Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics 16(1), 55-71

55 ɂC 2012 PAAL 1345-8353/00

Exploring the Impact of Parallel Teaching on General

Language Proficiency of EFL Learners

Mohammad Aliakbari and Abdonour Bazyar*

Ilam University

Aliakbari, M. & Bazyar, A. (2012). Exploring the Impact of

Parallel Teaching on General Language Proficiency of EFL

Learners. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics,

16(1), 55-71.

Over the past few decades co-teaching has attracted due attention for

enhancing learning process in educational systems. Drawing on the

concept of ‘parallel model’, the present study attempted to examine

the extent to which this approach can affect general language

proficiency of EFL learners. To this end, through a quasiexperimental study, a group of 32 second-grade students
studying

English in junior high school were assigned into a Control Group

(CG) and an Experimental Group (EG) according to their pre-test

performance. Parallel teaching by co-instructors was implanted in EG

context, while for the CG the instruction was delivered by a single

teacher. The results of the post-test administration revealed that

difference in instruction approaches did not result in a significant

difference in the subjects’ performance. Further investigation made it

clear that before any attempt in its implementation, learners need to be

educated and culturally prepared to benefit from such an approach.

Key Words: co-teaching, co-teaching models, parallel teaching,

general language proficiency

1 Introduction

Effective language teaching and learning depends, to a large extent, on

applying appropriate teaching methodology. In the current and relatively

most prevalent traditional models of teaching, one teacher is responsible for

supervising and implementing all tasks of lessons over a specific, predetermined time. The plan of the teaching process,
its practice, and the

expected evaluation are carried out by the same teacher. In such situations, as

Aliakbari and Mansoori Nejad (2010) declare, teaching is not critically

reflected on by anyone except the lead teacher of the classroom. The arrival

* First and corresponding author

Mohammad Aliakbari and Abdonour Bazyar

56

of new strategies of teaching, issues of motivation, the satisfaction of

students and 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

administration and instruction of our classes.

The increasing number of diverse student populations in schools also

highlights the need for effective service delivery models to accommodate

these students. One promising practice that is being utilized and becoming

more commonplace in schools is co-teaching (Reinhiller, 1996).

There exists a variety of realizations 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). To take it one step further, Wenzlaff, et al.

(2002) agree that co-teaching presupposes “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” (p.

14). Similarly, Bauwens and Hourcade (1995) consider co-teaching as “a

restructuring of teaching procedures in which two or more educators

possessing distinct sets of skills work in a coordinated fashion to jointly teach

academically and behaviorally heterogeneous groups of students in an

integrated educational setting” (p. 46). Bacharach, Heck, and Dank (2003)

considered co-teaching as two teachers working together with groups of

learners and sharing the planning, organization, delivery and assessment of

instruction, as well as the physical space.

In an effective co-teaching classroom, a positive, collegial relationship

between the two teachers is essential and often takes time and effort to

develop. Both educators should assume full responsibility for the education

of all students in the classroom, including planning, presentation, classroom

management, and evaluation. This can be nurtured by clear expectations from

administrators, fostered through the mutual exploration of individual and

partnership belief systems, and cultivated through time for reflection. What

we can imply from the diversity of co-teaching models is that the basic

premise of these models, as Gately (2005) holds, is “two are better than one”

(p. 36).

In practice, however, successful co-teaching is not easily attainable.

Cook & Friend (1998) addressed lack of professional preparation, poorly

defined roles, lack of clear expectations and frustrations with implementation

issues. Hohenbrink et al (1997) considered backgrounds and personalities as

barriers to implement co-teaching. They hold that possessing different kind

of personalities and cultural backgrounds, co-teachers might face conflicting

process in dealing with each others’ interests. Still, continued ownership

struggles are considered as a potential issue on the way (Wood, 1998). And,

as Quarcoo (2005) maintains, some more factors may influence the

Impact of Parallel Teaching on General Language Proficiency

57

relationship between the roles of co-teachers. For such and other possible
reasons, the idea of co-teaching has not been fully incorporated in the current

education systems as a fixed and stable method for teaching second or

foreign languages and other sciences.

Taking into account the above hurdles and difficulties, the present

study attempts to investigate the practicality of co-teaching in general and

parallel model in particular in improving and enhancing the general English

proficiency of Iranian EFL learners.

2 An Overview of Collaborative and Co-teaching Models

Watkins and Caffarella (1999) identified four working-style variations:

parallel teaching, serial teaching, co-teaching, and co-facilitation. This

typology is much similar to the descriptions of various approaches to coteaching in K-12 public schools in the USA (e.g.,
Friend & Cook, 2002; Villa

et al., 2008). These approaches include (a) collaborative consultation, where

educators with particular expertise (e.g., content knowledge, disability

category knowledge, pedagogy knowledge, etc.) provide advice to the other

educators; (b) supportive co-teaching, where one educator takes the lead and

others rotate among students to provide support; (c) parallel co-teaching,

where co-teachers instruct different heterogeneous groups of students; (d)

complementary co-teaching, where one educator does something to

supplement or complement the instruction provided by the other educator

(e.g., models note taking or paraphrases the teacher’s statements); (e) team

teaching, known as “one brain in two bodies”, where educators are partners

who share responsibility for planning, teaching, and assessing the progress of

all students in the course.

In a comparatively similar position, Sandholtz (2000) identified three

types of team teaching: (1) two or more teachers loosely sharing

responsibilities; (2) team planning, but individual instruction; and (3) joint

planning, instruction, and evaluation of learning experiences. Likewise,

Morocco and Mata-Aguilar (2002) provide a different taxonomy for coteaching structures that is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Morocco and Mata-Aguilar’s Professional Co-teaching Structures

(With Permission from Mata-Aguilar)

Structure Definition

Alternate leading

and supporting

One teacher provides the main instruction and the other

monitors and assists; then the teachers change roles. At any one

time, the lead teacher may be the content or special education

teacher.

Mohammad Aliakbari and Abdonour Bazyar

58

Station teaching

Teachers set up tasks in different parts of the room and serve as

the teacher/facilitator at different stations, each of which is

relevant to the lesson. Heterogeneous groups of students may

rotate among the stations.

Parallel teaching

Co-teachers plan a lesson together and then divide the class into

two heterogeneous groups. They teach the same material, but

may use different approaches.

Flexible grouping

Teachers divide students into subgroups based on their skill

level or need for re-teaching. One group may work

independently.

Alternate 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.

Team teaching

Two teachers provide instruction to the entire class. They hand

off the instructional lead to one another across and within

activities and may intervene during the other’s conversation

turn to explain or elaborate the content to students.

In another attempt to account for the possible options for such a joint

performance, Bacharach, Heck, and Dahlberg (2008) presented a relatively

improved typology of co-teaching models which is shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Bacharach, Heck, and Dahlberg’s (2008) Proposed Co-teaching

Strategies, (With Permission from Bacharach).

Strategy Definition/Application

One Teach, One

Observe

When using one teach, one observe, one teacher has primary

instructional responsibility while the other gathers specific

observational information on students or the (instructing)

teacher. The key to this strategy is to focus the observation –

where the teacher doing the observation is observing specific

behaviors.

One Teach, One

Drift

One teach, one drift is an extension of one teach, one observe.

One teacher has primary instructional responsibility while the

other assists students with their work, monitors behaviors, or

corrects assignments, often lending a voice to students or groups

who would hesitate to participate.

Station Teaching

For station teaching the co-teaching pair divide the instructional

content into parts. Each teacher instructs one of the groups.

Groups then rotate or spend a designated amount of time at each

station. Often an independent station will be used along with the

teacher led stations.

Parallel Teaching

In this approach, each teacher instructs half the students. The

two teachers are addressing the same instructional material. The

greatest benefit to this approach is the reduction of students to

teacher ratio.

Impact of Parallel Teaching on General Language Proficiency

59

Supplemental

Teaching

This strategy allows one teacher to work with students at their

expected grade level, while the other teacher works with those

students who need the information and/or materials extended or

remediated.

Alternative

(Differentiated)

Teaching

Alternative teaching strategies provide two different approaches

to teaching the same information. The learning outcome is the

same for all students; however the avenue for getting there is

different.

Team Teaching

Well planned, team taught lessons, exhibit an invisible flow of

instruction with no prescribed division of authority. Using a

team teaching strategy, both teachers are actively involved in

the lesson. From a students’ perspective, there is no clearly

defined leader – as both teachers share the instruction, are free

to interject information, and available to assist students and

answer questions.

Friend and Cook (2004) introduce six approaches to co-teaching: 1)

One Teach, One Observe; 2) One Teach, One Drift; 3) Parallel Teaching; 4)

Station Teaching; 5) Alternative Teaching; and 6) Team Teaching. They

maintain that in parallel teaching, co-teachers are both teaching the same

information, but they divide the class group and conduct the lesson

simultaneously. Student learning would be greatly facilitated if they just have

more supervision by the teacher or more opportunity to respond. They

continue that the model can be used:

(1) When a lower adult-student ratio is needed to improve

instructional efficiency;

(2) To foster student participation in discussions; and

(3) For activities such as drill and practice, re-teaching, and test

review (p. 18).

They also elaborate on other key features of Parallel teaching as:

More students would have a chance to share their alternative

ending to the story if they are split into two groups.

If each teacher took a group of students and presented

environmental issues-one from the point of view of business

and industry and one from the point of view of

environmentalists-the class could later have a spiritedly

discussion on the topic.

Student use of the science materials could be more closely

monitored if the group is divided in half.

This approach gives each teacher an active-but separateinstructional role in the classroom.

Any topic with multiple dimensions can be presented using

this approach if the groups are then brought back together for

discussion.
Mohammad Aliakbari and Abdonour Bazyar

60

Students can be strategically placed in the two groups (p. 18).

However, Buckley (2000) cautions that there is no universal approach

to team teaching. That is, we can categorize different possible types of team

teaching by imagining a continuum of collaboration. According to Perry and

Stewart (2005), “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, cotaught and evaluated by a pair or group of
teachers. These courses are selfcontained 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.” (p. 564). In the literature,

documentation of team teaching can be found in single courses (see Davis,

1995); across a program (e.g. Katsura and Matsune, 1994; Rosenkjar, 2002);

and institution-wide (see Stewart et al., 2002).

3 Review of the Related Literature

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, 2002). 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). Accounting for such hopes and expectations,

co-teaching seems to be of particular interest to schools that aspire to become

exemplary in providing all students the academic support they need to be

successful.
The impact of co-teaching structures on students’ academic learning

and achievement has received due attention in educational research,

(Bauwens, Hourcade, & Friend, 1989; Cook & Friend, 1995; Nowacek &

Blanton, 1996; Vaughn, Schumm, & Arguelles, 1997; Rice & Zigmond,

2000; Dieker, 2001; Fennick, 2001; Fennick & Liddy, 2001; Zigmond &

Magiera, 2001; Kluth & Straut, 2003; Chaison, Yearwood, & Olsen, 2006;

Roy, 2006; Wilson, 2006; Zigmond, 2006; Scribner et al. 2007; Scruggs et al.,

2007; Simmons & Magiera, 2007; Villa, Thousand & Nevin, 2008; Aliakbari

& Mansoori Nejad, 2010). Such research studies, however, manifested

varying results.

Nowacek and Blanton (1996) in a quasi-experimental study analyzed

the impact of a collaboratively taught methods course on the attitudes and

knowledge of the students in pre-service teacher education programs.

Impact of Parallel Teaching on General Language Proficiency

61

Responses to a videotaped vignette of a student with disabilities were

collected from 27 pre-service teachers (17 in elementary education and 10 in

special education) in the co-taught methods course (the experimental group)

and 12 pre-service teachers in the course taught by a single instructor (the

control group). Although there was no significant difference on the attitude

scale, there were qualitative differences in the nature of responses to the

videotaped vignette. Those in the experimental group emphasized lesson

planning and instructional processes while those in the control group

emphasized classroom management and instructional materials. There were

no differences between the two groups in terms of identifying student

characteristics (strengths and weaknesses); in fact, both groups emphasized

weaknesses.

In a comprehensive study of inclusion in 18 elementary and 7 middle

schools, Walther-Thomas (1997) found that the lower student–teacher ratio

that resulted from the presence of co-teachers in normal-sized classrooms led

to strong academic progress and enhanced student self-confidence. In a metaanalysis of six co-teaching studies,
Murawski and Swanson (2001) found that

co-teaching was a moderately effective procedure for influencing student

outcomes and that it had the greatest impact on achievement in the areas of

reading and language arts.

Hadley et al. (2000) in an experimental study on the effect of coteaching on students’ achievement illustrated that
students who were cotaught made significantly greater gains than those received the traditional

classroom instruction. Conderman and McCarty (2003) described their use of

learning centers, a parallel co-teaching approach, in an education course.

They believed that their implementation of learning centers allowed

previously disengaged students to become more engaged in the content of the

course. Because the learning centers were modeling different ways to teach

the same subject, students were able to learn by direct experience how they

might implement a differentiated instruction technique.

Co-teaching seems to influence areas other than students’ learning and

achievement as well. Dahlberg and Hoover (2003), for instance, in a study on

“The Effects of Co-teaching on K6 Student Discipline and Attendance”

found that (1) there is a positive trend between student tardies and coteaching, and (2) co-teaching impacts the number
and the location of

discipline incidents in grades K6; students in co-taught settings had fewer

behavioral issues in school, and had overall fewer referrals per student.

Although the beneficiary effect of co-teaching has been supported by

some studies, there are voices that cast doubt on the usefulness of co-teaching

models. For instance, Magiera and Zigmond (2005) concluded that the

efficiency of co-teaching for enhancing the students' proficiency is vague.

Similarly, Aliakbari and Mansoori Nejad (2010) in a quasi-experimental

study investigating the effect of a co-teaching model on improving EFL

learners’ grammatical proficiency found that compared to traditional

Mohammad Aliakbari and Abdonour Bazyar

62

approach, co-teaching instruction was not effective in making a difference in

learners’ proficiency. In other words, no significant difference was found

between the performance of the experimental and the control groups.

Some researchers doing qualitative studies (e.g. Vasquez-Montilla,

Spillman, Elliott, & McGonney, 2007) concluded that, with respect to

planning, satisfaction and team interactions, the respondents were much more

tolerant of the ambiguities and unknown results of their collaborative efforts.

In the area of teaching effectiveness, faculty agreed to a level of discomfort

and lack of confidence in the results on their students. These results led the

researchers to conclude that more research is needed to determine the impact

of co-teaching on learners’ achievement in an Iranian context as an EFL

environment.

4 Statement of the Problem

Although much has been written about the usefulness and efficiency of coteaching, it seems that relatively little
attention has been paid to its

application in different situations, especially in EFL contexts. In Iran, for

example, because of the focused educational system where almost all

educational decisions are dictated from the Ministry of Education,

implementing co-teaching models and investigating their impacts on different

aspects of language knowledge seem to face serious hurdles and obscurities.

The present study, therefore, aimed to investigate the practicality and

efficiency of co-teaching models in public schools in Iran as an EFL context.

More specifically, attempt was made to clarify whether Parallel Teaching

model, among others, can improve EFL students’ general language

proficiency more than traditional single-teaching instruction. Accordingly,

the main purpose of this study is to find answer for the following questions:

1)Does a “parallel teaching” approach have an influential effect

on improving general language proficiency of EFL learners in

the given context?

2)How do students and co-teachers evaluate co-teaching

experience in their class?

5 Method

5.1 Participants

The study was conducted in a junior high school in the district of Salehabad

situated in the southeast of Ilam, Iran. There was a group of 32 second-grade

students studying English with the prior experience of learning English for

about one and a half years. They were all male and thirteen to fourteen years

Impact of Parallel Teaching on General Language Proficiency

63

old. The study also took advantage of two male English teachers (the teacherresearcher and his colleague) both aged
thirty nine. The teacher-researcher

had MA degree in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) and the

co-instructor was a BA graduate in English Translation. They had gained a

good experience in teaching English in EFL contexts for about twenty years.

5.2 Material

The main material used in the present study was the general instructional

textbook. The textbook was the English book published in Iran and used in

all EFL classrooms in junior high schools across the country. It is developed

by Beerjandi and Soheily and published by the Company of Press and

Publishing Iranian Educational Books [Beerjandi, P. & Soheily, A., 2009.

“Right Path to English”. Tehran: Company of Press and Publishing Iranian

Educational Books]. The textbook contains ten lessons. Each lesson includes

a dialogue, some patterns depicting grammatical points, new vocabulary

items, read aloud (pronunciation) section, and a reading comprehension

passage.

5.3 Instruments

Two tests were developed and exploited for the purpose of the study: a pretest that served as a general knowledge
proficiency test determining the
homogeneity of the students in the control and experimental group. It was

developed based on the materials covered during the past one and a half years

of instruction (see 5.4); and an achievement test which served as a post-test to

point out the possible impact of parallel and single instructor teaching on the

general English proficiency of the experimental and the control group. Both

the pre-test and the post-test were in multiple-choice format.

5.4 Procedure

A quasi-excremental design was exploited for the purpose of the study. The

subjects, then, were divided into two homogeneous groups of sixteen based

on their performance on the pre-test. To this end, the scores were ranked from

the highest to the lowest; the odd scores were assigned to one group and the

even ones to the other. One group played the role of the Control Group (CG),

whereas the other group served as the Experimental Group (EG). For the

Control Group, the teacher-researcher employing the most prevalent

traditional single-teaching method taught the materials including dialogue,

vocabulary, grammar points, pronunciation, and reading comprehension

passage. For the EG, the co-teachers (the researcher-teacher and his

colleague), implementing Parallel Model, taught the materials over a period

of two months. In this stage, each co-teacher taught his own group with his

Mohammad Aliakbari and Abdonour Bazyar

64

own teaching method, the same material in the same classroom setting

simultaneously. The co-instructors didn’t change their roles, positions, and

groups during the instructions as suggested by the model. Finally, an

achievement tests, based on the materials covered during the experimental

phase was developed to evaluate the students’ general knowledge of English.

This test played the role of the posttest to point out the possible impact of coteaching (Parallel Model) on the students’
general English proficiency.

The study was conducted in 16 sessions on Wednesdays and

Thursdays and each session took about 70 minutes. For the CG, the class

sessions were held on Wednesdays, while these sessions were held on

Thursdays for the EG. Both educators assumed full responsibility for the

planning and presentation of materials, classroom management, developing

the test items, and evaluation. As for the second research question and to

collect participants’ and co-instructor’s attitude and evaluation of the

treatment, an open-ended questionnaire and a semi structured interview were

planned.

6 Results

In order to find out whether the treatment has been influential and beneficial

in improving the subjects’ general proficiency, first, the raw scores obtained

in the pre-test and post-test exams were analyzed descriptively, and then

inferential statistics were employed to find out whether differences, if any,

were statistically significant.

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for the Subjects’ Performance on the Pre-test

Group N Range Mean Std.

Deviation Variance

Control G 16 55 52.50 16.88 285.15

Experimental G 16 50 52.18 16.25 264.06

In order to see whether or not the difference between the groups was

statistically significant, a t-test was computed, the result of which is given in

Table 4.

Table 4. Results of Independent Samples Test on Learners’ Language

Proficiency Prior to the Treatment

t df Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference Sig. (2-tailed)

0.54 31 .312 5.775 .957

*P < 0.05

Since the t-observed (f=0.54) is smaller than the t-critical (f= 2.042), it

can be claimed that there is no significant difference between the control and

Impact of Parallel Teaching on General Language Proficiency

65

experimental groups with regard to their language proficiency. In other words,

the two groups (CG and EG) were homogeneous in their general knowledge

of English before the treatment.

Table 5 presents the descriptive statistics including the calculation of

Mean, Standard deviation, Variance, and Range for both sets of scores in the

post-test.

Table 5. Descriptive Statistics for the Subjects’ Performance on the Post-test

Group N Range Mean Std.

Deviation

Variance

Control Group 16 47.5 68.08 14.15 200.41

Experimental Group 16 50.00 65.93 14.71 216.56

Comparing the CG’s and EG’s performance on the post-test made it

clear that, though to a small degree, the two groups performed differently.

However, as noted earlier, the main purpose of the study was to investigate

the effect of ‘Parallel teaching’ on general English proficiency of the Iranian

EFL learners. Therefore, in order to find out whether the difference between

the performance of the subjects was statistically significant, the inferential

statistics of Independent Samples Test procedure was run to compare the

CG’s and EG’s mean scores on the post-test. The result is given in Table 6.

Table 6. Results of Independent Samples Test on Subjects’ Performance on

the Post-test

Data presented in Table 6 indicate that since the value of t-observed

(.428) is not larger than the critical value of t (2.042) at 31 degree of freedom,
the difference between the subjects’ performance on the tests is not

significant at P<0.05 level, and consequently the null hypothesis for no

significant difference between the two groups on the post-test is supported.

Thus, it can safely be argued that the difference in instruction methodology

has not influenced the learners’ general language proficiency and that parallel

teaching did not lead to better outcome than the traditional teaching.

The findings of the study, hence, disconfirmed the beneficiary impact

of ‘parallel teaching’ on improving the EFL learners’ general language

proficiency in comparison to traditional single teaching method. To answer

the second research question, the researchers investigated the possible

explanation for the treatment failure. In so doing, the subjects were asked to

enumerate the plausible reasons leading to failure of the experiment through

t df Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference Sig. (2-tailed)

0.428 31 2.150 5.026 .672

*P < 0.05

Mohammad Aliakbari and Abdonour Bazyar

66

an open-ended questionnaire. The given reasons for the experiment failure

and its weaknesses implied by the respondents’ answers are as follows:

Co-teachers did not change their positions and roles (The

learners asked for co-teachers changing their groups every

other session in order to better benefit from their experiences).

Co-teachers might enjoy the same level of language ability

and experiences.

Since the co-instructors did their job simultaneously in the

same setting, it was distracting to the learners.

The noisy atmosphere of the class resulting from simultaneous

teaching caused the subjects to lose their focus of attention

most of the time.

They were not accustomed to the experience and felt shy with

the presence of co-teachers.

Nevertheless, though the co-teaching model did not lead to

beneficiary effect on the subjects’ language proficiency, they all appreciated

and received the model with open arms saying that:

It was considered motivating for the members of the EG

groups to compete positively with one another, though it did

not result in better outcome.

The more the number of the co-teachers, the less the members

of each group and as a result the more opportunity for the

learners to make best of their educational time.

It can result in more effective and stable learning if

instantiated in the curriculum.

They had fun and consequently enjoyed their learning time.

A warm, friendly atmosphere is injected to the class.

As noted earlier semi-structured individual interview with the coinstructor was conducted after parallel teaching
experiences through which

the interviewer took notes during and immediately after the interview. The co

instructor-interviewee perceptions about the unsuccessful effects of the

model on students’ achievement are described below.

- Since State educational system is focused on traditional singleteaching, co-presence of instructors in the same class
seems

unnatural and even challenging for both students and

instructors.

- Students and teachers are usually accustomed to classes

attended by only one pedagogue; Compared to traditionally-

Impact of Parallel Teaching on General Language Proficiency

67

held classes, presence of co-teachers culturally threatens the

authority of teachers in class.

- In Iran both teachers and students are unfamiliar with coteaching models; it takes time to be set as a bone in the

educational system.

7 Discussions and Conclusion

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of co-teaching

on general language proficiency of Iranian EFL learners. To this end, in a

quasi-experimental study, ‘Parallel teaching’ as one of the proposed models

of co-teaching was implemented. Although, a great number of the previous

studies have confirmed the influential impact of co-teaching in various

educational contexts, the findings of this study did not seem to come in line

with the results of those studies. In other words, although the subjects

performed differently on the post-test, the difference was not significant at P<

0.05 level. Therefore, it can be concluded that Parallel teaching model in this

particular situation did not lead to better results compared to traditional

single-teaching instruction.

The non-significant result of the study can, however, be attributed to a

number of issues. First, the participants, though, welcomed the model

enthusiastically, pointed out that the presence of co-instructors in the same

classroom setting created a confusing situation. This confusing context

resulted from the fact that two teachers did their jobs simultaneously and

consequently have been distracting to the subjects of the study. Furthermore,

some participants stated that they felt shy and even depressed by the presence

of the co-instructor. A further reason, according to the subjects and the copedagogue, could be related to the fact that
co-teaching models are somehow

new to the state education system in a way that participants culturally felt

shocked by the innovation.

The present study was, in any way, limited in a number of ways. The
participants in this study were just a small group of Iranian EFL learners who

cannot be regarded as inclusive and representative sample of the whole

population. The study, therefore, can be replicated in other different contexts

and with other populations to arrive at a more defendable conclusion.

Moreover, since this study focused on teachers relatively new to the

profession of co-teaching, future studies might investigate the roles of other

groups of teachers in terms of teaching experience in general and experience

with co-teaching models in particular. Finally, this study was implemented in

a public governmental context; similar studies can be conducted in private

language institutes to achieve comparable outcomes.

Mohammad Aliakbari and Abdonour Bazyar

68

References

Aliakbari, M., & Manoori Nejad, A. (2010). Implementing a co-teaching

model for improving EFL learners’ grammatical proficiency.

Proceedings of the international conference ICT for language

learning” 3rd Edition, Florence, Italy.

Bacharach, N., Heck, T. W., & Dank, M. (2003). Co-teaching: A partnership

in the classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

Association of Teacher Educators, Jacksonville, FL.

Bacharach, N., Heck, T. W., & Dahlberg, K. (2008). Co-teaching in higher

Education. St. Cloud State University. Journal of College Teaching

& Learning, 5(3), 9-16.

Bauwens, J., Hourcade, J., J., & Friend, M. (1989). Cooperative teaching: A

model for general and special education integration. Remedial and

Special Education, 10, 17–22.

Bauwens, J., & Hourcade, J. J. (1995). Cooperative teaching: Rebuilding the

schoolhouse for all students. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Beerjandi, P., & Soheily, A. (2009). Right path to English, Book 2. Tehran:
Company of Press and Publishing Iranian Educational Books.

Buckley, F. J. (2000). Team Teaching: What, Why and How? Thousand Oaks,

CA. Sage Publications.

Chiasson, K., Yearwood, J. A., & Olsen, G. (2006). The best of both worlds:

combining ECE and ECSE philosophies and best practices through

a co-teaching model. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher

Education, 27(3), 303–312.

Conderman, G., & McCarty, B. (2003). Shared insights from university coteaching. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 7(4).
Retrieved January

26, 2009, from: http://www.rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/choice2z.

htm.

Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective

practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1-16.

Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1998). A conversation about teams. Paper presented

at annual meetings of the Council for Exceptional Children,

Minneapolis, MN.

Dahlberg, K. & Hoover, J. (2003). The Effects of Co Teaching on K6 Student

Discipline and Attendance. St. Cloud State University.

Davis, J. R. (1995). Interdisciplinary Courses and Team Teaching.

Washington, DC, Oryx Press.

Dieker, L. A. (2001). What are the characteristics of “effective” middle and

high school co-taught teams for students with disabilities?

Preventing School Failure, 46(1), 14–23.

Fennick, E. (2001). Co-teaching: An inclusive curriculum for transition.

TEACHING Exceptional Children, 33, 60–67.

Impact of Parallel Teaching on General Language Proficiency

69

Fennik, E., & Liddy, D. (2001). Responsibilities and preparation for

collaborative teaching: Co-teachers’ perspectives. Teacher

Education and Special Education, 24, 229–240.

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2002). Interaction: Collaboration skills for school

professionals (4th Ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Friend, M. & Cook, L. (2004). Co-Teaching: Principles, practices, and

pragmatics. New Mexico Public Education Department Quarterly

Special Education Meeting Albuquerque, NM, 1-33.

Gately, S. E. (2005). Developing exemplary teachers. Nashua, NH.

Hadley, P. A., Simmerman, A., Long. M., & Luna, M. (2000). Facilitating

language development for inner-city children: Experimental

evaluation of a collaborative, classroom-based intervention.

Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 280-295.

Hohenbrink, J., Johnston, M., & Westhoven, L. (1997). Collaborative

teaching of a social studies methods course: Intimidation and

change. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(4), 293-300.

Katsura, H., Matsune, M. (1994). Team teaching in university conversation

courses. In: Wada, M., Cominos, A. (Eds.), Studies in Team

Teaching. Kenkyusha, Tokyo, pp. 178–185.

Kluth, P., & Straut, D. (2003). Do as we say and as we do: teaching and

modeling collaborative practice in the university classroom.

Journal of Teacher Education, 54(3), 228–240.

Magiera, K., & Zigmond, N. (2005). Co-teaching in middle school classroom

under routine conditions: Does the instructional experience differ

for students with disabilities in co-taught and solo-taught classes?

Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(2), 79- 85.

Morocco, C. C., & Mata-Aguilar, C. (2002). Co-teaching for Content

Understanding: A School wide Model. Journal of Education and

Psychological, 13(4), 315–347.

Morocco, C. C., & Solomon, M. Z. (1999). Revitalizing professional

development. In M. Z. Solomon (Ed.). The diagnostic teacher:

Constructing new approaches to professional development (pp.

247–267). New York: Teachers College Press.

Murawski, W. W., & Swanson, H. L. (2001). A meta-analysis of co-teaching

research. Remedial & Special Education, 22(5), 258-268.

Nowacek, E., & Blanton, L. (1996). A pilot project investigating the

influence of a collaborative methods course on pre-service

elementary education teachers. Teacher Education and Special

Education, 19, 298–312.

Perry, B. & Stewart, T. (2005). Insights into effective partnership in

interdisciplinary team. teaching. System, 33, 563–573.

Quarcoo, C. (2005). Co-teaching as a response to mainstreaming: The

perspectives of teachers at a magnet middle school. Senior

Research Paper. Trinity College.

Mohammad Aliakbari and Abdonour Bazyar

70

Reinhiller, N. (1996). Co-teaching: New variations on a not so new practice.

Teaching Education and Special Education, 19(1), 34–48.

Rice, D., & Zigmond, N. (2000). Co teaching in secondary schools: Teacher

reports of developments in Australian and American classrooms.

Learning Disabilities Research & practice, 15, 190–197.

Rosenkjar, P. (2002). Adjunct courses in the great books: the key that

unlocked Locke for Japanese EFL undergraduates and opened the

door to academia for EFL. In: Crandall, J., Kaufman, D. (Eds.),

Content-Based Instruction in Higher Education Settings. Teachers

of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc., Alexandria, VA,

pp. 13–28.

Roy, K. (2006). Collaborating safely. Science Scope, 30(4), 64-66

Scribner, J. P., Sawyer, R. K. & Watson, S. T. (2007). Teacher teams and

distributed leadership: A study of group discourse and

collaboration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 67-100

SL.

Sandholtz, J. H. (2000). Interdisciplinary team teaching as a form of

professional development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 27(3),

39–50.

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A. & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in

inclusive classrooms: A Meta synthesis of qualitative research.

Exceptional Children, 73, 392-416.

Simmons, R. J., & Magiera, K. (2007). Evaluation of co-teaching in three

high schools within one school district: How do you know when

you are truly co-teaching? Teaching Exceptional Children, 3(3), 1-

11.

Stewart, T., Sagliano, M., Sagliano, J. (2002). Merging expertise: developing

partnerships between language and content specialists. In: Crandall,

J., Kaufman, D. (Eds.), Content-Based Instruction in Higher

Education Settings. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other

Languages, Inc., Alexandria, VA, pp. 29–44.

Vasquez-Montilla, E., Spillman, C., Elliott, E., & McGonney, A. (2007). Coteaching in teacher education: expectations,
inspirations and

limitations. Florida Educational Leadership, 7(2), 47–51.

Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Arguelles, M. E. (1997). The ABCDEs of co

teaching. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 30(2), 1–10.

Villa, R., Thousand, J., & Nevin, A. (2008). A guide to co-teaching:

Practical tips for facilitating student learning (2nd Ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Walther-Thomas, C. (1997). Co-teaching experiences: The benefits and

problems that teachers and principals report over time. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 30(4), 395-407.

Impact of Parallel Teaching on General Language Proficiency

71

Watkins, K., & Caffarella, R. (1999). Team teaching: Face-to-face and

online. Presentation at Commission of Professors of Adult

Education meeting, San Antonio, TX.

Wenzlaff, T., Berak, L., Wieseman, K., Monroe-Baillargeon, A., Bacharach,

N., & Bradfield-Kreider, P., (2002). Walking our talk as educators:

Teaming as a best practice. In E. Guyton & J, Ranier (Eds).

Research on Meeting and Using Standards in the Preparation of

Teachers. (pp.11-24). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt Publishing.

Wilson, G. (2006). Introduction: Co-teaching and literacy. Reading &

Writing Quarterly, 22, 199-204

Wood, M. (1998). Whose job is it anyway? Educational roles in inclusion.

Exceptional Children, 64, 181–195.

Zigmond, N. (2006). Reading and writing in co-taught secondary school

social studies classrooms: A reality check. Reading & Writing

Quarterly, 22, 249-268.

Zigmond, N., & Magiera, K. (2001).A focus on co teaching: Use caution.

Current Practice Alerts, 5. Retrieved August 20, 2002, from

http://www.didcec.org/alerts/

Mohammad Aliakbari

Affiliation: Ilam University

Address: 69315-516,

English Department, Ilam University,

Pajuhesh Blvd. Ilam, Iran

Tel: +988412223399

Fax: +988412338528

E-mail: [email protected]

Abdonour Bazyar

Affiliation: Ilam University

Address: Ilam University, Ilam, Iran.

Tel: +988413383908

Fax: +988412338528

E-mail: [email protected]

Received: November, 3, 2011

Revised: June 4, 2012

Accepted: July 5, 2012