students out of the original 90 with their scores between one standard deviation above and below the mean were selected as the main participants of the study and randomly assigned in two experimental and control groups.
To check the participants’ grammatical ability at the outset of the study, a grammar pre-test was constructed before starting the course to check the homogeneity of the groups in terms of their grammar knowledge. The pre-test included 40 multiple-choice items. The pre-test items were from the materials that students have been learnt two years ago at school. After administrating the pre-test, the course of instruction was commenced.
3.4.2. The Treatment
Both groups were taught for about 10 sessions and each session was 60 minutes twice a week. The control group was taught by only one teacher while the experimental group was taught by two teachers using co-teaching method. The grammatical structures which were taught included countable and uncountable nouns, past tense, present tense, future tense, and past continuous tense.
In every session these activities were done for both control and experimental group: warm up (5 min), presentation (10 min) including; introducing new grammatical points to the class through examples on the board, guided practice (10-15min) pair work, production (20 min); by the end of each lesson, learners began to use new grammatical points in speech and writing.
As noted in the above section, two teachers one regarded as the lead teacher and the other called the support teacher were involved in the procedure. The lead teacher and the support teacher made decisions about the content and organization of the lesson cooperatively. They also determined the appropriate structures for alternative remedial or enrichment lessons that would promote student learning. Both educators assumed full responsibility for planning and presentation of materials, classroom management, developing the test, and evaluation.
Each lesson had a lesson plan. (See, Appendix C)
Level: Pre intermediate
Topic: How many vs. how much/quantifiers/count & non-count nouns Language Focus: Grammar Date: Objective: By the end of this lesson, learners will be able to identify and use quantifiers with countable and uncountable nouns.
Flashcard drill: introduce new vocabulary used in this lesson (count & non-count nouns). Check pronunciation.
Flashcards w/ various items.
Flashcards should portray the following nouns: park, litter,tiger water,meat,man ,rice, unemployment, church, restayrant, and immigrant.
Review countable & uncountable nouns. Soap bars vs. liquid soap, oranges vs. orange juice, etc. Introduce various quantifiers (a lot/ (not) many/ (not) much/a little/ a few/ some/ none) & usage. Write target vocabulary on whiteboard. Ask which nouns are uncountable or countable (or both).
Opinion poll: Have learners make questions using target vocabulary: “How much/many ______ is/are there in (city)?” Learners should respond using target quantifiers. Encourage & accept different opinions. Then divide the learners into groups of 3 or 4 and give each group a set of cards w/ target vocabulary. One learner chooses a card and makes a question. Another learners answers using a quantifier. The next learner takes a different card and repeats the process until all cards have been read.
Vocabulary cards (teacher- prepared) for each group.
Use the city in which you are teaching the class for this activity.
Pair work: Divide students into new pairs (different language groups if possible). Students interview each other using the “Tell Me About Your hometown” worksheet, asking the question How much/many ___is/are there in your hometown? Students answer with quantifiers and are encouraged to ask follow-up questions/
Worksheet for each students.
*This worksheet should contain a list of 12-15 nouns; some can be repeated form the earlier activity but add new ones as well (such as crime, museums, coffee shops, etc.). Include the target the target question and quantifiers to be used.
At first, the main teacher taught the lesson to the whole class while the co-teacher worked on the students’ homework. Some questions were raised in the class so as the students answered them. Students were divided into two groups; one big group and the other the small group. Both teacher corrected students’ possible mistakes and worked on their problem. Then each group was divided into groups with three members so as they would become interested in and motivated to compete. Each teacher tried to guide her own group. Alternatively, if required, both teachers moved between groups in order to provide support and the students also moved from one group to another according to a predetermined schedule. Next, students answered the questions posed in the book and later they answered the questions posed in the workbook. In the next stage, the teachers exchanged their role in the big and small groups. While teaching, the teachers employed teaching aids such as charts and software and if necessary translation. In the computer workshop both big and small groups competed with each other using electronic board by answering to the questions in turn. At the end, weak students were recognized and were worked on by the co-teacher.
All the learners were encouraged to participate actively in the learning process. Then the support teacher implemented supplementary activities for the whole group, small groups or individuals before or after the formal lesson. The support teacher attempted to find out the learners’ weaknesses and help them with activities by which they were able to guess grammatical structures, which have not previously been learnt and internalized. She explained some parts of the lesson. Students were constantly communicating with each other.
Teaching was done in one session and the next session the questions in the text book or work book were answered. The text book questions then the work book questions were answered.
At the end of the treatment phase, the experimental and control groups received a piloted teacher made grammar achievement posttest .The post-test was administrated and the students were asked to answer the questions. The data was collected and then analyzed using statistical analysis that is, first at the beginning of the course an independent t-test was run to determine if there was a significant difference between the two groups regarding their grammatical knowledge at the outset of study. At the end of the course another independent t-test was run to determine the effect of the treatment using pos-test scores of both groups.
3.5. Design of the Study
Due to sampling limitations for the study, a quasi experimental design was adopted. Because the participants were selected none randomly; then were randomly assigned into two groups of experimental and control. The design of the present study was described as posttest-only. The independent variable of this study was alternative teaching, the dependent variable was grammar achievement, and the control variables were gender (female) and language proficiency (pre intermediate).
3.6. Statistical Analysis
The study involved two kinds of statistical analysis. First, the raw scores obtained in the pre-test and pos-test was analyzed descriptively. That is, the mean, the standard deviation, and the standard error of measurement were calculated. The inferential statistics were also used to verify the hypotheses of the study. The results of the study are discussed in chapter four in full details.
Results and Discussion
The present study investigated the effect of alternative teaching model on EFL learners’ grammar achievement in order to find an answer to the following research question:
Does teaching based on alternative model have a significant effect on EFL learners’ grammar achievement?
The respective hypothesis was put forward as teaching based on alternative model doesn’t have a significant effect on EFL learners’ grammar achievement. It was concluded that alternative teaching model have a significant effect on EFL learners’ grammar achievement.
The data of this study were formed of the scores obtained from the administration of KET in both piloting and main phase of the study, grammar pre-test and posttest. For the purpose of testing the above-mentioned hypothesis, statistical findings of the study, a comprehensive description of the findings as well as their interpretations are presented. Firstly, the statistical analysis of the pilot KET test is presented with its internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) along with item analysis. Then, the descriptive statistics of the administration of KET test is discussed. Afterwards, the descriptive statistics of the piloted KET test is presented. Later, the results of the t-test run to check the equality of the control and experimental groups in terms of grammar achievement prior to the treatment are reported.
Moreover, the results of the normality check of the distributions of the scores of control and experimental group on KET as well as grammar pre- and post-tests are presented. Furthermore, the results of the t-test which were run to investigate the hypothesis are reported.
4.2. Descriptive Statistics for the Piloting KET Proficiency Test
As noted earlier, the KET