Document Type: Original Article

Authors

1 University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

2 Department of Education, Tabriz University, Tabriz, Iran

3 Islamic Azad University of Maragheh, Azarbayjan, Iran

4 Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

This study aims at investigating the effect of using cooperative learning (jigsaw2) and traditional learning on the reading comprehension achievement. In the present study, experimental research model consisting of pre-test, post-test with a control group was applied. The sample of the study consisted of 64 participants in grade three in Bonab high schools. To determine the effect of cooperative learning method on achievement in reading comprehension and the significance of difference between the scores of groups at 0.05 level were applied by analysis of covariance. the results of the analysis of covariance shows the effect of Jigsaw 2 ( control and experiment) on reading comprehension in post-test. The differences between means based on group members ( control and experiment) in post-test stage (the significant level α = .05) is significant. The amount of interaction effect is 18%. So these results confirm that Jigsaw2 learning method has significant effect on experiment group. Additionally, cooperative learning appeared to be more favourable for overcrowded classes. furthermore, the results indicated that cooperative learning  enhanced student- student interaction.

Keywords

Alhaidari, M.S. (2006). The effectiveness of using cooperative learning to promote reading comprehension, vocabulary, and fluency achievement scores of male fourth- and fifth- grade students in a Saudi Arabian school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.
Alharbi, L.A. (2008). The effectiveness of using cooperative learning method on ESL reading comprehension performance, students' attitudes toward CL, and students' motivation  toward reading of secondary stage in Saudi public girls' schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University.  
Aronson, E., Patnoe, S. (2011). Cooperation in the Classroom: The Jigsaw Method (3rd ed.). London: Pinter & Martin, Ltd.
Badawi, G.H. (2008). The effect of jigsaw II versus whole class instruction on EFL students’  reading  motivation  and achievement. Unpublished Master of Arts Thesis, America University of Beirut.
Crandall, J.J. (1999). Cooperative learning and affective factors. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in  language learning Cambridg Cambridge University Press. 226-245
Gillies, R.M. (2013). Structuring co-operative learning experiences in primary school. Available from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/37 627395
Jalilifar, A. (2009). The effect of cooperative learning  techniques  on  college  students’ reading  comprehension. System, 38(1), 96-108.
Kassim, S. (2006). An Initial Study of the Effects of Cooperative Learning on Reading Comprehension, Vocabulary, Acquisition and Motivation to Read. Reading Psychology, 27 (5) 377-403.
Khan, S. (2008). An experimental study to evaluate the effectiveness of cooperative learning versus traditional learning method. Ph.D thesis, International Islamic University, Islamabad.
Larsen-Freeman, D., Anderson M. (2013). Techniques and principles in language teaching (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rahvard, Z.J. (2010). Cooperative learning strategies and reading comprehension. California Linguistic Notes, 15- 21.

Richards, J.C., Schmid, R.W. (2013). Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Routledge.
Richards, J.C., Rodgers, T.S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). in chapter 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sax, G. (1980). Principles of educational and psychological measurement (2nd ed.). San   Francisco: Wadsworth.  
Shaaban, K., Ghaith, Gh. (2005). The theoretical relevance and efficacy of using cooperative  learning in the ESL/EFL classroom. TESL Reporter, 38, 14-28.
Slavin, R. E. (1994). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48 .71-82.