Teacher's Difference and Iranian Students' Vocabulary Achievement: Learning Together Model

International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics
2015; 1(2): 58-64

Published online June 15, 2015 (http://www.ijlal.ir)
ISSN: 2383-0514 (Online)
2015 Khate Sefid Press
Teacher's Difference and Iranian Students'

Vocabulary Achievement:
Learning Together Model
Zohreh Adeli Jam
University of Tehran, Kish International Campus, Kish, Iran
Email: adeli.jam61@gmail.com
Abstract The main purpose of this study was to examine

the effect of difference of instructors on the students'
vocabulary achievement in traditional and CL classes. Sixty
second-year students of Tabriz Faculty of Pharmacy were
randomly sampled and divided into two equal classes. Two
teachers implemented traditional and CL in both classes to
control for the effect of different characteristics of the
instructors. Achievement data was collected and analyzed
by t-test. Results revealed that difference of instructors did
not have any significant difference on students' vocabulary
achievement. Moreover, the participants in the cooperative
learning group had a significantly higher vocabulary
achievement than those in the individualized learning group
at p<0.05.
It exists when students work together to accomplish

shared learning goal if and only if the other group
members achieve theirs (Deutsch, 1962).
According to D.W. Johnson & Johnson, (1987),
cooperative learning refers to having small groups of
students working together to maximize their own and
their group mates' learning (i.e., achieve shared learning
goals). Since late 1970s and early 1980s, with the effect
of humanistic psychology on language pedagogy,
teachers became aware of the important role of
vocabulary in a foreign language acquisition (Thornbury,
2002).
The importance of vocabulary has been also mentioned
by Hatch & Brown (1995) as they claimed that:
Vocabulary is of great significance to language learners
and its prominent role in second or foreign language
learning has been recently acknowledged by theorists and
researchers in the field. Consequently, different types of
approaches, techniques, exercises and practice have been
introduced into the field for the purpose of teaching
vocabulary. It should be noted that the importance of
vocabulary has been also mentioned in the field of ESP
(English for Specific Purposes). According to Swales
(1983), The importance of the teaching of vocabulary in
ESP is now widely accepted. (as cited in Dudley-Evans
& St. John, 1998, p. 80).
Considering the importance of vocabulary, it can be
claimed that a good mastery of vocabulary is essential for
ESL/EFL learners, especially for those who learn for
specific purposes.
According to Nation (2001) It is wise to direct
vocabulary learning to more specialized areas when
learners have mastered the words of general usefulness in
English ( p. 187). Another important factor which should
be noted is the recognition of the best way to improve
vocabulary learning strategies of students. As we know,
new ways of learning and teaching are continuously
developed in the modern world and we as teachers should
have a complete understanding of the effective
approaches to learning.
Cooperative learning, as one of the effective
approaches to learning, includes various models of
Index Terms Cooperative learning, Learning together

model, Vocabulary achievement, Instructors' difference
I. INTRODUCTION
Cooperative learning is not new to education. It has
been happening for decades. Cooperative language
learning is part of a more general instructional approach
also known as collaborative learning. This method of
instruction makes maximum use of cooperative activities
and involves pairs and small groups of learners in the
classroom (Richard & Rodgers, 2001). According to
Paulson and Faust (1999), cooperative learning is a type
of active learning in which students work as groups of
three or more, rather than alone or in pairs. There is a
large amount of research proving the benefits of active
learning. In active learning students are active in the
classroom rather than merely passively listening to an
instructor's lecture. There are a few definitions on
cooperative learning made by prominent scholars.
Cooperative learning is one of the most remarkable and
fertile areas of theory, research and practice in education.
Received April 13, 2015; Accepted May 23, 2015.
1

2015; 1(2): 58-64
cooperation within its framework. All the models have

positive impact on students achievement, but Learning
Together Model has prompted the greater effect. In this
model each member of a group research on one piece of a
topic with the goal of generating a single report and with
a group handing in a single assignment sheet (Johnson &
Johnson, 1998).
This paradigm shift has also given the most prominent
role to learners in ESP as well. Although, this paradigm
shift in education may create a challenging situation for
both teachers and students, all fields of education in
general and the field of pharmacy in particular cannot
keep away from this considerable change. According to
Cisneros, Anderson-Harper, and Salisbury-Glennon
(2002) the commission to implement change in
pharmaceutical education which is responsible for
directing pharmacy education in the process of dealing
with the changing demands of the profession and society
through developing series of recommendations have
urged schools of pharmacy to focus more on studentcentered learning, and producing independent,
autonomous, and self-directed learners. In other words
schools of pharmacy have been trying to prepare
competent practitioners in recent years. Sarriff (2010)
believed that in professional education, like pharmacy,
traditional lecture method is not an effective way of
"delivering facts and information to students" (p.3). The
reason is that, the field of pharmacy "has undergone a
dramatic change from a product-oriented profession to a
patient-centered one" (p.2). Sarriff (2010) has stated that,
array of new educational methodologies have been
proposed which are necessary in preparing the students
for their future career as pharmacists, among which
problem-based learning (PBL), experiential and
cooperative learning strategy can be seen. Several
researchers have reported that, regardless of the subject
matter, retention of information in students working in
small groups tend to be longer than when the same
content is presented in other instructional formats, and
they learn more of what is taught to them (Gross Davis,
2009). Additionally, pharmacy educators should focus on
the following areas which should be incorporated
simultaneously in order to produce the required changes
in pharmacy, and they may be achieved through the use
of different active-learning methods. These focus areas
are as follows: 1) the amount of class time spent for
passive transmission of factual information to students
should be limited; 2) students should be challenged to
develop critical-thinking, communication, and problemsolving skills (Blouin & colleagues, 2009, as cited in
Zingone et al., 2010). In fact, as a student-centered
approach to learning, cooperative learning creates more
opportunities for students to actively engage and
participate in the learning process.
Despite of the increase in the number of CL studies at
the university-level, few of them have focused on the
effects of cooperative learning in the natural and health
sciences especially in Iranian context. Instructors of

medical terminology course in Tabriz Faculty of
pharmacy usually complain about pharmacy students
lower achievement of in this course and in later courses
because of lower retention of technical vocabularies and
expressions which are taught to them. Moreover, most of
pharmacy educators believe that pharmacy students are
expected to write research papers in English and Farsi,
take part in seminars, and discuss conducted researches in
their field of study. Students are also required to take part
in workshops where there is a need for understanding
scientific discussions in which students should know the
meaning of medical terminologies. Thus, pharmacy
instructors are increasingly searching the most beneficial
ways to improve pharmacy students' achievement in all
their courses, especially in learning Medical vocabularies
which they think requires special attention. Moreover,
they believe that traditional approaches to teaching, like
using lectures are considered to be boring by pharmacy
students. They, also mentioned in the traditional lecture
format approach students do not have any opportunity to
practice learned medical terminologies with each other.
They do not have enough oral practice as well. Thus, they
do not show longer retention of those vocabularies which
they should remember in later courses. Considering all
the benefits of cooperative learning this study attempts to
examine: 1) The effect of different instructors on the
students' vocabulary achievement in traditional and CL
classes, 2) The effect of CL on vocabulary achievement
of pharmacy students. Moreover, in this study more
emphasis is placed on the Learning Together Model, one
form of cooperative learning, which was introduced by
Johnson & Johnson in 1987.
II. METHOD
A. Participants
The participants of this study were sixty second-year
students of pharmacy from Tabriz University of Medical
Sciences. Their age range was between 21-23 and all of
them had already passed the entrance University exam.
The sample of this study consisted of 60 students who
were selected randomly from among 78 pharmacy
students' population who were required to pass medical
terminology course of study. They were divided into two
classes, each containing 30 students. In both classes there
were an equal number of males and females. The
participants of this study had passed 60 courses of study.
Moreover, all of them had passed general English course
as a prerequisite for their medical terminology course. In
order to make sure that all participants are homogeneous
a pretest was used in this study.
B. Materials and Instruments
59

2015; 1(2): 58-64
In traditional approach classes, terms were presented

through the use of power point, which was prepared by
the instructors. A book entitled "medical terminology"
written by Birmingham J. (1999) was used as the
teaching material by two instructors in both classes. The
instruments used in this study consisted of a technical
vocabulary pretest and two posttests which were
previously designed and standardized by Tabriz Faculty
of Pharmacy. In fact the questions had been drawn from
a pool of vocabulary questions which were standardized
before this study. Therefore, due to the availability of
valid tests in Tabriz Faculty of pharmacy, those questions
were used in this study.
The pretest consisted of thirty multiple-choice
questions which were used to evaluate homogeneity of
prior knowledge in students who were selected randomly
to receive the treatment. In addition to our pretest, there
were two posttests, each consisting of thirty questions,
which were given to participants in both classes to see the
impact of cooperative learning model, the independent
variable of the study, on students achievement of
technical words and expressions, the dependent variable.
instructor A using cooperative learning and the second

eight sessions was taught by instructor B using traditional
approach.
Thus, in this study each class experienced cooperative
learning for 8 sessions by different instructors, instructor
A and B, to control for the effect of different
characteristics of teachers (Halo effect). In other words,
in Tabriz Faculty of pharmacy medical terminology
course is always taught cooperatively by two instructors.
Taking into account the importance of teachers
difference and the possibility of introducing intervening
variable by teachers characteristics, the researcher took
advantage of this special, unique context of learning in an
EAP environment to eliminate the difference of teachers
factor as an intervening variable. In fact, the two
instructors in this study had different work place
experience and professional background. Furthermore,
there was sixteen years difference of age between their
ages, i.e. forty years old versus 56 years old. These
differences in the instructors may introduce different
teacher factor to this study. To counter against this factor
the same instructor taught in both cooperative learning
and traditional approach in first eight classes of both class
A and class B. Also the same instructor taught in both
cooperative learning and traditional approach in second
eight classes of both class A and class B. Furthermore, the
results gained from both classes using the same approach
but by different instructors were compared to eliminate
different teacher factor as an intervening variable. In this
study, the pretest was administered to the students during
the first week of class to ensure that all the students in
both classes have equivalent background knowledge.
Both classes took a pretest and two posttests
simultaneously to counter against the possibility of
asking questions by the students from each other. Both
first and second posttests contained thirty multiple choice
questions. The first posttest was given after 8 sessions to
both class A and class B students which were taught by
instructor A using traditional and cooperative approach
respectively. The second posttest was given after the final
8 sessions to both class A and class B students which
were taught by instructor B using cooperative and
traditional approach respectively.
C. Procedures
After obtaining the official agreement of the instructors
to conduct the study, the researcher explained and
clarified the components of cooperative learning to them.
Moreover the exact design of the study and the way the
instructors would teach in each class were clarified to
them. The two classes and two instructors were randomly
assigned names as A and B. At first 78 pharmacy students
who were required to pass medical terminology course of
study were randomly assigned numbers. Then they were
assigned into two groups of males and females. Finally,
15 males and 15 females were randomly assigned into
each class. This randomization of participants was done
to ensure that any difference between and within the
groups were not systematic at the outset of the study and
that any possible differences were due to chance and not
because of individual characteristics in the group.
Regarding gender composition, equal size of males and
females were chosen so that male-dominated or femaledominated of atmosphere of the classes should not affect
the students' performance in the groups. In both classes,
class A and B, the first eight sessions were taught by
instructor A and the next eight sessions instructor B to
control for the effect of different characteristics of the
instructors. In other words, in class A the first eight
sessions were taught by instructor A using traditional
approach and the second eight sessions by instructor B
using cooperative learning approach.
In other words, in class A the first eight sessions was
taught by instructor A using traditional approach and the
second eight sessions was taught by instructor B using
cooperative learning approach.
But, in class B the first eight sessions was taught by
D. Cooperative Learning Treatment

In the first session in both classes, A and B, a clear and
specific description of the task was given to the students,
and the group goal was explained to them by the
instructors in both classes. In cooperative learning
approach both instructors explained to the students in
both classes that there would be 8 sessions of cooperative
learning. Then the researcher together with the instructor
randomly assigned numbers to 30 participants in each
cooperative learning class. Then they were randomly
assigned into six groups, each containing five students.
As it is one of the elements of Learning Together
60

2015; 1(2): 58-64
Model, group members were positioned at movable desks

so that they can interact with each other and explain and
elaborate what they have learned and found previously.
Groups remained together throughout the 8 sessions in
both classes of both instructors. Both classes were taught
by the same two teachers for 16 sessions using the same
textbook, and every session lasted two hours.
In each session the instructor presented ten technical
words to each group; all groups received the same ten
words each session. Then, the instructors asked the
groups to divide ten technical words among themselves
and each team member should find the definitions of
technical words which they have received in the previous
session both in Farsi and English. Moreover, each group
was asked to use those vocabularies in a sentence. In this
way the positive interdependence is emphasized. In fact,
the instructors had told the students that they must each
contribute to the group discussion. In the next session
each group member would share his/her technical words
definitions with other teammates and there would be
discussions and interactions among students in order to
produce a single paper on which all ten words together
with their definitions appeared. Additionally, each group
must provide a sentence for each vocabulary. In fact in
this process students were told that each member is
responsible not only for his/her own learning but also
s/he is responsible for other group members learning.
Students were told that they must each contribute to the
group discussion, and instructors monitored each group to
be certain that there was equal representation by each
group member during discussion and that no one person
emerged as the leader of the group.
The instructors encouraged group members to share
their work through interaction within cooperative groups
and in this way group members monitor and give
feedback to each other. Thus, students were active
throughout the activity. Furthermore, the instructors
encouraged group members to rotate the roles of listener,
questioner, and reader. Students were required to ensure
that each member understood the answer and could
communicate that understanding verbally and in writing.
The instructors did not act as an expert or leader. They
provided each group with an assignment each session and
students were required to interact with each other and
hand a single assignment sheet to the instructors at the
end of each session. As a class activity the instructors
collected those papers and returned them back to students
next session. The instructors wrote 'excellent' on those
papers in which all the definitions were correct in order to
motivate students to cooperate with each other and to
take their group members' achievement seriously.
After completing the assignments the teacher asked
one of the members of each group to read the definitions
of the technical words that they had found and wrote on
one piece of paper together with a sentence which was
produced by the group as a whole for each word. This
was done in a random manner. In this way the instructor
structured individual accountability. Moreover, there

were interactions both within each group and among
different groups. As one of the members of each group
read the definition of each word together with a sentence
which was made by all of the members of each group, the
other groups listened and checked their own definitions,
and asked for help whenever it was necessary. At the end
of each session the instructors asked students to evaluate
how well they are functioning in order to improve
effective working relationships among members of each
group.
E. Traditional- Individual Learning Treatment
In traditional approach students were told that they
were responsible only for their own learning. While an
instructor cannot prevent students from interacting in
class or outside of class, this interaction was not
encouraged. The instructors in both classes presented the
technical words of each session by the use of PowerPoint
slides which was prepared by the instructors. Students
were asked to memorize the presented ten words for the
next session.
In the next session the instructors asked the words
which were presented in the previous session and
individuals who gave the correct answers were
encouraged by the instructors.
Results
The effect of cooperative learning on students'
vocabulary achievement: At first pharmacy students'
homogeneity was examined through the comparison of
their pre-test scores of technical words. Independent
sample t-test was used to compare students' means in
both classes. The derived t-value was 0.92 which is not
significant with the df = 58 at P < 0.05, as indicated in
Table 1. This means that students in both classes were at
the same level of achievement at the start of the study.
Comparison of students' means of CL versus traditional
approach in post-test one/Involving Instructor A: This
result showed that cooperative instruction significantly
enhanced the participants vocabulary learning. It means
that the incorporation of cooperative learning had a
positive effect on the students' vocabulary achievement
(Table 1).
Comparison of students' means of CL versus traditional
approach in post-test two/involving Instructor B: As
Table 1 shows, the observed value of t obtained was 4.26
which was significant at p < 0.05 with the degree of
freedom being 58. This can demonstrate that the
difference in the mean of the two groups was not due to
chance factors (i.e. significant).
III. RESULTS
A. The Effect of Cooperative Learning on Students'
Vocabulary Achievement
61

2015; 1(2): 58-64
At first pharmacy students' homogeneity was

examined through the comparison of their pre-test scores
of technical words. Independent sample t-test was used to
compare students' means in both classes. The derived tvalue was 0.92 which is not significant with the df = 58 at
P < 0.05, as indicated in Table 1. This means that
students in both classes were at the same level of
achievement at the start of the study.
effect of teachers' differences on two approaches was

investigated. In the beginning of the study, pretest scores
in pretest showed no significance difference in both
classes. This means that students in both classes were at
the same level of achievement at the start of the study.
In order to examine the impact of CL on their
vocabulary achievement statistical analysis was
performed in two parts using independent sample t-test to
compare pharmacy students' post-tests means in both
classes. In the first part students' mean score in first eight
classes of instructor A using traditional approach in class
A was compared to students' mean in first eight classes of
the same instructor using cooperative learning in class B.
The result of post-test one/involving instructor A revealed
a significant difference in students' vocabulary
achievement between traditional approach and
cooperative learning. The graphic representations of
scores in class A and class B can be seen in Figure 4.1
and Figure 4.2 respectively. In the second part students'
mean score in second eight classes of instructor B using
cooperative learning in class A was compared to students'
mean in second eight classes using traditional approach in
class B. Again, the result showed a significant difference
in students' vocabulary achievement in favor of
cooperative learning. The graphic representations of
scores in both classes can be seen in Figure 4.3 and
Figure 4.4.
Instructors reported that students became more actively
engaged in technical vocabulary learning through
cooperative learning and shared their vocabulary
definitions. In fact, it seems that since two different
approaches were used in this study which was conducted
in a unique EAP context, students encountered with a
variety of approaches which could be interesting for them.
Tauer and Harackiewicz (2004) also found that a
combination of cooperation and competition "facilitates
motivation, enjoyment, and performance of participants"
(as cited in Attle & Baker, 2007, p. 79). Furthermore,
Johnson and Johnson (1987) have acknowledged the
necessity to integrate cooperative learning and
competitive individual learning. Instructors also reported
that during cooperative learning classes students did not
give up working on their assignment easily and asked
questions regarding the definitions of vocabularies or
their use in a sentence just as the last resort and after
discussing it with their group members. However, in
traditional approach classes they found that students
always asked their instructors to tell them everything they
did not know. This can be attributed to the fact that in
most cases students can explain things better to their
peers than their teachers.
It was also observed that repeated exposure to
technical vocabularies and frequent use of them in several
sentences in this course created favorable conditions for
automatic learning of such vocabulary in their real
contexts to the extent that they became part of their
Persian speech.
B. Comparison of Students' Means of CL versus

Traditional Approach in Post-test One/Involving
Instructor A
This result showed that cooperative instruction
significantly enhanced the participants vocabulary
learning. It means that the incorporation of cooperative
learning had a positive effect on the students' vocabulary
achievement (Table 1).
C. Comparison of Students' Means of CL versus
Traditional Approach in Post-test Two/Involving
Instructor B
As Table 1 shows, the observed value of t obtained
was 4.26 which was significant at p < 0.05 with the
degree of freedom being 58. This can demonstrate that
the difference in the mean of the two groups was not due
to chance factors (i.e. significant).
D. The Effect of Different Instructors on Pharmacy
Students' Vocabulary Achievement
In this section two statistical analyses were performed
using Independent-sample t-test. At first, the two mean
scores of pharmacy students in class A and B which were
taught by instructors A and B using traditional approach
were compared. Then the two means of students in class
B and A which were taught by instructors A and B using
cooperative leaning approach were compared. The results
are presented in the following part. Table 2 indicates that
the mean of the two classes taught through traditional
vocabulary instruction did not significantly differ. In
other words, the two teachers teaching based on
traditional approach was not very much different. In other
words, no effect on vocabulary learning could be
established due to the teacher. As is the case with the
previous finding, cooperative teaching of both instructors
could not influence the learners vocabulary attainment.
Table 2 shows the statistical difference to be 0.50 which
is not significant at p <0.05 with df = 58.
IV. DISCUSSION
This study was undertaken to provide an empirical
analysis of the effects of two learning methods,
cooperative and individual, on the technical vocabulary
achievement of pharmacy students. Furthermore, the
62

2015; 1(2): 58-64
As it has been reported in several studies, retention of

information increases in cooperative learning classes (J.A.
Kulick & C.L. Kulick, 1979; Johnson et al., 1991). Both
of the instructors reported that, in the following term
pharmacy students of this study asked much less
questions regarding the content of information presented
to them because they showed higher retention of
specialized words which were presented to them in the
previous term through cooperative learning method. It is
possible that students have recalled definition of
vocabularies more as a result of cooperative learning
classes. Of course, these students should be followed in
later courses to examine longer retention of vocabulary in
them caused by the application of CL.
The comparison of the mean scores of pharmacy
students in class A and B which were taught by
instructors A and B using traditional approach revealed
that students' vocabulary achievement was not affected
by different instructors in both classes. Then the two
means of students in class B and A which were taught by
instructors A and B using cooperative leaning approach
were compared, again it was found that there was not a
significant difference between students' vocabulary
achievement due to difference of instructor A and
instructor B in both classes. The results suggest that in
terms of the effect of instructors' differences no
significant differences were found on students'
vocabulary achievement. Thus, the results of this study
cannot be due to differences between instructors which
could be an intervening variable in this study.
This unique context of study makes this research a
valuable one in that even if the instructors do not agree to
completely drop traditional, teacher-centered class
approach, they can take advantage of cooperative
learning in combination with traditional approaches to
learning.
Figure 1. Graphic representations of scores in post-test one in class A,

involving instructor A
Figure 2. Graphic representations of scores in post-test one in class B,

involving instructor A
Figure 3. Graphic representations of scores in post-test two in class A,

involving instructor B
TABLE 1. INDEPENDENT SAMPLE T-TEST COMPARING THE

MEAN SCORES IN CLASS A AND CLASS B
t-observed
Df
Significance
Pretest
Independent
Sample T-test
Independent
Sample T-test
Independent
Sample T-test
Post-test
one
Post-test
two
* Not significant
** Significant at p <0.05
0.98
58
0.92*
3.82
58
0.00**
4.26
58
0.00**
TABLE 2. INDEPENDENT SAMPLE T-TEST COMPARING

TRADITIONAL AND COOPERATIVE TEACHING BY
INSTRUCTORS A & B
t-observed
df
Significance
Traditional
Independent
Sample Ttest
Cooperative Independent
Sample Ttest
* Not significant
58
Figure 4. Graphic representations of scores in post-test two in class B,

involving instructor B
0.89*
V. CONCLUSION
0.50
58
0.62*
In conclusion therefore cooperative learning can be

effectively incorporated as a teaching strategy in the early
years of pharmacy education. The results of this study
63

2015; 1(2): 58-64
suggested that cooperative learning approach classes

taught by both instructors helped students gain higher
vocabulary achievement compared to traditional learning
approach classes of both instructors in an outstanding
way. Furthermore, in this study the fact that the
difference between instructors plays a role and can affect
students' vocabulary achievement was not confirmed.
Therefore, these findings suggest that regardless of
teachers' differences working in cooperative learning
groups help to improve student outcomes in terms of
vocabulary achievement even in an EAP context like
pharmacy in an effective manner. Due to the uniqueness
of this study pharmacy educators can also take advantage
of these findings and use cooperative learning strategy in
combination with the traditional approach. As there may
be still some pharmacy instructors who prefer to apply
traditional approach in their classes. On the whole, it can
be concluded from this study that the use of studentcentered approaches such as cooperative learning are
among the highly important issues to consider based on
the findings of this study in an EAP context. Moreover,
students look upon the teacher not only as a person who
imparts knowledge, but more of a guide to learning. In
fact, Students all around the world can benefit from
cooperative learning. Educators can use their
understanding of cooperative learning and utilize this tool
effectively in the class to promote student achievement.
REFERENCES
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1987) Learning together
and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic
learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1996). Meaningful and
manageable assessment through cooperative learning. Edina:
Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1998). Cooperative and
social interdependence theory. Educational Researcher, 38 (5),
365379. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09339057
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith, K. (1991). Active
Learning: Cooperation in the college classroom, Edina, MN:
Interaction Book Company Gross Davis, B. (2009). Tools for
Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nation, I.S.P., (2001). Learning vocabulary in another
language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sarriff, A. (2010). Teaching pharmacy: Need for a change,
International journal of pharmacy teaching and practices, 1(1),
1-4.
Zingone, M. M., Franks, A. S., Guirguis, A. B., George, Ch.
M., Howard-Thompson, A., & Heidel E. (2010). Comparing
team-based and mixed active-learning methods in an
ambulatory care elective course. American journal of
pharmaceutical education, 74 (9), 160
AUTHOR
Zohreh Adeli Jam is currently a PhD student at University of
Tehran Kish international campus, Iran. She graduated with a
Bachelors degree from Islamic Azad University in Tabriz, Iran.
Following her studies Zohreh Adeli Jam attended Payam-eNoor University at Tehran gaining her Masters degree in
Teaching English. Zohreh Adeli Jam is interested in
Psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics and discourse analysis.
64

Teacher's Difference and Iranian Students' Vocabulary Achievement: Learning Together Model

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Teacher's Difference and Iranian Students' Vocabulary Achievement: Learning Together Model

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics

2015; 1(2): 58-64