افزایش سطح دانش لغتی و واژگان دانش آموزان همواره مورد توجه و خواست دبیران بوده است اما روش ها و تکنیک های موجود در این زمینه زیاد موفقیت آمیز نبوده اند و اکثر روش های موجود نیز وابسته به آموزگار و سطح توانایی وی می باشند. در این تحقیق محقق سعی نموده تا تاثیر استفاده از روش تیم تیچینگ(تدریس گروهی) را در میزان یادگیری لغت دانش آموزان مقطع راهنمایی بسنجد. برای این منظور از مجموع 114 دانش آموز، پس از اجرای آزمون KET تعداد 76 نفر از دانش آموزان که نمره آنها یک SD بالا یا پائین میانگین بود انتخاب شده و به صورت تصادفی به دو گروه شاهد و گروه آزمایشی تقسیم شدند. سپس برای حصول اطمینان از همگن بودن دانش آموزان از لحاظ دانش واژگان، یک آزمون لغت نیز از آنها گرفته شد.

به هر کدام از این دو گروه(کلاس) تعداد 6درس از سال دوم راهنمایی( به مدت 12 هفته یا 24 جلسه 75 دقیقه ای) با استفاده از وسایل و ابزار مشابه و همچنین طرح درس مشابه تدریس شد با این تفاوت که در گروه آزمایش، تدریس بین دو آموزگار تقسیم شده و از روش تیم تیچینگ استفاده شد. در پایان یک آزمون پایانی لغت از دو گروه به عمل آمد و برای اینکه مشخص شود که آیا تفاوت معنا داری بین نمره کسب شده توسط گروه گواه و گروه آزمایش وجود دارد یا خیر از نرم افزار SPSS و آزمون T مستقل استفاده شد. مشخص شد که دانش آموزان گروه آزمایش نتیجه بهتری را نسبت به گروه شاهد کسب کردند و درنتیجه مشخص شد که روش فوق( team teaching یا تدریس گروهی) تاثیر مثبتی را در افزایش سطح دانش لغتی دانش آموزان دارد.

Abstract

Improving students’ vocabulary achievement has always been a matter of interest for teachers, because of the diverse essence of the vocabulary, but current approaches; methods have not been successful enough in teaching and enhancing students’ word knowledge (Shen, 2003). Moreover, the practicality of most of these approaches is dependent on the teachers (Carten, 2007). The present study has examined the possible effects of team-teaching on the vocabulary achievement of Iranian junior high school students. To this end, 114 intermediate EFL learners participated in the study. To ensure their homogeneity, initially, the researcher administered a Key English Test (KET). Those who scored one standard deviation above and below the mean were selected as the participants of the study. After excluding the extreme scores 76 participants remained, who were randomly assigned to experimental and the control groups. Then, to ensure the homogeneity of the participants in terms of their vocabulary knowledge of the current study a vocabulary test was given to both groups. A t-test was run and it was observed that there was no significant difference between the scores of the students in both groups. Both groups were taught six lessons of their formal textbook for about 24 sessions (12 weeks, each session about 75 minutes). The students in experimental group received the instruction by two teachers. Finally, a post-test was administrated to both groups. To see whether team-teaching had any statistically significant impact on vocabulary achievement of the students or not; an independent sample t-test was used. The analysis of the results showed that the participants receiving the treatment in the experimental group mastered taught vocabularies better. So team-teaching had positive effect on the vocabulary achievement of Iranian EFL learners.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgement

Abstract

CHAPTER I Background and Purpose

1.1 Introduction. 2

1.2 Statement of the Problem.. 8

Abstract

Table of Contents

Acknowledgement

Abstract

CHAPTER I Background and Purpose

1.1 Introduction. 2

1.2 Statement of the Problem.. 8

1.3 Statement of the Research Question. 10

1.4 Statement of the Research Hypothesis. 10

1.5 Definition of Key Terms. 10

1.5.1 Vocabulary achievement 10

1.5.2 Team-Teaching. 11

1.6 Significance of the Study. 11

1.7 Limitations and Delimitation. 13

1.7.1 Limitations of the study. 13

1.7.2 Delimitation of the study. 13

1.8 Assumptions. 13

CHAPTER II Review of the Related Literature

2.1 Introduction. 15

2.2 The characteristics of co-teaching. 17

2.3 Different version of co-teaching. 19

2.4 Issues Involved in Team Teaching. 23

2.5 Related studies. 27

2.6 Vocabulary teaching. 30

2.6.1 Presentation of new lexical items. 32

2.6.2 Review and consolidation of lexical items. 35

2.6.3 Studies on the vocabulary: 38

CHAPTER III Methodology

3.1 Participants. 46

3.2 Instrumentation. 46

3.2.1 Homogeneity vocabulary test 46

3.2.2 Language Proficiency test 47

3.2.3 Vocabulary achievement post test 48

3.2.4 Observation and conversation. 49

3.2.5 Questionnaire. 49

3.2.6 Materials. 50

3.3 Procedure. 50

3.3.1 Piloting the tests. 50

3.3.2 Homogenizing the Participants. 50

3.3.3 The Treatment 51

3.4 Design. 56

3.5 Statistical Analysis: 57

CHAPTER IV Results and Discussion

4.1 Introduction . 59

4.2 Results and Discussion. 60

4.2.1 Descriptive Statistics for the Piloting KET Proficiency Test 60

4.2.1.2 Descriptive Statistics of the KET Main Administration for Homogenization. 61

4.2.2 Descriptive Statistics of the grammar Pre-test 63

4.2.3 Analysis of posttest 65

4.2.3Analysis of Student Questionnaire. 67

4.2.3 Analysis of Teacher’s Questionnaire. 69

4.3 Discussion ………………………………………………………………………………………70

CHAPTER V Conclusions, Pedagogical Implications, and Suggestions for Further Research

5.1 Restatement of the Problem.. 76

5.2 Overview of the Study. 76

5.3 Pedagogical Implications. 76

5.3.1 mplications for Teaching and Teacher Training. 77

5.3.2 Implications for Materials Development 77

5.4 Suggestions for Further Research. 77

References. 79

Appendices: 85

List of Tables

Table 2.1: different type of co-teaching ……………………………………….…….19

Table 3.1: The contents and titles of the lessons …………………………………….52

Table 3.2 Teacher’s Actions during Co-Teaching ……………………………………53

Table 4.1: Descriptive Statistics for KET Proficiency Test piloting…………………60

Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistics for KET Proficiency Test ………………………….60

Table 4.3: Reliability of the KET Proficiency Test Piloting ………………….……..61

Table 4.4: Descriptive Statistics for KET Main Administration for Homogenization.61

Table 4.5: The Results of Normality Check of the Distribution of scores on KET…..61

Table 4.6: Independent Sample T-test for Control and Experimental Groups’ KET scores …………63

Table 4.7: Descriptive Statistics for the Results of the Pre-test……………….……. 64

Table 4.8: Results of Normality of Distribution of Scores for vocabulary homogeneity test …….….64

Table 4.9: Independent Samples T- Test for Pre-test ………………………………..65

Table 4.10 Group Statistics of the team-teaching and normal class Participants for post test scores …….……65

Table 4.11 Independent Samples T-Test of the team-teaching and normal class Participants for post-test ……67

Table 4.12 Student Responses to Social Validity Questions ……….………….…….68

Table 4.13 Teacher’s Responses to Social Validation Questions ……………………69

List of Figures

Figure 4.1: The Histogram of Scores of KET Main Administration ………………62

Figure 4.2 Comparing scores obtained from post-test ……….…………………….66

Figure 4.3 Student Responses to Social Validation Questions ……………………69

To those who have tried to wipe out unawareness and darkness and finally they died in Anonymity.

CHAPTER I

Background and Purpose

1.1 Introduction

Nowadays English is known as the language of the science, everyday communication and most widely used language in the world. Although it is a well-known fact that Mandarin Chinese is the most commonly spoken language on the planet, we should know that “while English does not have the most speakers, it is the official language of more countries than any other language” (Flamiejamie, 2008). English, also, is the language in which the sciences are most often discussed and presented. A study done in 1997 indicated that 95% of scientific publications and submissions, even at that time, were done in English (collegeofenglishmalta.com). Therefore, it seems that learning English is a need for everyone who wants to keep himself updated and in touch with real out world. In learning English, language skills and language components cannot be separated. Language components can complete the language skills. In order to learn English the students should be able to use suitable structures and master grammar and vocabulary. Vocabulary is an important language component for forming words and building English sentences. Harmer also claimed, “Language structures make up the skeleton of language and it is vocabulary that provides the vital organs and the flesh.” (Harmer, 1994 as cited in Baniabdelrahman, 2013) There is no doubt about the importance of vocabulary. “It is necessary in the sense that words are the basic building blocks of the language, the units of meaning from which larger structures such as sentences, paragraphs and whole text are formed” (Read, 2000, p 1). “Without a good working knowledge of words and their meanings, both written and verbal communication will be muddied or poorly understood” (wisegeek.com). Wilkins (1972) believed that, without learning grammar very little can be conveyed and without learning vocabulary, nothing at all can be conveyed. Researchers suggest that early elementary students’ word knowledge is a determinant of reading comprehension both in early elementary school and throughout their schooling (Hansen, 2009). Some research findings also disclose that students who have acquired more vocabulary items, they will be more likely to articulate and communicate the massage. Therefore, as a result their achievement in speaking skills is better than those who are short of vocabulary understanding or have acquired less vocabulary items. Since vocabulary is important in communication, the students should master it. In this regard, Hippner-page also believes that “vocabulary is the key component which guarantees acquiring a second language and becoming a functional and fluent reader and writer of a second language” (2000, p. 7).

Baumann and Kameenui (1991) believed that we need to have a good vocabulary size to speak and write naturally and effectively. Students’ word knowledge is also linked strongly to their academic success (As cited in Baker, Simmons, & Kameenui, 2007). Moreover it is believed that “perhaps the greatest tools we can give students for succeeding, not only in their education but more generally in life, is a large, rich vocabulary and the skills for using those words” (Pikulski & Templeton, 2004). If we are not sure that Knowledge of this vocabulary will guarantee success, it will be clear that lack of knowledge of vocabulary can ensure failure (Biemiller, 1999 as cited in Jobrack, 2010).

Some researchers (Harley, 1996; Yoshii, and Flaitz, 2002) point to vocabulary learning as a vital part of each student’s life, while other researchers though accept the importance of vocabulary acquisition in language proficiency and academic achievement; their ideas about how vocabulary should be learned have varied widely. (Ghabanchi & Anbarestani, 2008) Unfortunately, learning vocabulary is not easy for students and most of students believe memorizing and learning vocabulary is a difficult, boring, and tedious task. Moreover, what is hard to learn, is easy to forget. So finding ways to increase students’ vocabulary growth throughout the school years must become a major educational priority.

Everyone remembers some words better than others, because of the nature of the words, the circumstances they are learnt under, and the methods of teaching (Ur, 1996). The attention drawn to the important role of vocabulary unveils the importance of vocabulary and the most effective ways to teach vocabulary. Here the teacher plays the most important role in creating the learning context and choosing methods used in the classroom. Especially in EFL contexts in which there is a little chance for the students to encounter English language out of the classroom. In addition, Hedge believes that “Although the teacher’s ultimate role may be to build independence in students by teaching them good strategies for vocabulary learning, s/he will frequently need to explain new words” (2008, p. 112). Books and materials developers provide teachers with different ways of presenting new words to the students such as using synonyms, antonyms, translation, minimal pairs, description, illustration, using context, association of ideas, examples, and many other ways, which usually demand qualified and knowledgeable teachers to put the most proper in practice. It was claimed that learners need to be given explicit instruction of vocabulary strategy in order to facilitate their awareness of vocabulary learning strategies that they can use to learn their own outside the classroom (Atay & Ozbulgan, 2007 as cited in Chen & Hsiao, 2009). Moreover, there is no doubt that “the teacher’s role in vocabulary development is critical” (Yopp, Yopp, & Bishop, 2010).

As mentioned before, there are different techniques and strategies by which the teachers can teach a new vocabulary; but most of them are teacher-dependent and their practicality or impracticality is a function of teachers’ performance. Since different teachers have different abilities, capabilities, resources, personalities and characteristics teaching vocabularies by two or more teachers (known as co-teaching) sharing their knowledge and competence may be efficient and helpful in teaching vocabularies. Teaming can bring out the creative side of teachers. Woodrow Wilson once said, “I not only use all of the brains I have, but all I can borrow” (28th president of US, 1856 – 1924). His acknowledged reliance on others may fit our co-teaching context as well. This also shows the fact that “A community of peers is important not only in terms of support, but also as a crucial source of generating ideas and criticism” (Sykes, 1996, as cited in Jang, 2006).

The very binging point of co-teaching was in 1975, in which Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. This act stated that free and appropriate public education (FAPE) must be provided for all children (Right, 2010). After that, a very important project (No-Child Left behind) in USA was applied in which they tried to provide a better teaching context for students with disabilities (either physical or mental) and facilitate their learning by using two teachers in the classroom. In those classes, they used a pull out model in which these types of students; were pulled out by the second teacher and there they were taught individually and privately. A similar approach was used in classes in which most of the students were emigrants whose native language was something rather than English. In these classes one of the teachers was mainstream teacher (e.g. math, geology) and the second teacher was an English teacher who tried to eliminate the speaking and listening problems of the students. The setting of the classroom and the role of teachers in those classes shaped different models of co-teaching.

Co-teaching has many benefits for both teachers and students; it can reduce the stigma often associated with being identified as having a disability. It creates a stronger system of support for effective instruction among the adults responsible for educating students (Friend, 2008 as cited in Mulgrew & Gentile, 2010). It also develops respect for differences, teamwork skills, and an appreciation for diversity(flexibility), it also provides peer models, empathetic skills, affirmation of individuality; beside that co-teaching enhances instructional knowledge base, increases ways of creatively addressing challenges, foster better peer relationship among students in the classroom and promotes a more rigorous curriculum, teachers will learn from each other’s expertise and expand the scope of their teaching capacity(Rosario, Coles, Redmon, & Strawbridge, 2010; Walther-Thomas, 1997; Leavitt, 2006; Nickelson, 2010)

Cook and Friend (1996) described five forms of variations in co-teaching:

(1) One teaching/one assisting: a technique in which one teacher takes an instructional lead while the other assists students when necessary.

(2) Station teaching: dividing the class content and room arrangement, with each teacher working on a specified part of the curriculum and classroom, so that students rotate from one station to the other.

(3) Parallel teaching: both teachers plan the instruction but divide the class into two halves, each taking responsibility for working with one-half of the class.

(4) Alternative teaching: organizing a classroom into one large group and one small group, where one teacher is able to provide main instruction, the other to review a smaller group of students; and

(5) Team teaching: teachers take turns in leading discussions or both playing roles in demonstrations.

Among mentioned diversities of co-teaching, team-teaching has received special attention and if we go through the history of co-teaching this approach has been applied more (e.g. teaching ESP), which may be because of its advantages over the other approaches. Despite the potential for problems to arise through a lack of collaboration and cohesiveness within a team, there are potential pedagogical advantages for those willing to adopt this form of teaching. Historically, team teaching has been seen as a practice suited for gaining better control of large groups of students (Ivins, 1964 as cited in Wang, 2010). When team teaching is organized and carried out effectively, students, parents and school faculty feel positive effects. Research shows that students taught using a team teaching approach have higher levels of achievement. Additionally, schools that employ team teaching have teachers who are more satisfied with their job, resulting in an improved work climate (Flynn , 2010). Leavitt believes that “team-teaching boasts many pedagogical and intellectual advantages: it can help create a dynamic and interactive learning environment, provide instructors with a useful way of modeling thinking within or across disciplines, and inspire new