Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol: A Case Study

              Utah Valley University
Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol: A Case Study
Project submitted in partial satisfaction
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Education
In
English as a Second Language
By
Kari Ann Stevens
March, 2013ii
Utah Valley University
Graduate Committee Approval
of a project submitted by
Kari Ann Stevens
This project has been read by each member of the following graduate
committee and by majority vote has been found to be satisfactory.
March 25, 2013
March 25, 2013 Dr. Maureen Andrade
Date Committee Chair
March 25, 2013 Dr. Mary Sowder
Date Committee Memberiii
Abstract
Just as there is a diverse population in U.S. schools, there is a diverse amount of published information about which teaching strategies will provide appropriate instruction for English Language Learners. Often what schools lack is coherence of sound practices. Instead of looking at several different models, this case study focused on only one model of instruction, the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP). The case study participant was a first grade teacher who had been formally trained to use SIOP and was implementing the model for the first time in her classroom. Methodology consisted of three semi-structured interviews, a reflections journal written by the teacher, daily in-class observations during math instruction, one video-taped lesson each week and one requested lesson plan for each video taped lesson analyzed in-depth using the SIOP observation tool. The case study sought to answer how the components of SIOP were used, how the teacher determined lesson objectives using SIOP, which components of SIOP were used the most during instruction, and the teacher’s unique perspective on the effectiveness of the model for English language learners. iv
Dedication Page
This paper is dedicated to my wonderful and supportive husband who took on added roles in our home so that I could complete my degree. His love and support during the last two years made it all possible. My children also deserve some recognition for their patience in not having “Mom” as available as they were used to. My family has been my personal cheering section. I am also grateful to Dr. Maureen Andrade, my committee chair, who guided me through my project and made it a painless and great learning experience.v
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
Research Problem ........................................................................................................... 2
Research Purpose ............................................................................................................ 3
Research Questions......................................................................................................... 4
Methodology Overview.................................................................................................. 4
Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 5
Chapter 2 Literature Review.............................................................................................. 6
Definitions...................................................................................................................... 6
History of Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol................................................... 9
Other Studies................................................................................................................. 13
Chapter 3 Methodology .................................................................................................... 18
Research Site................................................................................................................. 19
Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 19
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 21
Chapter 4 Results .............................................................................................................. 22
Chapter 5 Discussion ........................................................................................................ 44
References........................................................................................................................ 53
Appendix A Sample Interview Questions......................................................................... 57
Appendix B SIOP Observation Tool ................................................................................ 59
Appendix C Observation Template .................................................................................. 62
Appendix D IRB Permission ............................................................................................ 63
Appendix E School District Permission ........................................................................... 65vi
Appendix F School Permission......................................................................................... 66
Appendix G Informed Consent Form............................................................................... 67
Appendix H Parental Consent Form................................................................................. 701
Chapter 1 Introduction
Each year the United States becomes more ethnically diverse. In their book, Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners, Echevarria, Vogt, and Short quote from the 2006 National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, “More than 90 percent of recent immigrants come from non-English speaking countries. From the 1989-1990 school year through 2004-2005, the number of identified students with limited English proficiency in public schools grew 138 percent while total enrollment increased by only 21 percent" (2008, p. 6). Within this context of growing diversity in U.S. elementary and secondary schools, teachers have the challenge of meeting the academic needs of immigrant children who have limited proficiency in the English language. Unfortunately, the academic achievement of English Language Learners (ELLs) lags significantly behind that of their peers (Chen, Kyle, & McIntyre, 2008).
Test scores in the state of Utah reflect the gap between native English speakers and ELLs. Data from the Utah State Office of Education (2010) on Criterion Referenced Tests (CRT) shows that 84% of native English speakers passed the Language Arts CRT while only 40% of ELLs passed; 71% of native English speakers passed the Mathematics CRT while only 34% of ELLs passed; 71% of native English speakers passed the Science CRT while only 19% of ELLs passed.
How can teachers decrease the gap between the scores of native English speakers and ELLs? Content areas, such as social studies and science, use specific academic language that becomes challenging for ELLs, especially when the tasks at school require 2
a high level of English usage (Echevarria, Richards-Tutor, Chinn, & Ratleff, 2011). The gap in test scores shows that effective ways must be found to teach ELLs.
Research Problem
Just as there is a diverse population in U.S. schools, there is a diverse amount of published information about which teaching strategies will provide appropriate instruction for ELLs. “Teachers are bombarded with new approaches to instruction, reform efforts, and practices that sometimes seem to be in competition with one another. Often what is lacking in schools is coherence or a plan for pulling together sound practices” (The SIOP Institute, 2008).
Some promote literacy development for ELLs with strategies such as previewing a story, creating a bilingual dictionary, using guided reading, and retelling stories (Bauer & Arazi, 2011). Others focus strongly on parent involvement (Chen, 2008). There are proponents of input-based instruction and those for production-based instruction (Shintani, 2011). Proponents of Historical Thinking tout strategies that include using multicultural children’s literature, vocabulary activities, and photographs (Salinas, Franquiz & Guberman, 2006). Direct Instruction teaches phonemic awareness, phonics, and vocabulary skills (Kamps et al, 2007). Content Based Instruction used in sheltered instruction settings is yet another model that has been studied (Bigelow, Ranney, & Dahlman, 2006; Weisman & Hansen, 2007; Chen, 2008). And then there are the strategies suggested by individual teachers that include modeling, modifying instructional materials, creating original instructional materials such as picture cards, word walls, and manipulatives, as well as using games, peers, and Internet sites (Hite & Evans, 2006).3
The problem that teachers face is deciding which of all the suggested strategies will work best in their classroom. Recognizing that each classroom environment is unique, and that the needs of individual students are multi-layered and diverse, making sense of all the available information about teaching strategies can be a daunting task.
Research Purpose
Instead of examining all ELL models of instruction, this project will focus on one model type, sheltered instruction. The sheltered instruction model has two purposes. The first is to teach content and the second is to teach academic language (Weisman, 2007). The sheltered instruction model that this study will examine is the SIOP model. The SIOP (Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol) model is a “means for making academic content accessible to English learners while at the same time promoting their language and literacy development” (Chen, 2008, p. 9).
SIOP began as an observation tool to determine if observed teachers incorporated key sheltered techniques consistently in their lessons (Echevarria, 2008). As will be seen in the literature review, teachers soon requested the observation tool as a means to plan their lessons. It was refined and developed into a planning and lesson delivery system as well. The SIOP term now refers to both the observation instrument and the instructional model. The terminology that will be used in this paper to distinguish between the two uses will be SIOP protocol for the observation tool, and SIOP model for the teaching model.
The SIOP model includes eight components: preparation, building background, comprehensible input, strategies, interaction, practice/application, lesson delivery, and review/assessment (Chen, 2008). The purpose of this project will be to assess the 4
effectiveness of SIOP over a period of time in an elementary school classroom and to understand the perspective of the teacher who will be using the model for the first time in her classroom.
Research Questions
In order to achieve this purpose the following questions will be explored:
1) How does the classroom teacher utilize all eight components of the SIOP model for maximum benefit?
2) How does the teacher determine lesson objectives using the SIOP model?
3) Which components of the SIOP model does the teacher most use in content instruction?
4) What is the view of the classroom teacher on the effectiveness of the model in teaching academic language?
Methodology Overview
This research study will be a case study design and will be conducted in one elementary school classroom for a period of two months. I will answer the research questions by gathering qualitative data from three semi-structured interviews with the cooperating teacher, the teacher’s daily reflection journal, and daily in-class observations.
For more in-depth understanding of the process the teacher experiences as she implements the SIOP model in her classroom, I will video tape one lesson each week. I will also request the teacher’s lesson plan for each video taped lesson for further analysis. I will use the SIOP protocol to rate the weekly video-taped lesson and the lesson plan provided to measure which parts of the SIOP model the teacher is implementing. The 5
teacher will rate her lesson plans using the SIOP protocol and I will compare my ratings with her ratings of the video-taped lessons and lesson plans that have been gathered.
Limitations
One limitation to this study is that I have not been formally trained in implementing the SIOP model or protocol. It will be a first experience for me and for the cooperating teacher in using the SIOP protocol to rate lessons. Learning to implement the SIOP model and protocol is a process (Echevarria, 2008). Not all features of the model will be observed by me to a high degree in the beginning stages. The cooperating teacher and I might rate the lessons quite differently. We will both need to remember that the SIOP protocol was designed as an observation tool, not an evaluation instrument.
Another limitation is the length of the study. Time constraints allow for only two months of data collection. I will collect data during the first two months of the school year. The teacher’s perceptions of this period of time may not be representative because it is possible that the teacher will be willing to apply the teaching model at the beginning of the school year when it still feels new and exciting, but then have that feeling of excitement wane and the willingness to continue to use the model may no longer be present. An ideal amount of time to study a teacher using the SIOP model would be for an entire school year to see if the teacher’s desire to use the model continues throughout, and if the teacher sees improvement in academic English in her students over the course of the year.6
Chapter 2 Literature Review
The purpose of this study is to examine how one teacher implements the SIOP model of instruction in a class that has a mix of native English speakers and English Language Learners (ELLs). The review of the literature will include a definition of sheltered instruction and an overview of the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol used to teach ELLs. A history of how the SIOP method has been developed and studied over the years will be given followed by a review of studies of SIOP by researchers other than the creators of SIOP.
Definitions
Sheltered instruction is a method that uses strategies designed to help students with limited English proficiency learn content, such as history or mathematics, while at the same time developing proficiency in English (Chen, 2008). Sheltered instruction extends the time students have for receiving English language support by integrating the language instruction with content and infusing socio-cultural awareness into the lessons (The SIOP Institute, 2008).
Teachers in sheltered instruction classrooms modify their teaching to make the content understandable for ELLs. “The sheltered approach must not be viewed as simply a set of additional or replacement instructional techniques that teachers implement in their classroom (Echevarria & Short, 2000, p. 5). The sheltered approach draws from methods advocated for both second language and mainstream classrooms (Echevarria, 2000). For example, some of the techniques used include use of adapted text, cooperative learning, supplementary materials, connections to student past experiences, 7
demonstrations, visuals, targeted vocabulary, and slower speech for students less proficient in English (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2008).
The SIOP model, one form of sheltered instruction, provides teachers with guidance in implementing content area curriculum to make it accessible to students who are learning the content through a second language (Lyster & Ballinger, 2011). The guidance is received through 30 features, such as wait time for student responses, scaffolding techniques, and clear explanation of tasks, grouped into eight components essential for making content understandable for ELLs (Echevarria, 2005). Descriptions of the eight components as provided by Echevarria, Richards-Tutor, and Chinn (2011) are as follows:
Lesson Preparation
The features in this component examine the lesson planning process, including language and content objectives. It also includes the use of supplementary materials and meaningful activities.
Building Background
This component focuses on making connections with students’ prior learning and background experiences. Teachers build a broad vocabulary base by directly teaching key vocabulary and word structures, word families, and word relations. The goal is for students to be effective readers, writers, listeners, and speakers.
Comprehensible Input
This component considers adjusting teacher speech, modeling academic tasks, and using multi-modal techniques such as gestures, pictures, and hands-on activities, to 8
enhance comprehension. The academic tasks must be explained clearly, both orally and in written form, with examples of good work so that students can know what is expected.
Strategies
This component emphasizes explicit teaching of learning strategies, such as good reading comprehension strategies, so that students know how to access and retain information. Teachers ask critical thinking questions so students can apply their developing language skills while gaining a deeper understanding of the subject.
Interaction
The features in this component encourage elaborated speech and grouping students appropriately for content and language development. Student to student interaction is needed for oral language practice and it is best to have it occur regularly in each lesson. Students practice confirming information and evaluating opinions.
Practice and Application
Activities are used to extend language and content learning by encouraging students to practice and apply what they are learning. It is important to build and reinforce reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills within content learning.
Lesson Delivery
This component ensures that teachers present a lesson that meets the planned objectives. This means that the content and language objectives are met, the pacing is appropriate, and the students have a high level of engagement.
Review and Assessment
Each SIOP lesson should conclude with some time for review and assessment. ELLs revisit key vocabulary and concepts and teachers use frequent comprehension 9
checks and informal assessments throughout lessons to measure how well students understand and retain the information.
Although sheltered instruction was advocated as an effective way to teach ELLs during the 1990’s there was no coherent agreement among educators as to what sheltered instruction should look like. Beginning in 1995 the eight components of SIOP were developed and refined over a period of seven years through field studies.
History of Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol
The CREDE Study
The first version of SIOP was drafted in 1995 in order to exemplify the model of sheltered instruction the researchers were developing. It was field tested with sheltered teachers and refined through feedback (Echevarria, 2000). In 1996, the Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE) funded by the U.S. Department of Education included a study on sheltered instruction in its research program (Short & Echevarria, 1999). The original focus of the study was on teacher professional development and developing a model of sheltered instruction that teachers could use to improve the success of ELLs.
The study involved four large urban school districts, two on the East Coast and two on the West Coast. Researchers trained middle school teachers in implementing effective sheltered instruction strategies in their classes. The study commenced in the spring of 1997 (Short, 1999). During the summer of 1997, two 3-day (one on each coast) professional development institutes were held. The researchers familiarized participants with the goals of the project and the observation instrument. The protocol was an observation tool based on a Likert scale with scores ranging from 4 to 0 (Short, 1999).10
During the 1997-1998 school year, the teachers in the study were videotaped three times (fall, winter, spring) and observed at other times during the year using the protocol. During the school year, the participants also met in district level groups once a month. The purpose of the meetings was to discuss topics related to the research agenda, review the taped lessons, provide constructive feedback, and to refine the sheltered instruction model (Short, 1999).
The SIOP was initially designed as an observation and rating tool for the researchers to use while observing the classroom instruction. The tool was shared with the teachers and their input was sought. The teachers suggested items to add, combine, or eliminate. The teachers also noticed that the observation tool was helpful as a planning tool and some teachers started to use it in planning their lessons. As a result of these observations, the researchers modified the SIOP into a checklist teachers could use as they planned sheltered instruction lessons.
Short and Echevarria (1999) reported that after two years of working with the teachers, certain areas of personal growth were identified, including the teachers’ use of the observation tool for lesson planning, self-monitoring, and reflection. There was a growing awareness in the teachers of how language could be part of content classes and of ways in which it can be naturally integrated. The CREDE study also revealed positive effects of the SIOP model on student literacy achievement. The results indicated that the SIOP model offered a promising approach for helping ELLs develop academic literacy skills needed for success in school (Short, 2011).
School Reform and Standards Based Education11
After developing and validating the SIOP model, the researchers tested the model for its effects on student achievement. The underachievement of ELLs on state and national tests shows that for academic success, teachers must do more than simply implement a few strategies such as showing visuals or slowing down the rate of speech. These strategies may help students access content concepts, but without systematic language development, students never develop the academic literacy skills needed for achieving success in mainstream classes or passing standardized tests (Echevarria, 2006).
For the new study, the researchers examined whether or not sheltered instruction improved the achievement of ELLs in content areas and whether or not there were significant differences in achievement data for students of teachers using the SIOP model compared to students of those teachers who had not received SIOP development training. The researchers trained a group of teachers to implement the SIOP model. Student achievement was measured in these classrooms. The research occurred in one West Coast and two East Coast public school districts. Findings revealed that ELLs in schools with teachers trained in the SIOP model made significantly better gains in writing than did the comparison group. The results also showed positive effects on student literacy achievement (Echevarria, 2006).
The New Jersey SIOP Quasi-experimental Study
Two school districts in New Jersey participated in the next study. Two cohorts of teachers were trained in the SIOP method in the treatment district. Cohort 1 began in Year 1 (2004-05) with 35 teachers participating for two years. Cohort 2 joined in Year 2 (2005-06) with 23 teachers.12
Students in the two districts had equivalent levels of oral language proficiency in the baseline year, but treatment students whose teachers had been trained in the SIOP model passed comparison students in Year 1 and continued to outperform them in Year 2. Similar trends were apparent in reading proficiency except that treatment students passed comparison students only in Year 2. In writing, the comparison students had slightly higher performance scores in the baseline year, but in Years 1 and 2 the treatment students had higher mean scores and by Year 2 the difference was statistically significant.
As a result of this study, the researchers felt that SIOP had merit as a successful intervention for academic literacy among ELLs. The academic English scores for the treatment group improved significantly even though most of the instruction was focused on math, science, and social studies classes. The researchers suggested that implementation of the SIOP model improved the quality of content teaching and influenced English language performance (Short, Echevarria, & Richards-Tutor, 2011).
The CREATE Study
The next study, funded through the Center for Research on the Educational Achievement and Teaching of English Language Learners (CREATE), examined the level of fidelity with which the model was implemented on student performance. In educational research, fidelity is defined as the degree to which a model of instruction is implemented as it was originally designed (Echevarria, 2011).
This was a case study in which the researchers investigated the professional development efforts of 17 different sites across the United States that fully implemented the SIOP model in settings with ELLs. The data came from interviews and observations 13
from seventh grade science classes. Researchers also investigated the effects of SIOP instruction on the students’ growth in science and literacy.
Teachers in the treatment group delivered SIOP lessons created by the research team. Control teachers taught the same units using the same text book, but used their own teaching methods and lesson plans. Student achievement was influenced by the degree to which their teachers implemented the SIOP model with fidelity. Those who implemented on a low level did a disproportionate amount of talking, which deprived students of the chance to practice using academic English in a meaningful way, which is a key component in the SIOP model. Researchers reported that there is a direct relationship between fidelity in implementing SIOP and student achievement (Echevarria, 2011).
Other Studies
In a 2007 study by Whittier and Robinson, 29 seventh and eighth grade ELL students in two sheltered life sciences courses were evaluated as they participated in a lesson about evolution using Lego Robotics and parts of the SIOP method. Although the focus of the study was the use of Lego Robotics as a means to teach evolution, the researchers also noticed the effectiveness of the SIOP methods used in the lessons.
Some of the SIOP methods used were supplemental readings, cooperative learning strategies, and opportunities to experience verbal and aural English practice. Discussions in class followed text readings and focused on topics relevant to the science standards. Contextual clues helped students study relevant vocabulary. Team discussions and problem-solving activities also helped the students practice new science words and everyday English.14
Nearly all of the students showed significant gains in their understanding of the concepts being taught and they were able to both write about and verbally discuss topics integral to a strong science foundation. Considering the extensive vocabulary involved with the lesson, it was no small feat that the students were able to participate in class discussions. Researchers stated that the unit would be revised to encompass all eight SIOP components in their entirety (Whittier, 2007).
Another study that focused on teachers working effectively with ELLs and their families used the SIOP model as part of an 18 month professional development initiative (Chen, 2008). The participants in the study consisted of 20 teachers and three district level administrators in Cohort 1 and 15 teachers in Cohort 2. The teachers taught across all grade levels, K-12. Participants were taught the SIOP model of instruction and implemented the strategies in their classrooms. Data sources from the project included observation of the teachers’ instruction based on the SIOP rubric, results of students’ achievement on a literacy assessment, and teachers’ open-ended reflections.
Teachers reported feeling more confident in planning language objectives and that they liked the hands-on strategies. Because the study focused on interacting with the families of the ELLs many of the teachers reflected on the SIOP components of building background. Feature 7 of component 2 (building background) states that concepts are explicitly linked to students’ background experiences and feature 8 states that links are to be explicitly made between past learning and new concepts. Recognizing that student experiences with their family had provided them with some learning experiences, and that there may have been some background learning of the content in their first language or at home, the teachers talked about making connections to the students’ backgrounds15
and cultures. Some created lessons about families that helped the students reflect and feel proud of their parents. Many used cultural activities related to students’ backgrounds. All made sure to include building background in their lessons.
Not all studies found SIOP to be favorable. In a 2005 study, researchers said they perceived substantial discrepancies between their successes in teaching science by an inquiry method versus the manner in which the SIOP model had been represented to them (Settlage, Madsen, & Rustad, 2005). The study was a collaborative project between two teachers in a school in the Salt Lake City School District and a science teacher educator. The teachers taught a science lesson about air and weather using the same science module and tried combining inquiry based science teaching with the SIOP model.
The researchers described inquiry-based science teaching as beginning with direct experiences which encourage students to explore options and to think critically about what they observe. Connection making by the students is a natural feature within inquiry based learning. A lesson provides a shared experience, in the form of a hands-on activity that allows every student to think, talk, and write about science.
One of the teachers’ experiences was that her students constructed an understanding of air and its ability to take up space without being specifically told that concept at the beginning of the lesson. But, according to the researchers, this ran counter to the SIOP approach which emphasizes an initial linking of concepts and previous experiences, as well as new vocabulary, as a way to begin new lessons. The researchers’ understanding of SIOP made them feel that communicating objectives and vocabulary was to happen at the beginning of lessons. They felt that this is in direct conflict with 16
inductive instruction. They questioned the rationale for presenting the information prior to students’ experiencing the science equipment.
Jana Echevarria, one of the co-developers of the SIOP model, responded to the Settlage study by stating that it is not unusual for instructional models to be misinterpreted in practice. She stated that two issues provoke questions about the SIOP model. One involves having objectives, both content and language, in every lesson. Echevarria stated that they do not strictly interpret a lesson as a set amount of time each day; it can extend over a couple of days. The developers of the SIOP model specifically disagree that vocabulary and objectives are presented at the beginning of lessons. They advocate specific vocabulary instruction, but it can be in the part of the lesson where it makes the most sense (Echavarria, 2005).
Another issue related to the use of the SIOP model is that it is often misinterpreted as a step-by-step process. Echavarria (2005) responded to this issue by stating that teachers need to plan first before carrying out lessons, but it is possible, and even recommended, that teachers review and assess knowledge at the start of the lesson and throughout the lesson, not only as the last component. She pointed out that the SIOP model shares many characteristics of other models of effective instruction such as cooperative learning and inquiry based learning, but that it adds key features needed for the success of ELLs such as the inclusion of language objectives in every content lesson, the development of background knowledge, and the acquisition of content-related vocabulary (Echevarria, 2005).
Echavarria (2005) also indicated that an inquiry approach to science is a great equalizer for scientific learning. Even if learners don’t speak English, it doesn’t mean 17
they can’t think about and be curious about scientific ideas. They can still understand scientific procedures. The only caveat is that there is enough language support so that students aren’t lost as to what the other students are saying, reading, writing and understanding. She ended her response by stating that the researchers stand by the model they developed (2005).
As the review of the literature shows, most of the literature concerning the SIOP model reports on groups of teachers who were formally trained in how to use the model at personal development meetings. There is a gap in the literature on case studies of individual teachers implementing the model for the first time after formal training. The purpose of my case study will be to relate the experiences of one elementary school teacher as she implements the SIOP model in her classroom for the first time after being formally trained at her school. The case study will explore the question of whether or not the teacher feels the model has been successful in helping her ELL students gain academic language. It will also examine the specific ways the teacher implements the SIOP model in her lessons and, through her personal reflections, how she has felt as she has done so. 18
Chapter 3 Methodology
Creswell (2008) states that a qualitative study seeks a detailed understanding of a key concept, idea, or process, which is called a central phenomenon. The central phenomenon of this case study will be the process an elementary school teacher experiences as she implements a model of instruction (SIOP) in which she has been trained, but has not yet implemented. I will collect qualitative data to more fully understand the perspective of the teacher as she uses the model for the first time. In addition to the research questions listed earlier, I will also collect qualitative data on the teacher’s perception of her students’ responses to the SIOP strategies and her perception of how easy or difficult it is to implement the program. In order to help the teacher implement the model I will provide her with one of the books offered by the developers of SIOP.
The developers of the SIOP model have a website (The SIOP Institute) and have created materials that educators can purchase so that they can implement the model in their classrooms. There are nine titles in all. The first is comprehensive and is titled Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners: The SIOP Model. The other eight titles are more specific such as one for those who teach Pre-K English learners, one for teaching mathematics to English learners, one for those who teach secondary English learners, and one for those who teach English learners in elementary school. Training is not required in order to purchase materials.
It is often good to “give back” or reciprocate in some way to those who participate in a study (Creswell, 2008, p. 219). Because the teacher in this study received 19
a copy of Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners during her training, I will give her a copy of The SIOP Model for Teaching Mathematics to English Learners to keep and use as a resource in her classroom and my observations for the study will be during the time the teacher teaches math to her students so that she will be motivated to use the book. I will give the book to the teacher several months before the actual data collection begins so that she can become familiar with it. I will also have a copy of the book as a resource.
Research Site
This case study will be conducted in a first grade classroom at an elementary school in Utah. The overall student population of the school is 749 with 18 percent ELLs. There are four teachers in each grade. The average number of students in each first grade classroom is 25. Each first grade classroom has 3-5 ELLs. The teachers at the school are all currently being trained in the SIOP model at the school.
Data Collection
I will collect data for the case study by audio-taping and transcribing three semi-structured interviews with the teacher at the beginning, mid-way, and at the end of the study (Appendix A). I will observe the teacher daily during her math instruction for a period of two months. The teacher will write a daily reflection journal and she will provide me with one lesson plan each week for further analysis. I will also video tape one lesson each week for further in-depth analysis.
I will use the SIOP observation protocol (Appendix B) to observe the teacher’s lessons as they are taught and make note of the components being used. I will also use the protocol for the in-depth analysis of the video-taped lessons. The protocol was initially 20
developed as a tool to measure quality of teaching. Qualitative and quantitative information written on the protocol pages can document lesson effectiveness and show areas that need improvement. For the purposes of this study, the information gathered from the protocol will primarily be used by the participating teacher as a tool for self-reflection as she writes in her reflection journal.
There are 30 features in the observation instrument, each with a range of possible scores from 0 to 4 or NA. The NA option distinguishes a feature that is “not applicable” to an observed lesson from a score of “0” which indicates that a feature should have been included, but was not. After each feature is scored all numeric scores are tallied. The teacher will score each of her lessons and use the scores to assess her process in implementing the program. I will only score the video-taped lessons and the one lesson plan delivered to me each week and will compare my score with the teacher’s self-score. The instructions to the teacher regarding the reflection journal will be for her to write her thoughts, feelings, ideas and reflections in it each day after she has finished teaching the math lesson. She will be told to reflect on what she has learned, how the SIOP model has influenced her decisions for the day, to describe the process of using the model, and to indicate whether or not she feels the lessons are helping her students achieve academic English. I will post the research questions for the study in the front of the journal as a reminder to the teacher about what the study is seeking to answer:
1) How did you utilize all eight components of SIOP for maximum benefit?
2) How did you determine lesson objectives using SIOP?
3) Which components of SIOP have you used the most in content instruction?21
4) What is your view of the effectiveness of the model in teaching academic language?
Data Analysis
Data analysis will consist of reading and coding text from field-notes taken during the in-class observations, the transcriptions of the three interviews, notes taken during the interviews, and the teacher’s reflection journal. I will analyze the weekly video taped lessons and the corresponding lesson plans and score them using the SIOP protocol. Also, I will compare the scores from the SIOP observation protocol that the teacher gives herself on each lesson plan with my scores. I will use the protocol to analyze the lesson plans to see how closely the teacher followed the model with fidelity.
As I analyze the text data I will first read to gain an overall understanding. I will then re-read it several times. I will highlight text with a different highlighting pen for themes that answer each research question. I will develop a tally system to make note of which SIOP components the teacher uses the most. As I describe the case study I will seek to do so with great detail.22
Chapter 4
Results
The purpose of this case study was to focus on one elementary school teacher as she implemented the SIOP model of instruction in her classroom for the first time after being formally trained in it. I hope to bring the teacher’s perspective to the foreground as she used the SIOP model for lesson planning and as she reflected on the process. I also hope to show what the teacher felt she learned, what she felt her personal challenges were, and whether or not she feels the SIOP model is a viable instrument in helping English language learners achieve success in the classroom. A second key purpose of this case study is that other teachers will be able to use it as a roadmap to help them negotiate their own transition into using the SIOP in their classrooms.
Data Collection
This case study was conducted in a first grade classroom in an elementary school in Utah. The class consisted of 28 students, three of whom are English language learners. Two of the ELLs are native Spanish speakers. One is male, and the other female. The third ELL is a boy whose native language is Korean.
I used triangulation, the process of using evidence from different sources of data, to ensure this case study is accurate (Creswell, 2008). My sources of data included three semi-structured interviews at the beginning, midway, and at the end of the study, daily observations of the teacher as she taught math, a reflection journal provided by the teacher, and lesson plans provided by the teacher. Also, one lesson each week was filmed for more in-depth analysis. 23
I transcribed the three interviews so that the data from them could be analyzed and reviewed many times. For the daily observations, I created a template (Appendix C) that listed each of the eight components of SIOP so that I could make note each time a component was used during a lesson. On the back of each template, as I observed the class sessions, I wrote a chronological detail of each lesson as it progressed so that I could later make note of all the SIOP components used in case I missed them in my initial observation. One day a week I filmed the math lesson and then, during the data analysis, I utilized the same template used for the daily observations to write a chronological detail of the lesson and made note of all SIOP components present. I then used the SIOP rubric to score the filmed lessons. I asked the teacher to provide me her lesson plan for each of the filmed lessons. There were eight filmed lessons in all. The teacher provided me with lesson plans for four of the filmed lessons and said that she was not in the habit of writing lesson plans. I asked her to use the SIOP rubric to score the four lesson plans that she provided.
Data Analysis
The first part of my data analysis required transferring the data into written form. I first transcribed the three interviews. Next, I viewed the eight filmed lessons and used the template I had created to write a detailed chronological account of each lesson and made note of any SIOP components. I then used the SIOP rubric to score the eight filmed lessons. For the four lessons that the teacher scored, I wrote my scores next to hers so that I could make comparisons between our scores. Once all the data was in written form, it was time to start reading and analyzing it.24
Qualitative researchers analyze data by reading it several times and conducting an analysis each time. In this way, a deeper understanding of the information is gained (Creswell, 2008). I first read through all of the written data, which consisted of the daily observations, reflection journal, transcribed interviews, and chronological accounts of the filmed lessons, to gain an initial understanding of the information. I then did subsequent readings focusing on one of the research questions each time. I used highlighting markers of different colors to note text that answered each research question. During my second reading of the texts I highlighted all evidence of SIOP components used in lessons to answer the question of how the teacher used the eight components of SIOP for maximum benefit. For my third reading of the text, I used a different color to highlight evidence that the teacher used the SIOP protocol as a guide to her lesson design and in selecting activities and approaches. For the next reading of the text, I read the interviews and the journal and highlighted the personal views of the teacher as she implemented the model. I then went through all the text and tallied one point for each SIOP component. This allowed me to see which components the teacher used the most in her instruction. I then read through all the text one final time to ensure that I had not missed any parts of my research questions and to ensure that I had a deep understanding of the data. All the data was then written onto 3x5 index cards and organized and matched with the research questions.
Research Questions
As stated above, I found it easiest to analyze the data by focusing on each research question at a time, and in the order the questions were presented in Chapter 3. The findings from the data analysis are organized in the same way and are next discussed.25
How the components were used
Each of the eight components of SIOP was present in lessons throughout the two months of the case study, though not all features of individual components were always present. The first research question asked how the teacher used all eight components for maximum benefit, so I searched for and highlighted evidence of the components being used and then looked for specifics on how they were being used. I organized the data to reflect which approaches and processes the teacher used most often. The breakdown according to component is as follows:
Lesson Preparation
The features most present from this component were written objectives, making sure the content was age appropriate, planning meaningful activities, and planning for and using supplementary materials. There was evidence that the teacher planned her lessons and she made sure to point out, “Even though I don’t write out a lesson plan, I do prepare a lesson.” During the second interview, she voiced her knowledge of the importance of the preparation component by stating, “Lesson preparation is essential for first graders. If you don’t have that you’re not going to get very far. You really have to think about what you’re teaching and how you’re going to teach it.”
Content and language objectives that are written out, displayed, and reviewed with students is a main feature of the lesson preparation component (Echevarria, 2008). The majority of the teacher’s lessons had content objectives posted on the board, and some had language objectives also posted. The teacher called them “I can” statements. An example of one of her content objectives was: “I can name and draw a square, triangle, circle and rectangle.” An example of one of the language objectives was: “I can 26
write the definition of a triangle, square, circle, and rectangle in my shape dictionary.” The use of language objectives occurred more frequently during the beginning of the study and seemed to drop towards the end of the study. There was some confusion on the part of the teacher as to the difference between content and language objectives which will be discussed later in this paper.
Making sure the content was age appropriate seemed to be a natural feature in each lesson, but there was no evidence that the teacher adapted any of the materials to accommodate varying levels of student language proficiency. Meaningful activities were planned for and implemented. The teacher, at times, changed her original plans when a new idea for an activity occurred to her. One example she shared was an idea for a “number thief” activity that “came to” her the night before a lesson was to be given. Before school the next day, she adapted the lesson to include numbers stolen from the number chart by a number thief and she taught the students strategies to figure out what the missing numbers were so that they could request them back from the number thief. Supplementary materials, such as story books, charts, and other visuals were also used by the teacher in many of her lessons.
Building Background
The features of this component most present in lessons were the presentation of vocabulary and giving word definitions, reviews of the previous day’s lesson, and telling the students what they would be learning in the current lesson. Sometimes the teacher built background at the end of a lesson for the next day’s lesson. Building background does not have to come at the beginning of a lesson; it can happen in the lesson wherever the teacher seems appropriate (Echevarria, 2005).27
One way the teacher built background for a future lesson on the concept of greater than/less than lasted for a period of two of weeks. She polled the students each morning with a question such as “Which do you prefer, apple or pumpkin pie?” The students entered their answer on ten-frame charts posted on the board at the front of the classroom. The class then worked together to count the answers and write the number of each answer on the board. A quick discussion about which answer was bigger followed. The teacher then went on with the regular lesson planned for the day. When it was time to discuss the greater than/less than concept after the two weeks were up, the kids were ready.
During the second interview, the teacher indicated the importance of building background but said for her it was “sometimes spotty.” She said, “Sometimes I’m not exactly sure what these kids know, and what I need to work on, but I quickly find out when we start doing the activity and I realize that we need to back up.”
Comprehensible Input
The teacher used modeling and demonstrations to a high degree in her lessons. She demonstrated how to do booklets and worksheets. She modeled how to use certain manipulatives. If the kids did not seem to be understanding a concept, many times she drew simple illustrations on the board. Other visuals such as pictures, story books, models, and objects were also used to a high degree. Body gestures are part of comprehensible input. One example of the teacher using body gestures was when she used her hands to make the plus sign and the minus sign and then had the students do it. She used songs with body gestures to show how to write the numbers. She also used body gestures to show her excitement when a right answer was given. 28
Speech is an important part of comprehensible input. Clear explanations of tasks must be present, and repeated if necessary. Speech should be appropriate for students’ language proficiency levels (Echevarria, 2008). The teacher shared her self-reflection on comprehensible input, “I think I talk too fast, but I think I’m pretty clear with directions. I know I repeat a lot…Sometimes I’m good at explaining and going slow, but most of the time I’m so nervous that I talk too fast. I know that could be improved.”
She did not seem to mind repeating instructions or even re-teaching a concept if her students showed that they did not understand. “If they don’t understand, they let me know and I go help them…I’m re-teaching and I don’t feel guilty about it. I just keep working on it.”
Many times the teacher took the time to help one of the English language learners understand a concept. For example, one time she was helping the boy who speaks Korean with the concept of putting numbers in order smallest to greatest. He was having a hard time grasping the concept. She tried several different ways to help him understand. She did not give up and said later, “I just keep showing, telling, having him repeat.”
Strategies
The teacher made an effort to use higher order thinking questions in her lessons. She showed her desire to make that effort during the first interview when she said, “The questions or tasks that promote higher order thinking feature is a little difficult in first grade, but it’s possible. It’s just getting them to really understand what you are doing. And some of them will surprise you with their answers.” In a later interview she said, “I’m trying so hard to use more Bloom’s questions because I love making them think. I love those higher order questions.”29
What the teacher understood to be higher order thinking questions was shown in a reflection after a lesson: “On Friday I took a lot more time. I asked, ‘How did you see it on the ten-frame? How did you know that? What did you see? Did someone see something else?’ And I know those are higher order thinking questions. And I know that helped them a lot.” Some lessons only had one or two higher order questions, but it was evident that the teacher tried to have some in each lesson.
The teacher also provided scaffolding for her students. In some of the lessons the students were required to complete a worksheet or a booklet. The teacher gave the students guided practice using the overhead projector with a copy of the worksheet or booklet. She modeled how to do a part of the worksheet and had the students do it with her. She established that the students understood, and then gave them time to complete the worksheet or booklet independently.
Interaction
Students worked with assigned math partners almost every day. They also had interactions at tables and at times were told to “share your answer with a neighbor” who was not their assigned math partner. The teacher provided interaction between students and herself when she led the class in discussions and when she joined partnerships in doing their assigned activities. Working with partners was the feature of the interaction component that the teacher used the most.
Another part of interaction is giving students sufficient wait time for their responses to questions (Echevarria, 2008). The teacher did not feel that sufficient wait time was one of her strengths. “I don’t think I let enough think time go by. I’m still working on that because it gets pretty quiet and then I’m staring at them and wondering if 30
they are really thinking.” And another reflection: “Interaction is iffy because sometimes I just want to move on and I don’t want to give them enough think time. But I do think I am good at getting everybody to respond.”
One feature that was never present during a lesson was giving ample opportunities for English language learners to clarify key concepts in their native language as needed with a peer, aide, or text in the native language. The school had some resources for Spanish speakers, but none for Korean. The teacher addressed this issue in the second interview: “There is not a resource in our school to help with Korean. We have lots of translators for Latino kids, and even other types, but not Korean. And so I don’t know anyone who speaks Korean to bring them in and act as a go-between.” There was no text provided in Korean or Spanish for the English language learners. Nor was there opportunity for the two Spanish speakers to clarify concepts with each other or with an interpreter, even though Spanish interpreters were present in the school. Perhaps the teacher felt this feature was not applicable because her English learners all scored at the intermediate level on English proficiency tests before being assigned to her class.
Practice and Application
The teacher provided a lot of practice for concepts taught with activities and games in centers. The games and activities during center time all involved partners, thus giving the ELLs a chance to use English. Most of the games and activities required the use of manipulatives. There was practice provided with worksheets and booklets and a math journal. Students had opportunities to do practice activities at the board during class instruction. 31
The teacher seemed comfortable providing practice and application activities for her students and stated, “I think I do pretty good with practice. That is really important and it happens easily.” In a reflection she stated, “I hope that my activities keep them involved, and that they are meaningful, and not just a bunch of fluff.” She stated that she would often ask herself if she was giving them every opportunity to practice.
One lesson on writing equations is a good example of how manipulatives were used in a lesson. The students were working on a booklet in which two Halloween characters were represented on each page. Colored tokens were used to mark the two Halloween characters. Students put tokens of the same color on all pictures of one Halloween character and counted them. They then put tokens of a different color on the second Halloween character and counted them. They wrote both numbers down and then moved all markers to a ten-frame chart to see how many markers they had in all. Their final step was to write an addition problem showing the numbers they had counted. After this lesson the teacher said, “I really liked how they could take the manipulative and put it on the object and then move that to the ten-frame.” She noted that it seemed to help them understand the concept.
Using manipulatives was important to the teacher as she also brought it up in a conversation about one of her English language learners, “He’s getting better at reading, but math is something we’re going to need to keep working on. What I need to do is pull out the manipulatives.” And after a whole class activity she stated, “The fact that they got to manipulate the numbers and come up and point with the pointer; they all love that.”
Most of the activities provided practice for the content, but not many of the activities provided explicit language practice. Some required talking to a partner, but I 32
noticed that if there was a language objective for the lesson, the activities only rarely supported it. The four modalities of language are listening, speaking, reading, and writing. All lessons provided some listening and speaking practice. Only a few lessons had all four modalities represented and if there were three modalities present, it was usually reading or writing that was left out.
Lesson Delivery
The main features the teacher focused on with this component were the pacing of the lesson and the engagement of the students. Before daily observations started, in the first interview, she said, “My lesson delivery is going to have to be really, really well-done because I think that’s really the crux because you’re telling them where we’re going, and you’re trying to get them involved. But you gotta keep the pace going or they’re all going to be lost.” In her journal after one lesson she wrote, “It flowed well and everyone seemed to get it. Jam-packed but quick-paced. Not too fast for my class.” The pacing of most of the lessons seemed appropriate. There were only two lessons in which I observed some pacing issues. One occurred when the time at centers seemed too short for the students to complete the assigned tasks and another in a lesson in which the instruction seemed to go on too long for the students and they seemed bored. Some of them even requested that the teacher go on to the next part of the lesson.
During most of the lessons, the students were engaged with the activities planned. The teacher noticed student engagement after one lesson when she wrote in her journal: “Kids were engaged with Slap-It game! Centers were engaging as well.” During most instruction times the students seemed to be engaged. A few times when students were doing activities in centers, I noticed that the ELLs were not on task.33
Review and Assessment
From the beginning of the study the teacher indicated that this component would be the most difficult for her. “Review is my weakest point, I’ll tell you right now, because we usually get the lesson done and then we’re out of time and I completely forget to come back and say, ‘Let’s talk about that. Let’s talk about what we learned. What did somebody find out?’ But that is crucial, too. And that’s my goal this year is to really do that in every lesson.” In her training of SIOP, the review feature was called “debriefing” and she said several times over the course of the study that she had forgotten to do the debriefing and that “debriefing is so hard.”
She recognized that the component calls for review of material taught, but she seemed to struggle with it throughout the study. Near the end she stated, “Review and assessment drives me crazy. I keep forgetting to close it with some kind of ending. So I feel really frustrated because I need the review.”
She assessed students mostly informally. I only observed one formal test during the study, though she indicated that her teaching team all assessed with the same tests at the same time. One way of assessing the students was to check the students’ worksheets, booklets, or journals individually as they finished and then give them a sticker if they had done it right. If they needed correction she sent the students back to their seats to redo the work. She also assessed student knowledge by joining them in their math partnerships and participating in the activities with them to make sure they were doing it right. About assessment she said, “A lot of times it is very informal…other things I have been able to informally assess just by looking around and seeing who is stuck and who is moving on.” 34
Other features present in this component were review of the “I can” statements at the end of lessons and positive and corrective feedback given to the students on their output. She regularly told students that their work was awesome, excellent, or fantastic. Other phrases I heard her say when a student gave a right answer or did the work right were, “Oh, very nice!” “I love it!” and “You got it!” If an answer was not quite what she was looking for she would direct the student with questions until the student understood.
Using SIOP to plan objectives
In the first interview at the beginning of the study the teacher answered a question about what she foresaw as challenges she would face in implementing the model by stating that the main challenge would be consciously including all eight of the SIOP components. She wondered, because she has been teaching for 24 years, if she would be able to include all eight components in a lesson but not realize it because she considered many of the features to simply be a habit after teaching first grade for that long. As I analyzed the data for the second research question for how she used SIOP to plan lesson objectives, I noticed three main themes. I found evidence of times she consciously used SIOP to plan lessons, times she was thinking about SIOP, though not necessarily using that think time to plan a lesson, and that she had some challenges as she tried to implement SIOP with fidelity.
Consciously Using SIOP
Before starting daily observations the teacher and I sat down together for our first interview. During that interview she shared how she had already been trying to implement components of SIOP and how in one lesson she had planned to teach the vocabulary word question. “We just learned the word question yesterday, and you’d be 35
surprised at how many kids don’t know what the word question means and what you do with a question.”
Planning lessons and objectives to include the components of SIOP seemed to happen most during the beginning of the study. From her journal entry after the first day of observations, the teacher indicated that she had planned the lesson by taking it “from the core.” She wrote that she had included mostly practice activities because “first graders need lots of this.” Her journal entry listed each component and what she had planned in order to include that component in the lesson. There were no other journal entries that went into that much detail about her planning.
Toward the end of the study, the teacher gave a lesson that she felt was successful. She had carefully planned it and stated after the lesson was over, “I think I used all of those things, all of those components in the one lesson.” She then verbally listed how she had planned and I took notes as she talked. Her “I can” statement was “I can make and write and answer equations.” She included a demonstration using a scale and interlocking cubes as a way to build background. She had a worksheet for practice. She showed it on the overhead for comprehensible input. The students used manipulatives and ten-frame charts to figure out and write equations. Part of the plan was to purposely guide the students on the overhead for the first part of the worksheet and then allow them to complete it independently. She told me, “I wanted to make sure they got to see pictorial, and used manipulatives, and that I provided scaffolding for the instruction.” And then she said, “It seems like they were really getting it.”
Another lesson that went well was the lesson using the number thief that had come to her the night before giving the lesson. She said she changed the lesson by writing 36
the “I can” statements and then she wrote a list of what she wanted to do. She mentioned again how she got “hung up on lesson plans,” but that the lesson had been planned out, even without a formal written lesson plan.
The subject of writing lesson plans came up a few times during the study. The teacher said she did not like using them and offered her opinion that the templates provided by the SIOP institute made her feel overwhelmed. Her dislike for writing lesson plans was made more evident in the fact that she provided me a lesson plan for the first four filmed lessons as asked, but did not provide me one for the final four, even though it was requested for all eight lessons. She still felt that she was planning her lessons effectively. “Even though I don’t write out the lesson plan, I do prepare a lesson and I think in my head, Okay, what are the logical steps? What are we going to do? And how are we going to do it? Will everybody understand it?”
At the end of the study during the final interview, I asked her to tell me specifically how she used SIOP to plan objectives. Her reply was, “I look at the content from the core. That’s what I mainly focus on. What are my first graders expected to know? I apply that and then I look cross-curriculum to figure out the language ones.” It was evident through the data that content objectives were easiest for her to write and that she focused on making the content accessible but not on teaching language explicitly.
Thinking About SIOP
At the beginning of the study, I asked the teacher if she would attempt to use all eight SIOP components in her lessons. She replied, “Attempt is a good word. I will attempt to do all eight. And, if I really have thought out the lesson, and you’re teaching first grade, and you’ve been teaching them for awhile, you should be able to hit all of 37
them, even by happenstance.” There was evidence throughout the study that the teacher thought about her lessons and she thought about her English language learners and tried to think how they would think and feel how they would feel.
During the mid-way interview she said she thought often about her ELLs and the lessons she should plan. “Some kids aren’t going to speak English. How can I present this? What can I do to make this make more sense? I’m trying to see as an English language learner. How are they learning?” At the end of the study the teacher was still trying to empathize with the English language learners. “I’m an English language learner and I’ve never seen this word before in my life. What are you going to do about it? And I try to think that way so that I can bring all possible sources in.” She mentioned that she still needed a “cheat sheet” to remember all of the components of SIOP, but not knowing the components by heart did not prevent her from thinking about how best to teach her English language learners. “I many not know all the terms but I look back at this stuff and go, so am I doing this? Am I giving them every opportunity to practice? Am I showing them every way that that word or thing or concept could be? Do I make sure that my little English language learners know?”
In the final interview, because she had mentioned a few times over the course of the study about having lesson ideas “just come to her” the night before a lesson was to be given, I asked the teacher if she felt that she thought about lessons more since being trained in SIOP. Her reply was, “Yes! It’s funny you should ask that. I eat, sleep, and drink lessons. I wake up in the middle of the night and think, No, I need to do this. No, I need to do that. I think about it more, and I go, wait a minute, that’s not going to work. Or, hey, that’s a great idea!” She continued, “It’s going, OK yah, we’ve done this the 38
whole time, this is tradition, but maybe you need to break out of tradition and try more, and do more.”
Challenges in Implementing SIOP with Fidelity
The mid-way and final interviews with the teacher revealed that she was experiencing some challenges in planning her lessons and writing objectives. As mentioned before, one main stumbling block for the teacher was feeling like she was supposed to write a lesson plan, but not wanting to do that. She had been given one template style during her SIOP training that she tried to use but did not like. When I mentioned that the SIOP website offers different templates to choose from she tried some but said, “There’s so much on it that I feel overwhelmed. So I just fill in what I know and nothing more.”
Another challenge for the teacher revealed mid-way through the study was her confusion about the difference between content objectives and language objectives, which she called learning objectives. “I’m having trouble coming up with the content objectives and the learning objectives. I’m struggling with that. I don’t really know the difference yet. I try to come up with one ‘I can’ statement, and heaven knows if it is a learning objective or a content objective.” She mentioned finding objectives using the core and that she didn’t have a problem with that because she understood those objectives to be content, but the learning objectives she wasn’t sure how to write.
At the beginning of the study she referred to the two types of objectives as content and language, and had language objectives built into her lessons. Somewhere in the midst of the study she started to think of the language objectives as learning objectives and the confusion began. During the second interview she brought it up again and again. 39
“Writing the content objectives and learning objectives sticks me. They trip me up because I feel like I am doing it wrong. I don’t get it. It’s still not clear in my mind, what it is, what the difference is. And I have to feel like they connect, and sometimes they don’t connect.” And later, “I’m still stuck on those. I know I keep focusing on those learning objectives and the content, but it’s still not clear to me.”
After expressing her confusion about the two types of objectives, she said that she was not giving up and that she would keep trying to figure it out. By the end of the study, during the final interview, the confusion seemed to be gone and she was again referring to the two types of objectives as content and language objectives.
The components used most often
The third research question asked which components the teacher used most often. For this question I analyzed the data using a system of tally marks. For the daily observations I created a template that listed each of the components with space to write observations so that I could note whenever I observed a feature of a component being used. In a previous reading of the data I had highlighted text that showed when specific components had been used. As I re-read the daily observations I used the highlighted text to find evidence of specific components in the lessons. For each highlighted text I placed a tally mark next to the corresponding component. I then added up the tally marks and circled and highlighted the component on that page that had the most tally marks. If there was a tie, I circled and highlighted both components. I used this tally system with each daily observance page and with the journal entries.
There were eight lessons that I filmed during the study. I watched each filmed lesson and used the same template for the daily observations to make note of when 40
components were being used. With the templates in hand, I used the SIOP rubric to score each of the components for the filmed lessons. There are eight components to SIOP, each with a number of specific features listed that should be present in a lesson. For example, the component Building Background lists three features: concepts explicitly linked to students’ background, links explicitly made between past learning and new concepts, and key vocabulary emphasized. The SIOP rubric has a place to score each feature in a component from 0-4. A score of 0 means that a feature was not present at all, a 1 or 2 shows that a feature was somewhat evident, and a 3 or 4 shows that a feature was highly evident.
After I was finished scoring the eight filmed lessons, I first analyzed the scores of the four filmed lessons for which I had not received lesson plans and assigned a tally mark next to a component if the majority of the features in that component had a 3 or 4. For example, in one lesson I put a tally mark next to the component Comprehensible Input because two of the three features scored a 4.
The teacher scored herself on the four lessons for which she provided lesson plans, so for those four lessons I placed our scores side by side. I highlighted only the features that we had both assigned a score of 3 or 4. I then placed tally marks next to the components that had a majority of 3 or 4 for the features. For example, in one lesson the component Interaction received a tally mark because three of the four features had received a score of 3 or 4 from both me and the teacher. Once the tally marks were assigned on all eight filmed lessons I circled and highlighted the component that had the most tally marks. Finally, I went through all of the data for the filmed lessons and looked 41
for the circled/highlighted components and placed a tally mark on a clean template page to see which components had been used the most in lessons.
The three components that were used the most by the teacher were comprehensible input with a tally score of 26, practice and application with a tally score of 14, and interaction with a tally score of 10. Comprehensible input has features that seemed to come naturally to the teacher and, in fact, she mentioned a few times that those features are simply a part of good teaching for first grade students. All lessons had practice and application features for content in them, which would explain the high score for this component. Because the teacher struggled with language objectives during the middle of the study, there were few language practice opportunities, which brought the score lower than comprehensible input. Had the language opportunities been present, it is possible that the practice and application score would have been higher than comprehensible input. The use of partners and teacher interaction with partnerships on an almost daily basis is what brought the score for interaction so high. Though the teacher felt that she did not always give sufficient wait time for students to respond, it was present in enough lessons to bring the score of interaction to the third highest spot. Not surprising, review and assessment, the component the teacher continually said she forgot, was the component used the least.
The teacher’s perspective
One thing I sought to know in this study is whether or not the teacher perceived SIOP as a tool to achieve success in academic language for English language learners. She was positive about SIOP from the beginning of the study. Having finished the formal training in SIOP instruction from her district four months prior to the beginning of the 42
study, she was enthusiastic about the model. “It is total SIOP all of the time if you want to be successful. And I blame myself if I’m not successful because if you use this system it’s so thorough, the kids don’t have any reason not to succeed.”
Midway through the study her enthusiasm for the model was still present. “I think SIOP is vital for first grade. I don’t even think it’s something you should dilly dally with or just dabble in. If you are going to be a successful teacher, this is the way.” She also expressed her feelings about the focus of SIOP in helping English language learners. “I like the way the English language learners are treated and respected. I know that way back in the day, if you didn’t speak English, you were known as not very smart, and that was so wrong on so many levels.”
She noticed times when the students seemed to be learning and reflected, “It feels like I am doing well. And the kids seem to be understanding. And they’re passing the tests.” She noticed progress in her English language learners and commented about her Korean student, “He’s smart and he’s catching on. At the beginning of the year I would tell him to put something in his desk and he didn’t get that. But now he does, so I think slowly he’s catching on.” Near the end of the study she wrote about one of her lessons in her journal and noted, “It seems like they were really getting it!”
During the final interview, we were discussing using the SIOP components and she mentioned noticing when students understand and said, “When the kids learn something, something has to be going on that’s making them think and remember and learn. And I love SIOP so much that I want to do all the possible things that I can do to make it the best for them. And it’s not just in math. I mean, I try to do that in English and writing and all that stuff.”43
Following that answer, I asked if she felt her English language learners had benefitted from SIOP instruction. Her answer was, “I hope so. Oh, I hope so. I have no idea though. I mean, I see them improving, but I’ve always worried about the English language learners…These kids are little and they look all wide-eyed and I worry about them. I think I would have paid attention to them anyway…I think of every first grader as an ELL student.”
Something that showed in the data was the perspective of the teacher on how SIOP had changed her teaching. Early in the course of the study she wrote in her journal, “I think SIOP helps me stop and ponder if I have all elements for maximum student learning.” Midway through the study she noted that she uses more precise language for her English language learners. She also noticed that she could carry on after a lesson had not gone as well as she had hoped. There was one lesson in which she confused students when she tried to build background. Instead of giving up she said she viewed it as, “You bombed this lesson. Let’s try it again. And I do. I just keep working at it.” Other changes she noticed in herself were that she had become “much, much more introspective” and that she cared more and that she worked harder than before learning SIOP.
During the final interview, she shared her feelings about the SIOP model of instruction. “I love SIOP. I think it has enriched my teaching. It’s made me not assume things. I’ve been teaching for 24 years. It’s like it has given me a shot of adrenaline in my lessons…it’s because it’s challenging my brain.”44
Chapter Five
Discussion
The research base addressing best teaching practices for English language learners has grown in recent years. Teachers are employing techniques that have been shown to support these learners. These include slower speech; clear enunciation; use of supplementary materials, visuals, and demonstrations; making connections to student experiences; and vocabulary development, among others (Herrell, 2012). The SIOP is a comprehensive model that brings all of these practices together. The purpose of this research project was to understand the perspective of a teacher as she implemented the model for the first time in her classroom and to assess whether or not she felt the SIOP model is a viable instrument in helping English language learners achieve success in the classroom. In my discussion I will address each of the research questions.
How the eight SIOP components were used
The teacher finished formal training in the use of the SIOP model four months before the study began. She finished the training during the last month of a school year and then had a summer break before beginning a new school year and starting to implement the model in her classroom. Over the summer she had access to The SIOP Model for Teaching Mathematics to English Learners, the book I gave her as a thank you gift for participating in the study. She did not have contact over the summer with those who facilitated the formal training. She began the study working from memory of the training she had received four months prior. The teacher stated several times during the study that she felt that most of the features in the eight SIOP components were simply 45
“good first grade teaching” and that she already implemented a lot of them in her daily teaching.
Preparation
Her understanding of the preparation component was shown in her use of “I can” statements for the objectives and having them written and displayed. SIOP calls for the use of content and language objectives (Echevarria, 2008). At the beginning of the study the teacher included both types of objectives in her lessons. As the study moved forward the language objectives disappeared. The confusion the teacher developed mid-way through the study by calling language objectives learning objectives probably contributed to the language objectives no longer being planned for in lessons. The teacher also understood the preparation component to include written lesson plans. This she struggled with because she did not like to use formal lesson plan templates. She did plan out her lessons, but a lot of the time the lessons were written on sticky notes or lined paper, and many times were only planned in her head. She still felt that the preparation component was in place because she had planned the lesson, though it may not have been written down. She also purposefully planned for meaningful activities in her lessons and for the use of supplementary materials.
Building Background
What the teacher understood to be the building background component was shown when she reviewed the previous day’s lessons and by previewing what the students would be learning in the new lesson. The teacher also worked to include some explicit vocabulary instruction, but it was not in all lessons. She stated that her implementation of this component was “spotty.”46
Comprehensible Input
Comprehensible input was the component that seemed to be the most natural for the teacher to implement. Her understanding of the component was shown in her high use of modeling and demonstrations, illustrating concepts on the board if students did not understand, and the use of other visuals, such as story books and charts, to help increase student understanding. She also used body gestures and made sure to repeat instructions several times so that her ELLs knew what she wanted them to do. Though she felt that her repeating of the instructions was good, she also felt that she spoke too fast at times and that she did not always enunciate the words. She mentioned several times during the study that those features were things she needed to improve.
Strategies
What the teacher understood to be a part of the strategies component was shown by her conscious effort to include higher order thinking questions in each of her lessons. Most lessons had some form of higher order thinking questions included. She also understood scaffolding to be a part of the component and worked to scaffold her instruction. By scaffolding instruction for English language learners, teachers offer students the ways to practice and use a variety of learning strategies (Echevarria, 2000). The most common type of scaffolding the teacher provided was when she demonstrated how to do an assignment using the overhead projector and had the students do some of the problems together as a class. She then had them work independently as soon as she had established that they understood what to do.
Interaction47
The teacher’s understanding of the interaction component was shown by the fact that she assigned each student a math partner to work with. “It is advantageous for English language learners to have interactive support” (Gottlieb, 2006, p. 140). The teacher seemed to sense this and often joined partnerships in their games and activities to make sure they knew what they were supposed to do. She also had the students work together at tables. Working in groups is an important element of sheltered instruction. When ELLs are provided with opportunities to interact with their English speaking peers, receptive and productive language opportunities abound (Peregoy, 2008). Another feature of this component is providing students sufficient wait time to respond to questions (Echevarria, 2008). The teacher was aware of this feature but did not feel that she always gave her students enough of what she called think time.
Practice and Application
The teacher understood the practice and application component to mean plenty of practice using games and manipulatives in center activities. She also provided practice of content by using worksheets, math journals, and workbooks. She did not provide explicit practice of language skills, but the students received language practice when they interacted with their partners.
Lesson Delivery
The teacher’s understanding of the lesson delivery component was shown in her attention to the pacing of lessons. She would comment on whether or not she felt the lesson flowed well. She also focused on whether or not her students were engaged throughout the lessons.
Review and Assessment48
In her training for the review and assessment component, the teacher had been taught to debrief at the end of a lesson by reviewing what had been taught. There were a few times she re-read the “I can” statements to her class, but that was the extent of the debriefing. The teacher felt that she left this feature out of her lessons too much of the time and said often that debriefing was difficult for her to remember. Assessment of student comprehension and learning of all objectives is one feature of this component (Echevarria, 2008). The teacher’s assessments were mostly informal and focused mainly on content objectives, not language objectives. The review and assessment component is the component that the teacher used the least.
The components used the most
The components used the most by the teacher were comprehensible input, practice and application, and interaction. Because the teacher felt that SIOP was a compilation of good first grade teaching practices, and because she had been teaching first grade for 24 years, it is possible the features of these three components were present the most in her lessons because they are part of her teaching style developed over the years and not as a result of the SIOP training. The training may have just made her more aware of them when she used them.
Using SIOP to plan objectives
During the study it was clear that the teacher was thinking about SIOP. As stated before, she noticed that she thought more about her lessons and planned for ways to include the components in her lessons. The explicit planning was most evident at the beginning of the study. It was evident then that she was using the common core to plan her content objectives and looking cross curriculum to plan some language objectives. 49
But, even if she was not planning a lesson, the teacher found that she was thinking about SIOP and ways to implement it in her teaching. She thought more about her ELLs and how they must feel trying to learn a language while simultaneously learn content. Though she experienced some challenges in implementing the model, such as getting confused about the content and language objectives, she never gave up on trying to use it the way she perceived she had been trained to implement it.
The teacher’s perspective about SIOP
The teacher had an enthusiastic perspective of the model at the beginning of the study. She felt that it was good teaching practice and that it would help English language learners develop academic English. The enthusiasm remained constant throughout the study and at the end she still felt that the SIOP model is good for teaching all students, not just ELLs. When asked if she would change anything about the model she stated that she thought it was complete. She would not change anything. She felt that the training made her more aware of good teaching strategies and that her teaching improved because of it. She felt it made her think more, care more, and work harder. From a teaching perspective she said, “SIOP helps you stretch your mind.”
Implications for Teachers
“Becoming an effective SIOP teacher is a process that takes time, reflectivity, practice and commitment” (Echevarria, 2010, p. 129). The teacher in my case study experienced some challenges while implementing the SIOP model for the first time in her classroom. She had lessons that did not go as well as planned. In one lesson, the building background activity confused the students. In another lesson, the interaction between math partners became more of a distraction than a learning opportunity. But even with 50
the challenges, the teacher continued to plan for SIOP components. She reflected on what went wrong and made a conscious effort to change it. She said, “I think teachers are too hard on themselves. I still have tons to learn and what I say to myself is, ‘it will come.’” She was willing to give herself time to perfect her implementation of the model and her commitment to using the model as a whole never waned. She reflected on her daily experiences and was willing to practice each component as she perceived certain features missing from lessons. As the teacher in this case study did, teachers should give themselves time to reflect after SIOP lessons and change what they feel went wrong but also celebrate what went right. They should have a proactive approach and be willing to learn from their experiences.
I asked the teacher what advice she would give to teachers who are trying to implement the SIOP model in their classrooms. She compared it to eating an elephant and said to take it “one bite at a time.” She suggested that teachers not try to implement all eight components at once but, instead, to implement one component at a time. Once a component has been implemented with success for a period of time, then a teacher could move on to add another component.
There was a time when the teacher became confused about the difference between content objectives and language objectives. This confusion came in part because she started calling the language objectives learning objectives and then could not determine a difference between a content objective and a learning objective. Perhaps if there had been some follow-up training or a follow-up visit to her classroom from those who facilitated the training program the teacher could have been corrected or reminded that the objectives for lessons are for content and language.51
Park City School District has implemented a professional development program that incorporates SIOP training for teachers as well as administrators. In addition to the teachers and administrators, there are individuals trained as SIOP coaches in the district. These coaches plan additional training opportunities as well as visit individual classrooms to assess whether or not the model is being implemented with fidelity. Administrators also visit classrooms to observe the model being implemented. With this design, Park City has increased the test scores of their English language population (Herbert, 2010).
As has been seen in my study, it is easy for a teacher to forget or confuse parts of SIOP after an initial training. The SIOP rubric is a reliable and valid way to assess effective implementation of sheltered instruction (Peregoy, 2008). District training personnel can use it as part of a program evaluation but it can also be used informally for self and peer evaluation. Park City school district has found a way to help teachers retain what they have learned. An administrator who has been trained in SIOP and who visits the classroom regularly would be able to see if a teacher is confusing parts of the model or if they are consistently missing certain components. Follow-up training and input from SIOP coaches could also help solidify ways to implement the model with fidelity. Teachers who use the rubric to self-evaluate could also benefit.
Suggestions for Future Research
Because this case study was done only over a period of two months at the beginning of a school year, future researchers may decide to study a teacher implementing the SIOP model for an entire school year. It would be interesting to see if the excitement about the model lasts throughout the school year and if the teacher is able 52
to implement the model with fidelity for that length of time. Also, because SIOP materials can be purchased without prior SIOP training, future researchers may want to study a teacher who chooses to begin implementing the model without formal training. Will such a teacher be able to implement the model with full fidelity? Will the teacher continue to use the model or give up after a period of time? It might also be useful to compare the implementation of the model with a teacher who has been formally trained versus the implementation of the model with a teacher who has not been formally trained. What differences would be seen? Would there be differences in test results of ELLs in the two classrooms? Would the perceptions of the two teachers about the model be different? Future researchers might also want to study a teacher who uses the SIOP rubric to self-evaluate. Does it help the teacher implement the model with full fidelity?
Conclusion
This case study with one elementary school teacher allows other teachers to learn from her experience as she implemented the SIOP model in her classroom for the first time after being formally trained. She shared valuable insights about her perception of the model and how it affected her teaching. The perseverance of the teacher to continue to implement the model despite experiencing challenges shows the value she placed on SIOP. This research provides specific examples of what it is like to implement the model in an elementary classroom. Using this case study may help teachers to navigate successfully their own transition in implementing the SIOP model of instruction in their own classroom practices. 53
References
Bauer, E. B., & Arazi, J. (2011). Promoting literacy development for beginning English learners. Reading Teacher, 64(5), 383-386. doi:10.1598/RT.64.5.14
Bigelow, M., Ranney, S., & Dahlman, A. (2006). Keeping the language focus in content-based ESL instruction through proactive curriculum-planning. TESL Canada Journal, 24(1), 40-58. Retrieved from http://www.tesl.ca/Volume%2024.html
Chen, C. T., Kyle, D., & McIntyre, E. (2008). Helping teachers work effectively with English language learners and their families. School Community Journal, 18(1), 7-20. Retrieved from http://www.adi.org/journal/resources/SpringSummer2008.pdf
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Echevarria, J., & Short, D. (2000). Using multiple perspectives in observations of diverse classrooms: The sheltered instruction observation protocol (SIOP). 1-21. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED441334
Echevarria, J. (2005). Using SIOP in science: Response to Settlage, Madsen, and Rustad. Issues in Teacher Education, 14(1), 59-62. Retrieved from http://caddogap.com/periodicals.shtml
Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: A model for English-language learners. Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 195-210. doi:10.3200/JOER.99.4.195-21154
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2008). Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners: The SIOP Model. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2010). The SIOP Model for Teaching Mathematics to English Learners. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Echevarria, J., Richards-Tutor, C., & Chinn, V. (2011). Did they get it? The role of fidelity in teaching English learners. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 54(6), 425-434. doi:10.1598/JAAL.54.6.4
Gottlieb, M., (2006). Assessing English Language Learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Herbert, M. (2010, December). Park city gets it right: observations from a professional development specialist. Utah Special Educator, 33, 12-15.
Herrell, A., & Jordan, M. (2012). 50 Strategies for Teaching English Language Learners. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Hite, C. E., Evans, L. S. (2006). Mainstream first-grade teachers’ understanding of strategies for accommodating the needs of English language learners. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(2), 89-110. Retrieved from http://www.teqjournal.org/backvols/2006/33_2/volume_33_number_2.htm
Kamps, D., Abbott, M., Greenwood, C. (2007). Use of evidence-based, small-group reading instruction for English language learners in elementary grades: Secondary-tier intervention. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(3), 153-168. doi:10.2307/3003556155
Lyster, R., & Ballinger, S. (2011). Content-based language teaching: Convergent concerns across divergent contexts. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 279-288. doi:10.1177/1362168811401150
Peregoy, S., Boyle, O., (2008). Reading, writing, and learning in ESL: A resource book
for teaching K-12 English learners. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Salinas C., Franquiz, M. E., & Guberman, S. (2006). Introducing historical thinking to second language learners: Exploring what students know and what they want to know. Social Studies, 97(5), 203-207. doi:10.3200/TSSS.97.5.203-207
Settlage, J., Madsen, A., & Rustad, K. (2005). Inquiry science, sheltered instruction, and English language learners: Conflicting pedagogies in highly diverse classrooms. Issues in Teacher Education, 14(1), 39-57. Retrieved from http://caddogap.com/periodicals.shtml
Shintani, N. (2011). A comparative study of the effects of input-based and production-based instruction on vocabulary acquisition by young EFL learners. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 137-158. doi:10.1177/1362168810388692
Short, D. J., & Echevarria, J. (1999). The sheltered instruction observation protocol: A tool for teacher-research collaboration and professional development. Educational Practice Report 3, 1-26. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED434533
Short, D. J., & Echevarria, J. (1999). The sheltered instruction observation protocol: A tool for teacher-researcher collaboration and professional development. Eric Digest, 1-8. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov./contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED43698156
Short, D. J., Echevarria, J., & Richards-Tutor, C. (2011). Research on academic literacy development in sheltered instruction classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 363-380. doi:10.1177/1362168811401155
SIOP Institute Retrieved from http://www.siopinstitute.net/
Wiseman, E. M., & Hansen, L. E. (2007). Strategies for teaching social studies to English-language learners at the elementary level. Social Studies, 98(5), 180-184. doi:10.3200/TSSS.98.5.180-184
Whittier, L. E., & Robinson, M. (2007). Teaching evolution to non-English proficient students by using lego robotics. American Secondary Education, 35(3), 19-28. Retrieved from: http://www.3.ashland.edu/academics/education/ase/PreviousIssues.html57
Appendix A
Sample Interview Questions
Beginning of Study
1. How many students are in your class?
2. How many of your students are English Language Learners?
3. How familiar are you with the SIOP model of instruction?
4. In previewing the model, which components to you think you will find easiest to use? Most difficult?
5. Do you think you will attempt to use all eight components?
6. What challenges have you found in teaching English Language Learners over the years?
7. How will you begin introducing SIOP components in your class?
8. What challenges do you anticipate as you begin using SIOP?
Mid-way through Study
1. Which components of SIOP have you found easiest to use? The most challenging?
2. Are there some components you use more than others for maximum benefit?
3. Give a specific example of a SIOP component that went well in a lesson.
4. Give a specific example of a SIOP component that didn’t go as planned during a lesson.
5. Have you been able to utilize all eight components? Explain.
6. In terms of academic English, are your English Language Learners finding success?58
End of Study
1. As time has gone on, which components of SIOP do you find easiest to use? Are there components you still find challenging?
2. Which components do you use for maximum benefit?
3. Give a specific example of a lesson that went well using SIOP.
4. Give a specific example of a lesson that did not go as well as planned. What would you change if you could do it over again?
5. Do you utilize all eight components of SIOP? Explain.
6. How do you determine lesson objectives using SIOP?
7. What is your view on the effectiveness of SIOP in teaching academic language?
8. Do you plan to continue using SIOP? Why or why not?
9. Would you add to any components? Explain.
10. Would you change any components? Explain.
11. What advice would you give to a teacher just beginning to use SIOP? 59
Appendix B
Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol
(Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2000; 2004; 2008)
Date:
Class/Topic:
Lesson: Multi-day Single-day
Scoring:
Highly Somewhat Not
Evident Evident Evident
4 3 2 1 0
Total points possible: 120 (Subtract 4 points for each NA given)
Total points earned: _____
Percentage score: _____
Directions: Circle the number that best reflects what you observe in a sheltered lesson. You may give a score from 0-4 (or NA on selected items). Cite under “Comments” specific examples of the behaviors observed.
Preparation
1. Content objectives clearly defined, displayed, and reviewed with students
4 3 2 1 0
2. Language objectives clearly defined, displayed, and reviewed with students
4 3 2 1 0
3. Content concepts appropriate for age and educational background level of students
4 3 2 1 0
4. Supplementary materials used to a high degree, making the lesson clear and meaningful (e.g., computer programs, graphs, models, visuals)
4 3 2 1 0
5. Adaptation of content (e.g., text, assignment) to all levels of student proficiency
4 3 2 1 0
6. Meaningful activities that integrate lesson concepts (e.g., surveys, letter writing, simulations, constructing models) with language practice opportunities for reading, writing, listening, and/or speaking
4 3 2 1 0
Comments:
Building Background
7. Concepts explicitly linked to students’ background experiences
4 3 2 1 0 NA60
8. Links explicitly made between past learning and new concepts
4 3 2 1 0
9. Key vocabulary emphasized (e.g., introduced, written, repeated, and highlighted for students to see)
4 3 2 1 0
Comments:
Comprehensible Input
10. Speech appropriate for students’ proficiency level (e.g., slower rate, enunciation, and simple sentence structure for beginners)
4 3 2 1 0
11. Clear explanation of academic tasks
4 3 2 1 0
12. A variety of techniques used to make content concepts clear (e.g., modeling, visuals, hands-on activities, demonstrations, gestures, body language)
4 3 2 1 0
Comments:
Strategies
13. Ample opportunities provided for students to use learning strategies
4 3 2 1 0
14. Scaffolding techniques consistently used assisting and supporting student understanding (e.g., think-alouds)
4 3 2 1 0
15. A variety of questions or tasks that promote higher-order thinking skills (e.g., literal, analytical, and interpretive questions)
4 3 2 1 0
Comments:
Interaction
16. Frequent opportunities for interaction and discussion between teacher/student and among students, which encourage elaborated responses about lesson concepts
4 3 2 1 0
17. Grouping configurations support language and content objectives of the lesson
4 3 2 1 0
18. Sufficient wait time for student responses consistently provided
4 3 2 1 0
19. Ample opportunities for students to clarify key concepts in L1 as needed with aide, peer, or L1 text
4 3 2 1 0 NA
Comments:
Practice/Application
20. Hands-on materials and/or manipulatives provided for students to practice using new content knowledge
4 3 2 1 0 NA61
21. Activities provided for students to apply content and language knowledge in the classroom
4 3 2 1 0 NA
22. Activities integrate all language skills (i.e., reading, writing, listening, and speaking)
4 3 2 1 0
Comments:
Lesson Delivery
23. Content objectives clearly supported by lesson delivery
4 3 2 1 0
24. Language objectives clearly supported by lesson delivery
4 3 2 1 0
25. Students engaged approximately 90% to 100% of the period
4 3 2 1 0
26. Pacing of the lesson appropriate to students’ ability level
4 3 2 1 0
Comments:
Review/Assessment
27. Comprehensive review of key vocabulary
4 3 2 1 0
28. Comprehensive review of key content concepts
4 3 2 1 0
29. Regular feedback provided to students on their output (e.g., language, content, work)
4 3 2 1 0
30. Assessment of student comprehension and learning of all lesson objectives (e.g., spot checking, group response) throughout the lesson
4 3 2 1 0
Comments:62
Appendix C
Observation template
1. Prepartion
2. Building Background
3. Comprehensible Input
4. Strategies
5. Interaction
6. Practice/Application
7. Lesson Delivery
8. Review/Assessment63
Appendix D
March 9, 2012
Ms. Bird:
You recently submitted for Institutional Review Board review a student research proposal entitled “Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol: A Case Study.” Your study has been assigned the following IRB tracking number: #00861.
Based on the information provided on the application, your research proposal appears to pose “minimal” risks to human subjects and, therefore, meets the Federal criteria for an “expedited” review. The Expedited Review Team met on Thursday, March 8, 2012, to review your application materials.
You herein have approval from UVU’s IRB to begin your research. This approval is good until March 7, 2013 (365 days from the date of approval). After this date, you will no longer be authorized to access and analyze existing data unless you complete and submit a request for continuing status form. Multiple year studies must be reviewed and approved annually by the full IRB.
NOTE: As soon as possible, please submit for our files written authorization from the school district to conduct your research within one of their schools.
To ensure that individuals and organizations involved in your study are aware that you have received IRB approval, please use the IRB tracking numbers above on all documents and communications associated with this project as identification of IRB authorization (i.e., IRB Approval #00861).
Please notify Nancy L. Bartlett, the IRB Administrator, at (801) 863-8156, BA203d, of any changes made in the instruments, consent form, or research process, so the IRB can review and approve them before the change is implemented.
When you have completed your research, please notify the IRB. In keeping with Federal regulations, you must retain non-identifiable research data for a period of 3 years from the date of completion of the research.
If you have any questions, please let us know. We wish you well with your research!
Dr. Glendon Parker, Chair
Institutional Review Board
Utah Valley University
800 West University Parkway 64
MS 179, Room LA11b
Orem, Utah 84058
(801) 863-6907 Glendon.Parker@uvu.edu
Nancy L. Bartlett
University Compliance Officer
IRB and Post-Award Grant and Contract Administrator
Division of Planning, Budget, and Policy
Utah Valley University
800 West University Parkway, MS272
Orem, Utah 84058
Room: BA203d
801-863-8156 Nancy.Bartlett@uvu.edu65
Appendix E
ALPINE SCHOOL DISTRICT
“Educating All Students to Ensure the Future of Our Democracy”
575 NORTH 100 EAST AMERICAN FORK, UTAH 84003-1758 (801) 610-8409
Fax Number: (801) 610-8516
Rhonda Bromley
Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent
March 18, 2012
To Whom It May Concern:
Kari Ann Stevens has permission from Alpine School District to conduct a case study at Bonneville Elementary School. We understand that this will be done in a first grade class during the fall of 2012.
Respectfully,
Rhonda Bromley
Alpine School District66
Appendix F
Bonneville Elementary School
1245 North 800 West Telephone: (801)-227-8703
Orem, Utah 84057 Fax: (801)-227-8705
January 25, 2012
To Whom It May Concern:
Kari Ann Stevens has been given permission to conduct a case study at Bonneville Elementary for this coming Fall, 2012. She will be working specifically with one of our first grade teachers. Her focus will be on S.I.O.P. instruction within the subject of math instruction.
We welcome Kari Ann Stevens and look forward to her visiting Bonneville Elementary School.
Sincerely,
Shawn Brooks, Principal
Bonneville Elementary67
Appendix G
INFORMED CONSENT
Title of Study: Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol: A Case Study
Principal Investigator:
Kari Ann Stevens
Education Department
11571 S. Autumn Hill Dr., Sandy, UT. 84094
801-619-0355
801-750-3159
kariannwork@yahoo.com
Background:
You are being invited to take part in a case study. Before you decide to participate in this study, it is important that you understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. Please take the time to read the following information carefully. Please ask the researcher if there is anything that is not clear or if you need more information.
The purpose of this study:
Instead of examining all models of instruction for English Language Learners, this project will focus on one model type, sheltered instruction. The sheltered instruction model has two purposes. The first is to teach content and the second is to teach academic language. The sheltered instruction model that this study will examine is the SIOP model. The purpose of the case study will be to assess the effectiveness of SIOP over a period of time in an elementary classroom and to understand the perspective of you, as the teacher, as you use the model for the first time in your classroom.
Study Procedure:
Your expected time commitment for this case study is: Two months
You will be observed daily during math instruction for a period of two months. Field notes will be taken during these observations. You will also be asked to keep a daily reflections journal and to participate in three semi-structured interviews at the beginning, mid-way, and end of the study. One lesson each week will be video taped for further in-depth analysis and you will be asked to provide one lesson plan each week for further analysis.
Risks:
The risks of this study are minimal. These risks are similar to those you experience when disclosing work-related information to others. You may decline to answer any or all questions during the interviews and you may terminate your involvement at any time if you choose.
Benefits:68
There will be no direct benefit to you for your participation in this study. However, we hope that the information obtained from this case study may increase knowledge of what it is like for a teacher who has been formally trained in the SIOP model to use it in the classroom for the first time and whether or not SIOP is an effective model for teachers of English Language Learners.
Confidentiality:
Every effort will be made by the researcher to preserve your confidentiality. You will be assigned a code name and this code name will be used on all researcher notes and documents.
Notes, interview transcriptions, the daily reflections journal, lesson plans, video memory cards, and any other identifying participant information will be kept in a locked, fire-proof safe in the personal possession of the researcher. When no longer necessary for research, all materials will be destroyed.
The researcher will review the collected data. Information from this research will be used solely for the purpose of this study.
You will have the opportunity to obtain a transcribed copy of your interviews. You should tell the researcher if a copy of the interviews is desired. You may also receive the daily reflections journal back in your possession once the study is completed.
Person to Contact:
Should you have any questions about the research or any related matters, please contact the researcher at kariannwork@yahoo.com or 801-750-3159.
Institutional Review Board:
If you have questions regarding your rights as a subject of a case study, or if problems arise which you do not feel you can discuss with the principal investigator, please contact the Institutional Review Board Office at 801-863-8156.
Voluntary Participation:
Your participation in this study is voluntary. It is up to you to decide whether or not to take part in this study. If you decide to take part in this study, you will be asked to sign a consent form. If you decide to take part in this study, you are still free to withdraw at any time and without giving a reason. You are free to not answer any question or questions if you choose. This will not affect the relationship you have with the researcher.
Unforeseeable Risks:
There may be risks that are not anticipated. However, every effort will be made to minimize any risks.
Costs to Subject:
There are no costs to you for your participation in this study.69
Compensation:
You will be provided with a SIOP math instruction book as a thank you gift for your participation in this study.
Consent:
By signing this consent form, I confirm that I have read and understood the information and have had the opportunity to ask questions. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time, without giving a reason and without cost. I understand that I will be given a copy of this consent form. I voluntarily agree to take part in this case study.
Signature_________________________________________ Date _________________70
Appendix H
PARENTAL CONSENT FORM
Title of Study: Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol
Principal Investigator:
Kari Ann Stevens
Education Department
11571 S. Autumn Hill Dr., Sandy, UT. 84094
801-619-0355 801-750-3159
kariannwork@yahoo.com
Background:
Your child’s teacher is participating in a research study. Data collection will be during class time of your child’s class. No assessment of your child or your child’s work will take place, but because your child will be present while the investigator observes the teacher and collects the data, you are being invited to read the following information before making a decision on whether or not to allow your child to be present during the observation. It is important for you to understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. Please take time to read the following information carefully. Ask us if there is anything that is not clear or if you would like more information. Take time to decide whether or not you will allow your child to take part in this study.
The purpose of the study:
Instead of examining all models of instruction for English Language Learners, this project will focus on one model type, sheltered instruction. The sheltered instruction model has two purposes. The first is to teach content and the second is to teach academic language. The sheltered instruction model that this study will examine is the SIOP model. Your child’s teacher has recently completed formal training in using the SIOP model. The purpose of the case study will be to assess the effectiveness of SIOP over a period of time in an elementary classroom and to understand the perspective of the teacher as she uses the model for the first time in her classroom.
Study Procedure:
The classroom teacher will be observed daily during math instruction for a period of two months. Notes will be taken by the investigator during that time. One lesson each week will be video-taped. The camera will be angled so that the view is mostly of the teacher, but students may be filmed briefly as the teacher interacts with the students during the lesson.
Risks:
The risks of this case study are minimal. Your child may feel some anxiety with the presence of a video camera.71
Benefits:
There are no direct benefits for taking part in this study. However, we hope the information we get from this study may help develop a greater understanding of what it is like for a teacher who has been formally trained in the SIOP model to use it in the classroom for the first time and whether or not SIOP is an effective model for teachers of English Language Learners.
Alternative Procedure:
If you do not want your child to be filmed at all during this case study, your child will be placed in an area of the classroom that will be out of view of the camera. He/she will still be able to hear the math instruction and complete the required work. If you do not want your child present at all during the case study, he/she will be assigned to a different teacher in the building for math instruction.
Confidentiality:
The data collected during this study will be kept confidential except in cases where the investigator is legally obligated to report specific incidents. This includes, but may not be limited to, incidents of abuse. All other information will be kept confidential by the investigator. Data and video memory cards will be stored in a locked, fire-proof safe in the possession of the investigator. Only the investigator will have access to this information.
Person to Contact:
If you have questions or need more information about this study, you can contact the principal investigator, Kari Ann Stevens, by dialing 801-750-3159.
Institutional Review Board:
If you have questions regarding your child’s rights as a research subject, of if problems arise which you do not feel you can discuss with the Investigator, please contact the Institutional Review Board Office at 801-863-8156.
Voluntary Participation:
It is up to you to decide whether or not to allow your child to take part in this case study. If you decide your child may take part, you will be asked to sign a parental permission consent form. You are still free to withdraw your child at any time. This will not affect your relationship with the investigator.
Costs and Compensation for Participants:
There will be no costs or compensation for participating in this case study.72
Consent:
I confirm that I have read and understand this consent document and have had the opportunity to ask questions. I understand that my child’s participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw my child at any time, without giving any reason, and without my rights being affected. I will be given a signed copy of the consent form to keep.
________________________
Child’s Name
________________________
Parent/Guardian’s Name
________________________ _____________
Parent/Guardian’s Signature Date
________________________
Relationship to Child
________________________
Name of Researcher or Staff
________________________ ______________
Signature of Researcher or Staff Date