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
- 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).
|
[پنجشنبه 1399-10-11] [ 04:40:00 ق.ظ ]
|
پاسخ دهید