Effects of Collaborative and Non-Collaborative Approaches to Teaching Reading Strategies on Iranian efl Learners’ Reading Comprehension and Attitude toward Reading





collaborative reading instruction, non-collaborative reading instruction, attitude toward reading, reading comprehension.


In an EFL context reading is a very important skill in language learning. This study aims at finding if instruction of reading strategies in two different collaborative and non-collaborative approaches affects reading comprehension and attitude toward reading differently. Forty-five Iranian adult female EFL learners at pre-intermediate general English proficiency level in Iran Language Institute (ili) were selected and divided into three groups of 15 students. One group functioning as the control group did not receive any strategy instruction; the second group, as the first experimental group, received reading strategy instruction in collaborative groups (Collaborative Strategic Reading or csr), and the third group considered as the second experimental group received reading strategy instruction in a non-collaborative way. A reading comprehension test and a reading attitude questionnaire were given to all three groups at the beginning of the term as pretests and after the experiment as posttests. The results obtained through one-way anova indicated that though both experimental groups outperformed the control group, there was no significant difference between the two experimental groups in reading comprehension and attitude toward reading. Therefore, it is up to teachers to weigh the advantages of using the collaborative approach to teaching reading against its disadvantages.

= 1135 veces | PDF
= 660 veces|


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Azadeh Rajaei, University of Mazandaran

M. A. in TEFL, Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences

Seyed Hassan Talebi, University of Mazandaran

Ph. D. in TEFL. Assistant professor, Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences

Shirin Abadikhah, University of Mazandaran

Ph. D. in Applied Linguistics. Assistant professor, University of Mazandaran, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences


Alexander, P. A., & Jeton, T. L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. Handbook of reading research, 3, 285-310.

Cangelosi, J. S. (2000). Classroom management strategies(4th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Celce-Murcia, M. (1991).Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Boston: Newbury House.

Clark, M. A. & Silberstein, A. (1977).Toward a realization of psycholinguistic principles in the ESL reading class. Language Learning: a Journal of Research in Language Studies, 27(1), 135-154.

Crandall, J. J. (1999). Cooperative learning and affective factors. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp. 226-245). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press.

Gee. James Paul. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. Psychology Press.

Ghaith, G. M. & Amal, R. B. (2003).Relationship between reading attitudes, achievement, and learners perceptions of their jigsaw ii cooperative learning experience. Reading Psychology, 24, 121-133.

Grabe, W. (1991).Current development in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 375-406.

Jacob, E., Rottenberg, L., Patrick, S., & Wheeler, E. (1996). Cooperative learning: Context and opportunities for academic English, TESOL Quarterly, 30, 253-280.

Janzen, J. (1996). Teaching strategic reading. TESOL Journal, 6(1), 6-9.

Johnsen. Scott. (2009). Improving achievement and attitude through cooperative learning in math class. Action Research Projects Paper 64. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/mathmidactionresearch/64

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1990).Cooperative Learning and Achievement. In S. Sharan (Ed.) Cooperative Learning: Theory and Research (pp. 23-37). New York: Praeger.

Khezrlou, Sima (2012). The Relationship between Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategies, Age, and Level of Education. The Reading Matrix,12(1).

Kim H. & Krashen, S. (1997). Why don’t language acquirers take advantage of the power of reading? TESOL Quarterly, 6(3), 26-29.

Klingner. J. K., Vaughn. S., & Schumm. J. S., (1998). A Collaborative effort to enhance reading and writing instruction in inclusion classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21(1), 57-74.

Klingner, Janette &Vaughn, Sharon.(2000). Collaborative Strategic Reading "Real-world" lessons from classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 291-302.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lea, S.J., Stephonson, D., & Troy, J. (2003). Higher-education students' attitudes to student-centered learning: Beyond 'educational bulimia'? Studies in Higher Education, 28, 321-333.

McKenna, M.C., (2001). Children’s attitudes toward reading: A national survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 934-956.

McNamara, DS. (2007). Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions and Technologies. New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Mokhtari, K. & Sheorey, R. (2002). Reading habits of ESL students at different levels of English proficiency and education. Journal of Research in Reading, 17(1), 46-61.

Molelo, C & Cowieson, A.R. (2003).Inculcating a culture of reading in young learners: A case study of Botswana junior secondary school. In DM MacLeod, B Hookey, B J Frier, & AR Cowieson (Eds), Participation and entitlement in educational development: Accounts of practitioner research in Botswana. (pp.107-128). Farnham, United Kingdom: Ashgate.

Payne, Beverly D.& Manning, Brenda. (2010). The role of metacognition in reading comprehension: implications for instruction. Literacy Research Report, 19. 31-44.

Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rubin, J. (1975). What the ‘good language learner’ can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1),41-51.

Slavin, R. E. (1999).Comprehensive Approaches to Cooperative Learning. Theory into Practice, 38, 74-79.

Talebi, S. H. (2013). The relationship between L2 and L1 from the perspective of Cook’s multicompetence model. Ferdowsi review: an Iranian journal of TESL, literature and translation studies, 3(2).

Tse, L. (1996).When an adult becomes a reader. Reading Horizons, 37(1), 16-29.

Vaughn, Sharon & Edmonds, Meaghan. (2006). Reading comprehension for older readers. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41, 131-137.

Williams, J. P. 2002. Reading comprehension strategies and teacher education. In AF Farstrup& ST Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction. (pp.239-257).Newark: International Reading Association.

Yamashita Junko. (2004). The relationship of reading attitudes between L1 and L2: an investigation of adult EFL learners in Japan. TESOL quarterly, 41, 81-105.

Zarei, A.A. (2012). The Effects of STAD and CIRC on L2 Reading Comprehension and Vocabulary Learning. Frontiers of Language and Teaching, 3, 161-173.

Zoghi M., Mustapha R. & NorRizan M. Tg. (2010). Collaborative strategic reading with university EFL Learners. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 41, 67-94.




How to Cite

Rajaei, A., Talebi, S. H., & Abadikhah, S. (2020). Effects of Collaborative and Non-Collaborative Approaches to Teaching Reading Strategies on Iranian efl Learners’ Reading Comprehension and Attitude toward Reading. Íkala, Revista De Lenguaje Y Cultura, 25(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.v25n01a05



Empirical Studies