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

3.2.6Materials. 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.