AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT
A thesis entitled:
THE EFFECT OF JIGSAW II VERSUS WHOLE CLASS INSTRUCTION ON EFL STUDENTS’ READING MOTIVATION AND ACHIEVEMENT
by GHINA HASSAN AL BADAWI
submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Arts
to the Department of Education
of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences
at the American University of Beirut
Dr. Ghazi Ghaith, Professor Advisor
Dr. Kassim Shaaban, Professor Member of Committee
Dr. Rula Diab, Assistant Professor Member of Committee
Date of the thesis defense: June 8, 2005
American univeristy of beirut
AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF
Ghina Hassan Al Badawi for Master of Arts
Major: Teaching of English as a Foreign Language
Title: The Effect of Jigsaw II versus Whole Class Instruction on EFL Students’
Reading Motivation and Achievement
This study aims at investigating the question of whether Jigsaw II is more effective than whole class instruction in improving learners' reading achievement and motivation. The participants are 44 grade five students in a private school in Lebanon. The students were randomly assigned to control and experimental conditions and a post-test only control group design was employed. The experimental group was instructed according to the dynamics of the Jigsaw II method whereas the control group was taught according to whole class instruction. The treatment lasted for eight weeks. Two posttests GMRT and MRP were administrated at the conclusion of the study. The GMRT assesses two dimensions of reading comprehension: a) vocabulary acquisition and b) reading comprehension. The MRP assesses two dimensions of reading motivation a) reading self-concept and b) reading value. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to compare the results of both groups. The treatment with two levels (control and experimental) was the factor, and reading comprehension, vocabulary acquisition, reading self concept, reading value and reading motivation were the dependent variables. Results indicated that Jigsaw had a significant effect on students' self concepts as reader, the value they place on reading and their reading motivation. However, no significant differences were found in favor of Jigsaw II on the variables of vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension.
1.1. Significance of the Study …………………………………………….......
1.2. Definition of the Variables ……………………………………………….
1.2.1. The Independent Variables ……………………………………...
184.108.40.206. Jigsaw II ………………………………………………...
220.127.116.11. Whole Class Instruction ………………………………...
1.2.2. The Dependent Variables ………………………………………..
18.104.22.168. Reading comprehension ………………………………...
22.214.171.124. Reading Motivation ……………………………………..
1.3. Statement of the Hypotheses ……………………………………………..
1.4. Rationale for the Hypotheses …………………………………………….
1.4.1. Hypotheses 1-2 …………………………………………………..
1.4.2. Hypotheses 3-4-5 ………………………………………………..
2. A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ……...…………………..
2.1. Cooperative Learning Models ……………………………………………
2.2. Theoretical Background ………………………………………………….
2.3. Cooperative Learning and Academic Achievement ……………………..
2.4. Jigsaw and Academic Achievement……………………………………...
2.5. Cooperative learning and Motivation …………………………………...
2.6. Jigsaw and Motivation …………………………………………………..
2.7 Summary ………………………………………………………………….
3. METHODOLOGY ...………………………………………………………...
3.1. Subjects …………………………………………………………………..
3.2. Instructional Material …………………………………………………….
3.3. Instruments ……………………………………………………………….
3.4. Experimental Design ……………………………………………………..
3.5. Procedure ………………………………………………………………...
3.6. Data Analysis……………………………………………………………..
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION…………………………………………..
4.1. Descriptive Statistics……………………………………………………..
4.2. Interpretation of Results…………………………………………………
CL Cooperative Learning
MRP Motivation to Read Profile
GMRT Gates - McGinitie Reading Test
Cooperative Learning (CL) is a generic term for an instructional approach that has received considerable attention in educational research and practice at various grade levels and in various subject areas. The CL methods and structures can be categorized into various instructional models that include the Structural Approach (Kagan, 1989), Group Investigation (Sharan & Sharan, 1992), Student Team Learning (Slavin, 1995), Curriculum Packages (Slavin, Leavy, &Madden, 1986) and Learning Together (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1991). These models follow the principles of positive interdependence, individual accountability, heterogeneous grouping of students and equal opportunities for class participation and success ( Kluge, McGuire, Johnson & Johnson,1999 )
The literature includes hundreds of studies that have compared CL to individualistic or competitive instruction. The results of these studies are inconclusive and context-specific. Some studies have reported that CL produces the best student performance while others indicated that competitive or individualistic instruction is superior. For instance, Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson and Skon (1981), after doing meta – analysis of research on CL, reached the following conclusion: “the overall effects stand as strong evidence for the superiority of cooperation in promoting achievement and productivity” (Johnson et al., 1981, p. 58). Similarly, Stevens, Slavin, and Farnish (1987) and Stevens, Maddin, Slavin, and Farnish (1991), after conducting three experimental studies comparing CL to traditional methods of teaching, reported that CL has a positive effect on scores from standardized tests of reading comprehension, reading vocabulary, language expression, mechanics, and spelling. Along similar lines, Slavin (1991) reported that CL has a positive effect on academic achievement, mainstreaming, intergroup relations, and self esteem. However, other studies showed that CL is not superior to other forms of instruction. For instance, Micheal (1977) based on evidence from ten studies, concluded that competition produced higher individual achievement than did CL. Furthermore, Slavin (1983) reported that out of 46 studies measuring the effect of the CL method on student achievement in different subjects “29 (63%) showed CL methods to have significantly positive effects on students achievement, 15 (33%) found no differences, and 2 (4%) found higher achievement for a control group than for cooperative treatment” (Slavin, 1983, p. 434).
The Jigsaw II method is a CL method that has received considerable attention in the domains of research and practice. It belongs to the Student Team Learning model. It was developed by Aronson et al (1978), and labeled as Jigsaw II by Slavin (1986). Previous research on this CL method also yielded inconclusive results with respect to its effect, in particular, on improving achievement. ( Slavin, 1980; Sharan, 1980; Johnson, Johnson & Stanne, 2002). More specifically, Slavin (1980) reported that a positive effect of Jigsaw II on achievement has been found in one study that lasted for two weeks but a second study and two pilot studies preceding it found no differences between Jigsaw II and the control group on achievement. Slavin concluded that the effects of the Jigsaw method “are unclear for academic achievement, race relation, liking of school, and mutual concern” (Slavin, 1980, P. 331). Along similar lines, Sharan (1980) reviewed four studies that used the Jigsaw method. A significant gain in achievement was found for minority group children but no significant gains or losses were found for white children. Similarly, Johnson, Johnson and Stanne (2002) reported some minimal effect sizes in favor of the Jigsaw II method in comparison with competitive and individualistic instruction. These researchers reached their conclusion after nine comparisons between Jigsaw II and competitive instruction and five comparisons between Jigsaw II and individualistic instruction.
A closer look at the studies done on CL reveals that most of them were done in the USA (Ghaith & Yaghi, 1998). Few studies were conducted in Lebanon; these also yielded inconclusive results with respect to the effect of CL on reading achievement and motivation. For instance, Ghaith (2002) reported that the Learning Together cooperative learning model and the degree of academic support provided by teachers are positively correlated with achievement. Likewise, Ghaith (2003) reported that CL methods, in general, produce better classroom climate and better achievement. However, Ghaith and Bouzeineddine (2003) reported that the participants’ perception of their Jigsaw II cooperative learning experience was found to be unrelated to their reading attitude, self and school attitude and reading achievement, although low achievers enjoyed their Jigsaw II experience. The participants in most of the abovementioned studies were university students. In fact, the only experimental study in Lebanon, which examined the effect of Jigsaw II method in particular, on reading achievement and attitude, was done on university bound students - students accepted for university study and enrolled in EFL intensive courses (Ghaith & Abd El-Malak, 2004). No studies were done in Lebanon on the effect of Jigsaw II on the achievement of students in the second cycle of basic education. Ghaith and Abd El-Malak’s (2004) study addressed the question of whether the Jigsaw II method is more effective than whole class instruction in improving the literal and higher order reading comprehension of EFL university-bound students. The results revealed a statistically significant difference in favor of Jigsaw II on higher order comprehension but not on literal EFL reading comprehension.
The preceding review suggests that the effects of CL methods in general, and Jigsaw II specifically, on achievement could not be determined with certainty and remain controversial. Moreover, they mostly come from American settings. Therefore, there’s a need for further studies that investigate the effect of the Jigsaw II method on reading achievement in order to generalize the results to other populations in different cultural and linguistic contexts. There is as well a need to address the effectiveness of the Jigsaw II method in the non-cognitive domains of schooling.
Consequently, the present study set to examine the effect of the Jigsaw II method on reading achievement and motivation of 5th grade students in an EFL context. The study addresses the following questions:
1- Is Jigsaw II more effective than whole class instruction in improving the reading achievement of EFL elementary students?
2- Does Jigsaw II increase the reading motivation of EFL elementary students?
Significance of the Study
The rationale for this study is based on several factors. First, this study attempts to explicate the connection between CL, specifically Jigsaw II, and EFL learners’ motivation and achievement, since the evidence in support of the superiority of Jigsaw II as a framework for instruction which increases achievement is mixed. Second, there’s no recent research on the effect of Jigsaw II on the value students place on reading and students’ self-concepts as readers in the Lebanese context where Arabic is the students’ first language and English or French is their foreign language. Third, the possible applications of using the Jigsaw II method in teaching English in Lebanon have not been thoroughly investigated yet. It is important to check whether CL methods are feasible and effective in a country where there’s pressure on students to compete against each other from parents and teachers. Consequently, this study might have pedagogical implications. On the practical side, teachers might benefit from the results of this study and become more informed regarding the use of Jigsaw II or whole class instruction in their classes to promote reading achievement and motivation.
Definition of Variables
The Independent Variables
There are two levels of the independent variable. The first one is the Jigsaw II method and the second is the whole class direct instruction.
Jigsaw II: The Jigsaw II method has six elements as:
1- Forming learning teams: Teachers assign students into heterogeneous teams of four or five students.
2- Forming expert groups: Each member of the learning team is assigned to an expert group. Each expert group focuses on only one point of the lesson or one part of the reading selection, discusses it and becomes experts on it. The teacher circulates and assists students by answering their questions, and offering encouragement and direction where needed.
3- Team report: Once the students become experts they return to their learning teams to share their expertise and explain to them everything they’ve learned in their expert teams.
4- Individual assessment: Students take individual tests and get individual grades.
5- Calculation of improvement scores: First the teacher should decide on the base scores of the students, which are their average scores on previous quizzes. Then, the teacher compares these base scores to the scores on individual quizzes and decides on improvement points according to this formula suggested by Slavin
( 1995 ) :
Individual Quiz Scores
More than 10 points below base score
10 points below to 1 point below base score
Base score to 10 points above base score
More than 10 points above base score or perfect score
6- Recognition of team accomplishments: Improvement points are calculated for each member and then averaged for the team. Teams are then awarded recognition according to these guidelines.
Good Team: Average team improvement score 5-10
Great Team: Average team improvement score 11-20
Super Team: average team improvement score higher than 20.
Teachers may offer elaborate certificates or additional prizes such as no homework permits or other tokens. (Cooper, 1989).
Whole Class Instruction: This is a form of direct instruction in which the teacher is the primary dispenser of knowledge. Students are rewarded according to their own performance regardless of other students’ performances. In fact, this method follows the following steps:
(1) Teacher directed instruction: Initial instruction is always done by the teacher. The teacher introduces key vocabulary words and their meaning, sets a purpose for reading, explains and leads discussions about the reading selection.
(2) Individual practice: After reading the selection silently and aloud and discussing it with the teacher, students do individually some follow up activities practicing of new vocabulary, and answering comprehension questions.
(3) Individual assessment: Students are individually assessed on their learning of content or skills presented in the lesson and practiced in the follow-up activities.
The Dependent Variables
There are two levels of the dependent variables: reading comprehension and reading motivation.
Reading Comprehension Reading comprehension involves several abilities such as identification of main ideas, facts and details, referents, vocabulary knowledge, ability to draw inferences, identifying author’s purpose and judging organization of a selection (Wolter, 1986). Burns, Roe and, Ross (1996) classified reading comprehension into four different types, literal, interpretive, critical and creative. Literal comprehension encompasses comprehension of information that is directly stated. Interpretive comprehension is related to reading between the lines to derive ideas that are implicitly stated. Critical comprehension is related to the ability to evaluate written material. Creative comprehension involves going beyond the material to visualize, predict outcomes and produce new ideas based on what is read. In the present study, reading comprehension is looked at as an integrated whole, which means that the focus is on constructing meaning according to the different types of learning-literal and higher order. It is determined by students’ scores on the vocabulary and comprehension subtests of the Gates-McGinitie Reading Test, Fourth Edition.
Reading Motivation: Two dimensions of reading motivation are looked at. The first is value of reading, which is generally defined as individual’s attitude and feeling towards the importance of reading. It gives information about “the value students place on reading tasks and activities, particularly in terms of frequency of engagement and reading-related activities” (Gambrell et al., 1996, p.522). The second is individual’s self-concept, which is related to his/her self-esteem. It gives information about students’ self-perceived competence and performance with respect to other peers. The reading motivation variable as a whole reveals whether Jigsaw II affects aspects related to child beliefs of his own self efficacy in reading, reading involvement, reading curiosity, reading competition, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to read, and social attitudes of reading like reading to family or friends, or visiting libraries. The reading motivation is measured by students’ scores on the two subscales (value of reading and self concept as a reader) of the Motivation to Read Profile (Appendix I).
Statement of the Hypotheses
The study aims at testing the following five hypotheses:
HO1: There’s no statistically significant difference in reading comprehension between the students who receive Jigsaw II instruction and those who receive whole class instruction.
HO2: There’s no statistically significant difference in vocabulary knowledge between students who receive Jigsaw II instruction and those who receive whole class instruction.
HO3: There’s no statistically significant difference in students’ self-concept as readers between the students who receive Jigsaw II and those who receive whole class instruction.
HO4: There’s no statistically significant difference in the value students place on reading between students who receive Jigsaw II and those who receive whole class instruction.
HO5: There’s no statistically difference in reading motivation between students who receive Jigsaw II instruction and those who receive whole class instruction.
Rationale for the Hypotheses
Hypotheses 1-2: These hypotheses are proposed as null hypotheses because of the inconsistent results of the studies done on the effect of Jigsaw II method on achievement. Johnson, Johnson and Stanne (2002) reported minimal effect sizes in favor of Jigsaw II method. However, Aronson et. al (1975) found that Jigsaw II resulted in better achievement of fifth and sixth graders. Slavin (1980) concluded that the results of the Jigsaw methods are unclear with respect to academic achievement. Likewise, Slavin (1995), after reviewing thirteen studies of Jigsaw, reached the conclusion that the findings of the studies “are highly variable” (p.30), since some of them found no substantial differences in achievement while others did.
Hypotheses 3-4-5: Cooperative learning tends to motivate students through the use of extrinsic awards such as certificates and grades. Slavin (1991) reported that cooperative learning has a positive effect on liking school, development of peer norms, cooperativeness, and altruism. Ghaith and Bouzeineddine (2003) reported that low achievers enjoyed their CL experience more than high achievers. In fact, motivating students is in the heart of cooperative learning. However, some studies failed to confirm that Jigsaw has a positive effect on promoting positive changes in attitudes (Moskowitz et al, 1983, & Gonzales, 1979, 1981, cited in Slavin, 1995). Therefore, it was hypothesized that there is no statistically significant difference in students’ self concept as readers, students’ value of reading, and reading motivation between students who receive instruction through the Jigsaw II method and those who receive whole class instruction.
A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Cooperative Learning (CL) has been the center of a considerable body of research over the past few decades. This focus was mainly induced because many studies have showed the superiority of CL methods over other methods of instruction. At present, many researchers are researching CL methods to check their feasibility and effectiveness. In this literature review we will shed some light on the main CL models, develop a theoretical background and review research studies related to CL and reading achievement and motivation and also research studies related to Jigsaw II method and reading motivation and achievement.
Cooperative Learning Models
Cooper (1989) defined cooperative learning as "an instructional task design that engages students actively in achieving a lesson objective through their own efforts and the efforts of their small team" (p.273). There are different CL methods but all of them share the following four features. First is positive interdependence. It is the spirit of all for one and one for all. The second is individual accountability that is the group cannot reach success unless every individual succeeds. The third essential feature is forming heterogeneous teams. Students in the same group must be of mixed ability, gender, and ethnicity, if possible. The final feature is equal opportunity for success for class and student which means that students contribute to their teams by improving their past performance. The methods and structures of CL are categorized into various models including Learning Together, Group Investigation, Curriculum Packages, The Structural Approach, and Student Team Learning (Kluge et al., 1999).
Learning Together is a CL method developed and researched by David and Roger Johnson at the University of Minnesota. It focuses on four elements, namely face to face interaction, positive interdependence, individual accountability, and interpersonal and group skills. This method recommends using giving grades and not certificates for teams. It also recommends using cooperative controversy, in which students of the same group discuss a controversial issue and reach consensus.
Group Investigation is a task specialization method developed by John Dewey and refined and researched by Shlomo and Yael Sharan and Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz. Group Investigation is suitable for subjects like history and culture. Students seek information form sources inside and outside the classroom. Students then produce a group product from the information contributed by each member.
The Structural Approach is a cooperative learning model developed by Kagan. This model considers lessons, as "composition of interlocking parts" (Cooper 1989, p.276). It uses cooperative structures to serve purposes such as "team building, class building, mastery, thinking skills, information sharing and communication skills" (Cooper 1989, p.276).
Student Team Learning is a CL model developed and researched by Robert Slavin at the John Hopkins University. Three concepts are central to this model, namely team reward, individual accountability, and equal opportunity for success. The Jigsaw method belongs to this model (Slavin, 1995). Slavin (1995), in a review of the Jigsaw II method, stated, "Jigsaw II can be used whenever the material is in a narrative form. It is most appropriate for subjects as social studies, literature… the instructional raw material for Jigsaw II should usually be a chapter, story, biography, or similar narrative or descriptive material" (p.122). Thus, this method was selected in this study because of its appropriateness to be used with subjects like English.
Researchers have used many theoretical models to explain the superiority of cooperative learning in comparison with traditional methods. These theories are divided into two major categories: motivational and cognitive (Slavin, 1995). Motivational theorists stress mainly the reward or goal structures under which students work (Slavin, 1995). For example, Johnson and Johnson (1991) identified three goal structures: cooperative, where every person's effort assists others’ achievement; competitive, where every person's effort hinders other's goal attainment; and individualistic, where the individual's goal-oriented efforts do not have any effects on other's goal accomplishment. From a motivational point of view, cooperative goal structures establish a situation where the only way to attain goals is through the group's success. Therefore, to meet these personal goals, group members need to help their teammates do whatever makes the group succeed by urging them to give their maximum energy and effort (Johnson & Johnson, 1981; Slavin, 1983). Motivational theorists criticize traditional classroom structures because they are organized in a way that encourages competitive grading and informal reward system. Such an organization produces peer norms that curtail academic efforts. This is because one student's success reduces the opportunities of others’ success. However, when students work towards a common goal, they encourage each other's learning, reinforce one another's academic efforts, and show norms favoring academic achievement (Slavin, 1983).
Cognitive theories emphasize the effort of working together. There are different cognitive theories, which fall into two main categories: developmental theories and cognitive elaboration theories (Slavin, 1990). The basic assumption of the developmental theories is that children's interaction around appropriate tasks increases their mastery of critical concepts (Damon, 1984). From the developmental theorists' point of view, students will learn from one another because in their discussions of the content, cognitive arguments will appear, inadequate reasoning will be shown, and higher quality understandings will arise (Cohen, 1994). As for cognitive elaboration theories, research in cognitive psychology has found that if information is to be retained in long term memory, in addition to relating it to information already found in memory; the learners need to engage in some sort of cognitive restructuring or elaboration of the material (Dansereau, 1985). In fact, a number of cognitive theorists have suggested that cooperative learning can be an important element of cognitive apprenticeship (Brown & Campione, 1986). Cognitive apprenticeship involves initial instruction and models, coaching, scaffolding (prompts or support) and fading. In cognitive apprenticeship, students gradually take more responsibility as the cognitive support is decreased (Brown & Campione 1986). In cooperative learning settings, peers supply each other with encouragement and assistance. They explain strategies to each other using their own words, which help them in the mastery of complex cognitive activity (Woodward, 1995). Moreover, observing and practicing in cognitive tasks help the learners internalize the cognitive functions they are trying to master (Vygosty, 1977, cited in Slavin, 1990). Cooperative activity encourages the learners to reflect upon their knowledge so as to make generalizations, which they can transmit, to their peers (Stevens, Slavins, & Farnish 1991; Woodward, 1995).
Cooperative Learning and Academic Achievement
Slavin (1991) conducted a synthesis of research on cooperative learning. He found out that sixty-seven studies measured the effect of cooperative learning on student achievement. These studies established that when students work in heterogeneous groups and are rewarded, they achieve more than students who are in traditionally taught classes. He also found out that cooperative learning methods work equally well for all types of students. While occasional studies find particular advantage for high or low achieves, boys or girl, the great majority find equal benefits to all types of students (Slavin, 1990). He also found out that high achievers gain from cooperative learning just as much as low and average achievers. Cooperative learning works equally well in urban, suburban and rural schools (Slavin 1990). As with earlier reviews by Slavin (1980, 1983) and Newmann and Thompson (cited in Slavin, 1990), Slavin's review (1990) concluded that cooperative learning methods could be effective on achievement only if they involve group goals and individual accountability.
Uttero (1988) stated that cooperative learning is conductive to activating students' prior knowledge. Children discuss and share ideas with others. This encourages them to actively participate in their learning. They also extend their cultural awareness and their knowledge base when they work with students from different ethnic background. Cooperative learning fosters high-level reasoning and problem solving skills (Sharan, 1980). The sharing of ideas and opinions contributes to the completion of high-level tasks such as divergent thinking, decision-making and conceptual attainment (Johnson & Johnson, 1991). Furthermore, the two longest studies of Group Investigation conducted by Sharan and Shachar (1988) also found significant effects on academic achievement and high-level learning. Stevens, Slavin, and Farnish (1991) and Stevens, Maddin, Slavin, and Farnish (1987) conducted three experimental studies comparing cooperative learning with the traditional methods and found out positive effects on scores from standardized tests of reading comprehension, reading vocabulary, language expression, mechanic and spelling. Wheeler and Ryan (1973) examined the effect of cooperative and competitive classroom environment on the attitudes and achievement of elementary school children in a study that lasted for 18 days. Results indicated the students in the cooperative classroom liked the class, sharing information, liking one another and talking with one another however, no significant difference was found on achievement. McGuire’s (1992) study, which was done on 87 university students, reported that although students in cooperative learning groups outperformed individual learners in many measures, both groups performed equally well on other measures.
Jigsaw and Academic Achievement
Despite the aforementioned positive effects of CL on achievement, research on the effectiveness of the Jigsaw method specifically on achievement did not yield conclusive result. Moskowitz, Malvin Schaeffer, Schaps (1985) conducted a study to evaluate Jigsaw. Eleven teachers of fifth grade classes received in-service training on how to implement Jigsaw then conducted it in their classes over a year. Students received a pretest and a posttest assessing attitudes towards self, peers and school. In addition to that achievement and attendance records were collected. The process evaluation revealed that the quality and frequency of Jigsaw implementation varied greatly. Jigsaw failed to have positive effects on the variables even in the five classes in which it was implemented proficiently. Thompson and Pledgers’ (1998) study also failed to document any significant differences in the scores of the students taught by the lecture method versus student taught by Jigsaw. The study was done on a sample of fifty university student, who were divided into two groups: 27 students learned course material through traditional lecturing and 23 students learned the material through Jigsaw. Ghaith and Abd El-Malak (2004) reported no significant differences between the control group and the experimental on the dependent variables of overall reading comprehension and literal comprehension although the results showed significant difference on the variable of higher order comprehension. Their study was done on university bound students and lasted for 10 sessions. Lucker, Rosenfield, Sikes, and Aronson (1976) contrasted learning by the Jigsaw method with learning by the whole class method with respect to elementary academic achievement. The participants in this study were 242 white, 25 Mexican-American and 26 black children. The study lasted for two weeks at the rate of 45 minutes each day. Data on academic achievement were obtained from a 37 item test containing true / false, multiple-choice and matching questions. Findings revealed a significant gain for minority students but no significant gain or losses for white students. Holliday (2002) investigated whether jigsaw II can improve the academic achievement of middle school students. The subjects were seven graders in two classes. The two classes consisted of 20 at risk students and one control group of 24 high achievers. Results indicated that Jigsaw worked well and improved the achievement of the at risk student. Box and Little’s (2003) study, which was done on 125 third graders, showed that the use of Jigsaw approach combined with advanced organizers positively affect both the academic achievement and the self concept of elementary students.. Johnson, Johnson and Stanne (2000), after doing nine comparisons between Jigsaw II and competitive instruction and five comparisons between Jigsaw II and individualistic instruction, reported minimal effect sizes of 0.29 and 0.13 in favor of the Jigsaw method on comprehension. Slavin (1995) reviewed the outcomes of thirteen studies on the Jigsaw method. Eleven of them evaluated the Jigsaw method which was developed by Aronson et. al (1975) and two evaluated the Jigsaw II method which was developed by Slavin (1986). Slavin reported the following:
"the findings of both sets of students are highly variable. Two studies (Moskowitz et.al, 1985; Tomblim & Davis, 1985) found significantly higher achievement in control groups than in Jigsaw. On the other hand, studies in Israel by Reuven Lazarowtiz (1990), Lazarowitz & Karsenty (1990) in high school biology classes showed significant positive effects of Jigsaw, as did a study in Nigeria (Okebukola, 1985)… Of two studies of Jigsaw II, one (Phelps, 1990) found no significant differences in achievement, while the other (Mathingly & Van Sickle, 1991) found substantial positive effects of this method on geography achievement". (P.30).
Cooperative Learning and Motivation
The interest in cooperative learning and motivation emanated from a firm belief that affective aspects of education are equal in importance to cognitive aspects and that they are often neglected. Out of this neglect a very dangerous problem spread - illiteracy, which has been defined as the lack of reading habit especially such a lack in capable readers who choose not to read. Palmer, Codling, and Gambrel (1994) found out that teachers are in a position to have a positive impact on children's motivation to read through careful planning. Smith's (1990) findings underscored the importance of developing good reading attitudes among children since these affect them later in life. Kush and Watkins (1996) found out that there's stability in reading attitude especially with respect to girls. Parker and Paradis (1986) checked whether attitudes change as a student progresses form grades one to six. A difference was found between grades 4 and 5 where students exhibit a more positive attitude. Baker and Wigfield (1999) found out that reading activity that is how much student read is highly correlated with reading achievement. Worthy, Moorman, and Turner (1999) reported that reading motivation is related to reading preference and reading achievement. Wigfield and Gutherie (1997) found that reading motivation highly correlates with the amount and breadth of reading.
Cooperative learning intends to motivate students through the use of extrinsic awards such as certificates and grades. Slavin (1991) stated that "classroom research over two decades has consistently found that… the positive effect of cooperative learning on student achievement depend on the use of group rewards. Almost every study of cooperative learning in which the cooperative classes achieved more than traditional control groups used some sort of group reward (p.89). In fact, motivating students is in the heart of cooperative learning. Research studies showed that cooperative learning has an effect on variety of variables such as "liking school, development of peer norms in favor of doing well academically, feelings of individual control over the student's own fate in school, and cooperativeness and altruism" (Slavin, 1991, p.80).
Tedesco (1999) did a literature review on the effect of cooperative learning on self esteem and concluded that self esteem is improved in CL classes due to positive peer relations and improved academic achievement. The researcher also reported that students in Cooperative Learning classes develop social skill, learn to solve problem and have a better understanding of cultures. Along similar lines, Lynch (1991) stated that self-concept mediates the relationship between Cooperative Learning and academic achievement. He reached this conclusion after conducting a study on ninety-eight students in a high school and getting results that indicated that students in cooperative classes had higher scores on the measures of self-concept. Similarly, Johnson, Johnson and Taylor (1993) reported that high ability students in the cooperative condition performed better than high ability students in the individualistic conditions and that the academic self-esteem of the high ability student in the cooperative conditions was also higher than that of the high ability student in the individualistic condition.
Jigsaw and Motivation
Most of the studies done on the effectiveness of Jigsaw on promoting better attitudes showed the superiority of this method to other forms of instruction. Blaney, Stephan, Rosenfield, Aronson and Sikes (1977) studied whether Jigsaw improves liking of school, self-esteem, feeling liked by classmates, and interest in cooperative or competitive activities with classmates. Three hundred and four students of different ability levels, sex, and ethnic background were divided into groups. These groups met three times a week for six weeks. The results of this study showed that Jigsaw has a positive effect on liking for one's group and self-esteem. Aronson, Blaney, Rosenfield, Sikes and Stephan (1977) conducted an experimental study using a cooperative form of small grouping with regular classroom instruction. Results indicated that students who received small group instruction gained in self-esteem while a decrease in self esteem occurred in the control groups. Sharan (1980) reviewed an unpublished doctoral dissertation by Geffner which studied changes in students' attitudes towards themselves, their classmates and their school. After implementing Jigsaw for 8 weeks, the results showed that students working in Jigsaw groups maintained a positive attitude towards themselves in terms of their self-esteem and academic abilities, towards their classmates, and towards school, while in traditional classrooms all students showed lower perceptions. Slavin (1995) made a synthesis of research on Jigsaw and reported that in Jigsaw, “students are made to feel important because they have information that is indispensable to the group…Geffner (1978), Lazarowitz, Baird, Bowlden, and Hertz Lazarowitz (1982) found positive effects of Jigsaw on student self-esteem on the other hand, no differences were found by Gonzales(1979,1981)” (p.60). Slavin and Karweit (1981) conducted a study that favored the Jigsaw method in producing greater general and academic self-esteem. This study combined three CL methods, namely, Jigsaw, STAD and TGT. It also showed that students working cooperatively expressed less anxiety. Box and Little’s (2003) study showed that the use of Jigsaw approach combined with advanced organizers positively affect the self concept and academic achievement of elementary students. The subjects were 125 third graders. However, Moskowitz, Malvin, Schaffer, and Schaps (1983) failed to confirm their hypothesis that Jigsaw had a positive effect on promoting positive changes in students' attitudes and behaviors with regard to themselves and school. They commented, "The results were disappointing … an obvious explanation for failure to confirm hypothesis would be the weak implementation of the strategy (p.693). Their study was done on grade six students and lasted for a whole year. Similarly, Ghaith and Bouzeineddine's (2003) study revealed that the students' perception of their Jigsaw II experience was unrelated to their reading attitude, reading achievement and self and school attitude. However, the study also showed that low achievers enjoyed their Jigsaw experience more than high achievers which may suggest the use of Jigsaw to improve the attitude of low achievers. The study was done on eight grade students and lasted for twelve weeks.
In the preceding review, we shed some light on some main CL
models, developed a theoretical background, and reviewed research studies related to the effect of Cooperative Learning, in general, and Jigsaw II, specifically, on academic achievement and motivation. The preceding review revealed that cooperative learning, in general, has a positive effect on achievement and motivation. However, when specifically examining the Jigsaw II cooperative learning method, the results were not as consistent, since some studies found no substantial differences in achievement while others did. Moreover, no firm conclusion were established regarding the effect of Jigsaw II on reading motivation, although most of the studies reviewed showed the superiority of this method to other forms of instruction on the affective aspects of schooling.
This chapter includes a description of the subjects, instructional material, measuring instruments, procedure, and study design. The description of the subjects defines the population, from which the sample was selected, the characteristics of the sample, in addition to the procedural technique for selecting the sample. The two instruments, the MRP and the GMRT tests, are also described in addition to the method and time needed for their completion. The instructional material, the reading selections, in addition to the worksheets, expert sheets, and quizzes prepared for the sake of implementing this study are also described. The procedure section described all the steps that are followed to conduct the study. Finally, the chapter describes the design of this study, which presents the hypotheses formulated to address the questions of the study and suggests the statistical analyses used.
Forty-four Grade 5 students at a private elementary school in Beirut participated in this study. Twenty-six of the children were boys and eighteen were girls. The children were from a low socioeconomic background as judged by the low tuition fee. The school belongs to a philanthropic association. They were racially and ethnically from the same group. Permission to participate in this study was obtained from school administrators, parents, and the participants themselves. The subjects were randomly assigned into one of two sections A and B. One section was randomly selected as the control group and the other as the experimental group.
Since the study lasted for eight weeks, students read five reading
selections of different genres including biography, autobiography, talltale, realistic fiction, and science fiction. The reading selections were “La Bamba” by Gary Soto, “The Growin’ of Paul Bunyan” by William J. Brooke, “El Chino” by Allen Say, “Memories of Fifth Grade” by Jean Little, and “Little Green Men” by Barry Longyear. These selections are part of their theme-based reading program, Scott Foresman’s Celebrate Reading (1997). Lesson plans for each selection were prepared for both experimental and control groups (see sample in Appendix II). Material for both the experimental and control group were also prepared. Materials for the experimental group consisted of four expert sheets, a quiz, and answer keys for both expert sheets and quizzes for each selection (see Appendix III) Material for the control group consisted of work sheets and their answer keys for each selection (see Appendix IV). The questions of the work sheets of the experimental and the control groups were similar except that for the experimental group, they were distributed over four parts each corresponding to a reading part.
To assess reading motivation, the Reading Survey of the Motivation to Read Profile (MRP) was used (see Appendix I). It is a self-report, group-administered instrument developed by Gambrell, Palmer, Colding, and Mazzoni (1996). The survey of the MRP assesses two dimensions of reading motivation: the value that the reader places on reading and his self-concept as a reader. It consists of twenty items. Ten of them (2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20) assess the value of reading and the other ten (1,2,5,7,9,11,13,15,17,19) assess self-concept as a reader. The items that focus on self-concept give us an idea about students’ self assessment of their reading competence and performance. The items that focus on the value of reading gives us an idea about the value students place on reading tasks and activities, specifically with respect to their frequency of engagement and reading related activities. This instrument uses a 4-point response scale to avoid neutral responses. Some responses proceed from most positive to most negative (2,3,6,9,12,13,14,16,17,19) while others proceed from most negative to most positive (1,4,5,7,8,10,11,15,18,20) to avoid letting children select the same responses for all items. This instrument was chosen because of its applicability to Grade 5 students since it was designed specifically for students in Grades 2 through 6. Cronbach’s alpha statistics reveal a moderately high reliability for both subscales (self concept = .75; value = .82) (Gambrel et. al, 1996).
The MRP was administered after 8 weeks of applying the treatment. Students were told that they are going to answer questions about their reading, and that the questions have no right or wrong answers. They were also encouraged to provide their most honest responses. Any question raised by student on MRP was answered by the teacher. It took them 25 minutes to fill it out.
To assess reading comprehension and achievement children were given level 4 Gates-McGinitie Reading Test, 4th edition (GMRT). This test includes two subtests, a vocabulary and a comprehension subtests. The vocabulary subtest is a 45-item multiple-choice test of children’s reading vocabulary. The comprehension subtest includes 48 multiple choice questions about 14 expository and narrative passages. It would take students about 40 minutes to answer the vocabulary subtest and 60 minutes to answer the comprehension subtest. The test has very high reliability (.97) in vocabulary and comprehension. Therefore, the MRP was used in the study for the motivation variable and GMRT was used for the achievement variable.
The design used in this study is the posttest only control group design (see Table 1). The design is selected because it provides control for most sources of invalidity. The combination of random assignment of the participants and the presence of a control group serve to control for sources of internal validity. The control group controls for maturation, history, testing and instrumentation effects.
Before the beginning of the school year and before classes were scheduled, students were randomly assigned into one of two sections A and B. One of the two sections was randomly chosen to receive cooperative learning. The other received whole class instruction. The same teacher taught both classes. The study was designed to last two months for two fifty-minute periods daily.
The treatment consisted of instructional units based on reading selections from the regular program of the participants. The control group was taught using the whole class instruction method. Thus the teacher followed the following stages: pre-teaching and preparation, silent reading, reading aloud, discussion and finally assessment. The students read individually inside the classroom or at home. Class discussion followed their reading. After class discussions, students answered worksheets including vocabulary and comprehension questions about their reading selection. Finally, they did individual quizzes to assess their comprehension.
The teacher of the experimental group, on the other hand, applied Jigsaw reading procedures instead of individual reading every time she had a reading lesson. In the Jigsaw II classes, students participated both in expert groups and learning teams. In expert groups, students read part of the lesson, answered an expert sheet about it, and became experts in its content. Then they returned to their teams and shared their information with their teammates, so that all of them master all the content. All students were then tested on all aspects of the content through quizzes that each student answered individually. Finally, learning teams were rewarded recognition depending on their improvement points. Thus, the steps involved in Jigsaw II were forming learning and expert teams, developing expertise, sharing expertise with learning teams, assessing individual achievement and finally calculating team improvement and recognizing team accomplishment. The role of the teacher was that of a facilitator and a guide.
Throughout the study the same subject matter was covered and the two classes used the same book. Both classes had the same homework assignments, which were corrected in class the next school day. Academic objectives were the same for both classes and all tests and quizzes were identical for both classes. After two months, the two groups completed the MRP and GMRT tests to check whether the treatment, i.e., the use of Jigsaw II method, had an effect on their reading motivation and achievement or not.
First, three composite scores of the value of reading, reading self-concept, and motivation to read were computed for all participants by adding the scores on the items respectively measuring the preceding variables. Then descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) were calculated and a multivariate analysis of variance test (MANOVA) was conducted to address the questions raised in the study. The treatment conditions (control vs. experimental) were used as an independent variable (Factor) and the levels of comprehension, vocabulary, value of reading, reading self concept, and motivation to read as dependent variables.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
The questions raised in this study centered around the relative effectiveness of Jigsaw II and whole class instruction in improving EFL students’ reading comprehension and motivation. To address these questions five null hypotheses were proposed. The first hypothesis was that there’s no statistically significant difference in reading comprehension between the students who receive Jigsaw II instruction and those who receive whole class instruction. The second hypothesis was that there’s no statistically significant difference between the treatment conditions in improving vocabulary. The third hypothesis was that there’s no statistically significant difference between the treatment conditions in improving students’ self-concepts as a readers. The fourth hypothesis was that there’s no statistically significant difference in the value students place on reading between those who receive Jigsaw II and those who receive whole class instruction. Finally, the fifth hypothesis was that there’s no statistically significant difference between the treatment conditions in improving the reading motivation.
The mean scores and standard deviations of the control and experimental group on the post-test are shown in Table 1 below.
Descriptive Statistics on the MRP and GMRT Posttests by Treatment (n=22)
Variable M SD M SD
Comprehension 25.45 4.13 25.72 4.13
Vocabulary 23.86 4.08 25.72 5.11
Value of reading 28.04 5.80 35.27 3.64
Reading Self- Concept 25.04 5.41 32.09 4.11
Motivation to Read 53.09 10.37 67.36 7.09
The results of the MANOVA analysis are reported in Table 2 below.
F-Values for the Multivariate Analysis of Variance by Treatment
__________________________________________________ _ Multivariate ANOVA Univariate ANCOVA
Source F Comp. Vocabulary Value Concept Motivation
Treatment 8.42** F .04 1.78 24.49** 23.62** 28.37**
 df’s = (4, 39)
2df’s = (1, 42)
* * P< .00 First, the results revealed an over all significant difference in reading performance between the control and experimental group F (4, 39) = 8.42, p = .00. Second, the results of the Univariate Analysis of Variance indicated that there were no statistically significant differences between the experimental and the control groups on the comprehension scores F (1,44) = 0.04, p = .82 (effect size d = 0.06) nor on the vocabulary acquisition scores F (1,44) = 1.78, p = .18 (effect size d = 0.45) . However, there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups on their perception of the value of reading F (1,44) = 24.49, p = .00 (effect size d = 1.24), on their self concept as readers F (1,44) = 23.63, p = .00 (effect size d = 1.30), and their overall motivation to read F (1,44) = 28.37, p = .00 (effect size d =1.37) Interpretation of Results The study addressed two main questions. The first was whether Jigsaw II was more effective than whole class instruction in improving EFL student’s reading achievement. The results of the Multivariate Analysis revealed an overall significant difference in reading performance between the experimental and control groups F (.4, 39) = 8.42, P = .00. However, the results of the follow-up Univariate Analysis of Variance indicated that there were no statistically significant differences between the experimental and the control groups on the comprehension scores nor on the vocabulary acquisition scores F (1,44) = 0.04, p = .82 (effect size d = 0.06) , and F (1,44) = 1.78, p = .18 (effect size d = 0.45) respectively. These results showed that using Jigsaw II did not improve the achievement of EFL learners when compared with the whole class instruction method. There are several possible explanations for these results- that is for the failure of Jigsaw II to produce a statistically significant difference in student achievement. First is the limited time of the treatment; the period of implementation may not sufficient to produce the desired effects. It is possible that students in the experimental group needed more time and training to master the skills needed for implementing Jigsaw II. To support the latter speculation, I cite Slavin’s (1995) suggestion of using Jigsaw II for a period of training before actually starting to implement it. Along similar lines, Aronson et al. (1978) suggested that teachers teach cooperation skills a few minutes each day for a couple of weeks before starting to implement Jigsaw. Another explanation why Jigsaw II failed to document a significant positive effect on achievement as compared to whole class instruction could be related to the context of the study and the characteristics of the sample. In the Lebanese context, there’s pressure on students to compete against each other from parents and teachers. Jigsaw II, on the other hand, required students to interact cooperatively, treat each other as resources, and compete only against their past performance-their previous base score. With this in mind, it is possible that students were not used to working cooperatively and were not able to treat each other as resources, and thus failed to benefit from Jigsaw. Results of this study may highlight the importance of the context of the study with respect to producing positive effects on different outcome variables. These results corroborate with previous research, which did not find significant difference in favor of Jigsaw II. Lucker, Rosenfield, Sikes, and Aronson’s study (1976) revealed no significant gains or losses for white students with respect to academic achievement although there was a significant gain for minority students. Mokowitz, Malvin, Schaeffer, and Schaps’ (1985) study revealed that Jigsaw had no positive effect on the outcome variables of achievement, attendance and behavior even in proficiently implemented classes. Similarly, Thompson and Pledgers (1998) failed to document any significant differences in the scores of the students taught by the lecture method versus students taught by Jigsaw. These results are also consistent with an earlier study by Moskowitz, Malvin Schaffer and Schaps (1983) which was conducted over a period of one year and assessed the variables of academic achievement along with other variables such as classroom climate, attitudes towards schools academic and social self esteem, attitudes towards locus of control and attendance. Phelps (1990, as cited Slavin, 1990) also found no significant differences in achievement between students who were taught using the Jigsaw method and those who received whole class instruction. Ghaith and Abd El-Malak (2004) reported no significant differences between the control group and the experimental on the dependent variables of overall reading comprehension although the results showed significant difference on the variable of higher order comprehension. However, these findings contradict many research studies such as those of Box and Little (2003), Holliday (2000), Mattingly &Van Sickle (1991, as cited in Slavin 1995) who all reported evidence in favor of using Jigsaw II and suggested that Jigsaw II positively affect subjects’ achievement. As Slavin (1995) concluded after reviewing thirteen studies of Jigsaw, the findings of the studies are “highly variable” (p. 30) since some of them found up substantial differences in achievement while other did not. This variability in findings suggests the need for further research to investigate the effect of Jigsaw II on achievement. It also suggests that the advantage that can theoretically be obtained from Jigsaw II can only be obtained under certain conditions. Therefore, there is a need to investigate these conditions which make the Jigsaw group productive and thus make Jigsaw II more effective. Overall the findings of this study suggest that Jigsaw II warrants further investigation. The second concern of this study was the non-cognitive domains of schooling - whether Jigsaw II is more effective than whole class instruction in improving EFL students’ reading motivation. The results indicated that Jigsaw had a significant effect on student’s self concept as readers, the value they place on reading, and their reading motivation. These results are consistent with the results of much research studies on the relative effectiveness of Jigsaw II on affective variables. They are comparable to those of Blaney et al (1977), Sharan (1980), Gefner (1978)& Lazarowitz (1982) (as cited in Slavin 1990), Slavin and Karweit (1981), Ghaith and Abd El-Malak (2004) and Ghaith and Bouzeinnedine (2003) who all reported evidence of the effectiveness of Jigsaw method on affective variables. The results of this study, which showed that Jigsaw was effective in improving students’ motivation, are not only consistent with research findings but also with theory. They are supported by the social interdependence theory where by it is believed that cooperative learning provides incentive and motivation for students. They are also supported by the motivational theorist such as Skinner (1968) and Bandura (1965) who highlighted the importance of consequences of students’ actions for whether they have learned or not. In the Jigsaw classroom, reinforcement comes not only from teacher but also from students because they are positively interdependent. The reward structure of Jigsaw II also provides reinforcement and increases motivation. Some implications can be surmised from the preceding results. Jigsaw II appears to be a viable teaching method with affective benefits for students. The suggested benefits to students’ reading self-concept, reading value, and reading motivation offered by Jigsaw II warrant that teachers should be cognizant of this instructional method and should not overlook it when seeking strategies to increase their students’ reading motivation. Thus, it is recommended that Jigsaw II be used in the foreign language classroom, even though it was not associated with gains in reading comprehension. It is still recommended due to the positive affective benefits that evolve from it, more specifically, because of the gain in other areas such as reading self-concept, the value students place on reading, and reading motivation. As Aronson et al (1975) described it; it is “the route to learning and liking.” (p.43). In the view of the results of this study, the following considerations should be taken in future studies. First, it is important to teach students cooperative skills before starting to implement Jigsaw. Students should be given extensive training in how to apply Jigsaw for this strategy to be beneficial. Second, it is recommended that a larger sample be used and that the study be carried out for a longer time to make sure that the students have mastered the skills required to work in Jigsaw groups. The results of this study add to the literature on using Jigsaw II and whole class instruction in teaching reading. However, further research is needed to investigate the effect of Jigsaw II on achievement, and to investigate the effects of other variables such as gender and aptitudes. Further research is also needed to investigate the conditions which make Jigsaw II more effective. It is also beneficial to investigate the effect of other cooperative learning methods such as student Teams Achievement Division (STAD) Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) on the EFL students reading motivation and achievement. REFERENCES Aronson, E, Blaney, N.T., Rosenfield, D., Sikes, J., Stephan, C., (1977). Interdependence in the classroom: A field study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69 (2), 121-128. Aronson, E, Blaney, N., Sikes, J., Stephan, C., and Snapp, M. (1975). Busing and Racial Tension: The jigsaw route to learning and liking. Psychology Today, 8, (9) 43 – 59. Aronson, E., Bridgeman, D.L., and Geffiner, R. (1978). Interdependent interactions and prosocial behavior. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12 (1), 16-27. Aronson, E. Johnson, D.W, Balow, B. (1978) The Jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA & London: Sage publications. Bandura, A. Influence of models reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses (1965). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 589-595. Baker, L., Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of children’s motivation for reading and their relation to reading activity and reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 45-477. Blaney, N.T., Stephan, S., Rosenfireld, D., Aronson, E., and Sikes, J. (1977) Interdependence in the classroom: a field study. Journal of Education Psychology 69(2), 121-128. Box, J.A, Little, D.C. (2003) Cooperative small group instruction combined with advance organizers and their relationship to self –concept and social studies achievement of elementary school students. Journal of Instructional Psychology. 30 (4), 285-288. Brown, A., Campione, J. (1986). Psychological theory and the study of learning disabilities. American Psychologist, 41, (10) 1059-1068. Burns, P.C., Roe, B. D., and Ross, E. P. (1996). Teaching Reading in Today’s Elementary Schools. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Cohen, E.G. (1994). Restructuring the classrooms: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 65, 1-35. Cooper, J. (1989). Classroom teaching skills. Vanderbilt: Weber, Leighton. Damon, W. (1984). Peer education: the untapped potential. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 5, 331-343. Dansereau, D.F. (1985). Learning strategy research in J. Segal Chimpman, and R. Glaser (eds). Thinking and learning skills: Relating instruction to basic research (V.1) Hillsadle, NJ: Erlbaum. Gambrell, L.B., Palmer, B.M., Codling, R.M. Mazzoni, S.A. (1996). Assessing motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 49, 518-533. Ghaith, G.M. (2001). Learners’ perception of their STAD cooperative experience. System, 29, 293-94. Ghaith, G.M. (2002). The relationship between cooperative learning, perception of social support, and academic achievement. System, 30, 263-273. Ghaith, G.M. (2003). The relationship between forms of instruction, achievement, and classroom climate. Educational Research, 45 (1) 107-117. Ghaith, G.M., Abd El-Malak, M.S. (2004).Effect of Jigsaw II on literal and higher order EFL reading comprehension. Educational Research and Evaluation 10(2),105-115 Ghaith, G.M., Bouzeineddine A.R. (2003). Relationship between reading attitudes, achievement, and learner’s perceptions of their Jigsaw II cooperative learning experience. Reading Psychology, 24, 105-120. Ghaith, G.M., Yaghi, H.M. (1998). Effect of cooperative learning on the acquisition of second language rules and mechanics. System, 26, 223-234. Holliday, D.C., (2002). Using Cooperative learning to improve the academic achievement of inner city middle school students. (Eric Document Reproduction and Service No. ED 464136) Johns, J. (1991) Gates-McGinite Reading Test, Third Edition. In D.J. Sweetland (Eds), Test Critiques: Volume VIII (p.216-228). Austin, TX: POR-ED. Jonhnson, D.W., Johnson R.T. (1981). Effects of cooperative and individualistic learning experiences on interethnic interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 444, 449. Johnson, D.W., Marryama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., Skon, L. (1981) Effects of cooperative, Competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 197-206. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T (1991). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Holubec, E (1991). Cooperation in the classroom. Edina. MN: Interaction Book Company. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Stanne, M.B. (2000). [On-line]. Available: http://www.clcrc.com/pages/cl-methods.html
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Taylor, B. (1993) Impact of cooperative and individualistic learning on high ability student’s achievement, self esteem, and social acceptance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133 (6), 839-844.
Kagan, S. (1989). The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 12-15.
Kluge, D., McGuire, S., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (Eds). (1999). Cooperative learning. Tokyo: JALT.
Kush, J.C., Watkins, M.W. (1996). Long-term stability of children’s attitude towards reading. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 315-319.
Lucker, G., Rosenfield, D., Sikes, J. , Aronson, E. (1976). Performance in the interdependence classroom: A Field Study. American Educational Research Journal, 13, 115-123.
Lynch, R. (1991). Cooperative learning, self concept, and academic achievement: A theoretical argument for self concept as mediating the relationship between cooperative learning and academic achievement. (Eric Document Reproduction and Service No. ED 359278).
McGuire, S.P. (1992) An application of cooperative learning to teaching English as a language in Japan. (Eric Document Reproduction and Service No. ED 354735).
Mckenna, M.C., Kear, D.J. (1990). Measuring attitude toward reading: A new tool for teachers. The Reading Teacher, 627-639.
Moskowitz, J.M., Malvin, J.H., Schaffer, G.A., Schaps, E. (1976). Performance in the interdependence classroom: A field study. American Educational Research Journal,13, 115-123.
Moskowitz, J.M., Malvi, J.H., Schaffe, G.A., Schaps, E. (1983). Evaluation of a cooperative learning strategy. American Educational Reasearch Journal, 20(4), 687-696.
Moskowitz, J.M., Malvin, J.H., Schaffer, G.A, Schaps, E. (1985) Evaluation of Jigsaw: a cooperative learning technique. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, (2), 104-112.
Palmer, B.M., Codling, R.M., Gambrell, L.B. (1994). What elementary students have to say about motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 48, 176-178.
Parker, A., Paradis, E. (1986). Attitude development toward reading in grades one through six. Journal Educational Research, 79, 313-315.
Sharan, S., Shachar, H. (1988). Language and Learning in the Cooperative Classroom. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Sharan. Y., & Sharan, S. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning through group investigation. New York: Teachers college Press.
Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitude, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, 50, 241-171.
Skinner, B.F., (1968). The technology of teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Slavin, R.E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50, 315-342.
Slavin, R.E. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement? Psychological Bulletin, 94 (3), 429-445.
Slavin, R.E. (1986). Using student team learning. Baltimore: John Hopkins University, Center for Research on Elementary and Middle school.
Slavin, R.E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Englewoods Cliffs, NJ. Prentice-Hall.
Slavin, R.E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning Educational Leadership, 71-82.
Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Massachusetts: A Division of Simon & Schuster Inc.
Slavin, R.E., Karweit, N. (1981). Cognitive and affective outcomes of an intensive student team learning experience. Journal of Experimental Education, 50, 29-35.
Slavin, R., Leavey, M., & Madden, N. (1986). Team accelerated instruction: mathematics. Watertown, MA: Charlesbridge.
Smith, M.C. (1990). A Longitudinal investigation of reading attitude development from childhood to adulthood. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 315-319.
Stevens, R.J., Madden, N.A., Slavin, R.E., Farnish, A.M. (1987). Cooperative integrated reading and composition. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 431-453.
Stevens, R.J., Slavin, R.E., Farnish, A.M. (1991). The effects of cooperative learning and direct instruction in reading comprehension strategies on main idea identification. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 8-16.
Thompson, M., Pledger, L. (1998) Cooperative learning versus traditional lecture format: A preliminary study. (Eric Document Reproduction and Service No. ED 426418).
Tedesco, L. (1999). The effect of cooperative learning on self-esteem: A literature review. (Eric Document Reproduction and Service No. ED 440777).
Uttero, D. (1998). Activating comprehension through cooperative learning: The Reading Teacher, 41, 390-395.
Wheeler, R., Ryaa, F.L (1973). Effects of cooperative classroom environment on the attitudes and achievement of elementary school students engaged in social studies inquiry activities. Journal of Educational psychology, 65, 402-407.
Wigfield, A., Gutherie, J.T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and breath of their reading. Educational Psychology 89, 420-432.
Wolter, S.K. (1986). The Reading Writing Relationship: the Effect of Reading Dialogue journal on the Seventh and Eighth Graders Reading Comprehension (Eric Document Reproduction and Service No. ED. 331012).
Woodward, T. (1995). Pair and groupwork: Confessions of ignorance. The Teacher Trainer,9, 8-9.
Worthy, J., Moorman, M., Turner, M. (1999). What Johnny likes to read is hard to find in school. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 12-27.APPEN