STAD).

Slavin (1986, p. 196) has defined five major components for

STAD, as his CL method:

1. teacher presentation

2. teams study

3. quizzes

4. individual improvement scores

5. team recognition

17
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

According to Hosseini, one major feature of STAD, which

distinguishes it from other CL methods, refers to the fact that

STAD focuses on intra-group cooperation only. It has no focus on

inter-group relationships ± it is neutral in this regard.

1.7 Limitations and Delimitations of the Study

As regards the limitations, the findings of this study could

not be safely generalized to longer implementations of CL methods

or to non-EFL environments as this study addressed a short

implementation of CL methods, about two months, in an EFL

environment where the exposure to English is very limited. Six

weeks was a rather short period to expect significant gains in

comprehending texts in a language. Also, the number of subjects on

which these results were obtained was small (a total of only 60

across the two groups). With a larger group which would be more

UHSUHVHQWDWLYHRI()/OHDUQHUV¶FRPPXQLW\LQ,UDQLWZRXOGEH

possible to include a control group and possibly another treatment

group exposed to a different method of CL. The researcher was

18
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

also limited to choosing his target group from among male, rather

than a mixture of male and female, students. Therefore, the results

of this study could be generalized to male intermediate EFL

learners only.

With respect to the delimitations of the present study, the

researcher decided to investigate the effectiveness of CTBL as this

method has been designed and developed by an Iranian scholar and

so it might benefit Iranian students more effectively than other

methods of CL. One more point which should be clarified is that as

a number of researches have proved the superiority of CL methods

over the traditional method, comparing CTBL and STAD with the

traditional method is excluded in this study. The researcher also

tried to contribute to the reading comprehension of intermediate

students as his own intermediate students have problems in their

reading courses.

19
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD


Chapter II
Review of the
Related
Literature
20
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD


2.1 Overview

After an introduction to CL methods, this chapter gives a

brief but to-the point description of the two selected CL methods in

this study namely STAD and CTBL. Then the researcher clarifies

the findings and results of the related literature and sheds light on

the present gap in the related literature. He argues that despite the

abundance of research findings that verifies the advantage of CL

over traditional methods of teaching, no research, to date, have

essayed to directly compare the effectiveness of CTBL and STAD.

2.2 Cooperative Learning Methods

Cooperative learning methods have emerged based on the

ideas of Constructivists. Constructivists emphasize the significant

role of social interaction in learning. From their point of view,

language learning is a kind of problem solving activity which

occurs more effectively in situations where learners have the

opportunities for mutual interaction and negotiation. The belief is

21
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

that such learning together contexts bring with them rich and

necessary opportunities for language learning. As in the words of

Hosseini (2012), in view of the fact that students, in CL settings,

need to exchange information and advice in order to succeed in

achieving their shared learning goals, CL has some benefits

particularly for reading classes resulting from social interaction

between students. Also, Mackey (2007) confirms the idea that

classroom social interaction is beneficial to overall language

development of students. It has been observed that students in CL

settings interact and speak further and so achieve better in most

cases than those who always keep silent (Khadidja, 2010).

McCafferty. (2006) have also commented that the significance of

CL for language classes is that it focuses on boosting the

effectiveness of group work, which has paramount effect on

language learning. Consequently, CL has received an extensive

attention of ELT experts in recent years.

22
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

Cooperative learning as means of promoting student interaction

which itself leads to the development of social skills has many

different methods chief amongst which are

1. Competitive Team-Based Learning (CTBL) (Developed by

Hosseini, 2000, 2012),

2. Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) (Developed by

Slavin, 1978),

3. Learning Together (LT) (Developed by Johnson & Johnson,

1999),

4. Teams-Games-Tournaments (TGT) (Developed by Edwards &

DeVries, 1972),

5. Group Investigation (GI) (Developed by Sharan & Sharan, 1976,

1990),

6. Constructive Controversy (CC) (Developed by Johnson

&Johnson, 1999),

7. Jigsaw (Developed by Aronson, et al., 1997),

8. Complex Instruction (CI) (Developed by Cohen, 1994),

23
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

9. Team Accelerated Instruction (TAI) (Developed by Slavin,

Leavey & Madden, 1986),

10. Cooperative Structures (CS) (Developed by Kagan, 1989),

11. Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC)

(Developed by Stevens, et al., 1989).

Two of the more effective and significant methods of CL,

which have been focused upon in this study, may be briefly

introduced here below.

2.2. 1 Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD)

STAD, as the most direct methods of cooperative learning,

is one of the most important models of CL which is favorably

applied by teachers. STAD was developed by Robert Slavin and his

colleagues at Johns Hopkins University in 1978.

STAD has been used in varied subject areas such as math, language

arts, social studies, and science. In STAD (Slavin, 1995), students

are assigned to four-member learning teams that are mixed in

24
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

performance level, gender, and ethnicity. Slavin (1986) has defined

five major components for STAD:

1. class presentations

2.teams study

3. quizzes

4. individual improvement scores

5. team recognition

The teacher presents a lesson, and then students work within

their teams to make sure that all team members have mastered the

lesson. Finally, all students take individual quizzes on the material,

DWZKLFKWLPHWKH\PD\QRWKHOSRQHDQRWKHU6WXGHQWV¶TXL]VFRUHV

are compared to their own past averages, and points are awarded on

the basis of the degree to which students meet or exceed their own

earlier performance. These points are then summed to form team

scores, and teams that gain certain criteria may earn certificates or

other rewards.

As in the words of Hosseini (2012), in contrast to some

methods of CL like GI which are purely student-centered, STAD

25
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

pays more attention to the presence and the role of the teacher.

Therefore, it is likely to attract those teachers who do not like to

FRQVLGHUWKHLUVWXGHQWV¶FRQWULEXWLRQVWRPDNLQJLPSRUWDQW

decisions such as goal setting, group formation, and role

assignment. According to Hosseini, another feature of STAD,

which distinguishes it from other CL methods, refers to the fact that

STAD focuses on intra-group cooperation only. It has no focus on

inter-group relationships ± it is neutral in this regard.

2.2.2 Competitive Team-Based Learning (CTBL)

Competitive Team-Based Learning (CTBL) is a method of

CL which was developed by Hosseini (2012). In classes conduct

through CTBL, the teacher presents the lesson and heterogeneous

teams of four put their efforts together and work on the introduced

tasks to prove their superiority over other teams. In class activities

team members have no option but to try to be sure that each

member has mastered the assigned material because the teacher

would randomly call upon a student to answer for the team.

26
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

Although in this method team members take the finals individually

as in CIRC, TGT and STAD, they take quizzes cooperatively. He

states that the philosophy beyond allowing students to take quizzes

cooperatively is to subject them to more opportunities for

transference of skills and strategies in a metacognitive way through

listening to their teammates who are in actual fact thinking aloud.

,Q&7%/WHDPVDUHHYDOXDWHGQRWRQO\RQWKHLUPHPEHUV¶

improvements over their own past performances (as it is in CIRC &

STAD) and over their same-level opponents in other teams (as in

TGT), they are also recognized based on the extent to which they

outgain other teams. Special rewards would also be awarded both

to best teams with the highest averages and to the most challenging

individuals. This kind of grading system is used as an incentive to

XWLOL]HFRPSHWLWLRQIRUIXUWKHUFRRSHUDWLRQDPRQJVWWHDPV¶

members. To lower affective filter of participants, teams that

achieve above a designated standard would pass the course.

27
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

2.2.3 Some Related Researches

Many researchers have conducted studies to find out how

EHWWHUWRXVH&/LQGHYHORSLQJVWXGHQWV¶UHDGLQJVNLOOV,QWKHLU

study, Kazemi and Khalili-Sabet (2012) attempted to compare the

reading achievement of learners who received the jigsaw method of

instruction and that of those students who received the traditional

teacher-fronted method of teaching. To achieve the purpose of the

study, two intact classes were assigned randomly as the control and

experimental groups. The experimental group consisted of 40

freshman and sophomore intermediate level male (N=18) and

female (N=22) learners and the control group consisted of 38

freshman and sophomore intermediate level male (N=17) and

female (N=21) students. The control participants received the

traditional teacher-fronted method of teaching while the

experimental group participants were exposed to the jigsaw method

of teaching. After gathering the required data, the results of

independent samples T-test indicated statistically significant

28
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

differences (P= 0.000) between the experimental and control

groups. The researchers concluded that these positive results

attained were attributed to the major specificities of the cooperative

teaching such as positive interdependence, group formation,

individual accountability, social skills, and structuring and

structures.

Takallou and Veisi (2013) carried out a study in which they

investigated how CL influences the reading comprehension of EFL

learners. The study also surveyed the participants' attitudes toward

CL. The study involved 46 university students in two intact classes.

One was considered the experimental group (n=22), and the second

(n=24) the control group. In the control group, reading tasks were

carried out by students individually; in the experimental group,

these tasks were carried out in pairs. The study lasted 12 sessions

and involved the final exam as the post-test and an attitude survey

which was administered in the last session. Results of the study

VKRZHGWKDW&/KDGDQRYHUDOOVLJQLILFDQWHIIHFWRQVWXGHQWV¶

reading comprehension; however, both the high- and low-achievers

29
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

in the experimental group expressed positive attitude toward

cooperative learning.

Nejadghanbar and Mohammadpour (2012) article reports the

results of their experimental investigation of the effect of a new

type of cooperative learning method, named Interest-Oriented

6WXGHQW7HDP$FKLHYHPHQW'LYLVLRQV,267$'RQWKHVWXGHQWV¶

reading comprehension achievement of English as a foreign

language (EFL). In so doing, two classes (n=25) were assigned to

control and experimental conditions. Each class was divided into

four groups of three. The control group was instructed via STAD

method while the experimental group followed the same method

SOXVDGGLQJVWXGHQWV¶LQWHUHVWLQWKHLUJURXSLQJDQGFRRSHUDWLRQLH

,267$'PHWKRG,WZDVDVVXPHGWKDWFRQVLGHULQJVWXGHQWV¶

interest in their grouping and working together would lead to better

performance in reading. Two different domain referenced multiple-

choice reading comprehension tests were used to assess the reading

comprehension ability of the students on a pretest and posttest. The

results on an independent T-test showed statistical significance at

30
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

3”OHYHOWKDWZHUHDWWULEXWHG WRWKHHIIHFWRIDGGLQJVWXGHQWV¶

interest in cooperative learning on their reading comprehension

achievement.

In another study, RimaniNikou, Bonyadi and Ebrahimi

(2014) investigated the effect of STAD on language achievement of

Iranian EFL students across gender. The study was a quasi-

experimental research which used the two group pre-test post-test

design. A total of 80 females and male (48 females and 32 males)

EFL students at the intermediate level of English proficiency

studying in Jahad Daneshgahi Language Institute in Urmia, Iran,

were chosen and assigned to two groups based on the placement

test results. The sample was divided into two groups of

experimental group (n=40) and control group (n=40). The results of

the study showed that there was a statistical significant difference

at the level of 0.05 between the means of the performance of the

experimental and control groups on the achievement test for the

benefit of the experimental group. Therefore, the researchers

concluded that STAD could effectively be implemented to improve

31
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

WKHOHDUQHUV¶ODQJXDJHSURILFLHQF\7KHUHVXOWVLQGLFDWHGWKDWWKHUH

ZHUHQRJHQGHUGLIIHUHQFHVLQVWXGHQWV¶ODQJXDJHDFKLHYHPHQWDIWHU

their being taught through STAD. Hence, ultimate result of the

study indicated that STAD was more effective instructional

paradigm for English as compared to the traditional method of

teaching. Due to its provision for higher learning engagement, it

proved to be an active learning strategy.

0RKVHQ\DQG-DPRXU¶VVWXG\DLPHGDWH[SORULQg the

effect of applying STAD method on the vocabulary learning of

Iranian pre-intermediate EFL learners. To this end, the researcher

invited 50 students to participate in this experiment from

Aryanpour Language Center in Tehran, in which the researcher had

been teaching for two years. They were assigned to two groups.

Each group consisted of 25 participants, one experimental and one

control. The STAD method for learning vocabulary was applied to

the experimental group while the control group received no special

instruction and was taught using conventional ways. The results

32
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

through an independent t-test showed that at the end of the period

the experimental group scored higher than the control group.

In their study, Keshavarz, Shahrokhi and TalebiNejad

(2014) investigated the effect of CL methods on promoting

writing skill of Iranian EFL Learners. One hundred Iranian

English Foreign Language learners participated as initial population

of the study and 60 learners were selected after conducting a

proficiency Test. The participants were at the intermediate level in

compliance with Nelson English Language Proficiency Test. The

selected participants were randomly divided into two experimental

groups: STAD, Group Investigation (GI), and one control group

Conventional Instruction (CI). The procedure lasted for 16 weeks.

The statistical analysis of the results by one-way ANOVA showed

that the experimental groups (STAD and GI) performed better on

writing skills than the control group (CI).

In another study, Saniei and Najafi Ghadikolaei's (2015)

tried to investigate the effectiveness of STAD in enhancing Iranian

()/(QJOLVKDVDIRUHLJQODQJXDJHOHDUQHUV¶NQRZOHGJHRI

33
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

collocations. Sixty-four intermediate learners in two intact groups

were selected as the participants of this study. They were proved

homogeneous after administering the Preliminary English Test

(PET) and then were assigned as an experimental and a control

group. Each group took a researcher-made, validated pretest of

collocations at the outset of the study whose reliability was

estimated as 0.83 through Cronbach alpha. The experimental group

received collocation instruction according to STAD procedures

while the control group was exposed to an individualistic

instruction. The content of the instruction was in accordance with

WKHFRQWHQWRIOHDUQHUV¶FRXUVHERRNIROORZHGE\DVHWRI

researcher-made collocation tasks performed by both study groups

after receiving the instruction. At the end of the eight-session

treatment, the same researcher-made pretest was administered as

the post-WHVWDQGWKHVWXGHQWV¶SHUIRUPDQFHZDVDQDO\]HGWKURXJK

an independent samples t-test. The results of data analysis showed

that STAD was a significantly effective cooperative method in

bringing about improved collocation performance.

34
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

Zarei and Keshavarz (2012) investigated the effects of the

STAD and 'Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition'

(CIRC) on reading achievement and vocabulary learning of Iranian

learners of English. 132 female Language learners of EFL

participated in the study at National Iran English Language (NIEL)

institute in Takestan. The four experimental groups were taught in

cooperative learning for one semester with methods of the STAD

and CIRC, the control groups were taught in a non-cooperative

method. Data collected through reading comprehension and

vocabulary post-tests were analyzed using four one-way ANOVA

procedures. The results indicated that the cooperative learning

model CIRC had statistically significant effects on reading

comprehension and vocabulary learning, particularly for

elementary EFL learners.

Khansir and Alipour (2015), in their study, determined the

impact of STAD on Iranian EFL Learners Listening

Comprehension. The total numbers of sixty Iranian students would

be select base on their performance on Oxford Placement Test

35
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

(OPT). For homogeneity of the learners, a proficiency test

(Edwards, 2007) was administered to select the participants of this

project. The Iranian students were in the age range of18 to 25

studying English as their foreign language in a language institute in

Bushehr city, Iran. Outcome of this research paper showed that

there was a statistically significant difference between the

SDUWLFLSDQWVRIFRQWURODQGH[SHULPHQWDOJURXSV¶VFRUHVW 50, p

< 0.05) on post-test., Farina Jamour2

In her study, Jahanbazian (2015) investigated the possible

effects of CTBL with Learning Together (LT) ± the most popular

method of Cooperative Learning (CL) -- on oral performance of

Iranian EFL intermediate students. She also wanted to measure the

participants' attitudes towards language learning, individualistic

class structure, CL, and the selected methods before and after the

study. The results of the study showed that CTBL had a more

significant effect on improving the oral performance of Iranian

intermediate students. Analysis of the quantitative questionnaire

results showed that the participants generally tended towards

36
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

supporting the implementation of cooperative strategies. More

specifically, the participants had more positive attitudes towards

CTBL rather than LT.ment of, Faculty

Hosseini (2000) investigated the kind of relationship, if any,

between CTBL, his instructional method, and the reading

comprehension of Iranian senior high school students. The study

was conducted to answer if there was any relationship between

&7%/DQG,UDQLDQVHQLRUKLJKVFKRROVWXGHQWV¶UHDGLQJ

comprehension. Having administered the standardized reading test,

the researcher selected a group of 60 (out of 76) almost

homogeneous Iranian senior high school students and randomly

assigned them to control and experimental groups. Based on their

scores, the experimental class was divided into 10 almost

heterogeneous teams -- three members each. For 16 weeks, both the

groups received the same course materials, instructor, curriculum,

out of-class and in-class assignments, schedule of instruction and

equivalent methods of evaluation, but the experimental group

experienced language learning via CTBL rather than via the

37
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

Lecture Method as their counterparts in the control group. After 16

weeks again the reading test was administered to both the groups.

The obtained scores on pre-test and post-test will be analyzing

through different statistical procedures. The results, of the study,

rejected the null hypothesis and provided evidence supporting the

hypothesis that CTBL could have a significant effect on improving

the reading comprehension of Iranian senior high school students.

The statistics exhibited that all participants in general and lower

performers in particular - in CTBL class - outperformed their

counterparts in the comparison group.

Hosseini's (2009) PhD research study was a comparative

experimental research study which sought to explore and examine

the complex effects of CTBL, his instructional innovation, with

Learning Together (LT) of Johnsons, and the traditional chalk-and-

talk mode of presentation or Traditional Lecture Method (TLM) on

,UDQLDQDQG,QGLDQXQGHUJUDGXDWHOHDUQHUV¶DUHDGLQJ

comprehension in English, (b) language learning strategies, (c)

attitudes towards English language learning and the select teaching

38
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

methods, and (d) retention of information. It became evident from

the analyses of the data gathered that the two select CL methods

served to (a) increase acquisition of texts contents, (b) widen

repertoire of language learning strategies, (c) generate positive

attitudes, and (d) improve the retention of information, on the part

of the target groups more significantly than the TLM. One

important result of the study was that it was CTBL that was more

successful in developing the participants' metacognitive and

affective strategies. It was likewise noted that CTBL, rather than

LT, contributed more effectively to the improvement of the

SDUWLFLSDQWV¶UHWHQWLRQRILQIRUPDtion. The study also provided

evidence that it was CTBL that more comprehensively contributed

to the success of the lower performers. Hosseini concludes that

CTBL facilitated the development of learning-how-to-learn skills

and long-term retention rather than survival skills and recognition

memory of the participants, and significantly enhanced the quality

of knowledge the participants acquired.

39
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

Despite the abundance of research findings that verifies the

advantage of CL over traditional methods of teaching, no research,

to date, have essayed to directly compare the effectiveness of

CTBL and STAD. And the researcher has addressed this lacuna in

the related literature in the present study.

40
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD


Chapter III

Method

41
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

3.1 Overview

This chapter tries to give an introduction to the participants,

instruments and design employed to pursue the objectives of the

present study. A detailed description of the procedure applied in

this study has also found a place in this chapter. The researcher has

also shed light on a brief introduction to data analysis, which is

elaborated in the next chapter.

3.2 Participants

Participants of this study were sixty Iranian intermediate

EFL learners studying in Shokuh institute in Amol, Iran. They were

in two separate classes, including both male and female learners,

ranging in age from sixteen to twenty-one. They were all

homogeneous with regard to age, ethnicity, exposure to English,

and educational and cultural background. All of the participants

were native speakers of Persian, and they used English as a foreign

language for general purposes. They have studied English for six

years until now. Two experimental classes were assigned. One

42
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

class conducted through (STAD) and another one through (CTBL)

method, each including 30 subjects. The students in the STAD

class were allowed to build their teams of three or four members

based on their interests. But the students in CTBL class were

divided into seven heterogeneous teams based on their performance

on the PET proficiency test. In other words, each team consisted of

four members: (a) one learner with a high PET score, (b) the two

others with average PET scores, and (c) another with a low PET

score. The PET was also used to confirm the homogeneity of two

experimental groups.

3.3. Instruments

Before introducing the instrument, it should be noted that

the main text book which was used in this research was 3rd edition

of Interchange 3 (Intermediate) by Jack C. Richards with Jonathan

Hall and Susan Proctor (2005). This textbook is used in Shokouh

language institute in Amol, Iran, for intermediate learners and it

consists of 16 units. The main purpose of this book is to integrate

43
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

reading, grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, listening, speaking,

and writing. Every unit of this book also contains a reading

comprehension text, which were focused upon in the experimental

groups in the present study.

The PET test was administered. This test was applied to

demonstrate the level of the participants and homogenization, and

also to check the reading comprehension of the participants of this

study before (pre-test) and after (post-test) the experiment. They

were tested in order to have 2 homogenized groups of 30

participants each, based on their scores in the pretest. The same

PET test was given after the study, after a-16-session practice (see

section 3.5), to see the effects of CTBL and STAD on two

experimental groups. The test was similar both in format of the

questions and their level for the two groups. The PET test consisted

of 4 skills with a total of 75 questions:

Part 1: Three Option Multiple Choice

Part 2: Matching

Part 3: True False

44
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

Part 4: Four Option Multiple Choice

Part 5: Multiple Choice Cloze

Learners had 30 minutes to answer the questions. The reason

for using PET test in the present study is the fact that it is

internationally valid, reliable and easy to administer. Additional

information regarding post-test is in appendix. A.

It should, however, be mentioned that item facility and item

discrimination were calculated for PET. The reliability of the test

was found as high as 0.92. As a result of item analyses, no item

was discarded. Regarding writing section of the test, content,

organization, vocabulary, and language use were four aspects of

writing which were rated. The rating was done on the basis of

criteria stated in the rating scale, and possible range of score was 0-

5. 60 learners, from among 75 learners, who scored within one

standard deviation above and below the mean, were selected. They

were then divided into 2 groups.

45
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

3.4 Design

The study was a quasi-experimental research which used the

two group pre-test treatment post-test design. While the

participants' reading performance was the dependent variable of the

present study, CTBL and STAD were the two independent

variables. Regarding the reading test, the researcher required

students, in both experimental groups, to take a pre reading test at

the initial stage of the study. After the treatment, he wanted them to

take the post test. Regarding the kind of selection of the two

groups, randomization process practically assured equivalency in

many ways. For example, some variables like maturation,

contemporary historical events, and pre-testing effects were

controlled as both the groups experienced an equal effect of these

variables. Therefore, the effects of these variables were equalized

and cannot be mistaken in the effect of the treatment. Intersession

developments, extraneous variables that arise between pre-test and

post-test, were also balanced out due to the presence of randomized

selected groups.
46
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD


3.5 Procedure

A week prior to the treatment, the PET proficiency test was

administered as a measure of homogeneity. After scoring the pre-

test (see 3.3 instruments), students were ranked based on their

performance and then cooperative groups were formed. In each

class 30 students at intermediate level, the five students who scored

highest on the pre-test were identified as high achievers and the

five students who scored lowest were considered as low-achievers.

The remaining 20 students were identified as average-achievers.

The researcher divided the participants into different level

achievers in order to provide almost heterogeneous teams who

could contribute further to the involvement of the participants

during the process of team discussion. While in the STAD class,

the students were permitted to shape their own teams of three to

four members based on their interests, in the CTBL class, the

students were assigned to seven teams of one high-achiever, one

low-achiever and two average-achievers each. The reason for this

47
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

type of team building in the CTBL class was that it would provide

opportunities for learners to peer-tutor and help each other to

complete the shared learning goals. After grouping the students, in

STAD and CTBL groups, the goals of the experiment and the class

management methods were explicated to the both classes.

Additional information regarding pre-test is in appendix A. It

should be reminded that the participants' scores on the reading

section of the PET were used to identify their level of reading

comprehension. During the 16-sessions of 90 minutes each 16 units

were covered.

In STAD class, the teacher presented a lesson in 10 minutes,

and then students worked within their teams to make sure that all

team members had mastered the lesson (30 minutes). As noted,

there were no inter-group relationships among groups in this class.

Finally, students took individual quizzes on the material in which

WKH\FRXOGQRWKHOSRQHDQRWKHUPLQXWHV6WXGHQWV¶TXL]VFRUHV

were compared to their own past averages, and points were granted

based on the degree to which students met or exceeded their own

48
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

earlier performance. These points were then summed to form team

scores, and teams that met the assigned criteria were rewarded.

As it is illustrated in the Figure 3.1, in CTBL class, after the

teacher presented the new lesson through different methods and

strategies, team members are required to work individually first.

They were then asked to work in pairs. Later they were encouraged

to work as a team ± with all their teams' members. And finally, at

the end of the class time they had a class-wide discussion. In the

following session they had a quiz, which they took individually. At

the end of allotted time, the teacher collected some papers for

correction and then required students to take the same quiz with

their partners ± in pairs. Finally, the students were asked to work on

the same quiz in their teams ± with all members of their teams.

Time allocated in CTBL class's teaching phase (60 minutes)

1. :DUPXS««PLQXWH
2. 5HYLHZRIWKHIRUHJRLQJXQLW««
3. &KHFNLQJ VWXGHQWV¶ KRPHZRUN ZLWK WKH KHOS RI WKH
brain......3
49
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

4. Overview......2
5. View
A. Pre-reading activities
D$FWLYDWLQJVWXGHQWV¶PLQGVRQWKHWRSLFWKURXJK
diffeUHQWVWUDWHJLHV««DQG
E7HDPGLVFXVVLRQ««
B. Reading activities
D,QGLYLGXDOSUDFWLFHRIWKHUHDGLQJSDVVDJH«
E:RUNLQJLQG\DGV««DQG
F7HDPZRUN««
C. Post reading activities
a. Class-wide discussion of the topic««
E*LYLQJDVXPPDWLRQRIWKHQHZOHVVRQ««

Time allocated in CTBL class's testing phase (30 minutes)

1. Working on the test individually, and then the brain and the
researcher have random HYDOXDWLRQRIIHZLQGLYLGXDOV«
2. Pair work and peer pre-DVVHVVPHQW««
3. Team work, and then the researcher evaluates few teams
ZLWKWKHKHOSRIWKHEUDLQ««
4. 3URYLGHVVWXGHQWVZLWKWKHFRUUHFWDQVZHUV««
5. 3UHYLHZRIWKHQH[WXQLW««DQG
6. $VVLJQLQJKRPHZRUN««

50
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

distinguishing differences between STAD and CTBL have been

illustrated in the below table:

Table 3- 1
Distinguishing Differences between STAD and CTBL

STAD CTBL

1. Team members take 1. Team members take

quizzes individually. quizzes collaboratively.

2. There are no intergroup 2. Teams compete against

relationships. each other.

3. Teams are evaluated on 3. Teams are evaluated not

WKHLUPHPEHUV¶ RQO\RQWKHLUPHPEHUV¶

improvements over their improvements over their

own past performances. own past performances

and over their same-level

opponents in other teams,

they are also recognized

52
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

based on the extent to

which they outgain other

teams.

4. Special rewards would

also be awarded both to

the best teams with the

highest averages and to

the most challenging

individuals.

One more thing that should be mentioned is that the special

grading system in CTBL is used as an incentive to utilize

FRPSHWLWLRQIRUIXUWKHUFRRSHUDWLRQDPRQJVWWHDPV¶PHPEHUVLQDQ

of course, highly competitive environment. In addition, in order to

lower affective filter of participants, teams that achieve above a

designated standard would pass the course.

53
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

At the end of the experimental period, the post-test was

administered to the experimental groups. Additional information

about post-test is in appendix. B

3.6. Data Analysis

+DYLQJJDWKHUHGWKHUHODWHGGDWDRXWRIVWXGHQWV¶UHVSRQVHVWKH

researcher availed himself of some statistical tools. Through SPSS

(version 20), he used descriptive statistics such as frequency,

means, and standard deviation as well as inferential statistics like t-

test (independent samples t-test) to analyze and interpret the data.

54
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD


Chapter IV

Results and
Discussion

55
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

4.1. Overview

As noted, at the end of the study, after gathering the related

GDWDRXWRIVWXGHQWV¶UHVSRQVHVLQWKHSUHWHVWDQGSRVWWHVWWKH

researcher availed himself of some statistical tools. Through SPSS

(version 20), he used descriptive statistics such as frequency,

means, and standard deviation as well as inferential statistics like t-

test to analyze and interpret the data. This chapter, thereby, deals

with the analysis of the data collected through the application of the

tools of the study and highlights the results in order to pave the way

for further discussion.

It should be reminded that the purpose of the present study

was to answer the following question:

4µ,VWKHUHDQ\GLIIHUHQFHEetween the intermediate EFL students

who are taught with CTBL and those who are taught with STAD in

regard to their reading comprehension?

56
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

Based on this question, the null hypothesis was formulated

as under:

+µ7KHUHLVQRGLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHn the intermediate EFL students

who are taught with CTBL and those who are taught with STAD in

regard to their reading comprehension.

4.2 Descriptive Statistics

The descriptive statistics of the results for the research question are

as following:

4.2.1 The Average of the Participants' Reading Comprehension

in the two Experimental Groups

Table 4- 1
Group Statistics

Method N Mean Std. Std. Error

Reading Deviation Mean
comprehensi STAD 30 25.107 4.416 0.834
on
CTBL 30 28.464 5.181 0.979

57
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

As it is shown in the above table, the average of the

participants' reading comprehension in the experimental groups

(CTBL class) is higer than the average of the participants' reading

comprehension in the anotherexperimental group (STAD class).

 4.3 Inferential Statistics

For investigating the research question, the researcher

applied a student-t test first. But before using student-t test, he

tested to see whether the two groups were normal in regard to their

reading comprehensions. He also tested to see if the variances were

equal in these groups. For the former purpose, the researcher

applied One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test. He also evaluated

Equality of Variance test.

Table 4- 2
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test.

58
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

Reading comprehension Reading
in CTBL comprehension in
STAD
N 30 30

Norma Mean 24.760 28.464

Param Std.
4.521 5.181
Deviation
etersa,b

Most Absolute 0.113 0.145

Extre Positive 0.072 0.104
me
Differ Negative -0.113 -0.145
ences
Kolmogorov-
0.566 0.769
Smirnov Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-
0.906 0.595
tailed)
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.

As p-value (0.906) in Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test of reading

comprehension in CTBL group is higher than 0.05, that this group

is normal is not rejected. Similarly, as p-value (0.595) in

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test of reading comprehension in STAD

59
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

group is higher than 0.05, that this group was normal is not

rejected.

$WWKLVVWDJHWKHUHVHDUFKHUDSSOLHG/HYHQH¶V7HVWIRU

Equality of Variances in the two groups.

Table 4- 3
/HYHQH¶V7HVWIRU(TXDOLW\RI9DULDQFHVLQWKH7ZR*URXSV
Levene's Test for

Equality of
Variances

Reading Skill Equal variances F Sig.

assured Equal variances not

0.770 0.384
assured

As it is understood from the above table, as p-value (0.384)

LQ/HYHQH¶V7HVWLVKLJKHUWKDQWKDWWKHYDULDQFHVLQWKHWZR

groups were equal is not rejected.

60
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

At this juncture, the researcher conducted student-t test with

the assumption of the equality of the variances of the two groups.

The results are as below:

Table 4- 4
Independent Samples Test

Reading Levene' t-test for Equality of Means

comprehens s Test
ion for
Equalit
y of
Varianc
es
F Sig. t df Si Me Std. 95%
g. an Error Confidence
(2- Diff Diffe Interval of the
tai ere rence Difference
le nce Lower Upper
d)
Equal
0. - 0. -
variances 0.3
77 2.6 54 01 3.3 1.286 -5.936 -0.777
assumed 84
0 09 2 57
Equal - 0. -
52.
variances 2.6 01 3.3 1.286 -5.938 -0.775
678
not assumed 09 2 57

61
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

As p-value (0.012) in student-t test is less than 0.05, the assumption

of the equality of the average of reading comprehension in the two

groups, with the assumption of the equality of the variance of the

two groups, is rejected. As it is understood from the table, because

the average of reading comprehension in CTBL is higher than the

average of reading comprehension in STAD, therefore it could be

concluded that CTBL is more effective in developing reading

comprehension of the Iranian EFL intermediate students.

4.4 Discussion

The results of the present study rejected the null hypothesis

and provided evidence supporting the hypothesis that CTBL can

have a more significant effect on improving the reading

comprehension of Iranian EFL intermediate students.

The results of this study are congruent with the findings of a

number of researchers in the related literature. Chief among these

62
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

researchers are Kazemi and Khalili-Sabet (2012), Takallou and Veisi

(2013), Nejadghanbar and Mohammadpour (2012), RimaniNikou,

Bonyadi and Ebrahimi (2014), Mohsenyand Jamour(2012),

Keshavarz, Shahrokhi and TalebiNejad (2014), Saniei and Najafi

Ghadikolaei (2015), Zarei and Keshavarz (2012), Khansir and

Alipour (2015, Jahanbazian (2015) and Hosseini (2000, 2009,

2012).

But the results of this study were not completely in line with

the findings of Nederhood (1986) who found no significant results

IRUDFDGHPLFDFKLHYHPHQWRIVWXGHQWVLQ&/FODVVHV1HGHUKRRG¶V

study was a meta-analysis of 34 studies, which attempted to find

out the effects of CL on reading comprehension, language arts, and

mathematics of 1145 middle school students in 114 classrooms.

That some researchers have not been able to prove the

effectiveness of CL may refer to the fact that they have not

implemented effective structured CL methods. Palincsar and

Brown (1986) have maintained that effective structured CL creates

63
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

situations wherein the text becomes more meaningful and

important to students. Consequently, students are encouraged to

seek the help of others for comprehending key points, which in turn

increases their understanding of the whole text. In the same lines, a

number of researchers (e.g. Rabow, et al., 1994; Totten, Digby, &

Russ, 1991) have stressed that shared learning, in cooperative

learning situations, gives students opportunities to engage in a

variety of discussion activities that cause critical thinking, which is

favourable to their deeper understanding of the material.

More specifically, as in the words of Hosseini (2012), one of

the main reasons for the success of CTBL, as a CL method, refers

to its dynamic nature. CTBL provides multiple opportunities for

input-output treatment whereby students have access to multiple

sources of input and output in meaningful situations. They receive

repeated input and feedback from a variety of sources through

teacher presentation, individual work, pair work, teamwork, and

64
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

class wide discussions, followed by peer pre assessment and team

evaluation.

On the other hand, CTBL contexts of learning, he continues,

naturally gives the students' positive attitudes towards language

learning, the teacher, and their learning environments and so

motivate them further. The point is that researchers like Oxford

(1990) have observed that students who have positive attitudes and

are better motivated use more (effective) learning strategies, which

enhance their academic success. And achievement of academic

JRDOVLQLWVWXUQDV+RVVHLQLSXWLWLQFUHDVHVVWXGHQWV¶

positive attitudes and their motivation which, in turn, affect their

engagement in the learning process and so contributes to their

learning.

Also, CTBL's team formation nature, which does not

encourage high achievers to dominate the learning process and

EULQJVHTXLWDEOHRSSRUWXQLWLHVIRUDOOWHDPV¶PHPEHUVIROORZLQJ

their shared learning goals, differentiates CTBL from STAD. In

65
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

CTBL, each team is usually consisted of four members, who are

designed to work in two pairs. Each pair includes one low

performer and one average scorer, or one average student and one

high achiever.

Furthermore, that the mechanisms underlying CTBL holds

every member of the teams accountable for their own leaning

contributed to the success of this innovative instructional method of

teaching. Moreover, such mechanisms motivated them to put their

efforts into the success of their team members during competing

with other teams in the classroom. They also motivated team

members to share their effective language learning strategies with

one another all of which contributed to the success of CTBL.

And finally, the evaluation system of CTBL increased effort

for all team members into sharing not merely their knowledge but

also their approaches to thinking, and (language) learning

strategies, in their highly structured teams. CTBL evaluation

system inspired high achievers to transfer their learning and

66
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

reasoning strategies to their team members excitedly and in more

effective ways which facilitated the course of empowerment of

their less skilled team members.

67
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD


Chapter V

Conclusions and
Implications

68
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD


5.1 Overview

This last chapter presents a summation of the present study.

Then, after elaborating the conclusion and pedagogical

implications, suggestions and recommendations to stakeholders

have also been put forth. At the end of the thesis, a detailed

bibliography of select list of books, journals, periodicals, etc. has

been included.

5.2 Summary of the Study

The fact is that, as Hosseini (2012) argues, reading instruction

has not been a success so far, especially in countries like Iran.

Although undergraduate learners have far less problems in

selecting the best alternative in a multiple choice test on reading

comprehension, most of them are not able to locate or draw

conclusions an implicitly mentioned idea in a given text demanded

by open-ended questions. They do not have the ability for

69
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

evaluative interpretation of the texts. Therefore, the researcher

thought it is worth investigating if CL could be useful to the skill of

reading comprehension more effectively than the traditional

methods applied in countries like Iran. It is based on such a

background that the researcher focused on comparing the

effectiveness of STAD and CTBL on improving the reading

comprehension of Iranian EFL intermediate students in the present

study.

5.3 Conclusions

In the present study, the researcher examined the effects of

STAD, developed by Slavin (1986), and CTBL, developed by

Hosseini (2009/20012), on the reading comprehension performance

of Iranian EFL intermediate learners. The researcher focused on CL

methods because, today, in academic situations, there seems to be a

move towards allowing students to be more directly involved in the

teaching / learning process.

The importance of CTBL for language classes refers to the

70
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

fact that it focuses on systematic teamwork. Successful teamwork

is conducive to the emergence of diverse and creative ideas and

strategies, which are favorable to the reading comprehension of

learners. In view of the fact that students, in CTBL settings, need to

exchange information, strategies and advice in order to succeed in

achieving their shared learning goals, their reading comprehensions

developed meaningfully.

It should be reminded that the results of the present study

corroborates the idea that if the CTBL method is employed

thoroughly and systematically, it can significantly improve the

reading comprehension performance of Iranian EFL intermediate

students.

5.4 Implications of the Study

Based on the findings of the present study, it is suggested that

teachers avail their classes of CTBL, which focuses on utilizing

competition to the best advantage of teamwork. In addition, the

literature suggests that additional reasons may motivate the

71
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

instructors to use CTBL. For instance, increased interaction in

English and easy management of large classes may be motivating

factors for employing CTBL. Furthermore, CTBL's implementation

is the need of the hour due to the demands of the present world

context of globalization which is highly competitive. The ability to

work with others within a team and to develop interpersonal skills

might be another acceptable justification for implementing

CTBL, which has been developed by an Iranian scholar. But as

noted, successful implementation of CTBL requires structurally

planned teaching and learning activities.

Language teachers, syllabus designers, methodologists and

researchers should consider the fact that what differentiates CTBL

from other CL methods refers to the emphasis it puts on the

significance of 'competition', as a real world phenomenon, in

cooperative learning settings. As Hosseini (2012) argues, the

significance of competition should also be looked upon from

another different angle ± competition is an inevitable real world

72
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

phenomenon: Today world is highly multicultural, incredibly

complicated and of course developmentally and fiercely

competitive. The bare truth is thereby that, in addition to skills for

co-operation, survival in the present world context requires

enormous skills and capacities for competition (p. 87).

He continues that urgent and pragmatic overhauling of

syllabi and textbooks in our educational systems is the need of the

hour if students ought to face the challenges of globalization.

5.5 Suggestions for Further Research

Further related studies in Iranian EFL environments are

suggested. Such studies in schools of ministry of education

(elementary and pre-intermediate levels) and universities (advance

levels) where there are different students with different

backgrounds and attitudes may help the authorities of foreign

language learning in both ministries make decisions about

73
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

implementing CTBL in schools and universities. More

particularly, the researcher suggests language teachers and

researchers to investigate the effectiveness of Hosseini's method for

language teaching (i.e., CTBL) in relation to other methods of CL

on other skills and sub skills. Practical issues, unfortunately,

prevented the efforts, suggested in this section, in current study.

References

Aronson, E., & Shelley, P. (1997). The jigsaw classroom: Building

cooperation in the classroom (2nd edition). New York:

Longman.

Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second language skills. USA:

Harcourt Brace Javanovich Inc.

Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for

productive small groups. Review of Educational Research,

64(1), 10-35.

74
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

Edwards, K. J., & De Vries, D. L. (1972). Learning games and

student teams: Their effects on student attitudes and

achievement. New York: Johns Hopkins University.

Gomleksiz, M. N. (2007). Effectiveness of cooperative learning

(jigsaw II) method on teaching English as a foreign language

to engineering students (Case of Firat University, Turkey).

European Journal of Engineering Education, 32(5), 613-625.

Hatch, E. M. (Ed.). (1978). Second language acquisition: A book of

readings. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Hosseini, S. M. H. (2000). The effects of competitive team-based

learning on the reading comprehension of high school students.

Unpublished MA Dissertation.Garmsar Azad University, Iran.

Hosseini, S. M. H. (2009). Effectiveness of cooperative learning

methods: A study with Iranian and Indian undergraduate learners.

Unpublished PhD Thesis. Mysore University, India.

Hosseini, S. M. H. (2010). Theoretical foundations of competitive

team-based learning. Canadian Journal of English Language

Teaching, 3(3), 229 - 243.

75
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

Hosseini, S. M. H. (2012). Beyond the present methods and

approaches to ELT/Education: The crucial need for a radical

reform. Tehran: Jungle Publications.

Jahanbazian, T. (2015).A Study into the Effects of 'Competitive

Team-Based Learning' and 'Learning Together' on the Oral

Performance of Intermediate EFL Learners, Unpublished MA

Thesis, Yasouj Islamic Azad University.

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1999).Learning together:

Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning.

Massachusetts: Allyn andBacon.

Johnson, D, W. Johnson, R, T. Stanne, M, B. (2000). Cooperative

Learning Methods, A Meta-Analysis. New York: University of

Minnesota.

Johnson, D. w., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998).

Cooperative learning returns to college. Change, 30 (4), 26-35.

Kagan, S. (1989).Cooperative Learning. Resources for teachers.

CA: Resources for Teachers.

76
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

Kazemi, M. & Khalili-Sabet, M. (2012).Exploring the Iranian EFL

/HDUQHUV¶5HDGLQJPerformance: The Effect of Teaching Method,

International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature,

1(6), 11-18.

Keshavarz, S.M., Shahrokhi, M. & TalebiNejad, M.R (2014).The

Effect of Cooperative Learning Techniques on Promoting Writing

Skill of Iranian EFL Learners, International Journal of Language

Learning and Applied Linguistics World 5(1), 2289-3245.

Khadidja K. (2010). The effect of classroom interaction on

GHYHORSLQJWKHOHDUQHU¶VVSHDNLQJ6NLOO Unpublished MA thesis-

Mentouri university.

Khansir, A.A. and Alipour, T. (2015). The Impact of Students

Team Achievement Divisions (STAD) on Iranian EFL Learners'

Listening Comprehension, Theory and Practice in Language

Studies, 5(8), 1710-1715.

Liang, T. (2002).Implementing cooperative learning in EFL

teaching: Process and effects. Unpublished PhD dissertation.

77
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

National Taiwan Normal University. Retrieved September 19, 2009

from http://www. Uefap.com/index.htm.

Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, inter language

talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207±

228.

Mackey, A. (2007). The conversational interaction in second

language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McCafferty, E., (Eds.). (2006). Cooperative learning and second

language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mohseny, A. & Jamour, F. (2012).The Impact of Student Team

Achievement Division on Vocabulary Learning of Iranian EFL Pre-

Intermediate Learners, ELT Voices India, 2(6), 20-32.

Nederhood, B. (1986). The effects of student team learning on

academic achievement, attitudes towards self and school, and

expansion of friendship bonds among middle school students.

Dissertation Abstract International, 47(4), 1175A. (DAR R OF

LIT).

78
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

Nejadghanbar, H. and Mohammadpour, L. (2012). On the Effect of

Interest-Oriented Student Team Achievement divisions on the

Reading Comprehension Achievement of English as a Foreign

Language, Journal of Academic and Applied Studies, 2(11),

21-33.

Ning, H. (2011). Adapting cooperative learning in tertiary ELT.

ELT Journal, 65(1), 60-70.

Oxford, R. (1997). Cooperative learning, collaborative learning and

interaction: Three communicative strands in the language

classroom. Modern Language, 81(4), 443-456.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1986).Interactive teaching to

promote independent learning from text. The Reading Teacher,

39(8), 771±77.

Pattanpichet, F. (2011). The Effects of using collaborative learning

WRHQKDQFHVWXGHQWV¶English speaking achievement, Journal of

College Teaching & Learning, 8(11), 1-10.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in

language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: CUP.

79
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

RimaniNikou, F., Bonyadi, A., and Ebrahimi, K. (2014). The Effect

of Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) on Language

Achievement of Iranian EFL Students across Gender, European

Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences,3(4), 936-

949.

Saniei, A. & Najafi Ghadikolaei, F. (2015).The Contribution of

Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD) To Teaching

English Collocations to Intermediate Learners, International

Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World 8(2),

125-133

Sharan, Y. & Sharan, S. (1990). Group investigation expands

cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 17-21.

Slavin, R. (1978). Student teams and comparison among equals:

Effects on academic performance and student attitudes. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 70, 532- 538.

Slavin, R. E. (1977). Student teams achievement Divisions: Effects

on Academic Performance, mutual Attraction, and Attitudes.

Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University.

80
 Competitive Team-Based Learning vs. STAD

Slavin, R. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and

practice. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.

Slavin, R. E., Leavey M. B. & Madden, N. A. (1986). Team

accelerated instruction: Mathematics. Watertown, MA:

Charlesbridge.

Stevens, R., Slavin, R.E. &Farnish, A.M. (1989).A Cooperative

Learning Approach to ElementaryReading and Writing Instruction:

Long-Term Effects. Baltimore, Md.:The Johns Hopkins University.

Takallou, F. and Veisi, S. (2013).Implementing Cooperative

Learning in a Reading Class, Report and Opinion, 5(1), 16-23.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher

psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Zarei, A.A. & Keshavarz, J. (2012).On The Effects of Two Models

of Cooperative Learning on EFL Reading Comprehension and

Vocabulary Learning, MJLTM, 5(4), 11-21.

81