This study aimed at investigating the impact of jigsaw strategy on the King Saud University students' reading comprehension achievement in English. It attempted to answer the following question:
·        What is the effect of jigsaw strategy on reading comprehension compared with conventional method?
To answer the question of the study, the researcher prepared a program based on the jigsaw strategy for the experimental group. Fifty male students in Almajma'a College – English department were purposefully chosen in the 2nd semester of the academic year 2007/2008. The participants of the study consisted of two assigned sections. The experimental group was taught according to jigsaw strategy; while the control group was taught according to the conventional way. The two groups were found equivalent upon analyzing the data in the pre-achievement test.
The reading achievement test is the instrument of this study. To establish the validity for the test, the method of content validity was used. The test was given to a jury of specialists. Before carrying out the experiment, a pre-test for the reading comprehension and writing was administrated. By the end of the experiment, the researcher administered the reading comprehension test to both groups.
ANCOVA was used to examine the significance of the treatment on the dependent variables. The results revealed that the achievement of reading comprehension of the students in the experimental group significantly improved. The study also proposed a number of recommendations and suggestions for future research.    

Chapter one
Introduction
Background of the Study
Reading occupies special place among the four language skills .It is a basic tool of learning and one of the most important skills in everyday life (Fry, 1997). As a matter of fact, nearly all children begin school with the expectation they will learn to read, and one of the most important things a child is asked to do is to read.
Reading is often important as English is taught more for academic or business purposes than for daily communication. Al-Mutawa and Kailani (1996) consider reading as a window through which foreign language learners could see other cultures and gain more specific knowledge. Kaddoumi (1995) also indicates that reading knowledge of a foreign language is often important to academic studies, professional success and personal development.
Different views have been expressed concerning the meaning or the nature of reading. Robinson and Good (1987) say:" definition of reading can not possibly include all view points and features because each person’s definition reflects what reading means to that person." Most writers define reading as getting meaning encoded by the writer from the text. It is an interactive skill in which the reader interacts with the text and employs his experience and previous knowledge to get meaning. Similarly, Williams (1984) describe reading as a process of obtaining meaning from the text.
      The central aim of reading is the comprehension of the material read. Many readers face some difficulties while reading English texts, especially when they encounter a load of unfamiliar words which they cannot comprehend, retain or use correctly. In his experience as a language lecturer, the researcher has noticed that many students read without any particular strategies for remembering new words, or making use of clues in the text. So, they do not comprehend the gist of what they are reading, and consequently they gain little information.                                             
Reading comprehension is the process of understanding and    constructing meaning from a piece of text. Connected text is any written material involving multiple words that forms coherent thoughts. Phrases, sentences, paragraphs, and so on are examples of connected text that can be read with comprehension. Reading difficulties become most apparent when the student is unable to grasp the meaning from a text.  
Making reading an enjoyable and useful activity is a very important part of the language experience. Teachers should be aware of the main approaches to the teaching of reading and models that underlie them. It is worth using new techniques or strategies of teaching English reading comprehension which might improve this skill in particular and enhance the learning of English in general. Reading comprehension strategies facilitate the learning of the reading skill (Hismanoglu, 2000).
To engage in reading comprehension effectively, students need to be equipped with effective strategies to help them improve their reading competency. Various types of reading strategies can be cited in literature such as cooperative learning (CL) strategy. CL refers to a method of instruction whereby students work together in groups to reach common goals. Within cooperative learning, students benefit from sharing ideas rather than working alone. Students help one another so that all can reach some measures of success. This is in contrast with the traditional technique where students work individually or competitively. In the traditional technique, students are generally concerned with improving their own grade, and goals are individualistic rather than group wide.
     The effectiveness of CL as a teaching strategy has been well established." During the past 90 years over 575 experimental and 100 co relational studies have been conducted by a wide variety of researchers in different decades with different subjects, in different subject areas, and in different settings"(Johnson, Johnson, and Smith, 1991).They state that the research results consistently indicate that CL will promote higher achievement, more positive interpersonal relationships, and higher self-esteem than will competitive or individualistic efforts.
Research has also shown that CL, when done well, is effective in areas such as achievement, critical thinking competencies, attitude toward subject area, interpersonal relationships, social support, student retention, faculty relationships with students, and psychological health (Tinto, 1993).Furthermore Cooperative language learning has been proclaimed as an effective instructional approach in promoting the cognitive and linguistic development of learners of English as a Second Language (ESL) or English as a Foreign Language (EFL) (Kagan, 1995; Kessler, 1992; McGroarty, 1989, 1993).According to Olsen and Kagan (1992), CL increases interaction among learners as they restate, expand, and elaborate their ideas in order to convey and/or clarify intended meaning. This interaction is important because it contributes to gains in L2 acquisition (Long and Porter, 1985; Pica, Young, and Doughty, 1987) and in academic achievement (Bejarano, 1987; Ghaith and Yaghi, 1998; Kagan, 1989).
CL is perceived as a generic term for a number of instructional techniques and procedures that address conceptual learning and social development. It encompasses the following instructional models: the Structural Approach (Kagan, 1989), Group Investigation (Sharan and Sharan, 1992), Student Team Learning (Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes, and Snapp, 1978; Slavin,1995), Curriculum Packages (Slavin, ,Leavey and Madden 1986), and Learning Together (Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec, 1991, 1992, 1994a). The Structural Approach is based on using content-free ways of managing classroom interaction called structures. Structures are relatively easy to implement and can be categorized into team and class building, communication, mastery, and critical thinking structures. Group Investigation divides work among team members, who complete specific tasks and then reconvene to prepare a group presentation. Student Team Learning includes the Jigsaw method and its variations and the Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) method. Curriculum Packages are specific programs for teaching math and language and include the Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition program. The Learning Together model organizes instruction according to the principles of positive interdependence, individual accountability, promotive face-to-face interaction, social and collaborative skills, and group processing.
     The present study attempts to examine the impact of the Jigsaw Strategy on King Saud University students' reading comprehension achievement in English.

Statement of the Problem
     Many English language students hold that reading involves looking the meanings of unfamiliar words in a dictionary, memorizing the definitions of all the words in the paragraph, saying the words in a passage in proper order. Thus, comprehension is not part of their patterns of reading and the joy of discovering new understanding and the emotions of happiness, sorrow or fun of humor are, therefore, very limited .To get the proper information from a text, they have to use reading comprehension strategies which are considered one of the effective elements that affect foreign language acquisition in general and reading comprehension ability in particular.

Questions of the Study
     The study attempted to answer the following question:

• What is the effect of the Jig-saw Model of Cooperative Learning on enhancing the proficiency of reading comprehension skills of the Al-Majma'aCommunity College students in English?

Research Hypothesis
     For the purpose of the study, the following null hypothesis is tested:

• There are no statistically significant differences at (α=0,01)between the mean post test scores of the experimental group who study reading comprehension via the Jig-saw Model of Cooperative Learning and the control group who study the same texts using the conventional method.

Operational Definitions
The researcher adopted the following terms:

• Jig-saw is an instructional strategy designed by Elliot Aronson (1978) to enhance students' comprehension of text. In Jigsaw, the teacher assigns students to teams to work on academic material that has been broken down into sections. Each team member reads his section of the material. Next, members of different teams who have read the same sections meet in expert groups to discuss the material. Then the students return to their original teams and take turns teaching their teammates the section on which they have become experts. It has five major components: reading, expert group discussion, team report, testing, and team recognition.
• Reading comprehension achievement is the score that each student in both the experimental and control group will gain in the post test which will be immediately administered after the completion of the program.

Significance of the study
The significance of the study stems from the following points:
1. This study bridges the gap between theory and practice by comparing the group of strategy (Jigsaw) with traditional one on reading comprehension.
2. It provided other researchers with some reliable instruments, action procedures, and experimental findings for employing in future research.
3. It encouraged educational decision- makers and local educational supervisors as well as faculties of education to better qualify and prepare prospective teachers to make use of and promote a variety of procedures to facilitate the CL of their students.
4. It attracted the attention of curriculum designers to the procedures and strategies incorporated within the framework of the jigsaw for developing teacher’s guides; it also suggested activities to assist in implementing the jigsaw strategy successfully.
5. It should gear more research towards the CL method or any of its variations.
Limitations of the study
     The findings of the study should be limited by the following factors:

• The subjects of the study are restricted to the second level in Al-Majm'ah Community College.
• The instructional material is confined to a number of units taken from Interaction1 (Reading1).
• The instruments of the study which are the instructional program and the achievement test are developed by the researcher himself.

Chapter two
Review of Related Literature
Theoretical Review
Cooperative learning
Slavin (1995) pointed out that the history of cooperative learning can be traced back as far as the seventeenth century. He cited such educational theorists as Comenius in the seventeenth century, Rousseau in the eighteenth century, Pestalozzi in the nineteenth century and Dewey in the early twentieth century, who held that some form of cooperation among students as essential to learning. Slavin also referred to Piaget and Vygotsky's developmental theories which emphasized the importance of discussion and joint problem solving among peers. Social interdependence theory, according to Johnson, Johnson and Holubec (1994a) traced its roots back to Koffka in the early 1900's. Johnson, Johnson and Holubec (1994b) also stated that nearly 600 experimental and over 100 co relational studies have been conducted on cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts to learn since 1898.
According to Kagan (1995), there are over fifty forms of cooperative learning. Each has its appropriate application depending on the nature of the student population and the type of educational outcome to be fostered. Ultimately, each teacher must decide which of the cooperative-learning techniques to use. Some of these methods are the Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD), Learning Together, CIRC, and Jigsaw.

Jigsaw in 10 Easy Steps
The jigsaw classroom is very simple to use. If you're a teacher, just follow these steps:
1- Divide students into 5- or 6-person jigsaw groups. The groups should be diverse in terms of gender, ethnicity, race, and ability.
2- Appoint one student from each group as the leader. Initially, this person should be the most mature student in the group.
3- Divide the day's lesson into 5-6 segments. For example, if you want history students to learn about Eleanor Roosevelt, you might divide a short biography of her into stand-alone segments on: (1) Her childhood, (2) Her family life with Franklin and their children, (3) Her life after Franklin contracted polio, (4) Her work in the White House as First Lady, and (5) Her life and work after Franklin's death.
4- Assign each student to learn one segment, making sure students have direct access only to their own segment.
5- Give students time to read over their segment at least twice and become familiar with it. There is no need for them to memorize it.
6- Form temporary "expert groups" by having one student from each jigsaw group join other students assigned to the same segment. Give students in these expert groups time to discuss the main points of their segment and to rehearse the presentations they will make to their jigsaw group.
7- Bring the students back into their jigsaw groups.
8- Ask each student to present her or his segment to the group. Encourage others in the group to ask questions for clarification.
9- Float from group to group, observing the process. If any group is having trouble (e.g., a member is dominating or disruptive), make an appropriate intervention. Eventually, it's best for the group leader to handle this task. Leaders can be trained by whispering an instruction on how to intervene, until the leader gets the hang of it.
10- At the end of the session, give a quiz on the material so that students quickly come to realize that these sessions are not just fun and games but really count.

Benefits of Cooperative Learning
1- Benefits to students: Extensive research has shown multiple benefits to students involved in cooperative learning environment. Through cooperative learning experiences, students mature emotionally and learn to adjust socially. Students also develop a strong sense of self and develop a basic trust and optimism about people (Johnson and Johnson, 1983). Cooperative learning serves to promote greater acceptance of differences among students, such as improved race relations and greater acceptance of mainstreamed children. It has also been reported to help enhance self-esteem and self-worth in students and produce positive attitudes towards the learning experience (Johnson and Johnson, 1990; Newmann and Thompson. 1987; Slavin, 1991; Steven and Slavin, 1994). Students' academic achievement is also likely to increase with proper implementation practices. In addition, extra long-term benefits from the "team experience" that are not immediately recognizable include greater employability and career success (Johnson and Johnson, 1989)
2- Benefits to teachers and administration: There are numerous cooperative learning methods from which teachers can select that are practical, supportive, and subject specific. Although teachers may find that initially cooperative learning creates more work, once it is in place it will free them to take on more of a facilitative role. While students are assisting one another, the teacher has more time to circulate around the room monitoring students and providing assistance when needed (Slavin, 1986). Teachers also enhance and develop their own collaborative skills by teaching their students how to provide leadership for the learning groups, how to build and maintain trust within the learning groups, and how to make group decisions.

The Related Studies
     According to Slavin (1995), of forty-three studies of cooperative learning methods, thirty two found positive effects on achievement. Studies of methods that used group goals based on a single group product or provided no group rewards found few positive effects.
     Careen (1997) found that although all groups showed improvements in oral performance and aural comprehension, CL benefited weaker and average ability students more than higher ability students. .This study compared CL and traditional classroom methods. Her study also showed that students of all levels in the cooperative learning groups acquired significantly more vocabulary than that of the traditional method. More importantly, the use of the language increased in the cooperative learning situation.
Al-Zu'bi, (2007) conducted a study to investigate the impact of a Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition Strategy (CIRC) on the Jordanian Basic Stage Students' Reading Comprehension, Writing and Attitudes towards English. It attempted to answer if there is any difference between the mean scores of the experimental group following the CIRC and those of the control group following the conventional instruction in the reading comprehension, writing, and attitudes towards learning English. To answer the questions of the study, the researcher prepared a program based on the CIRC strategy. Forty eight male students in the ninth grade were purposefully chosen from Nahlah Basic School for boys in the academic year 2006/2007. The participants of the study consisted of two assigned sections. The experimental group was taught according to (CIRC strategy); while the control group was taught according to traditional way. Six unites were chosen by the researcher from the ninth grade English textbook- PETRA 5. This material was redesigned by the researcher according to the CIRC strategy. To establish the validity for this redesigned material, it was given to a jury of seven specialists. The instruments were used in this study, namely, the reading and writing achievement test, and attitudes scale towards English. To establish the validity for the test and the questionnaire, the method of content validity was used. The test and the questionnaire were given to a jury of seven specialists. ANCOVA was used to examine the significance of the treatment on the dependent variables. Results showed that there were statistically significant differences at (a= 0.05) between the mean scores of the experimental group and that of the control group on the reading comprehension and writing in the post test in favor of the experimental group which was taught by CIRC strategy.
Wilson (1991) examined the difference between the reading comprehension of students involved in cooperative learning strategies and those students not involved. The findings of the study indicated that there was a significant difference in the reading comprehension of those students involved and those not involved in cooperative learning strategies. The results indicated that more students involved in the use of cooperative learning strategies demonstrated reading comprehension achievement gains than those students not using cooperative learning strategies. Other findings indicated that there was no significant difference between the reading comprehension of boys and girls in either group.
     Jigsaw is useful in a second language classroom for a reading selection. In their expert groups, students could discuss new vocabulary in addition to important ideas in the reading before reporting back to their groups. This would be very conducive to discussion and negotiation in the target language due to the explanation of new material that other group members have not seen. As seen in research by Pica (1994), negotiation has been shown to improve student comprehension. However, it is important that the teachers prepare their students to read, to ensure good comprehension of the material.
     With respect to the social cohesion perspective, achievement outcomes are unclear. Research on the jigsaw has not generally found positive effects on achievement (Slavin 1995). However, studies of forms of jigsaw that have added some type of group rewards have found positive achievement outcomes.
     Chin (2004) investigated the effectiveness of cooperative learning strategies in teaching English as a foreign language to a group of college freshmen in Taiwan . 110 freshmen (34 males and 76 females) who participated in this quasi-experimental study for three months. Two cooperative learning strategies, Jigsaw and Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD), were implemented in the experimental group. In contrast, the control group was instructed using the traditional Grammar-Translation Method. The instruments for data collection were two Tests of English for International Communication (TOEIC). One was used as the pretest and the other as the posttest. Statistical analysis was done with SPSS 10.00 for Windows. Multiple linear regression and Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) were used to analyze all the collected data. The results of this study show that after statistically adjusting for pretest scores, gender, motivation scores, and personality types, the experimental group outperformed the control group on the TOEIC reading scale (P<0,01) and total scores (P<0,05). After statistically adjusting for pretest scores, gender, motivation scores, and personality types, the experimental group has made more progress than the control group on the TOEIC reading scale with the p-value less than .01. In addition, an examination of the TOEIC total results and gender by method of instruction revealed that the presence of statistically significant differences between males and females (P<0, 05). Male subjects of the experimental group performed better than those of the control group (P<0, 05). However, according to the findings in this study, males perform better in a cooperative structure than in the traditional competitive structure. Finally, pedagogical implications for the application of cooperative learning and suggestions for future studies were proposed.                                                                                                                                                     
     Marinak and Barbara (2004) investigated the effects of reward proximity and choice of reward on the reading motivation of third-grade average readers. Seventy-five students participated in the study. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups (book/choice, book/no choice, token/choice, token/no choice) and a control group that received no reward. All students who participated in this study were invited to read from one of six trade books that were being considered for purchase in the school library. After making his or her recommendation about the book, each student received a reward or no reward based on treatment condition. The student was then invited to remain in the experimental room and was observed during a 10-minute free-choice period. During the free-choice period, the child could choose to continue reading from the library book array or choose a jigsaw puzzle or a math game. The findings from this study indicate that the proximity of the reward to the desired behavior is a particularly salient factor in enhancing motivation.
Widman, Kuhlman and Guenther(1996) examined differences in achievement between preserve teachers who learned word recognition content and pedagogy in expert-jigsaw groups and those who learned in a traditionally taught reading methods course. Participant in the jigsaw group (n=27) and the traditional classroom (n=26) worked to learn the same content from the reading methods textbook. Achievement was measured using a variety of essays, multiple-choice tests, and open-ended questions which were administrated as pre and posttests. Analysis included computing t test, percentages, and applying rubrics. Results indicated that both groups learned the jigsaw groups' essay posttest indicated significantly different achievement results. The general conclusion drawn in that jigsaw teams appear to be an effective alternative to the lecture/demonstration method for teaching reading method courses.
     Ghaith (2003) conducted a study to investigate the effects of the Learning Together cooperative learning model in improving English as a Foreign Language (EFL) reading achievement and academic self-esteem and in decreasing feelings of school alienation. Fifty-six Lebanese high school learners of EFL participated in the study, and a pretest-posttest control group experimental design was employed. The results indicated no statistically significant differences 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.                                              

Chapter three
Research Design and Methodology
Study subjects
     The sample of the study consists of 50 male students assigned to two sections: one section is assigned to the first experimental group; another section is assigned to the control group. This sample is purposefully chosen.

Instrument
      For the purpose of the study one instrument are developed by the researcher which the reading comprehension tests. The following is a brief description of the test:
     The purpose of this instrument is to compare the achievements of the two groups on the pre and posttests. Passages are selected. Following each passage, there are a number of questions that include literal, referential, and critical questions. The achievement test will include 30 multiple-choice items and consists of a number of texts. (See Appendix 2, p.29).
Before building the test, the researcher started with a table of specifications that specifies the types and number of questions which are included in the test. The researcher writes a variety of question types to measure the comprehension ability of the students.
The specific objectives of the test
Reading

The test will measure the student ability to:
1-guess the meaning of unfamiliar words.
2-find specific information.
3-Attend to pronoun references.
4-focus on the parts of speech.
5-Summarize the main ideas in the text

Test validity
     The test is content validated by a panel of experts. Comments and criticism on the original draft of the test will be solicited from a number of experts from Jordanian private universities as well as experts from King Saud University , Directorate of Examination, local supervisors and teachers of English from the Directorate of Education in Jerash (See Appendix 3, p.23).

The instructional program
     The instructional material is chosen by the researcher from the Interaction1 (taught in King Saud University-English Department). The researcher redesigns the comprehension texts according to the o reading comprehension strategy under study (See Appendix 1, p.23).
Program validity
     The program is content validated by a panel of experts from the departments of English language and Curriculum and Instruction at the Jordanian and Saudi Arabia public and private universities as well as experts from the Ministry of Education, local supervisors and teachers of English from the Directorate of Education in Jerash and Al-Majm'ah. Some experts specialized in methods of teaching English language (See Appendix 3, p.37).  
3.5 Design of the study
      The study employed the quasi-experimental design. The researcher used an experimental and a control group with 25 subjects in each. The experimental group was taught through the Jigsaw strategy, while the control group was taught through the conventional way. The two groups were pre-post tested by an achievement test. The study consists of two variables, one independent variable, and one dependent variables. The independent variable of the study was Jigsaw as a strategy of teaching. The dependent variable was reading comprehension.

3.7 Statistical treatment
The researcher used the following measures:
1- Means and standard deviations were computed to compare means of the two groups on the pre and post tests of the reading comprehension.
2- Analysis of covariance ANCOVA was computed to detect any significant differences between the two groups on the reading.
Chapter Four
Results of the Study
- Results Related to Reading comprehension
The question was: "Is there any difference between the mean scores of the experimental group following the jigsaw and those of the control group following the conventional instruction in the reading comprehension?                                               
         To answer this question, the following null hypothesis was formulated: " there are no statistically significant differences at (α≤0, 01) between the reading comprehension achievement of the experimental group and that of the control group due to the instructional strategies (jigsaw and conventional).                                          
 To test the significance of these differences between the adjusted mean scores of both groups on the reading comprehension in the post-test, the ANCOVA statistical procedure was computed as shown in Table 1.                                                                
Table 1
Results of ANCOVA between the Two Groups on the Reading Comprehension in the Post-test

The results of Table 1 indicate that the F value of 47.485 is significant at     (α≤0, 01). Thus, the null hypothesis which stated that there is no statistically significant difference at (α≤0, 01) in the mean scores of reading comprehension between the two groups that can be ascribed to the strategy of teaching was rejected. This means that students' reading comprehension on the post-test was improved due to the treatment in favor of the experimental group which was taught by the jigsaw, where the adjusted mean scores of the experimental group was 21.549, while the adjusted mean scores of the control group was 18.304 as shown in Table 2.                
Table 2
Adjusted Means and Standard Errors of both Groups on the Post-test of Reading Comprehension

  
Chapter Five
Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendations
5.1.2. Discussion of the results related to the question of the study
The results related to the question of the study indicated that there was a statistically significant difference at (a≤ 0.01) between the mean scores of the experimental group and that of the control group on the post-test regarding reading comprehension. The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was also carried out at the level of significance (a≤ 0.01). This difference was in favor of the experimental group since the adjusted mean scores of jigsaw (21.549) was higher than the adjusted mean scores of the control group (18.304).                                                                     
 These results in favor of the experimental group are expected because the researcher believes that the reading comprehension improvement is probably due to the characteristics of jigsaw strategy where all members who work in mixed-ability grouping are cooperative. This strategy encouraged all members of each group to work as a team and low-level members of each group got benefit from their pairs in getting help for in learning. All members who work in a heterogeneous group are completely cooperative. This strategy encouraged and reinforced every member of each group to work with emphasis on cooperative partnership and group activities. On the other hand, low level learners can get benefit from their pairs within each group in guiding and consulting them in learning. Also, the role of the teacher has undergone some changes. It turned into guiding his students to learn, encouraging them, and reinforcing them to accomplish the activities they had to do and facilitating teaming.
The results of the question were in line with the findings of Slavin , (1989), Pica, (1994), Gaith, (2003), and Chin  (2004), whose results provided evidence for the positive effectiveness of cooperative learning strategies on reading comprehension.                                                                                                            
5.2 Conclusion
The findings of the current study come in line with the theoretical and practical studies surveyed in the previous chapters in which most of the studies provided evidence for the effectiveness of the jigsaw strategy in developing students' reading comprehension.
5.3 Recommendations
On the basis of the finds mentioned in the previous findings of the study, the researcher offers the following recommendations:
1. Researcher should conduct similar studies on other classes at other levels and other language skills and aspects so that the generalizations could become more valid and widely applicable.
2. It is recommended to provide colleges with enough materials and instruments to facilitate the use of cooperative learning strategies such as decreasing the number of students in each class, decreasing the load of teaching among lecturers.
3. hold meetings, seminars and workshops through which they train teachers or lecturers on how to implement a successful reading lesson in accordance with jigsaw strategy.

References

 Al–Mutawa, N., and Kailani, T. (1996).Methods of Teaching English to Arab Students, (4th ed.)Harlow Longman Group UK . limited.
Al-Zubi, M.A. (2007). The Impact of a Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition Strategy on the Jordanian Basic Stage Students' Reading Comprehension, Writing and Attitudes towards English. Unpublished Ph Dissertation, Amman University for Graduate Studies.
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, S., Sikes, J., and Snapp, M. (1978). The Jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills , California : sage publication.
Bejarano, Y. (1987). "A cooperative small-group methodology in the language classroom". TESOL Quarterly, 21, 483–504.
Careen, K. (1997). A Study of the Effect of Cooperative Learning Activities on the Aural Comprehension and Oral Proficiency of Grade 6 Core French Students. St. John’s : Mun. Unpublished project report.
Chin's (2004). A study of the effects of cooperative learning strategies on student achievement in English as a Foreign language in a Taiwan college. (online). Available:http://proquest.umi.com:ID765275411.
Fry, R. (1997).Improving your Reading.London: The career press.
Ghaith, G. (2003). Effects of the Learning Together Model of Cooperative Learning on English as a Foreign Language Reading Achievement, Academic Self-Esteem, and Feelings of School Alienation.  Bilingual Research Journal, .27, 3, p451-474.
Ghaith, G. (2002). The relationship between cooperative learning, perception of social support, and academic achievement. System, 30,263–273.
Ghaith, G., and Yaghi, H. (1998). Effect of cooperative learning on the acquisition of second language rules and mechanics. System, 26, 223–234.
Hismanoglu, M. (2000).Language Learning Strategies in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. The Internet TESL journal, 6, .8, pp.73-82.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., and Holubec, E. (1994a). The New Circles of Learning Cooperation in the Classroom and School. Virginia : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., and Holubec, E. (1994b). Cooperative Learning in the Classroom. Virginia : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Holubec, E. (1992). Advanced Cooperative Learning (2nd ed.). Edina , MN : Interaction.
Johnson, D, W., Johnson, R.T and Smith, K.A (1991). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom.Edina, MN: Interaction Book.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Holubec, E. (1991). Cooperation in The Classroom. Edina , MN : Interaction.
Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (1990). Social skills for successful group work. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 29-33                                                                 .
Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and                     Research. Edina , MN : Interaction Book Company.                                                Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (1983). The socialization and achievement crisis:                   Are cooperative learning experiences the solution? Applied Social                                   Psychology, Annual 4, L. Bickman, ed., Beverly Hills , CA : Sage publications.                                                                       
kaddoumi,, N. A. (1995).The Reading Comprehension Strategies of Low Achievers in EFL Reading in the Second Secondary Literary Stream in Jordan. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Jordan .
Kagan, S. (1995). We can talk—Cooperative learning in the elementary ESL classroom. (online). Available: http://searchERIC.org/eric dc/ED 382035                                    
Kagan, S. (1989). The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 47, 12–15.
Kessler, C. (1992). Cooperative Language Learning: A Teacher’s Resource Book. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.                                                            
Long, M. H., and Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207–228.
Marinak, Barbara Ann (2004). The effects of reward proximity and choice of reward on the reading motivation of third-grade students. (online). Available: http://proquest.umi.com. 828405881.
McGroarty, M. (1989). The benefits of cooperative learning arrangements in second language instruction. NABE Journal, 13(2), 127–143.
McGroarty, M. (1993). Cooperative learning and second language acquisition. In D. D. Holt (Ed.), Cooperative learning (pp. 19–46). Washington , DC : Center for Applied Linguistics and ERIC clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
Newmann, F., and Thompson, J. (1987). Effects of Cooperative Learning on Achievement in             Secondary Schools: A summary of research. Madison , WI : University of                        Wisconsin , National Center for Effective Secondary Schools.                                Olsen, R. and Kagan, S. (1992). Cooperative Language Learning: A Teacher’s Resource book (pp. 1–30). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.                                    
Pica, T. (1994). Research on Negotiation: What does it Reveal About Second-Language Learning Conditions, Processes, and Outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493 - 527.
Pica, T., Young, R., and Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 737–758.
Robinson.R. and Good, T. (1987). Becoming an Effective Reading Teacher. New York : Harper and row, publishers, inc.
Sharan, Y., and Sharan, S. (1992). Expanding Cooperative Learning Through Group Investigation. New York : Teachers College Press.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research and Practice. (2nd ed.) Boston : Allyn and Bacon.                                                                                        
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Group rewards make group work. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 89-91. Slavin, R. E. (1986). Using Student Team Learning. Baltimore , MD : Center for                      research on elementary and middle schools, John Hopkins University , School of Education .                                                                                                                
Slavin, R. E., Leavey, M. B., and Madden, N. A. (1986). Team Accelerated Instruction: Mathematics. Watertown , MA : Charlesbridge.
Stevens R.J. and Slavin, R. E. (1994). The Cooperative Elementary School : Effects on                    students' achievement, attitudes, and social relations. Baltimore : The Johns Hopkins University , Center for Research on Effective Schooling.                           
Tinto, V. (1993).Building Community, Liberal Education, Fall.
Weidman, J, Kuhlman, W and Guenther, S. (1996). The Effect Of Jigsaw Teams on Preserve Teachers' Knowledge of Reading Pedagogy And Concerns about Group Learning in a Reading Method Course. Reading Improvement.33, 11-23.
Williams, E. (1984).Reading in the Language Classroom. London : Macmillan Limited.
Wilson, S. R., (1991) 9206198"The effects of cooperative learning on reading comprehension. (online). Available. http://proquest.umi.com. 744870411

Appendix C
The List of Jury for Validating the Instrument and the CIRC Program