2.6. Co-teaching Models40
2.6.1. One teach, one observe46
2.6.2. Station Teaching47
2.6.3. Parallel Teaching48
2.6.4. Team Teaching49
2.6.5. Alternate Teaching49
2.6.6. Supportive Teaching50
2.6.7. One Teach, One Drift50
2. 7. Benefits of Co-Teaching53
2.7.1. Benefits of Co-teaching for Teachers55
2.7.2. Benefits of Co-teaching for Students56
2.8. Student Achievement and Co-teaching58
2.9. Successful Conditions for Implementing Co-Teaching59
2.10. Co-teaching at secondary level63
2.11. Organizational Impediments to Co-teaching at Secondary Level63
2.12. Challenges to Collaboration67
2.12.1. Philosophical Differences67
2.12.2. Different Levels of Expertise68
2.13. The Evolution of Grammar Instruction68
2.14. Explicit or Implicit Teaching of Grammar69
2.15. Qualitative studies on co-teaching71
2.16. Quantitative studies on co-teaching77
CHAPTER III: Methodology
3.1. Introduction81
3.2. Participants82
3.3. Instrumentation83
3.3.1. Language Proficiency Test83
3.3.1.2. Listening Section84
3.3.1.2. Reading and Writing Section84
3.3.2 Grammar Achievement Test as a pre test and a post test85
3.3.3. Instructional Materials86
3.3.3.1. Course Book86
3.3.3.2. khate Sefid87
3.4. Procedure87
3.4.1. Homogenizing the Participants87
3.4.2. The Treatment88
3.5. Design of the Study92
3.6. Statistical Analysis93
CHAPTER IV: Results and Discussion
4.1. Introduction95
4.2. Descriptive Statistics for the Piloting KET Proficiency Test96
4.3. Descriptive Statistics of the KET Main Administration for Homogenization97
4.4. Descriptive Statistics of the grammar Pre-test100
4.5. The Results of Testing the Null Hypothesis106
4.6. Discussion107
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND PEDAGOGICAL MPLICATIONS
5.1. Introduction110
5.2. Summary of the Findings110
5.3. Conclusion111
5.4. Theoretical Implications112
5.5. Practical Implications113
5.6. Suggestions for Further Research114
References115
APPENDICES
Appendix A129
Appendix B144
Appendix C151
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1: Descriptive Statistics for KET Proficiency Test piloting96
Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistics for KET Proficiency Test97
Table 4.3: Reliability of the KET Proficiency Test Piloting97
Table 4.4: Descriptive Statistics for KET Main Administration for Homogenization98
Table 4.5: The Results of Normality Check of the Distribution of scores on KET98
Table 4.6: Independent Sample T-test for Control and Experimental Groups’ KET scores100
Table 4.7: Descriptive Statistics for the Results of the Pre-test101
Table 4.8: Results of Normality of Distribution of Scores for Grammar Pre-test102

Table 4.9: Independent Samples T- Test for Pre-test103
Table 4.10: descriptive statistics for the results of the post-test105

در این سایت فقط تکه هایی از این مطلب با شماره بندی انتهای صفحه درج می شود که ممکن است هنگام انتقال از فایل ورد به داخل سایت کلمات به هم بریزد یا شکل ها درج نشود

شما می توانید تکه های دیگری از این مطلب را با جستجو در همین سایت بخوانید

ولی برای دانلود فایل اصلی با فرمت ورد حاوی تمامی قسمت ها با منابع کامل

اینجا کلیک کنید

Table 4.11: Results of Normality of Distribution of Scores for Grammar Post-test105
Table 4.12: Independent Samples Test for Post-test106
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1: The Histogram of Scores of KET Main Administration99
Figure 4.2: Histogram of the Scores Obtained on the Grammar Pre-test of the Control Group101
Figure 4.3: Histogram of the Scores Obtained on the Grammar Pre-test of the Experimental Group102
Figure 4.4: Histogram of the Scores Obtained on the Grammar Post- test of the Control Group104
Figure 4.5: Histogram of the Scores Obtained on the Grammar Post- test of the Experimental Group104
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 regular education teacher is expected to have specialized training in her content area with little or no training in meeting the specific needs of students. On the other hand, the special educator brings to the classroom in-depth knowledge of the individual student learning styles, writing and following a student’s Individual Education Plan (IEP), and accommodations that can or must be made, but with limited knowledge of the subject matter content. Both teachers are expected to blend their areas of expertise to provide instruction to all students while meeting the needs of the learning-disabled student (Magiera, Smith, Zigmond, & Gebauer, 2005). “This method of instruction is likely to increase the outcomes for all students in the general education setting, while ensuring that students with disabilities receive necessary modifications yet are provided instruction by a content expert” (Murawski & Dieker, 2004, p. 64) .
Regular and special educators can embrace the different learning needs of all students using a co-teaching model. School populations today are becoming more and more ethnically diverse. As diversity within the classroom increases, so must the educator’s awareness of the need for accommodations for students with different languages and cultural backgrounds. General education teachers are often ill-prepared to deal with students’ diverse learning needs as well as those of students whose unique learning needs stem from a disability. Team teaching will enable teachers to collaborate on the best ways to accommodate the learning needs of both of these student populations. A special educator who is prepared to work with such diversity can assist the general educator in meeting the needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds as well as with different learning disabilities (Dieker and Murawski, 2003).
Meeting the needs of all students in the classroom requires a cooperative teaching relationship that is well-defined and well-planned. “Critical issues for teachers are clustered around three major areas: the nature of collaboration, roles and responsibilities, and outcomes” (Keefe & Moore, 2004, p.77).
There are five variations of the co-teaching model. The first variation has one teacher, usually the general educator, taking the instructional lead while the other moves around the room assisting students and answering questions. The second variation involves actually changing the physical arrangement of the room, dividing the room into two stations, with each teacher working with a segment of the curriculum and having students rotate from station to station. The third variation finds both teachers jointly planning the instruction but dividing the classroom into two heterogeneous halves, with each teacher working with just one-half of the class. The fourth variation involves dividing the class into one small and one large group; one teacher provides instruction in the form of pre-teaching, guided practice, or review to the smaller group. The fifth variation finds the teaching model characterized by each teacher taking turns in leading discussions or having both teachers take part in demonstrations (Welch, 2000).
The general education teachers as curriculum experts were most frequently the dominant member of the partnership. It was rare to find the special educator delivering instruction to the entire class, most frequently performing tasks such as recording homework, writing on the blackboard, or conducting short oral reviews (Mastropieri et al. 2005).
Co-teaching should not be just a chance for one educator to get coffee or run copies. “Teachers must also avoid relegating the special education teacher, especially, to a role of glorified aide” (Lawton, 1999, p. 2).
There are other problems that can arise in a co-teaching situation. Most common of those is the lack of common planning time. Many schools are unable to give collaborating teachers time to plan together, forcing the teachers to plan on their own time or to not plan together at all. This puts the burden of planning on the shoulders of one teacher, usually the general educator.
Another problem is the pairing of two teachers together who did not voluntarily choose to teach together. Clashing personalities and differences of opinions about educational philosophy can make the co-teaching pairing ineffective for the students and professionally frustrating for the teachers (Murawski& Swanson, 2001).
There are many different ways to utilize co-teaching relationships. Co-teaching is becoming more prevalent in schools as educational requirements and high stakes testing make the way schools have always addressed students with diversity, whether cultural or learning, obsolete. Although research shows that there are many benefits to having both a regular educator and special educator in the same classroom, there are many factors to be considered in working collaboratively with another teacher. Which factors enhance the relationship, and which factors hinder it? It is not fully reported what makes the most successful partnerships. Therefore, there is a need to further investigate the co-teaching relationship. In order to help educators maximize their time in the classroom and most benefit both students with special needs as well as students without special needs(Bauwens & Hourcade, 1995)
Although co-teaching is represented as a relatively new approach, its practicality has not been certified for a number of reasons. As far as its application is concerned every co-teaching model may not be suitable in all educational settings because students and teachers do not possess similar features. Its adaptability is another concern. For example, in Japanese classrooms not all models of co-teaching are employed except team teaching (Macedo, 2002; Tajino & Larry, 1998; Tajino & Tajino, 2000).
The different possible types of co-teaching can be categorized by imagining a continuum of collaboration. At the low collaboration end are courses planned by a group of faculty and later taught individually by members of the group. They might plan the general content of these related courses, but would teach and evaluate the courses separately; they would not observe each other’s classes. At the highest level of collaboration are courses that are co-planned, co-taught and evaluated by a pair or group of teachers. These courses are self-contained with instructors working simultaneously in the classroom. In other words, all aspects of the course, including instructional time, are collaborative. Teachers trade off lead and supporting teaching roles as they orchestrate instruction. It is likely that most team-taught courses fall somewhere between these extremes. In the literature, is found documentation of team teaching in single courses (Davis, 1995); across a program (Katsura and Matsune, 1994; Rosenkjar, 2002); and institution-wide (Stewart et al., 2002).
Content teachers appear in these sessions only once or twice each term while the language teacher functions as an interpreter of what a subject teachers lectures mean. Similarly, ”foreign languages across the curriculum” often involves an interdisciplinary pair of Instructors working in a single discipline-based course (Jurasek, 1993), but the foreign language teachers involvement in course design may be limited. A much more collaborative approach has been termed ”four-handed” instruction (Corin,1997),in which two teachers typically work in the same classroom with interchanging faculty roles involving one leading the activity and the other assisting.
Until about 1980, language was basically seen to be grammar: that eventually came to be regarded as too distant, too abstract (Davies, 2008). In the 1980s, language was reckoned to be a set of real life encounters and experiences and tasks, a view which took, real life teaching and testing so seriously that it lost both objectivity and generality (Davies 2008). From the 1990s there has been a compromise between these two positions, where language is viewed as being about communication but in order to make contact with that communication it is considered necessary to employ some kind of distancing from the mush of general goings on that make up our daily life in language (Davies 2008).
Grammar is fundamental to language, without grammar, language does not exist. All languages have grammar, and each language has its own grammar” (Beverly as cited in Williams, 2007). People who speak the same language are able to communicate with each other because they all know the grammar system and structure of that language, that is, the meaningful rules of grammar (Beverly as cited in Williams, 2007).
The importance of grammar will hardly be under question by teachers. Most language teaching and textbooks are organized along grammatical criteria. Language teaching professionals have also become increasingly aware that grammar instruction plays an important role in language teaching and learning. Learning grammar depends on teaching in a correct and beneficial way. On the other hand, Reith and Polsgrove (1998) aptly state that, “it is not enough to merely place students within general class settings without providing appropriate training, materials, and support to them and their teachers, “If done so, their failure is the outcome” (p. 257).
Co-teaching is one push-in model that is gaining momentum as more studies emerge in support of its effectiveness in meeting the needs of students with and without identified disabilities. While the majority of the research available on co-teaching outlines the components of an effective co-teaching program (Welch, 2000), there is not a large body of research that focuses on student achievement in co-teaching situations. The current study serves to explore the effects of co-teaching on the grammatical achievement of students.

1.2. Statement of the Problem
All educators may, more or less, find that an increasing number of students are placed in an English class with a variety of different knowledge and background that influences their learning a new subject differently. Students with poor performance and special needs are generally expected to achieve the same level of success as other learners.
Accordingly, regarding overpopulation and misplacement of the learners in large classes, it seems impossible for one single teacher to conduct all burden of teaching including planning, practice, and evaluation and above all implementing remedial programs to meet the needs of the learners with poor performance within the allocated specific time. Therefore, there is some intuitive appeal for a new mode of service delivery because greater numbers of students who have instructional problems may be accommodated in general education classes.
Drawing upon the above-mentioned views, among the many ideas and options for meeting these diverse yet somehow related challenges, the approach that had received widespread attention and been used by many special and general educators to meet the needs of secondary students is co-teaching. Teachers need to coordinate different kinds of expertise if students are to learn rigorous academic content that reflects curriculum reforms and higher standards (Morocco & Solomon, 1999). For This purpose, the current study focused on investigating the impact of alternative teaching as one form of co-teaching on Iranian EFL learners’ grammar achievement. The results are expected to be generalized to EFL classes where the aim is to increase students’ grammar achievement.
1.3. Statement of Research Question
To fulfill the purpose of this study, the following research question is raised:
Q: Does teaching based on alternative teaching model have a significant effect on EFL learner’s grammar achievement?
1.4. Statement of Research Hypothesis
In order to investigate aforementioned research question, the following research hypothesis is formulated:
H0: Teaching based on Alternative teaching model does not have any significant effect on EFL learners’ grammar achievement.
1.5. Definition of Key Terms
1.5.1. Co-teaching
Co-teaching is defined as the practice of two or more people engaging in instruction, collaboration, and differentiation for students in a classroom (Cook & Friend, 1995).
1.5.2. Alternative Teaching
In alternative teaching, one teacher teaches the large group, while the other teaches or re-teaches content or skills to a small group.
Teachers may regroup students and may alternate roles in teaching the large and small groups (Cook & Friend, 1995)
Many times the terms “team teaching” and “co-teaching” and alternative teaching are used interchangeably to describe a shared, supportive arrangement between a special education teacher and a regular education teacher (Friend & Cook, 2007). Literature reviewed supported both terms and for this study the terms “team teaching” and “co-teaching” or alternative teaching are used interchangeably.
1.5.3. Grammar
A set of rules describes how words and groups of words can be arranged to form sentences in a particular language. (Williams, J., & Evans, J. 1998)
In this research, grammar is defined as and limited to the set of structures to be covered in the material of research in classrooms. Grammar achievement is defined as the participants’ scores on a teacher -researcher -made grammar test based on the instructed course.

1.5.4. Regular (general) education teacher and special education teacher
In a collaborative model the general education and special education teachers each bring their skills, training, and perspectives to the team. General educators bring content specialization, special education teachers bring assessment and adaptation specializations. Both bring training and experience in teaching techniques and learning processes. Their collaborative goal is that all students in their class are provided with appropriate classroom and homework assignments so that each is learning, is challenged, and is participating in the classroom process (Dieker & Barnett, 1996, p. 7).
1.6. Significance of the Study
Considering the role of English as the language of the world for international communication, training competent English users is of paramount importance. To be considered a competent user of English in the current era, one requires gaining the knowledge of the grammatical system of the language, although it is one of the many components constituting the notion of communicative competence. Therefore, it appears that grammar is too important to be ignored, and without such knowledge, learners cannot ensure whether they have progressed in language learning or not (Gass & Selinker, 2008).
Despite the effort that has been put into various kind of research into L2 learning recently the impact of the theories and results so far generated on language teaching methodology has as yet been limited. Nevertheless, this kind of research holds considerable promise of useful information for the language teaching profession. On the other hand, a persistent theme of school reform literature over the past decades has been the need for teachers to shift from working as isolated practitioners to working as colleagues (Morocco and Aguilar, 2003). The significance of the findings of this study is of utmost importance for schools and educational system in Iran. Although there is a large body of literature on the positive effects of co-teaching for native speakers of English, there is a gap in the literature regarding the implementation of alternative teaching model on EFL learners’ grammar achievement in Iranian context. This study contributes to the body of knowledge by providing evidence that is needed to verify the existing studies so that EFL teachers in Iran (in general) and in Ilam (particular) can benefit from the findings of this study for their classroom context and can justifiably decide whether to use alternative teaching in their classrooms. Besides, the findings of this study can be utilized for practical consideration of teaching in Iranian schools and institutes as co-teaching is somehow new for Iranian context. The significance of the study gets more underlined as it can also contribute to a new way that grammar can be instructed to the EFL students.

1.7. Limitation and Delimitations of the Study
Like other research studies, the present research study was conducted under the following limitation and delimitations:
1.7.1. Limitation of the Study
This study was conducted by a female researcher and according to the rules of schools, female teachers can only teach female students; hence, the findings of the study might not be generalizable to male members of the population.
1.7.2. Delimitations of the Study
The research was conducted in junior high school where the researcher herself and one of her colleagues-cooperating in the treatment- were teachers for many years and had experience of co-teaching several times.
Since at school most of the emphasis of teaching English is on grammatical points, the study focused on the grammatical points.
Also the choice of alternative teaching as one type of co-teaching is other delimitation.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

2.1. Introduction
The origin of using co-teaching goes back to the article wrote by Dunn in about 40 years ago. Dunn (1968) questioned the legitimacy of educating mildly retarded children in separate classrooms. Although the idea proposed by Dunn was originally taken and applied for retarded children, it was also employed for normal classrooms later.
2.2. Theoretical Foundation and History of Co-Teaching
Historically, teaching has been described as a “lonely profession” with teachers working almost in total isolation (Lortie, 1975).
A study by Weiss and Lloyd (2002) found that special education teachers believed that collaboration between a special education teacher and a regular education teacher is necessary for students with disabilities to be included in regular education classrooms. However, a culture of collaboration in a school can be difficult to be created; it is evolutionary and one that takes time to foster, especially between teachers who have traditionally belonged to two different professional and organizational cultures; regular education and special education (Pugach & Johnson, 2002; Skrtic, 1991b).
Scholars have posited various definitions of special education and regular education teacher collaboration. For example, Friend and Cook (2007) define collaboration as “a style for direct interaction between at least two coequal parties voluntarily engaged in shared decision making as they work toward a common goal” (p. 7). Teachers of different disciplines working together collaboratively represent a system’s change in schools today from traditional teaching methods of one teacher assigned to one classroom (Dettmer, Thurston, & Dyck (2002) offer this definition of the special education teacher’s role in collaboration, “A collaborative school consultant is a facilitator of effective communication, cooperation, and coordination who confers, consults, and collaborates with other school personnel…on a team that addresses special learning and behavioral needs of students” (p. 6).
Although scholars have argued for the value of collaboration, it is often difficult to put it into practice. Some teachers desire to collaborate but the organizational structure of schools leaves little time during the school day for them to work together to develop appropriate curriculum and teaching strategies(Skrtic et, 1996).
How to help teachers move from a traditional non-collaborative environment to one where collaboration is embraced and practiced remains a topic of interest for scholars and educators (Lipsky & Gartner, 1996). Haynes (2006) found some regular education teachers were territorial, like the traditional one teacher-one class structure, and were reluctant to share their classroom with another teacher. It is important for any particular school to find an effective collaboration model and strategy, as not all models and strategies transfer effectively from one school to another or more specifically, one classroom to another (Cramer & Stivers, 2007). The literature on collaboration between special education and regular education identified (a) characteristics of effective collaboration between special education and regular education, and (b) benefits of collaboration between special education and regular education teachers for teachers and students.
As a result of debates over mainstreaming and the regular education initiative a national trend developed to attempt to place special education students in general education classrooms (Walther-Thomas, 1997). Suggestions for new special education service delivery models began to emerge to accommodate the trend (Creasey & Walther-Thomas, 1996). Collaborative consultation (Idol, Paolucci-Whitcomb, & Nevin, 1994), mainstream assistance teams (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bahr, 1990) and cooperative teaching (Bauwens, Hourcade, & Friend, 1989) were well-known examples. A common characteristic of these models is their emphasis on assisting students with academic and behavioral needs by providing supports within the general education classroom. The philosophical underpinning of cooperative teaching began with Bauewens, Hourcade, and Friend’s (1989) definition of it as an educational approach used by general and special education teachers and includes joint planning and teaching of heterogeneous learners within an integrated setting. In this model both general and special education teachers are present at the same time and are simultaneously responsible for specific classroom instruction.
In the 1990’s, Cook and Friend (1995) shortened the term cooperative teaching to co- teaching. They believed co-teaching was an approach with the potential to help all teachers meet the growing demands of students with disabilities as they became integrated into the regular classroom. Basing their recommendations on the mostly anecdotal records of successful co-teaching partnerships (Adams & Cessna, 1991; White & White, 1992), Cook and Friend also expanded the co-teaching concept by developing a more specific definition and delineation of components. In their definition, co-teaching consists of two or more educators, one of whom is the general education teacher, and one or more educators who could be a special education teacher or a related service provider. General educators have expertise in the curriculum taught in the classroom and special educators can identify specific needs of individual students and enhance the curriculum to meet these needs. An important aspect of Cook and Friend’s definition is that each educator is responsible for delivering substantive instruction. Both teachers are actively involved with the students and neither is serving as a monitor. The third part of their definition states co-teachers work together in a general education classroom that consists of a diverse group of students. When the co-teaching concept was in its early stages, Cook and Friend (1996) described five variations of the model (1996). These were 1) one teach-one assist where one teacher takes the role of instructional leader and the other assists when students needed, 2) station teaching, room is divided into areas that each student travels to in order to receive segments of the curriculum from the teachers, 3) parallel teaching where teachers plan together but each takes responsibility for half of the class, 4) alternative teaching in which students are organized into a large group and a small group and the teachers assign who will work with each group, and 5) team teaching where both teachers take turns in leading instruction. Researchers have pointed to the team teaching model as the variation of co-teaching that provides optimum benefit to students and teachers (Dieker, 2001; Dieker & Murawski, 2003; Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Mcduffie, 2007). Over time, however, the one teach-one assist model emerged in the research literature as the prevalent model in the co-taught classrooms studied (Scruggs, et al., 2007).
Cook and Friend (1995) developed a rationale for implementing the co-teaching model as a way to successfully include special education students in the general education classroom. First, co-teaching is a means to increase instructional opportunities for all students. It has been suggested that merging the strengths of two professionals with different areas of emphasis allows them to meet the diverse needs within the classroom (Bauwens, et al., 1989). Second, the intensity and integrity of students’ instructional programs can be improved. Special education students do not have to lose instructional time due to transitions to pullout settings and they can generalize their learning to the regular education curriculum more effectively. Third, the stigma experienced by special education students can be reduced or eliminated. In order for this to occur however, the students are taught the regular education curriculum with modifications and supports and are not pulled to side of the room to receive instruction. Fourth, teachers can experience higher levels of professional support and efficacy, which leads to improved teaching performance and better opportunities for student achievement

2.3. Characteristics of Effective Collaboration
Effective collaboration between teachers is characterized by personality traits of teachers and other essential qualities. An overarching characteristic of successful collaboration found in the literature is collegiality between the regular education teacher and the special education teacher (Dettmer et al., 2002).
To support a collegial atmosphere among teachers there must be support, respect, communication, and cooperation among them too (Dettmer et al., 2002, 2005). Additionally, Friend and Cook (2007) further describe elements of effective collaboration between teachers, saying, “participation is voluntary, parity among participants is required, mutual goals are developed, a shared responsibility for participation and decision making is insured, teachers share resources, and teachers share accountability for student outcomes” (pp. 8 – 12).
In a collaborative teaching arrangement, both teachers combine their expertise to determine effective methods to deliver the curricular content by modifying instructional methods, materials, and curriculum (Haynes, 2006; Stanovich, 1996). The special educator usually has expertise in designing an alternate instructional delivery model; whereas, the regular education teacher is competent in the area of curriculum (Friend, 2007; Villa & Thousand, 2005).
A study by Janney, et al (1995) found that regular education teachers appreciated the practical, student specific information shared by the special education teacher: “The [special education] teachers…let me know, okay, these students can achieve at this level…[and] these are little things that [Mickey] can possibly do, [so] then I can watch for them.” (p. 99). The study by Weiss and Lloyd (2002) also supported a feeling of satisfaction by special education teachers participating in collaborative relationships with regular education teachers. A reciprocal relationship can develop in a collaborative partnership between a regular education teacher and a special education teacher (Haynes, 2006).

2.4. Characteristics of Co-teachers and Co-teaching

دسته بندی : پایان نامه ها

پاسخ دهید