International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW) Volume 7 (2), October 2014; 367-‐383 Hosseini Fard, M., & Rimani Nikou, F EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org THE EFFECT OF QUESTION-ANSWER RELATIONSHIP (QAR) AND COOPERATIVE LEARNING (CL) ON FIRST GRADE HIGH SCHOOL EFL STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION Mehrnaz Hosseini Fard Department of English, Urmia Branch, Islamic Azad University, Urmia, Iran E-mail: [email protected] Farahnaz Rimani Nikou (corresponding author) Department of English, Urmia Branch, Islamic Azad University, Urmia, Iran E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT The present study tried to investigate the effect of Question-Answer Relationship (QAR) and Cooperative Learning (CL) strategies on reading comprehension ability of EFL students in first grade high school of Mohaddeseh, Urmia, Iran. The participants were 112 female students who were assigned to one control group and three experimental groups. All the participants answered the reading comprehension questions as a pre-test. Then QAR strategy was conducted in the first experimental group, the CL strategy was conducted in the second experimental group, and the combination of both strategies was conducted in the third experimental group, with no treatment for the control group. After treatments, students answered the questions of an equivalent posttest. The data was analyzed using SPSS software to determine the effect of strategies as independent variables on studentsʼ reading comprehension as dependent variable. The results suggested that there was a statistically significant difference among the reading comprehension performance of the three experimental groups and the control group in their post-test scores. Furthermore, it was revealed that the third experimental group, provided with the combination of QAR and CL strategies, significantly outperformed the other groups in terms of reading comprehension. The findings of this study provide several incentives for the researchers in the fields of applied linguistics, psychologists, language teaching methodology, English for Specific or Academic Purpose (ESP/EAP), and many other language-related areas of interest who are interested in improving reading comprehension ability of EFL students. KEYWORDS: Reading, Reading comprehension, Question-answer relationship, Cooperative learning INTRODUCTION The world’s getting smaller by developing communication and information technologies, this makes learning English language to be necessary for every individual specially for learners. Therefore, there is a need for innovations in the field of education to be applied in teaching 367 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW) Volume 7 (2), October 2014; 367-‐383 Hosseini Fard, M., & Rimani Nikou, F EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org English as a second language. As it has already been known, teaching a language is a multidimensional task which requires different techniques and methods compared with teaching other subjects. So, it is necessary to make use of various methods and techniques in order to help learners to learn a foreign language efficiently. Reading is one of those human capacities that can affect people lives in many ways. Although, it has been studied and inspected for generations by scholars from a variety of disciplines, there are still so many aspect of reading, that must be illuminated (Nunan, 1993). Moreover, the need for reading comprehension increases as the learners attend higher grades and they are expected to comprehend more complex materials. Therefore, students need to have a good ability in reading to be able to expand their knowledge and experiences and to be able to understand written text in target language easily (Gardill & Jitendra, 1999). Carrell and Eisterhold (1983) state that our understanding of reading is best considered as "the interaction that occurs between the reader and the text, an interpretive process". In other words, the reader must make an active contribution to acquire the available information. In this view, the reading process is not simply a matter of extracting information from the text. Rather, it is viewed as a channel of communication between the reader and the text. But for many foreign or second language learners, reading is performed to obtain meaning from a text word by word checking unfamiliar words as they encounter them, but by reading this way comprehension can be deprived, and reading for pleasure nearly unthinkable. Students with poor reading comprehension seldom use comprehension strategies and when they do, often use those that are inappropriate, there appears to be a need for the direct instruction of reading comprehension strategies for students specially those with specific learning difficulties in reading comprehension. Teachers should create a communicative atmosphere in the classroom to accomplish learners’ need of reading comprehension. English teachers are hoped to choose appropriate techniques in their teaching process. Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) and Cooperative Learning (CL) strategies, are two examples of strategies which can be implemented in reading classes on EFL students with the aim of improving the reading comprehension. Raphael (1986), states that the use of QAR supplies a framework for helping the students make the largely invisible process of listening and reading comprehension visible by giving students a language for talking about text. Cooperative Learning (CL), is a teaching strategy in which small groups of four or five students in different levels of proficiency, use a variety of learning activities to improve their understanding of a subject. This study intended to take an action in the process of while-reading implementing QuestionAnswer Relationship (QAR) and Cooperative Learning (CL) strategies, in order to examine the effect and efficiency of these strategies on EFL students’ reading comprehension performance. In a way that, QAR strategy was used in one experimental group and Cooperative Learning strategy in another experimental group and also the combination of both strategies was conducted in the third experimental group. 368 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW) Volume 7 (2), October 2014; 367-‐383 Hosseini Fard, M., & Rimani Nikou, F EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org LITERATURE REVIEW A concise look at the current English textbooks in Iranian context indicates that reading has been an essential skill for learner’s success. Thus, in many second or foreign language teaching situations, reading receives a particular attention. In recent years, there has been increased focus on the teaching of reading and other literacy skills to children. Part of this may relate to the recognition that reading is most likely the major skill for second language learners in academic context (Grabe, 1991), and part of it may be from an increase in the numbers of children worldwide who are learning English as a second or foreign language. It may also be an outcome of the recent implementation of standards in much of public education, a movement built upon the belief that basic literacy training should be a primary part of public education. Harmer (2007) notes that reading is useful for language acquisition, on the condition that students more or less understand what they read; the more they read, the better they get at it. He also added that reading has a constructive effect on students’ vocabulary knowledge, on their spelling and on their writing . It is now generally admitted that reading as one of the complicated and challenging phases of language learning takes up a vast domain of attention. Perhaps the most extensive changes in reading instruction in the last 15 years are in the part of comprehension. Once thought as the natural result of decoding plus oral language, comprehension is now viewed as a much more compound process involving knowledge, experience thinking, and teaching. It depends greatly on knowledge-both about the world at large and the worlds of language and print. In reading, making meaning of any words depends mostly on linguistic comprehension and cognitive ability that requires a degree of conceptual understanding (Hoover & Tunmer, 1993). Reading for comprehension is the primary purpose for reading; though, this is sometimes ignored when students are asked to read too difficult texts (Grabe, 2002). The reading goal is to read for meaning or to reconstruct the writer’s meaning. Reading to improve pronunciation, practice grammatical structures, and study vocabulary do not make up reading at all because, by definition, reading involves comprehension. When readers are not comprehending, they are not reading (Chastain, 1988). Lastly, successful readers are those who are able to recreate the author’s meaning rightly, and they understand the meaning of the text without becoming lost in the grammar and the vocabulary and without becoming frustrated, try to attain the meaning. Logically, however, not even native speakers recreate the author’s message precisely (Chastain, 1998). Creative comprehension refers to the use of the readers’ background knowledge to produce answers. Most important, it can be taught directly, and it is now generally accepted that many instructional activities can enhance comprehension, and great deals of endeavor have been made to improve the reading comprehension of the foreign language learners (Pearson & Nicholson, 1976). According to many studies of reading comprehension, good readers concentrate on understanding. They concur that reading comprehension has active and intentional, constructing meanings and depends deeply on employing the text and their own prior knowledge. 369 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW) Volume 7 (2), October 2014; 367-‐383 Hosseini Fard, M., & Rimani Nikou, F EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Pressley (2000) claims that good comprehenders: Are aware of why they are reading a text. Gain a general idea of the text before reading. Make predictions about the forthcoming text. Read selectively based on their outline. Link ideas in text with what they already know. Note whether their predictions and anticipations about text content are being met. Adjust their prior knowledge when compelling new ideas conflicting with prior knowledge. Figure out the meanings of unknown vocabulary based on context clues. Underline and reread and make notes and paraphrase to remember important points. Interpret the text. Evaluate its quality. Review important points as they conclude reading. Think about how ideas encountered in the text might be applied in the future. From the late 1970s, according to Grabe (1991) "Reading was characterized as an active process of comprehending and students needed to be taught strategies to read more efficiently." (p. 337). Hardebeck (2006) defines reading comprehension strategies as tools or plans for facilitating and extending comprehension. Reading comprehension strategies can help readers remember the key points, distinguish the necessary and unnecessary information, think about the main idea and comment on the subject matter. They can learn reading strategies that enable them to read at much higher levels of proficiency. The Question-Answer Relationship (QAR) strategy presents a three-way relationship between questions, text content, and reader knowledge. These activities help students "demystify" the question-building process as a step toward better reading comprehension. It is a reading strategy that gives teachers and students regular vocabularies for discussing the text and it can be easily implemented across the program of the study (Raphael, 1984; 1986). QAR helps students in distinguishing the questions based on where the answer can be found: either In the Book or In My Head (Caldwell & Leslie, 2005). If answers are In the Book, the questions will be of a literal type because the answers are “right there” in the text. If the questions are In My Head, inferential questions have been created, and the readers must use their own background knowledge to make answers that require information not found in the text (Tompkins, 2004). More importantly, the classification provides both the teacher and pupils a shared language to make visible the largely invisible processes underlying reading and listening comprehension. This common language gives the teacher and pupils the means to discuss and analyze the questions as well as investigate and justify the use of the proper strategies. Moreover, the question-answer will facilitate them to become skillful in analyzing the types of question that they are usually asked to respond to when reading a text (Raphael & Au, 2005). Cooperative learning is a teaching organization that refers to small, heterogeneous groups of students working together to reach to an end (Kagan, 1994). Cooperative learning has been 370 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW) Volume 7 (2), October 2014; 367-‐383 Hosseini Fard, M., & Rimani Nikou, F EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org defined as “small groups of learners working together as a team to solve a problem, complete a task, or accomplish a common goal” (Artz & Newmam, 1990, p. 4480). Grouping is necessary to cooperative learning. The most commonly used team formation is that of heterogeneous teams, including a high, two middle, and a low achieving student and having a mix of gender and cultural variety that reflect the classroom population. The underlying principle for heterogeneous groups argues that this produces the greatest opportunities for peer teaching and support as well as improving cross-race and cross-sex relations and integration. Rarely, random or special interest teams could be formed to develop student aptitudes or meet a specific student need (Kagan, 1994). In the literature a great deal of researches exist regarding the effects of using different strategies on improving EFL learnersʼ reading comprehension. For decades different strategies such as Question-Answer Relationship and Cooperative Learning have been implemented in EFL classrooms with various populations in order to promote EFL learnersʼ reading comprehension. Some studies in this regard are as follows: Azizi (2002) studied the impact of three different pre-reading activities on reading comprehension of first grade high school students. The findings indicated that the pre-reading activities all together did not contribute to the reading comprehension in general and the three experimental groups and control group performed on post-test almost the same, but it indicated that one of the three pre-reading activities was more effective than the others, that was reading the first paragraph and the first sentences of the other paragraphs, and the subjects of the group with this pre-reading activity performed significantly different from other groups. Alsamadani (2011) examined the effect of three strategies including: summarizing, sharing insights, asking questions about the text which were as post-reading activities, on EFL learnersʼ reading comprehension. The study revealed that, there was a significant statistical difference in EFL learnersʼ reading comprehension. They also revealed that the effect of the third strategy (asking questions) was more positive than the two other strategies. Almanza (1997) examined a study which compared the effectiveness of Cooperative Learning and Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA) during reading stories. Findings, based on a reading comprehension test, indicated that the majority of children scored higher in the cooperative reading groups than their counterparts from DRTA groups. The study suggested the use of Cooperative Learning as an instructional strategy. Ghaith (2003) investigated the effects of the Cooperative Learning model in improving English as a Foreign Language (EFL) reading achievement and academic self-esteem and in decreasing feelings of school alienation. The results indicated no statistically significant difference between the control and experimental groups on the dependent variables of academic self-esteem and feelings of school alienation. However, the results revealed a statistically significant difference in favor of the experimental group on the variable of EFL reading achievement. 371 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW) Volume 7 (2), October 2014; 367-‐383 Hosseini Fard, M., & Rimani Nikou, F EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Peng, Hoon, Khoo, and Joseph (2007) studied the impact of Question-Answer-Relationships (QAR) on Reading Comprehension . The results revealed that students taught through the QAR strategy had some improvements in their reading comprehension. The data analysis showed that most of pupils using QAR strategy felt more confident about answering comprehension questions after learning the strategy. Stafford (2012) conducted a research study to examine the effects of the direct instruction of Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) on ninth-grade students’ ability to accurately answer comprehension questions after reading. Results indicated that the strategy had a negative effect on students’ question-answering ability and raised questions regarding comprehension instruction, length of interferences, and the role of scaffold support for a target population of adolescent readers. Considering the previous researches, it can be revealed that instructing and implementing different strategies are mostly helpful and have significant roles on improving EFL studentsʼ reading comprehension at different levels and stages, particularly in higher levels that there is a need for higher level thinking. However, some strategies are more beneficial than the others, including Cooperative Learning and Question-Answering Relationship based on the reviewed researches which were used separately or in the combination with another strategy or even in different processes of reading comprehension classes. Consequently, this research intended to implement combination of mentioned strategies (QAR+CL) in while reading process that were not conducted previously, in order to investigate their influence on EFL studentsʼ reading comprehension in first grade high school. RESEARCH QUESTIONS Addressing the implementation of QAR and CL techniques in two separate groups and also in combination, this study was supposed to answer some questions as below: 1) Does Question-Answer Relationship significantly affect EFL students’ reading comprehension? 2) Does Cooperative Learning significantly affect EFL students’ reading comprehension ? 3) Does Question-Answer Relationship through Cooperative Learning significantly affect EFL students’ reading comprehension? 4) Do Question-Answer Relationship through Cooperative Learning and Question-Answer Relationship differently affect EFL students’ reading comprehension? 5) Do Question-Answer Relationship through Cooperative Learning and Cooperative Learning differently affect EFL students’ reading comprehension? METHODOLOGY The study is based on two strategies including the Question-Answer Relationship and Cooperative Learning strategies which took place during the second semester of the scholastic year 2013-2014 in Urmia, Iran, Mohaddeseh high school. 372 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW) Volume 7 (2), October 2014; 367-‐383 Hosseini Fard, M., & Rimani Nikou, F EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Participants To conduct this research, four groups of first grade high school students were selected. Each group consisted of 28 female students, mostly 16 years old and with similar economic and social conditions. One group was treated as control group and the other three groups were treated as experimental groups. While English was as a foreign language for all the participants, they had different mother tongues, mostly they speak in Turkish and some in Kurdish or Farsi. Table 1: The number of research participants Total number Experimental Experimental Experimental of group group group participants (QAR) (CL) (QAR+CL) Control group Pre-test 112 28 28 28 28 Post-test 112 28 28 28 28 Instruments Two passages were selected from the first grade high school standard work book, Gaj International Publications (2010) written by English language experts in Iran, as pre- and posttest measures. Passages were selected basedonthe length, students ̕ interest, their level of proficiency, and number of questions. Both passages were approximately one paragraph in length, had a parallel construct and were selected from the same source, as mentioned above. Both experimental and control groups received the same passage for pre-test and the other passage for post-test measures. Both pre-test and post-test took place in a classroom setting during regular class times. No changes or modifications were made to the texts, but as a result of consulting with some experts in the fields of language instruction, measurement and evaluation (Teachers and supervisors), there were some changes in the number and the type of questions. Some questions were also reworded. After that, the experts confirmed the convenience and correctness of the tests, they were copied and administered for the study. Each passage contained ten questions including five multiple choice questions and five true-false questions and the same scoring method, in which students were asked to select only one answer from four options, for multiple choice questions and only one answer from two options for true-false questions. Each question had one point; therefore, the total score of each test was ten points. Prior to the study, the researcher conducted a pilot exam on another group (out of the sample) of first grade high school students in the same school, who were 28 students, to calculate reliability of the questions in pretest and post-test exams. Considering the α = 0.834 (more than 0.7), based on the Cronbach's Alpha formula, it concluded that the tests were reliable. Procedure Prior to treatments, a pretest was conducted on all groups to assess their reading comprehension ability. Then students in all groups participated in a posttest to re-assess their reading comprehension abilities, and to investigate any significant differences in their reading 373 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW) Volume 7 (2), October 2014; 367-‐383 Hosseini Fard, M., & Rimani Nikou, F EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org comprehension. One of the experimental groups was exposed to Question-Answer Relationship (QAR) and the other group was exposed to Cooperative Learning (CL) strategy and the third experimental group was exposed to a combination of both strategies whereas the control group students were not exposed to any specific treatment except the conventional method of teaching reading comprehension. The period of conducting the treatments in different experimental groups differed based on the type of the treatment. All papers were collected and marked by the researcher and the curious students were informed by their own results too. The obtained data were analyzed using the statistical package of social sciences (SPSS) 18,0 to test the study hypotheses. Before conducting each strategy in each experimental group, the researcher do a warm up activity for ten minutes to introduce the strategy which would be utilized in each class. Then she conducted each strategy in each experimental group as below: The Question-Answering Relationship (QAR) which was done in the first experimental group was designed based on the following procedure: The passage copies were distributed among the students and before starting to read the passage they were asked to fold their papers in a way that they could not see the questions below the passage (it was constantly controlled through the activity by the teacher). Then, they were asked to read the passage silently and underline the words they did not know, then ask the meaning of difficult words loudly from each other one by one, each student asked one of her unknown words that was not asked before by the other students, if nobody knew the answer, the teacher gave the meaning. Afterward, the students were asked to read the text for the second time silently and pose different questions from the text, then ask their questions loudly from each other one by one, then check and compare their friends answers with the their own answers in the text, each student asked one of her questions that was not asked by the other students before, if nobody knew the answer the teacher discussed it with the students until reaching the correct answer. The process of question-answering from the passage continued in this way until the teacher asked the students to open their papers fold and answer the questions below the passage on their papers and also on their own. At the end, the papers were collected to be corrected and used for statistical analysis. The Cooperative Learning (CL) which was done in the second experimental group was designed based on the following procedure: Considering the number of students (28 students) and also the number of more proficient students in the class, they were assigned to 6 groups, consisting of 4-5 students. The groups were heterogeneous with regard to their pre-test scores, mostly included with one top level, two midlevel and one or two low-level students. The student with high level in each group was assigned as a leader or representative of her group. She had responsibility to guide other members of her group. Members of the group should have asked their unknown words and problems with the text from their leader and the leader could ask her problems from the teacher. After grouping and designing the members of each group, the copies of the passage were distributed among all the students. Before starting to read the text, the students were asked to fold their papers in a way that 374 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW) Volume 7 (2), October 2014; 367-‐383 Hosseini Fard, M., & Rimani Nikou, F EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org the questions could not be seen, (it was constantly controlled by the teacher during the activities) and then they were asked to read the passage silently, and begin their group working: asking their unknown words and problematic sentences from their group mates or their leaders. The leaders asked their problems from the teacher if they had. The process of cooperative learning continued in this way until the teacher asked the students to open their papers fold, answer the questions below the text and on their own. At the end, the papers were collected to be corrected and the scores were analyzed through statistical methods. The Question-Answer Relationship (QAR) through Cooperative Learning (CL) which was conducted in the third experimental group was designed based on the following procedure: The procedure of the third group was the same as the procedure of the second group conducting CL strategy but the difference was that the QAR strategy was also done through group working, in a way that: after reading the text silently and asking their unknown words and problems from their group mates and leaders, the members of the group tried to pose whatever questions they could from the text while discussing their possible answers to each others’ questions in the text. Then, the teacher invited each group one by one to ask their constructed questions from the other groups while the teacher contributed the students activities. The process of question-answering through cooperative learning continued in this way until the teacher asked the students to open their papers, and answer the questions below the text, on their own. At the end, the papers were collected to be corrected and the scores were analyzed through statistical methods. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The data was gathered from pre-test and post-test exams. In descriptive analysis, we talk about dispersion index such as variance, means and standard deviation. The most important are figures and tables resulted from analysis which will be presented in this section. Homogeneity of the Sample and Variance of the Study The Homogeneity Of Variances requires our groups to have similar variances or similar reactions to the treatment they received. If this assumption holds, we know that whatever test result (t-test or F test), it is attributable to the different treatment each group receive (treatment effects). Source of variation strategy error Table 2: ANOVA: Determining Homogeneity of the Sample Sum of squares df Mean squares F statistic 21.455 414.464 total 435.920 3 108 7.152 1.864 3.838 111 sig 0.140 -------- As we see in Table above, as a result of Analysis of Variance, degree of significance is 0.140, which is more than 0.05, indicating that all groups of study were homogeneous; in other words, 375 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW) Volume 7 (2), October 2014; 367-‐383 Hosseini Fard, M., & Rimani Nikou, F EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org they were in the same conditions for conducting research treatment. Leven test is testing whether or not the variances of our groups are statistically different, if the Leven test shows the significant value more than 0.05, we can have confidence in the validity and homogeneity of variance. Table 3: Leven test: Determining Homogeneity of Variance Leven statistic df 1 df 2 Reading comprehension 1.84 3 sig 108 0.475 As we see, as a result of Leven test, the value of significance is 0.475, which is more than 0.05, indicating the homogeneity of variance. Descriptive Statistics In Table below, we will see a summary of descriptive statistics of pre-tests in all groups of the study, in order to make sure that no significant difference in terms of reading comprehension ability existed between the groups. Group Table 4: Descriptive Statistics for pre-tests in all groups of study Variance Mean Range SD Min Max N Control 28 pre-test QAR 28 pre-test CL 28 QAR+ CL 28 6.1071 8 1.77094 2 10 5.7857 9 2.42452 2 10 pre-test 5.1786 9 2.10913 1 10 pre-test 5.0757 6 1.37389 2 8 As we see in Table above there was no significant difference in terms of reading comprehension ability existed between all groups of study. Testing Research Hypotheses The First Research Null Hypothesis Ho1: Question-Answer Relationship has no effect on EFL students’ reading comprehension. strategy QAR Table 5: Paired Sample t-test Comparing the Pre-test and Post-test Scores for QAR Strategy pre-test post-test Mean SD T value df sig Lower Upper Mean Mean difference bound bound 5.7857 7.25 1.4625 0.44686 3.277 27 0.003 0. 54739 2. 38118 376 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW) Volume 7 (2), October 2014; 367-‐383 Hosseini Fard, M., & Rimani Nikou, F EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Table above shows that the mean of post-test scores are higher in dependent variable compared with the pre-test scores in the first experimental group. The degree of significance is also 0.003, which is less than 0.05. Moreover, the mean difference, upper bound and lower bound columns show positive signals. Therefore, the descriptive results of the first experimental group using QAR strategy, indicated that there is a significant difference between pre- and post-test scores of the group. In other words, this group performed better after using QAR strategy. Hereby, the first null hypothesis can be rejected. The Second Research Hypothesis Ho2: Cooperative learning strategy has no effect on EFL students’ reading comprehension. Table 6: Paired Sample t-test Comparing the Pre-test and Post-test Scores for CL Strategy strategy CL pre-test Mean 5.1786 post-test Mean 6.6429 Mean SD T value df difference 1.4643 1.95282 3.968 sig 27 Lower Upper bound bound 0.000 0.70706 2.22151 As we see in Table above, there is a mean difference between per- and post-test scores for the second experimental group. And, the degree of significance is 0.000, which is less than 0.05. Moreover, the mean difference, upper bound and lower bound columns show positive signals. Therefore, all of the above statistics reveal that, there is a significant difference between pre- and post-test scores of the second experimental group using CL strategy. In other words, the mean scores of post-test is more than the pre-test scores in second experimental group using CL strategy, it can be concluded that the use of CL strategy increased studentsʼ reading comprehension in this group. So, the second null hypothesis can also be rejected. The Third Research Hypothesis Ho3: Question-Answer Relationship through cooperative learning has no effect on EFL students’ reading comprehension. Table 7: Paired Sample t-test: Comparing the Pre-test and Post-test Scores for QAR+CL Strategy strategy pre-test post-test Mean SD T value df sig Lower Upper Mean Mean difference bound bound CL+QAR 5.0757 8.5357 3.5 1.20185 15.410 27 0.000 3.03397 3.96603 As we see in Table above, there is a mean difference between per- and post-test scores of the third experimental group. And, the degree of significance is 0.000, which is less than 0.05. Moreover, the mean difference, upper bound and lower bound columns show positive signals. Therefore, based on the statistics, it is revealed that there is a significant difference between preand post-test scores of the third experimental group using QAR+CL strategy. In other words, since the mean scores of post-test is more than the pre-test mean scores in the third experimental group using QAR+CL strategy, it can be concluded that the use of QAR+CL strategy had 377 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW) Volume 7 (2), October 2014; 367-‐383 Hosseini Fard, M., & Rimani Nikou, F EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org positive effect and increased the studentsʼ reading comprehension. Consequently, the third null hypothesis can be rejected too. The Fourth Research Hypothesis Ho4: Question-Answer Relationship through Cooperative Learning and Question-Answer Relationship don’t differently affect EFL students’ reading comprehension. Mean of first group (QAR) 7.25 Table 8: Means of Post-test Reading Comprehension Scores Across Groups Mean of Mean Standard sig Lower Upper third group difference error bound bound (QAR+CL) 8.5357 1.28571 0.38459 0.014 0.1934 2.3780 As we see in the Table above, there is a significant difference between the mean scores of the first experimental group using QAR strategy and the third experimental group using combination of CL and QAR strategies in post-test. Moreover, comparing the mean scores of both groups, we can see the mean scores of the third group is more than the mean score of the first experimental group, indicating that the effect of combination of CL and QAR strategies is more than the effect of QAR strategy on EFL students’ reading comprehension. Furthermore, not only the value of significance is 0.014, which is less than significant level (0.05), but also positive signals of mean difference, lower bound and upper bound reveal that the effect of two strategies are significantly different on EFL students’ reading comprehension. Therefore, we can safely reject the fourth null hypothesis. The Fifth Research Hypothesis Ho5: Question-Answer Relationship through Cooperative Learning and Cooperative Learning don’t differently affect EFL students’ reading comprehension. Mean of second group (CL) 6.6429 Table 9: Means of Post-test Reading Comprehension Scores Across Groups Mean of Mean Standard sig Lower Upper third group difference error bound bound (QAR+CL) 8.5357 1.89286 0.38459 0.000 0.8006 2.9851 As we see in Table above, there is a significant difference between the mean scores of the second experimental group using CL strategy and the third experimental group using combination of CL and QAR strategies in post-test. Moreover, comparing the mean scores of both groups we can see that the mean scores of the third group is more than the mean score of the second experimental group, which indicates that the effect of combination of CL and QAR strategies was more than the effect of CL strategy on EFL students’ reading comprehension. Furthermore, not only the value of significance is 0.000, which is less than significant level ( 0.05), but also positive signals 378 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW) Volume 7 (2), October 2014; 367-‐383 Hosseini Fard, M., & Rimani Nikou, F EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org of mean difference, lower bound and upper bound reveal that the effect of two strategies are significantly different on EFL students’ reading comprehension. Therefore, we can safely reject the fifth null hypothesis. In Table below, we are going to have data analysis for the fourth and the fifth research hypotheses, comparing post-tests scores of three experimental groups of the study. Table 10: ANOVA: Analyzing Post-tests Reading Comprehension Scores Source of variation Sum of squares df Mean squares F statistic Between groups (strategy) 134.321 3 sig 44.774 21.622 0.000 Within groups 23.643 (error) total 108 307.964 2.071 111 -------- As it is seen in the above table, degree of significance is 0.000, which is less than 0.05 and even less than 0.01. In other words, level of errors is zero indicating that different independent variables or each of QAR, CL strategies and combinations of them had different effects on dependent variable or reading comprehension ability with a high degree of confidence of more than 0.95 and even 0.99. Therefore, we can assume that we are safe in rejecting the fourth and the fifth null hypotheses, in the other way too. Comparing the Effect of Different Strategies on all Groups of Study In figure below the researcher is going to compare the means of post-tests reading comprehension of all groups of study. Figure 1: Comparing the Effect of Different Strategies on Different Groups of Study It is clearly seen that, using QAR strategy was more effective than using CL strategy and using combination of both strategies (CL+QAR), was more effective than using each of them separately, on EFL students’ reading comprehension. Discussion The present study attempted to seek answers to the following research question. 379 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW) Volume 7 (2), October 2014; 367-‐383 Hosseini Fard, M., & Rimani Nikou, F EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org 1) Does Question-Answer Relationship significantly affect EFL students’ reading comprehension? 2) Does Cooperative Learning significantly affect EFL students’ reading comprehension ? 3) Does Question-Answer Relationship through Cooperative Learning significantly affect EFL students’ reading comprehension? 4) Do Question-Answer Relationship through Cooperative Learning and Question- Answer Relationship differently affect EFL students’ reading comprehension? 5) Do Question-Answer Relationship through Cooperative Learning and Cooperative Learning differently affect EFL students’ reading comprehension? The findings of the study showed that using QAR strategy had positive effects and increased EFL students’ reading comprehension. This finding is agree with many scholars claims, such as: Raphael and Au (2005); Readence (2006); Armbruster, Lehr, & Osborn ( 2001); Duke & Pearson (2002); Zygouris-Coe and Glass (2004); who mostly believe that questioning strongly supports and advances students' reading comprehension, it also helps them to think about the text they are reading and beyond it. Findings of the study on implementing CL strategy on EFL students’ reading comprehension showed that this strategy had also positive effects, and students in the second experimental group outperformed in their post-test reading comprehension. This finding is also supported by many scholars such as: Goodwin (1999); Sapon-Shevin (1994); Slavin, Karweit, & Madden (1989); Johnson, & Johnson (1999); Slavin (1991); who mostly believe that within the framework of cooperative learning groups, students learn how to interact with each other and they are not separated based on their class, race, or gender and it promotes their academic achievement in all domains of study. Finally, based on the research findings, implementing combination of the two strategies (QAR+CL) had a positive effect on EFL studentsʼ reading comprehension (in response to research questions 3), even more than using those strategies separately (in response to research questions 4 and 5). This finding of the study is also in parallel with some scholars, such as: Brunstein, Kieschke, and Sporer, (2009); Palincsar & Brown (1984); Cohn (1998); Chamot & Kupper (1989); Carrel (1989); who mostly claimed that implementing the combination of reading strategies were effective in enhancing reading comprehension, in other words, text comprehension is improved when teachers use a combination of reading comprehension techniques. In this way, all research null hypotheses were safely rejected. Therefore, the findings of this research paved the way for the acceptance of the believes that: Students often need assistance in learning to monitor their own comprehension, August et al. (as cited in Chastain, 1998). Reading was characterized as an active process of comprehending and students needed to be taught strategies to read more efficiently (Grabe, 1991). Reading comprehension strategies are as means or plans for assisting and extending comprehension (Hardebeck, 2006). Cooperative learning can and usually does result in positive student outcomes in all domains (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). Also, according to Kagan (1994) working in a group develops student talents or provides a 380 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW) Volume 7 (2), October 2014; 367-‐383 Hosseini Fard, M., & Rimani Nikou, F EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org specific student need. No comprehension activity has a longer or more enveloping tradition than asking students questions about their reading, whether this happens before, during, or after reading (Duke & Pearson, 2002). Therefore, it can be concluded that traditional teaching method of reading has been perpetuated in many language institutions nowadays, and it has been proved that if language learners are strongly motivated, and if they are made challenge in their learning process, their promising talents will be fully developed. CONCLUSION This study attempted to seek the effect of Question-Answer Relationship (QAR) and Cooperative Learning (CL) strategies on EFL students’ reading comprehension. As a result of findings of the study, it can be concluded that using QAR and CL strategies on their own could enhance EFL studentsʼ reading comprehension, but, implementing the combinations of those strategies could have even more positive effect than using them separately in EFL context. As was mentioned in the previous section, these findings are in accordance with many researches done by many scholars. Pedagogical Implications Discovering and identifying the EFL learnersʼ performance in Iranian context, which is absolutely different from other foreign circumstances, could be a first step for EFL programmers to deeply explore the learners’ area of potency and preference in better acquiring the language. Moreover, the results of this study provide some motivations for the researchers in the fields of applied linguistics, psychologists, language teaching methodology, English for Specific or Academic Purpose (ESP/EAP), and many other language-related areas of interest. Therefore, The findings of the study should be of particular significance to the teachers who are interested in improving reading comprehension ability of their EFL students and to the teachers who teach in similar situations as they select instructional strategy and engage in decision-making process related to reading comprehension instruction. It is hoped that this study may help EFL teachers use effective means for teaching reading comprehension. In this study, the researcher had an access to a limited number of female EFL students in first grade high school in a particular context within a short period of time, so the findings might not be generalized to other contexts to a larger degree. The result of this study can be incentive for: Other researchers to do some longitudinal studies in different contexts and on a large number of participants, and pilot similar strategies on other groups of students with different level of proficiency and the learners with different first languages, or studying other target languages. REFERENCES Almanza, T. (1997). The effects of the DRTA and cooperative learning strategies on reading comprehension. Retrieved June 15, 2010, from: http://www.eric.ed. Alsamadani, H. A. (2011). Effects of the 3-2-1 reading strategy on EFL reading comprehension. Canadian Journal of English Language Teaching, 4(3), 184-190. 381 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW) Volume 7 (2), October 2014; 367-‐383 Hosseini Fard, M., & Rimani Nikou, F EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Armbruster, B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2001). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to read. Washington, DC: The U.S. Department of Education. Artz, A. F., & Newman, C. M. (1990). Cooperative learning. Mathematics Teacher, 83, 448-449. Azizi, M. (2002). The impact of three different pre-reading activities on reading comprehension of first grade students of high school. (Unpublished M.A. Thesis). Islamic Azad University of Tehran, Tehran. Brunstein, J. C., Kieschke, U., Sporer, N. (2009). Improving studentsʼ reading comprehension skills: Effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching. Learning and Instruction, 19(3) 272-286. Caldwell, J. S., & Leslie, L. (2005). Intervention strategies to follow informal reading inventory assessment: So what do I do now? Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Carrell, P. L. (1989). Metacongnitive strategy training for ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly,23, 647-673. Carrell, P. L., & Eisterhold, J. C. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 17(4), 553-573. Chamot, A. U., & Kupper, L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 22.13-24. Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second-language skills: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). USA: HBJ, Inc. Chastain, K. (1998). Developing second-language skills: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). USA: HBJ, Inc. Cohen, E. G. (1998). Making cooperative learning equitable. Educational Leadership, 56, 18-22. Duke, N., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective strategies for developing reading comprehension. In M. Celce-Murcia, (Ed.), What research has to Say about Reading Instruction (3rd ed., 205-242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Gardill, M., & Jitendra, A. (1999). Advanced story map instruction: Effects on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 33(1), 2-17. Ghaith, G. (2003 ). Effects of the learning together model of cooperative learning on EFL reading achievement, academic self-esteem, and feelings of school alienation. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(3), 451-474. Goodwin, M. W. (1999). Cooperative learning and social skills: What skills to teach and how to teach them. Interventions in School & Clinic, 35, 29-34. Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language research. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 375-406. Grabe, W. (2002). Reading in a second language. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 49-59). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hardebecek, M. M. (2006). Effectiveness and usage of reading comprehension strategies for second grade title 1 students. (Unpublished Master Thesis), Minesota State University, Education Department, Minnesota. Harmer, J. (2007). How to learn. Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Longman. Hoover, W. A., & Tunmer, W. E. (1993). The components of reading. In G. B. Thompson, W. E. Tunmer, & T. Nicholson (Eds.), Reading acquisition processes ( pp. 1-17). England: Multilingual Matters Ltd. 382 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW) Volume 7 (2), October 2014; 367-‐383 Hosseini Fard, M., & Rimani Nikou, F EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5thed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning. San Clemente, California: Kagan Publishing. Nunan, D. (1993). Teachers' interactive decision-making. Sydney: NCELTR. Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension- fostering and comprehension- monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175. Pearson, P. D., & Nicholson, T. (1976). Scripts, texts and questions. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Atlanta, GA. Peng, R. G. S., Hoon, T. L., Khoo, S. F., & Joseph, I. M. (2007). The impact of question-answerrelationships on reading comprehension. Retrieved from:http://iresearch.osprey.url3.net/iresearch/slot/u110/Alar/.../ar_peichun_qar.pdf. Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds), Handbook of reading research (pp. 545-581). Mahwash NJ: Erlbaum. Raphael, T. E. (1984). Teaching learners about sources of information for answering comprehension questions. Journal of Reading, 27, 303-311. Raphael, T. (1986). Teaching question answer relationships, revisited. The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 516-522. Raphael, T. E., & Au, K. H. (2005). QAR: Enhancing comprehension and test taking across grades and content areas. The Reading Teaching, 59(3), 206-221. Readence, J.E. (2006). Question-answer relationships. Las Vegas: University of Nevada. Sapon-Shevin, M. (1994). Cooperative learning and middle schools: What would it take to really do it right? Theory Into Practice, 33, 183-190. Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership,48, 71-82. Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N. L., & Madden, N. A. (1989). Effective programs for students at risk. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Stafford, T. (2012). The effects of the direct instruction of question-answer relationships (QAR) On ninth-grade students’ ability to accurately answer comprehension questions after reading. Unpublished manuscript. University of Central Florida, Florida. Tompkins, G.E. (2004). 50 literacy strategies: Step by step. Upper Saddle River, N. J.: Pearson Education, Inc. Zygouris-Coe, V., & Glass, C. (2004). Modified QAR, reciprocal teaching – predicting and questioning. Retrieved July 6, 2012, from: http://forpd.unf.edu./strategies/stratqar.html. 383
© Copyright 2024 ExpyDoc
