a study of the effects of competitive team-based learning and structured academic controversy on the...

7/29/2019 A Study of the Effects of Competitive Team-Based Learning and Structured Academic Controversy on the Languag…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-study-of-the-effects-of-competitive-team-based-learning-and-structured-academic 1/22

A Study of the Effects of Competitive Team-Based Learning and

Structured Academic Controversy on the Language Proficiency of Iranian EFL College Seniors

Seyed Mohammad Hassan Hosseini, PhD (TESOL)

E-mail: [email protected]

http://beyondelt.blogfa.com

• This article was published at the International Journal of

Adult Vocational Education and Technology, 3 (2012):

54-69.The present paper reports on an experimental study which intended to look into and

compare the possible effects of this researcher’s instructional innovation, Competitive

Team-Based Learning (CTBL), with Structured Academic Controversy (SAC) – the

most popular method of Cooperative Learning (CL) -- on language proficiency of

Iranian EFL college students. This goal, the intention to compare the effects of the

select teaching methods on the dependent variable of the study, was addressed with

respect to different-level achievers (i.e., low, average, and high achievers) of the target

group in the field study, in Iran.

Out of a total population of 68, forty almost homogeneous EFL junior college students

at Bojnord Azad University, in Iran, were selected to serve the study, after conductinga test of English language proficiency. The subjects were randomly put into control

and experimental groups. While the control group were taught through SAC, the

experimental group experienced learning the English language through CTBL. Having

taken the posttest, the means and the t-values were determined for the two groups and

then compared. The results of the statistical analyses of the data obtained at the end of

the study accredited the superiority of CTBL over SAC in terms of its effect on

improving the target group’s language proficiency. Likewise, the outcomes signified

that contrary to SAC which benefited high achievers, CTBL best befitted low to

average achievers. This researcher discusses the probable causes for the results of the

study, sheds light on the pedagogical implications, and suggests recommendations for further research.

Key words: Competitive Team-Based Learning, Structured Academic Controversy,

Modern ELT /Education, Language Proficiency

INTRODUCTION

Although the legacy of the past focus on educational pedagogy still persists in

many parts of the world, the pendulum in the sphere of EFL/ESL has begun to

swing in new directions concurrent with the process of globalisation, at the

dawn of the third millennium. TESOL has accommodated a paradigm shift

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



from text-based towards context-focused pedagogy and approaches.

Interactive approaches to learning and teaching, rather than teacher-fronted

chalk-and-talk modes of presentation, are becoming a felt need. Though it maytake some more years for some Asian countries like Iran to ensure that

interactive and context-based pedagogy becomes a general policy in the field

of education at all graded levels, there are signs of hope. Impediments apart

because of several factors, new directions in TESOL are likely to usher in new

wisdom against the old and the familiar. Particularly Asian contexts and the

contexts in the Middle East demand so. Change is the essence of time, and

changes are inevitable. Some modern approaches like CL are rapidly evolving

and gaining momentum and significance. Constructivists’ views on learning

like those of John Dewey, Jean Piaget, and Lev Semenovich Vygotsky

foreground the significance of such new approaches in ELT sphere. Based onthe premise that language use and language learning are interactive activities,

constructivists emphasize the importance of ‘social interaction and

interdependence’ in learning situations holding the view that what is learnt

about language is in actuality a reflection of interactions. That is, language

learning best occurs in situations which encourage negotiation and elaboration

of meaning.

Cooperative Learning in the sphere of ELT, according to Richards and

Rodgers (2001), is perceived as “a way of promoting communicative

interaction in the classroom” and “is seen as an extension of the principles of Communicative Language Teaching” (p. 193). Oxford (1997) defines CL as “a

set of highly structured, psychologically and sociologically based techniques”

(p.444) which mingles the cognitive and the affective aspects of learning and

accentuates the active engagement and contribution of the participants in the

learning process. However, CL is a common term that represents a number of

educational methods. Despite their significant contribution to more

comprehensive and real learning, CL methods have their own deficiencies.

Neglecting and even belittling the crucial importance of 'competition' in

learning environments is one of their main problems. Another major drawback of the present methods of CL refers to their inability for bringing individualaccountability of all team members. Un systematic implementation of

groupwork is also among the main problems with such methods. (See

Hosseini, 2012) In the present study, this researcher has tried to evaluate the

effectiveness of CTBL, which has tackled such problems, vis-à-vis SAC

method of CL on language proficiency of Iranian college students. This

researcher selected SAC to be compared with his method in virtue of the fact

that he is under the impression that, in comparison to other methods of CL,

this method is the most popular method particularly among language teachers.

2



PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT STUDY

The purpose of the present study was to answer the following question:

Q: ‘Is there a difference between the Iranian junior college students who have been taught with CTBL and those who have been taught with SAC in regard to

their language proficiency (vocabulary, grammar, reading comprehension, and

speaking)? This question was likewise addressed to the target groups' different

achievers’ language proficiency.

Based on this question, the null hypotheses were formulated as well.

STRUCTURED ACADEMIC CONTROVERSY (SAC)

Scholars like Johnson and Johnson (1979) have had significant contribution to

the development of SAC or Constructive Controversy (CC). The prominent

focus of CC is on the positive influences planned and structured controversy

could have on academic achievement and social relationships of class

participants. CC is, in fact, an extension of another method of CL known as

Learning Through Discussion (LTD). LTD is fundamentally based on

discussion panels on variety of desired-to-learners topics, which may be

posed, for example, by a student, the teacher, or through a video or audio

programme. Higher order questions and analysis of viewpoints that demand

abstract thinking are emphasized and encouraged in this method. Such type of

questions and activities exact more than remembering and expressing of

factual or descriptive statements. They require evaluation of causes and

effects, generalization, and relating of ideas, concepts, and principles all of

which are believed to be conducive to deeper and more effective learning.

Johnson et al. (1986) recommended teachers to take heed of the below five

primary steps in implementing CC in their classes:

1. Introduction: The introduction should incorporate a clear description of a group’s task and the phases of the controversy

procedure along with the collaborative skills, which students are

expected to use during each phase. Definition of the position to be

advocated and a summary of the key arguments should also be

taken into account by teachers.

2. Choosing a topic: Teachers should bear in mind that the topic

should sound interesting to students, and be supported with at least

two well - documented sides of argument.3. Providing instructional materials: Teachers should consider the

3



kind of materials that could support and elaborate the arguments in

different ways.

4. Structuring the controversy: Assigning students to groups of four,

dividing each group members into two pairs (dyads) who take

opposing positions on the topic to be discussed, and requiring each

group to reach a consensus on the issue and turn in a group report

on which all members will be evaluated are the steps teachers

should consider in this phase.

5. Conducting the controversy: This phase includes planning

positions, presenting positions, arguing the issue, practising

perspective reversal, and arriving at a decision.

As it is realised, in this method, discussants should always be supplied with

well-documented positions and some further references, if needed. They

should also be provided with some guidelines for more helpful discussions.

Each session, an interesting but challenging topic which foregrounds

polemical discussions is introduced. The teacher may also have a brief review

of key vocabularies while introducing the general theme of the text or topic.

Then groups of four members are divided into two pairs to discuss and develop

one side of the argument. Afterwards, the two dyads meet to discuss the topic

for the purpose of achieving more knowledge of the topic. Pairs then switch

sides and develop arguments for the opposite side of the same issue in order to

gain a thorough understanding of the topic in question from different

dimensions. Later, they put the topic on the stage for a class-wide debate, for

further exploration and deeper understanding. This stage affords them

opportunities to criticize and challenge others. They will also be challenged to

defend their ideas. Identification of merits and disadvantages of the theme in

question, discussion of theme through different vantage points, and evaluation

of the type of presentation by the author are some of the activities in this

method.

Regarding the evaluation system of SAC, students are evaluated mostly based

on their group production. This evaluation system increases positive

interdependence among participants.

COMPETITIVE TEAM-BASED LEARNING

4



Competitive Team-Based Learning is a holistic contextualized approach toteaching and learning that reflects the real world holism. As a fundamentally

different approach to ELT/Education, CTBL tries to produce a more realisticdepiction of the real-world norms and settings in the classroom, as themicrocosm, in order to more effectively connect learners to the real world, themacrocosm. This way CTBL reduces the discrepancy between what the

present education system makes out of our nations and what the realities of today world context exacts them to be. CTBL foregrounds the significance of effective teamwork amidst highly competitive environments, as the verydemand of tomorrow’s citizenry, in an atmosphere which emphasisesadherence to a ‘learning culture’ not only to foster academic progress of

people/students but also to more significantly contribute to their future

success, both academically and socially.In CTBL, students of potentially diverse backgrounds with different attitudes,(language) learning strategies, styles, proficiencies, and abilities shapeheterogeneous teams of usually 4 members each and try working together in ahighly 'competitive motivational dialogic-based learning environment. Theywork in an atmosphere which emphasises their adherence to some preestablished principles (i.e., this researcher’s ethos and manifesto). Themechanism underlying this educational approach holds each team member accountable for his or her own learning, growth, and development andencourages them to do their part of the work effectively. It, at the same time,

spurs them to ask other members to do likewise and also help thementhusiastically in order to improve their learning towards achieving their common learning goals. Team members are likewise systematically spurredinto further collaboration and scaffolding the learning of each other in order tocompete not merely against their same-level opponents in other teams, as it isin Teams-Games-Tournaments (TGT), developed by Scholars like DeVries andEdwards (1974), and Slavin (1991), but also against their teams. All teammembers, therefore, engage themselves fully (cognitively, emotionally, andintellectually) and actively participate and tactfully contribute in the process of shared learning in order to solve a problem, complete a task, and/or create a

product through activities like exchanging ideas, clarification of meanings toeach other, and diplomatic resolution of discrepancies. They try to be sure thateach member has mastered the assigned material for this researcher would, attimes, randomly call upon a student to represent his or her team. If so, theselected member of the respective team should also provide reasons for his or her answer(s) to the teacher before the class participants.

It is important to note that teams are evaluated not just on their members’improvements over their own past performances, as it is in CooperativeIntegrated Reading and Composition (CIRC), developed by Stevens et al.(1978), and Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD), developed bySlavin and associates at Johns Hopkins University (1978). Neither are they

5



evaluated merely over their same-level opponents in other teams, as it is inTGT. They are also recognized based on the extent to which they outgain other

teams. Further, special rewards are also awarded to the best teams with thehighest averages in order to motivate team members for more effectivecooperation, and simultaneously encourage competition among teams. For example, teams that prove their superiority for three periods will receive ‘A’marks for their members’ final exam regardless of their actual grades – on thecondition that they secure the minimum standard. Although appreciation of the

best team(s) is also valued in some methods like STAD, TGT, and TeamsTournaments (TT), developed by this researcher (1994/2010), this componentis not as much seriously and directly injected in these methods as it is inCTBL. Recognition of the best team(s) is a formal part of CTBL evaluation

system. CTBL evaluation system, thereby, not only pushes team members tomake any effort to improve their own performances and outperform their peer-level opponents in other teams. It also encourages them to pool their effortstogether to surpass other teams as well in order to prove their fair superiorityin the class and get the special rewards, which may include securing thehighest mark for all team members in recognition of their effectivecollaboration and perseverance.

Likewise, to maximize the contribution of the captains or team leaders, whoare high achievers, to the success of their teams, they will be rewarded withhigh marks as the recognition of their devotion, perseverance, and

commitment to their responsibilities and tasks if all their team members shineon tests and exams and prove an acceptable progress in comparison to their

past performances. Teams’ performances are also regularly reported on ateams’ recognition chart on the notice board of the classroom which as wellannounces the names of outstanding and most challenging individuals alike.Besides, the first two to six, depending on the number of students in the class,

best students are recognised as the brains or motivators who will assist thisresearcher, as the teacher, in course of teaching. When teams have problems,for instance, they must consult the brains first. The teacher is the last resource.The brains openly receive the teams’ representatives for any kind of academic

help. The important point is that every main exam’s results lead unto thereplacement of these brains as well as teams’ leaders by those who prove their superiority over them, in CTBL learning-for-all fair environments. To lessenindividuals’ anxiety levels or to contribute further to lowering their affectivefilters, teams that secure the least acceptable rank would pass the course --

provided their members should not be below the minimum standard. Theaverage of teams members’ grades is the basis for this decision.

The evaluation system of CTBL, therefore, is against undifferentiated groupgrading for teamwork as it is in Johnsons’ methods where all team membersreceive the same grade regardless of differences in contributions to the total-team/class effort. In CTBL motivational incentives are encouraged to sustain

6



the individual efforts and immersion in the process of learning in teamactivities and furthering cooperation of team members in the course of

learning.Also, although in CTBL team members take final exams individually as it is inCIRC, STAD, and TGT, they take midterm exams, tests, or quizzescooperatively. The main philosophy beyond allowing students to take someexams, tests, or quizzes collaboratively is to subordinate testing to teaching:Apart from its contribution to positive interdependence, this strategy subjectsstudents to more opportunities for transference of skills, strategies, thinkingstyles and approaches, attitudes, and so forth in a meta-cognitive way (e.g.,through listening to their teammates who are in actual fact thinking aloud).

As understood, contrary to the conventional methods and approaches, the procedure in classes run through CTBL is not a 'loose anything goes' one. It ishighly structured and systematic. For the summary of the procedure followedin a (reading) class run through this researcher’s instructional approach, seeFigure 1.

Figure 1 Main components of CTBL

As indicated in Figure 1, the procedure for presenting a unit/lesson, in CTBL

classes, follows two phases each of which incorporates five main components.As it is realised, the activities follow a regular cycle.

The mechanism underlying CTBL provides all team members not just with the

opportunity but with the need for perseverance, collaboration, and joint

activity as well. It also intends to keep all teams in a state of dynamic

perseverance in a win-win situation for all learning and social atmosphere in

the classroom which is highly supportive, relaxing, communicative,

referential, effective, and developmentally motivating and appropriate. Such

productive and engaging learning conditions, which ensure and scaffold

involvement of all learners in the process of shared (language) learning, notmerely generate short-term results along with learning and excellence in the

7

TeachingPhase

AssessmentPhase



learning. They also supply students with the opportunities to acquire and

internalise more effective tactics and methods for obtaining knowledge and

solving problems, and in the process develop their communicativecompetence. Furthermore, such situations stimulate students to more

effectively and comprehensively exercise their brain cells in higher order and

incisive analytical thinking skills rather than lower forms of mental

behaviour/thinking, and, in the process, come up with fresher, more

innovative, and more powerful ideas, in order to construct new knowledge.

Competitive Team-Based Learning focuses upon deleting certain damaging problems of traditional methods, so as to suit particularly the specificrequirements of language classes in the present world context. CTBL has been

offered to language classes in order to enrich and enhance the process of language learning. This is possible through a win-for-all dynamics ushered in by the role of the teacher as facilitator, creator, and orchestrator of opportunities for comprehensible input-output treatment for learners’comprehensive development and growth, which comes about with their totalengagement and active participation and contribution in class activities.English language learning via CTBL has been viewed as an act of learning thelanguage together through activities like negotiating, clarifying, expanding,elaborating, synthesizing, paraphrasing, and summarizing and as an act of learning to share language learning skills and strategies by equipping students

to learn it as a FL or as a L2 through critical and creative thinking. CTBL best benefits especially language classes as it, unlike the conventional approaches, particularly seat-work teacher dominated approaches, underscores the value of some pivotal factors of critical importance to language learning and languageuse. Among such factors are affective aspects of learning (e.g., emotional stateof students' minds including their affective filter and attitudes, and learningenvironment), meaningful interaction, exposure of students to comprehensibleinput in the target language and language learning strategies, attention,

purposeful communication, and multiple sources of input and output. Someother crucial significant context variables like motivation and active

engagement of all learners in the process of language learning are alsoappreciated in CTBL semi/authentic, analytical, and suggestive feedback-richrelaxing environments. CTBL, thereby, is of high value for language classes inthe sense that the mechanism underlying it is naturally highly favourable tolanguage acquisition and the development of all aspects of communicativecompetence of students. More importantly, it contributes effectively to thecritical sensitivity of students and the quality of their understanding andreasoning and thus to the accuracy of their long-term retention, which is acriterion for real learning. CTBL intends to make (language) learning a morevivid, interesting, motivating, and goal oriented exercise.

8



REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Cooperative Learning has an extensive history. Although its origin has been

traced to the first century, it was first applied in Education in the 1920s in

Germany (Cooper, 1979). John Dewey (1940) who placed the emphasis on

education as a means of teaching citizens the ways of living cooperatively so

as to sustain a healthy society they long for has had his impact on the advent of

CL. It was, however, in accordance with the emergence of new philosophies of

learning that the interest in CL re-emerged specifically in the early 1970s.

Since then, the number of researches has dramatically increased in many parts

of the world including America, England, Australia, Canada, Holland, Mexico,

and Scotland to delve into inner layers of CL from different angles.Researchers like David Johnson and Roger Johnson at the University of

Minnesota, Shlomo Sharan and Yael Sharan, at Tel Aviv University, in Israel,

and Robert Slavin at Johns Hopkins, who have spearheaded the research

undertaken in this area, have considerably contributed to the enrichment and

development of CL and its methods.

Joyce and Weil (2003) have assumed that the synergy generated in

participatory learning settings brings in feelings of connectedness among

students, particularly a feeling that their power in their teams is more cogent

than when they are alone. This kind of feeling causes ripple effects generatingmore positive energy in them and motivates them for further achievement of

their shared learning goals. And the attainment of their goals enhances their

levels of self-confidence along with a feeling that they are respected and

appreciated. The two researchers are also of the view that such settings are

conducive to the emergence of diverse and creative ideas, which are

favourable to the creation of more intellectual persons. Researchers like

Pandian (2007) have appreciated the significance of such situations in

cooperative learning settings especially for the education of physically

disabled or mentally backward students.

In view of the fact that students, in cooperative learning settings, need to

exchange information and advice in order to succeed in achieving their shared

learning goals, CL is believed to facilitate more communication (Yager et al.,

1985), which is one of the main concerns of TESOL for the attainment of its

goals. A growing body of research has indicated that, compared to the

traditional lecture method (TLM) and individually competitive learning, CL is

more favourable to SLA (Hatch, 1978; Long and Porter, 1985; Pica et al.,

1987; Zhang, 2010) and EFL/ESL learners’ higher levels of communicative

competencies (Bejarano et al., 1997). To justify the contribution of CL to

SLA, Kagan (as cited in Ghaith and Yaghi, 1998), has argued that “language

9



acquisition is determined by a complex interaction of a number of critical

input, output, and context variables” and that CL “has a dramatic positive

impact on almost all the variables critical to language acquisition” (p. 223).McCafferty et al. (2006) have also commented that the significance of CL for

language classes is that it focuses on boosting the effectiveness of groupwork .

To emphasize the importance of the context of learning, within the scope of

CL, for the acquisition of language, TESOL (1997) acknowledged:

Language is learnt most effectively when it is used in significant and

meaningful situations as learners interact with others to accomplish

their purposes. Language acquisition takes place as learners engage in

activities of a social nature with opportunities to practice language

forms for a variety of communicative purposes. Language acquisition

also takes place during activities that are of a cognitive and intellectualnature where learners have opportunities to become skilled in using

language for reasoning and mastery of challenging new information.

(p. 7)

Consequently, CL has received an extensive attention of ELT experts in recent

years. Language specialists have focused upon the effectiveness of CL in EFL

and ESL classrooms since the advent of Communicative Language Teaching

(CLT) on the premise that language is best learnt when it is used for

communication in social contexts.

Jacobs et al. (1996) found that L2 learners had more language practice

opportunities and displayed a wider range of language functions in team or

pair work than in teacher-fronted classes. According to them, CL offers

opportunities for premodified input that focuses on meaning in lower-anxiety

contexts, interactionally modified input, and comprehensible output. Jacobs(1988) has reported that CL, in comparison with traditional methods:

1. Increases the quantity of language students use,

2. Enhances the quality of the language they use,

3. Equalizes the learning opportunities for all students, and

4. Creates a less threatening learning environment for language use.

A number of researchers have also reported the contribution of CL to critical

thinking, which they have mentioned to have positive relationship with

language learning (see Hosseini, 2000/2012) This is, as it was noted, possible because, as Angelo (1995) declared, “intentional application of rational higher

order thinking skills such as analysis, synthesis, problem recognition and

problem solving, inference, and evaluation” (p. 6), which are common

practices in cooperative language learning settings (Cooper, 1995), are

characteristics of critical thinking. Beyer (1995) has defined critical thinking

as “making reasoned judgments” (p. 8), which are encouraged in cooperativelanguage learning settings. And Liang et al. (1998) have suggested that the

10



success of CL in language classes is by virtue of the fact that “cooperative

learning offers L2 learners more opportunities for interaction in L2” (p. 14).

And finally, Dolan, et al. (1979) reported on a study undertaken byAbercombie that compared CL with traditional method of teaching: They

mentioned that CL not only increased academic achievement of participants, it

also improved objectivity and flexibility of their thinking. They reported the

following results of CL classes for students:

1. The ability to discriminate between facts and opinions;

2. The ability to resist false conclusions;

3. The ability to generate and consider alternative solutions to problems,4. The ability to consider each and every problem as if it were new, and

to be less adversely influenced by previous impression which may not be relevant to the tackling of the problem in hand. (p. 230)

Apart from the advantages reported in favour of CL, a closer investigation into

the related literature brings to light a fair number of counter arguments within

research findings. For example, as regards different-level achievers, there are

some incongruities in research findings on the level different achievers can

gain or even lose in CL classes. Murfitt and Thomas (as cited in Topping,

1998), have indicated that low performers benefit much more than high

achievers out of participatory learning situations. But others like Dalton (1990)

have argued that working in CL groups benefits high achievers more thanothers. Yet scholars of repute like Slavin (1995) have declared that CL has no

significant influence on high achievers’ academic performances. Even some

like Allen (1991) have claimed that in CL situations high achievers are

actually losing their precious time which they could use in other ways to better

their prospects. Researchers like Webb (1989), however, do not agree with theidea that high achievers cannot reap advantages out of cooperative learning

settings. Webb contended that high achievers also gain benefits out of CL.

Experts like Richards and Rodgers have gone further and claimed that

advanced students obtain more advantages from CL than others by virtue of

the fact that they have more opportunities for articulation and explanation of their own ideas.

Despite the abundance of research findings that verifies the advantage of CL

over traditional methods of teaching, very few researches, to date, haveessayed to directly compare the effectiveness of CTBL, which has recently

exacted the most interesting and hotly debated controversies, and other popular

CL methods like SAC. This researcher himself has tried to fill this gap in the

literature via carrying out different researches in the last decade. This

researcher’s MA and PhD research studies are among such studies. His PhD

research study (Hosseini, 2009), for example, was a comparative experimentalresearch study which sought to explore and examine the complex effects of

11



CTBL with SAC of Johnsons, and the traditional chalk-and-talk mode of

presentation or Traditional Lecture Method (TLM) on Iranian and Indian

undergraduate learners’: (a) reading comprehension in English, (b) languagelearning strategies, (c) attitudes towards English language learning and the

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

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

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

learning strategies, (c) generate positive attitudes, and (d) improve the

retention of information, on the part of the target groups more significantly

than the TLM. One important result of the study was that it was CTBL that

was more successful in developing the participants' metacognitive and

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

contributed more effectively to the improvement of the participants’ retentionof information. The study also provided evidence that it was CTBL that more

comprehensively contributed to the success of the lower performers.

The significant finding that CTBL was more effectively conducive to the

development of particularly metacognitive and affective strategies adds to the

value of this method because according to a number of researchers like

Graham (1997), these strategies are the most helpful strategies for effective

learning. This is because such strategies naturally call for more mental

engagement of the participants in course of learning. The significance of

metacognitive strategies lies in the help they can provide (language) learners totake control of their own learning and so build up their independence and

autonomy. More importantly, meta-cognition naturally involves critical

thinking, which is the very requirement for not merely language learning and

academic success but also for successful living especially in today world

context. Affective strategies are likewise favourable to intellectual motivation

and development of cognition and hence language and thinking abilities of

participants. That CTBL contributed more significantly to the participants’

long-term retention was also a significant result because it conveyed the idea

that this method developed the capability of the participants to apply their knowledge to new tasks after a long interval, which is the criterion for effective learning. In other words, CTBL was conducive to genuine learning

more effectively than the Johnsons' method.

Competitive Team-Based Learning, in sum, facilitated the development of

learning-how-to-learn skills and long-term retention rather than survival skills

and recognition memory of the participants, and significantly enhanced the

quality of knowledge the participants acquired.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The significance of the present study lies in its effort for comparing theeffectiveness of this researcher’s own instructional approach with one of the

12



most popular CL methods, which has been developed in the US. The value of

both the methods for language classes refers to their focus upon the pivotal

role of groupwork and discussion in language learning. Importantly, the studydelves into the effectiveness of these two Western oriented instructional

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

Momtaz and Garner (2010) and this researcher (Hosseini, 2000/2010) have

confirmed, in spite of the widespread research on the effectiveness of CL

methods in the West, there has been little research on their effectiveness in

non-Western educational environments, particularly in relation to EFL and

ESL. Another significant feature of this study is that it attempts to investigate

the effectiveness of CL methods at university classes. This is important

because the dominant belief is that the implementation of CL at university

level is not feasible. This is, perhaps, the main reason as to why most of researches have been focused on the effectiveness of CL at elementary and

intermediate levels. In addition, the present study intends to go deeper into the

gains different achievers may obtain out of different CL methods.

METHOD

Sample of the Study

Sixty eight EFL junior college students at Bojnord Azad University, in

Bojnord, in Iran, were the initial subjects. From among these participants ahomogeneous group of 40, who were tried to be at the same level in their

language proficiency, were selected based on their performance on the pre-test

to serve as the subjects for the present study. All subjects were female between

19 – 21 years of age. And they had studied English for seven years hitherto.

Materials

Instructional Materials

In this study, students' own textbook , ‘English for Students of Engineering’,

was used. It consisted of eight units each of which was covered within two

sessions of 90 minutes each. The topics included a range from ‘Lasers’ to‘Civil Engineering’ which were all interesting to the participants.

That students' own textbook was employed in the present study could possibly

have some merits: 1) Participants paid more attention to it rather than some

outside materials; 2) Difficulty level of the passages was geared to the level of

participants; and 3) Through using the participants’ own textbook, they most

probably could not guess they were participating in a study.

Testing Materials

A version of Comprehensive English Language Test (CELT) was

administered as the pre- and post-test in order to obtain the level of language proficiency of the target groups in the present study. This internationally

13



recognized test of language proficiency had already been piloted on a similar

group of 17 students. The test consisted of 75 vocabulary items, 75 structure

items, and 24 reading comprehension items for three passages. All the itemswere ‘multiple choice items’, and students had 90 minutes to do it. The reasons

for employing this test were twofold: 1) Its format was familiar to the target

groups of this study, which in turn brought the ‘unfamiliarity of the test’ effect

under control, and 2) Its level of difficulty was acceptable for Iranian students.

Additionally, to examine the participants’ conversational abilities, an oral test,

which this researcher had already developed, was employed. This test was

based on the content of students' book. It included four warm-up questions and

seven target questions. The target items were pilot tested with a similar

population at another college, and based on the results of the pilot test the

question prompts were revised.

Design and Procedure

A ‘Randomised Control-Group Pretest- Posttest Design’ was applied to serve

the purpose of the present study. This researcher selected this design because

randomisation process practically assures equivalency in many ways. For

example, some internal variables like maturation, contemporary historical

events, and pre-testing effects were controlled as both the groups experienced

an equal effect of these variables. Hence, the effects of these variables are

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

developments, extraneous variables that arise between pre-test and post-test,were also balanced out, due to the presence of randomised selected groups.

In the first session, in order to homogenize the participants according to their

language proficiency levels, the pre-test was administered to 68 students. On

the basis of the information obtained, 40 students who were nearly at themidpoint were chosen as the key informants. That is, scores that were very

high or too low on the test were discarded. Therefore, the 40 homogeneous

subjects were selected based on their performance on the pre-test to serve the

study for a whole academic semester. The term included 16 weeks, two

sessions of 90 minutes each a week. It is worth mentioning that by putting veryhigh or very low scores aside, the effect of statistical regression was also

eliminated. The participants were then randomly (every other one) assigned to

the experimental and control groups. With the intention to minimize the

reactive effect of the experimental procedure, this researcher did not let this

population know the fact that an experiment was being conducted. Afterwards,

the experimental group’s participants, in the CTBL class, were ranked in three

clusters of high achievers, average scorers, and low performers on the basis of

their performance in the pre-test. Subsequently, they were randomly allotted to

six teams so that each team had equal members of high-, average-, and low-achievers. The remained two learners worked in pair. In the control group (in

14



the SAC class), the participants were allowed to shape their own favourite

teams. Next, teams’ members, in both the classes, were arranged in specific

face-to-face settings. At this juncture, the importance and basic elements of both the methods were highlighted and explained to the respective target

groups.

During the course of experimentation, both the classes had the same instructor,

the same curriculum, and the same schedule of instruction. The difference was

that while the control group experienced language learning through SAC, the

experimental group experienced learning of the language through CTBL.

Participants, in the experimental group, also used a collaborative answeringtechnique called ‘Think, Pair, Share’. In this activity, after the teacher poses a

problem or question, students are required to ‘think’ over the given problemindividually in a limited time and then ‘pair up’ to discuss their ideas. They are

then asked to try to reach to a shared solution to the problem with their team

members. And lastly, they are expected to ‘share’ and negotiate their ideas

class-wide. The significance of this activity lies in the weight it puts on ‘wait-

time’ in course of learning and thereby contributing to active involvement of

students in the learning process. Additionally, it ushers in meaningful and

mutual communication and negotiation of meaning and ensures

comprehensible input and immediate feedback, in an environment of relaxed

learning for the acquisition of the language to occur.

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

After conducting the pre-test, an independent t-test was applied to verify the

pre-test results for both the groups (see Table 1).

Table 1 The data derived from the pre-test for both the groups

Groups N X S D T

Cont. G. 20 3.23 2.36 0.18

Exp. G. 20 3.1 2.17

D.F.= 38 P ≤ .05 t-critical =1.68

As indicated in table 1, the value of the calculated t was 0.18 which was lessthan the value of the t-critical (1.68) at 0.05 level of probability. Thus, the two

groups had little differences which were considered suitable for the purpose of

the present study.

At the end of the study, the results of computing the means of the post-test of

both the groups were tabulated:

Table 2 The data derived from the post-test for both the groups

Groups N X S D T

Cont. G. 20 10.77 2.31 4.33

15



Exp. G. 20 14.08 2.55

D.F.=38 P ≤ .05 t-critical =1.68

As shown in table 2, the results revealed that the t-observed (4.33) far

exceeded the value of the t-critical (1.68) at a probability level of P ≤ 0.05

which meant there had been a significant difference between the control and

the experimental groups’ performance on the post-test. Therefore, the

significant impact of CTBL on Iranian junior college students' language

proficiency was statistically proved. That is, compared to SAC, CTBL brought

far better results for Iranian junior college students in terms of developing their

language proficiency.

And as table 3 illustrates, the results of computing the t-observed for each skill

surpassed the value of the t-critical at a probability level of P ≤ 0.05.

Table 3 The data derived from the post-test for both the groups for (sub) skills

Dependent Variables Groups X SD t.O. D.F.

VocabularyCont. G. 2.82 1.36 1.71 38

Exp. G. 3.47 1.03

Grammar Cont. G. 2.77 1.55 1.76 38

Exp. G. 3.56 1.41

Reading Compréhension

Cont. G. 2.1 1.28 2.07 38

Exp. G. 2.97 1.4

Speaking

Cont. G. 3.25 1.31 2.4 38

Exp. G. 4.02 0.78

As table 3 indicates, CTBL has most significantly facilitated the development

of speaking abilities (t-observed = 2.4) of the target group of the present study.

Likewise, as shown in table 4, the data obtained from the pre- and the post-test

for the performance of high-, average-, and low- achievers of both the classes

were tabulated, analysed, and compared.

Table 4 The means of both the groups’ high, average, and low achievers in the

pre-and the post-tests

Pre-test Post-test Difference

Groups Cont. G. Exp. G. Cont. G. Exp. G. Cont. G. Exp. G.

Low Performers 19.2 18.74 23.69 28.48 4.49 9.47

Average Scorers 16 15.9 18.85 22.41 2.85 6.51

High Achievers 7.25 11 8.93 13.36 1.68 2.36

16



As it is illustrated in the above table, compared to SAC, CTBL had best

contributed to the development of language proficiency of low to average

performers.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

This study was conducted to probe the possible effects of this researcher’s

instructional approach, Competitive Team-Based Learning (CTBL), as

opposed to Structured Academic Controversy (SAC) method of CL, on

language proficiency of Iranian junior college students. It also aimed at

delving into the effects of the two teaching methods on the language

proficiency of the target group’s different achievers. After comparing

achievement for the two groups, it was found that the participants who weretaught through CTBL highly outperformed those who were taught through

SAC. The observed t-value (4.33) far exceeded the critical t-value (1.68) at 38

degree of freedom at p 05.0≤ level of significance. It was likewise noticed

that much more individual learning and understanding had occurred in theCTBL class in comparison with SAC. Also, it was interesting to note a

simultaneous increase in the students' prejudice (e.g., their persistence, with a

high motivation which sustained during the course, to ensure that each of their

team members had achieved a thorough understanding of whatever was being

discussed) and their tolerance of their opponents in CTBL class. This wasmostly due to the evaluation system and the leaning culture of this researcher’s

pedagogical approach.

The main reason for the success of CTBL may refer to the mechanismunderlying it. As noted, CTBL's highly structured settings hold all class

participants accountable and unleash their dammed creativity to the extent

possible and pave the way to new opportunities and real knowledge, and, of

course, make them really realise the joy of real learning in semi/authentic real-

world oriented situations.

As regards the second part of the research question, though all teams' members

made use of CTBL motivational and dialogic based settings, lower performers/

the marginalised students cultivated the best results out of the opportunities

this method provided them. But SAC best benefited high achievers. The

success of lower performers in CTBL class can be due to the sort of the

learning environment occasioned by the mechanism underlying this method.

CTBL evaluation system and its formula for team formation, for instance,

emphasize and facilitate active involvement of all participants, instead of the

few best or most extrovert students as it is in methods like SAC, in the

learning process. Contrary to the structures of groups in other methods of CL,the kind of team formation in CTBL does not allow high achievers to dominate

17



their groups' activities. As high achievers, lower performers have the

opportunities to talk, reason, and elaborate the material and their thoughts in

ways that others could understand them. More speaking opportunities per se is believed to be predictable of better SLA. CTBL situations solicit lower

performers' higher levels of cognition which in turn results to higher levels of

comprehending and understanding the material and consequently to the

improvement of their language proficiency. That is, in such situations they

have the opportunities to unlearn and/or relearn and deepen their

understandings of the material through tutoring and articulation of their

thoughts – they learn through teaching.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The importance of education particularly higher education as the necessarycondition for creating progressive and peaceful societies is dramatically

increasing in current rapidly changing global information environment. The

fact is that in order to achieve its main goals, academia has no option but to

move with the constant flux in the context of ongoing globalisation and

consider the realities of living in such a competitive-oriented context. And

English language can be appreciated as a powerful tool in such a context to

pursuit of such goals. Educators should realise that the English language is no

longer recognised as the language spoken in America, Australia, or England,

for instance. Nor is it deemed as a FL or a L2 any more. Also, gone are thedays when it was considered as the language of libraries which rendered

curriculum developers put the emphasis on merely reading in education

systems, as it is in countries like Iran. Rather, it is regarded as the language of

economy, politics, survival, mobility, and prosperity in this globe. The

significance of this international lingua franca (ELF) lies in the fact that it is a

critical prerequisite for obtaining global recognition via expressing intensions

and sharing values (Hosseini, 2007). In the light of this backdrop, this

researcher means to say that in the present world context

1. The development of language skills ought to be geared towards

communicative competence inasmuch as students need to develop their

language proficiency so that they could participate in the global

communication process more effectively, and

2. The stakeholders in the arena of Education should prioritise the significantimportance of interactive approaches to language learning and language

teaching. Such methods and approaches better reflect the realities of today

world context and so have the capacity to more comprehensively prepare

students for living in the present arena of globalisation.

This study provided data that reflects the needs of our classrooms and the real

world settings. The results provided by the present study can be of some help

18



to educators and especially EFL/ESL teachers. A thorough understanding of

the principles of CL methods in general and CTBL in particular can help them

to develop a range of tactics for creating more motivating as well as relaxingand process-oriented learning environments for the (language) learning to

occur which would enable their classes to become fully bonded, motivated,

activated, and engaged in the process of language learning.

One of the significant characteristics of this researcher’s instructional approach

refers to the fact that it highlights the importance of motivation among class

participants. Additionally, the mechanism underlying this method limits the

scope for social loafers and free riders who have the potential to endanger societies, let alone learning environments. Another significant feature of

CTBL is that it has systematically prioritized the element of ‘competition’ in participatory learning settings, which could also be supported by virtual

learning environments (see Hosseini, 2009), in order to reflect the realities of

today world. In CTBL contexts, students can acquire, learn, practice, and

develop skills needed both for language learning/academic success and for

more peaceful living in real competitive world situations, a task which is

seldom achieved through the traditional modes of education. CTBL has,

thereby, the capacity to better contribute not just to academic success of

students but also to their future professional and life success in the present-

world context, which exacts workforce/citizens who are empowered and

equipped for co-operation amidst competitive environments. CTBL can beappreciated in the sense that it prioritises the idea of teamwork as the very

demand of tomorrow’s citizenry and the outcomes students are likely to reap

out of teamwork, in course of time. It promotes their social behaviours and so

facilitates social cohesion, interdependence, collective and critical thinking,

and co-existence. It enables and equips students towards responsible social

citizenship and experiencing a sense of interpersonal fellowship and human

solidarity.

The paradox and of course the beauty of this researcher’s didactic innovation

refers to the fact that despite its surface structure, which seems to best benefithigh achievers who are in the habit of dominating their milieu, it is, in essence,

a method for harnessing this groups' potentials to the best advantage of the

lower performers without yet neglecting the former groups' zest and motivation

for continuing to shrine as the best in learning/living-for-all environments.

CTBL is, thereby, in essence, a method for the empowerment of the oppressed,

who are almost always the majority in today world context. And the point is

that the empowerment of the Other contributes to their liberation which results

in the transformation/elimination of the minority/dictators, who have been in

the habit of treating them as their possessions.

19



The results of this study might, as well, be of some help to material developers

to design and incorporate more motivating and challenging materials,

activities, and exercises in accordance with CTBL objectives. Materialdevelopers should develop their materials in such a way that ensures more

effective involvement of all team members in the process of learning for

achieving their shared learning goals in competitive environments, in order to

reap much more results out of class activities. Material developers, in word of

one syllable, should plan to supply students with the opportunities to learn

more about learning and to make more effective transitions to real world

settings, if they want to contribute to sustainable futures. Researchers are also

suggested to explore and compare the effects of CTBL vis-à-vis other

conventional methods through different dimensions. Far more research is

required to detect unknown areas and results of CTBL in different parts of theworld with different socio-cultural/economical/political backgrounds.

REFERENCES

Bejarano et al., (1997). The skilled use of interaction strategies: Creating a framework

for improved small group communicative interaction in the language classrooms.System, 25(2): 203 – 214.

Cooper, C. L. (1979). Learning from others in groups: Experiential learning

approaches. London: Associated Business Press.

DeVries, D., & Edwards, K. (1974). Student teams and learning games: Their effects on cross-race and cross-sex interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66 : 741 – 749.

Dewey, J. (1940). Education today. New York: Greenwood Press.

Dolan et al., (1979). Improving reading through group discussion activities. In E.

Lunzer & K. Gardner (Eds.), The effective use of reading (pp. 228 – 266). London:Schools Council.

Ghaith, G. M., & Yaghi, H. M. (1998). Effect of cooperative learning on the

acquisition of second language rules and mechanics. System, 26 : 223 – 234.

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

MA: Newbury House.Hosseini, S. M. H. (2000). The effects of competitive team-based learning on thereading 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. MysoreUniversity, India.

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

learning. Canadian Journal of English Language Teaching , 3(3): 229 - 243. Also,

[Online] Available at:

http: //www.ccsenet.org/journal/index/php/elt/article/viewFile/7236/5588

20



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

ELT/Education: The crucial need for a radical reform. Tehran: Jungle

Publications.

Jacobs, G. (1988). Cooperative goal structure: A way to improve group activities. ELT Journal , 42(2): 97 – 100.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1979). Conflict in the classroom: Controversy andlearning. Review of Educational Research, 49: 51-70.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1986). Academic conflict among

students: Controversy and learning. In R. S. Feldman (Ed.), The social psychology of

education: Current research and theory (pp. 199 – 231).

Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (2003). Models of teaching (5th ed.). New Delhi: Prentice-Hall

of India.

Liang et al., (1998). Issues of CL in ESL classes: A literature review. TESL Canada

Journal, 15(2): 13 – 23.

McCafferty et al., (Eds.). (2006). Cooperative learning and second language teaching .

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Momtaz, E. & Garner, M. (2010). Does collaborative learning improve EFL students’

reading comprehension? Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching , 1(1): 15-36.

Oxford, R. (1997). Cooperative Learning, Collaborative Learning, and Interaction.

The Modern Language Journal , 81: 443-452.

Pandian, M. (2007, August 8). Cooperative learning incorporating computer-mediated

communication: Participation, perceptions, and learning outcomes in a deaf education classroom. Language in India. Retrieved October 15, 2007, from

http://www.languageinindia.com/aug2007/deafcommunication.htm/

Pica et al., (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21:

737–758.

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

(2nd ed.). Cambridge: CUP.

Slavin, R. E. (1991). Group rewards make groupwork . Educational Leadership, 5,

89 – 91.

Stevens, R. J., Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E. & Farnish, A. M., (1987). Cooperativeintegrated reading and composition: Two field experiments. Reading Research Quarterly,

22:433-454.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. (1997). ESL standards for pre- K-12 students. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Topping, K. (1998). The peer tutoring handbook: Promoting co-operative learning .Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books, Croom Helm.

Yager et al., (1985). Oral discussion groups-to-individual transfer and achievement in

cooperative learning groups. Journal of Educational psychology, 77 (1): 60 – 66.

Zhang, Y. (2010). Cooperative language learning and foreign language learning and

teaching. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(1): 81 – 83.

21



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

22

a study of the effects of competitive team-based learning and structured academic controversy on the...

Documents