I would like to dedicate my thesis to my children Shayan and Hasti

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my special gratitude to a number of people without whom this research could not have been accomplished.

I am deeply grateful to my supervisor, Dr. Sholeh Kolahi, who kindly provided me with her insightful, invaluable advice and support throughout all stages of this research.

My Sincere thanks go to my reader, Dr. Nasim Shangarffam, who went through the laborious task of reading my thesis and provided me with her brilliant comments.

I want to thank Mr Bazyar who helped me in writing this thesis. I appreciate his time and effort during this research.

I would like to thank my dear mother for her spiritual support without which I could have never got to this point.

My great debt is also to my husband for his sincere love and encouragement during this study.

I also like to make special reference to my dear colleague Maryam Shoja and students at Bentolhoda School without whose cooperation; I could have not fulfilled this process.

Abstract
This study was an attempt to investigate the effect of alternative teaching model on EFL learners’ grammar achievement. For this purpose, 60 female pre intermediate junior high school EFL learners were chosen from a total number of 90 through their performance on a piloted Key English Test (KET). Based on the results, the students were randomly assigned to one control and one experimental group with 30 participants in each. Prior to the treatment, students took part in a piloted teacher- made grammar test as pre-test. Both groups underwent the same amount of teaching during 12 sessions of treatment. The only difference was that the experimental group received the treatment in the form of getting instruction on co-teaching model while the control group received the routine instruction of grammar. At the end of the treatment, a piloted teacher- made grammar test was administered to both groups and an independent samples t-test was used to test the null hypothesis raised in the study. The results showed that alternative teaching model has a significant effect on junior high school students’ grammar achievement.
Table of contents

CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
1.1. Introduction 2
1.2. Statement of the Problem 11
1.3. Statement of Research Question 12
1.4. Statement of Research Hypothesis 13
1.5. Definition of Key Terms 13
1.5.1. Co-teaching 13
1.5.2. Alternative Teaching 13
1.5.3. Grammar 14
1.5.4. Regular (general) education teacher and special education teacher 14
1.6. Significance of the Study 15
1.7. Limitation and Delimitations of the Study 16
1.7.1. Limitation of the Study 17
1.7.2. Delimitations of the Study 17
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE
2.1. Introduction 19
2.2. Theoretical Foundation and History of Co-Teaching 19
2.3. Characteristics of Effective Collaboration 25
2.4. Characteristics of Co-teachers and Co-teaching 26
2.5. Components of Co-teaching 30
2.5.1. Interpersonal Communication 30
2.5.2. Physical Arrangement 32
2.5.3. Familiarity with the Curriculum 33
2.5.4. Curriculum Goals and Modifications 34
2.5.5. Instructional Planning 35
2.5.6. Instructional Presentation 37
2.5.7. Classroom Management 38
2.5.8. Assessment 39
2.6. Co-teaching Models 40
2.6.1. One teach, one observe 46
2.6.2. Station Teaching 47
2.6.3. Parallel Teaching 48
2.6.4. Team Teaching 49
2.6.5. Alternate Teaching 49
2.6.6. Supportive Teaching 50
2.6.7. One Teach, One Drift 50
2. 7. Benefits of Co-Teaching 53
2.7.1. Benefits of Co-teaching for Teachers 55
2.7.2. Benefits of Co-teaching for Students 56
2.8. Student Achievement and Co-teaching 58
2.9. Successful Conditions for Implementing Co-Teaching 59
2.10. Co-teaching at secondary level 63
2.11. Organizational Impediments to Co-teaching at Secondary Level 63
2.12. Challenges to Collaboration 67
2.12.1. Philosophical Differences 67
2.12.2. Different Levels of Expertise 68
2.13. The Evolution of Grammar Instruction 68
2.14. Explicit or Implicit Teaching of Grammar 69
2.15. Qualitative studies on co-teaching 71
2.16. Quantitative studies on co-teaching 77
CHAPTER III: Methodology
3.1. Introduction 81
3.2. Participants 82
3.3. Instrumentation 83
3.3.1. Language Proficiency Test 83
3.3.1.2. Listening Section 84
3.3.1.2. Reading and Writing Section 84
3.3.2 Grammar Achievement Test as a pre test and a post test 85
3.3.3. Instructional Materials 86
3.3.3.1. Course Book 86
3.3.3.2. khate Sefid 87
3.4. Procedure 87
3.4.1. Homogenizing the Participants 87
3.4.2. The Treatment 88
3.5. Design of the Study 92
3.6. Statistical Analysis 93
CHAPTER IV: Results and Discussion
4.1. Introduction 95
4.2. Descriptive Statistics for the Piloting KET Proficiency Test 96
4.3. Descriptive Statistics of the KET Main Administration for Homogenization 97
4.4. Descriptive Statistics of the grammar Pre-test 100
4.5. The Results of Testing the Null Hypothesis 106
4.6. Discussion 107
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND PEDAGOGICAL MPLICATIONS
5.1. Introduction 110
5.2. Summary of the Findings 110
5.3. Conclusion 111
5.4. Theoretical Implications 112
5.5. Practical Implications 113
5.6. Suggestions for Further Research 114
References 115
APPENDICES
Appendix A 129
Appendix B 144
Appendix C 151

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1: Descriptive Statistics for KET Proficiency Test piloting 96
Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistics for KET Proficiency Test 97
Table 4.3: Reliability of the KET Proficiency Test Piloting 97
Table 4.4: Descriptive Statistics for KET Main Administration for Homogenization 98
Table 4.5: The Results of Normality Check of the Distribution of scores on KET 98
Table 4.6: Independent Sample T-test for Control and Experimental Groups’ KET scores 100
Table 4.7: Descriptive Statistics for the Results of the Pre-test 101
Table 4.8: Results of Normality of Distribution of Scores for Grammar Pre-test 102
Table 4.9: Independent Samples T- Test for Pre-test 103
Table 4.10: descriptive statistics for the results of the post-test 105
Table 4.11: Results of Normality of Distribution of Scores for Grammar Post-test 105
Table 4.12: Independent Samples Test for Post-test 106

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1: The Histogram of Scores of KET Main Administration 99
Figure 4.2: Histogram of the Scores Obtained on the Grammar Pre-test of the Control Group 101
Figure 4.3: Histogram of the Scores Obtained on the Grammar Pre-test of the Experimental Group 102
Figure 4.4: Histogram of the Scores Obtained on the Grammar Post- test of the Control Group 104
Figure 4.5: Histogram of the Scores Obtained on the Grammar Post- test of the Experimental Group 104

CHAPTER I
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

1.1. Introduction
Teaching is one of the complicated processes taking place in the schools and educational institutions. In traditional teaching model, one teacher is responsible for supervising all tasks of lessons over a specific time. The arrival of new strategies of teaching, issues of motivation, the satisfaction of students, academic needs and other factors contributing to successful teaching activities all are looking forward into the creative genius of a single teacher. The seemingly difficulty of addressing all these elements simultaneously by a single pedagogue appeals for a new alternative in the method of teaching (Keefe & Moore). Since the last two decades, alternative teaching has gained a great deal of importance.
One of the recently suggested methods for accelerating and facilitating the education process is co-teaching model. The concept of co-teaching got emerged about several years ago through the works of scholars such as Walther-Thomas (1997). However, it was initially introduced to call for issues of teaching handicapped students in an exclusive class (Cook & Friend, 1995; Dieker, 2001; Dieker & Murawski, 2003; Gately & Gately, 2001; Keefe & Moore, 2004; Stanovich, 1996; Tobin, 2005; Vaughn, Schumm, and Arguelles, 1997). There exists a variety of definitions for co-teaching. Cook and Friend (1995), for example, state that co-teaching is “two or more professionals delivering substantive instruction to a diverse or blended group of students in a single physical space” (p. 14).
Similarly, Angelides (2006, p.1) defined co-teaching as “two teachers are jointly responsible for a class and plan teaching together, plan instruction together, share teaching duties and design collectively all teaching aids.” Finally, according to Wenzlaff et al. (2002, p. 14), co-teaching is “two or more individuals who come together in a collaborative relationship for the purpose of shared work for the outcome of achieving what none could have done alone.”
Co-teaching is a way in which educators can meet the needs of students both with and without disabilities. The term co-teaching was initially cooperative teaching, and then shortened to co- teaching and sometimes is referred to as team teaching.
Cooperative teaching, team teaching, and co-teaching all refer to a similar instructional delivery system. The emphasis on the co-teaching relationship, which pairs a special educator with a regular educator within the regular education classroom, is based on the principle that students with identified disabilities are best served when they are in the regular education classroom with their non-disabled peers (Murawski & Swanson, 2001).
In a high school or junior high school class, the

دسته بندی : No category

دیدگاهتان را بنویسید