Teacher Learning and ELL Reading Achievement in Sheltered Instruction Classrooms: Linking Professional Development to Student Development

This article was downloaded by: [Florida Atlantic University]On: 11 November 2014, At: 11:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Literacy Research and InstructionPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri20

Teacher Learning and ELL ReadingAchievement in Sheltered InstructionClassrooms: Linking ProfessionalDevelopment to Student DevelopmentEllen McIntyre a , Diane Kyle b , Cheng-Ting Chen b , Marco Muñoz c

& Scott Beldon ca North Carolina State University , Raleigh, North Carolinab University of Louisville , Louisville, Kentuckyc Jefferson County Public Schools , Louisville, KentuckyPublished online: 15 Sep 2010.

To cite this article: Ellen McIntyre , Diane Kyle , Cheng-Ting Chen , Marco Muñoz & Scott Beldon(2010) Teacher Learning and ELL Reading Achievement in Sheltered Instruction Classrooms: LinkingProfessional Development to Student Development, Literacy Research and Instruction, 49:4, 334-351,DOI: 10.1080/19388070903229412

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388070903229412

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/19388070903229412

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388070903229412

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Literacy Research and Instruction, 49: 334–351, 2010Copyright © Association of Literacy Educators and ResearchersISSN: 1938-8071 print / 1938-8063 onlineDOI: 10.1080/19388070903229412

Teacher Learning and ELL Reading Achievementin Sheltered Instruction Classrooms: Linking

Professional Development to Student Development

ELLEN MCINTYRE

North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina

DIANE KYLE AND CHENG-TING CHEN

University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky

MARCO MUÑOZ AND SCOTT BELDON

Jefferson County Public Schools, Louisville, Kentucky

The increase in language minority students in U.S. schools has drawn attention to instructional mod-els designed to assist these students. It is critical that literacy educators understand the potential ofthese models for literacy achievement. This study was designed to examine reading achievement ofelementary English language learners in classrooms where teachers implemented a popular shel-tered instruction model called SIOP (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004) compared with students ofteachers who have not received instruction in the model. Through a mixed methods study linkingprofessional development, teacher learning, and student achievement, researchers found significantdifferences in classrooms where the model was well-implemented. However, the differences comewith qualifications, and the findings are critiqued in light of sociocultural theory and studies onprofessional development.

Keywords english language learners, professional development, reading achievement, shelteredinstruction, teacher learning

In recent years the United States has seen a huge increase in language minority studentsin schools. Many are new immigrants from non-English-speaking lands, and many moreare students born in the United States of language minority parents and grow up hearinga tongue other than English in the home. As a result, our schools are more ethnically andlinguistically diverse, with reports of over 14 million language minority students (August,2006). Between 1980 and 2000, the Hispanic population in the United States more thandoubled and now constitutes the largest minority population. Hispanics will represent 30%of the total school population by 2050 (Waggoner, 2000).

Of concern are the low levels of school achievement among many of these students andthe lack of research-proven instructional models for teaching them. The consensus is thatcurrently, “research has failed to provide a complete answer to what constitutes high qualityinstruction for language minority students” (August & Shanahan, 2006a, p. 16). In order

Address correspondence to Ellen McIntyre, Professor and Head, Elementary Education, College ofEducation, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7801, 317 L Poe Hall, Raleigh, NC 27695-7801. E-mail:[email protected]

334

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Sheltered Instruction Classrooms 335

to build a research base on the effectiveness of instruction for language minority youth,studies of the effects of instructional models on student learning are critical. Additionally, itis essential that literacy educators become aware of the popular instructional models beingimplemented for English language learners (ELLs) in order to reflect on the coherence ofthese models with research-based literacy practices (e.g., Farstrup & Samuels, 2002) andhow the models might affect reading and/or writing achievement of these students.

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the reading achievement of elemen-tary ELLs in classrooms in which teachers implemented a popular sheltered instructionmodel, the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short,2004) compared to students of teachers who had not received instruction in the model.Additionally, the study focused on how well the teachers implemented SIOP in the con-text of 18 months of teachers’ professional development on the model. Thus, we wereinterested in understanding the relationship among the professional development, teacherlearning of the model (implementation fidelity), and student achievement in reading. Ofcourse, we recognize that studying this relationship involves multiple variables that mayinterfere with interpretations about the effectiveness of the model. We have taken theseconsiderations into account.

Theoretical Framework

The perspectives that ground this study derive from sociocultural theory of teaching andlearning, appropriate because this study examines the learning of both adults and childrenin the context of a professional development initiative. In addition to sociocultural the-ory, we also draw from studies of research on effective professional development (Wayne,Yoon, Cronen, & Garet, 2008; Stein, Silver, & Smith, 1999; Sztajn, 2009) and relatedconcepts essential to teacher change, such as implementation fidelity (O’Donnell, 2008;Snyder, Bolin, & Zumwalt, 1992).

Sociocultural Theory in Language and Literacy Learning

The discovery by Americans and Europeans of the work conducted in the 1930s byRussian psychologist Lev Vygotsky has led to the emergence of sociocultural theory andresearch. Vygotsky’s work (1978, 1987) emphasized the role culture plays in how andwhat is learned. Several key dimensions of sociocultural theory provided a lens for theanalysis of the teaching and learning in this study. First, sociocultural theorists widelyrecognize that people learn new concepts, languages, and skills through building on theirlinguistic backgrounds and cultural understandings—their experiences, ways of learning,language interaction patterns, and goals of educational attainment (August & Erickson,2006; Dalton, 2007; Delpit, 1995; Gay, 2002; Heath, 1983; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Lee,1998; McIntyre, Rosebery, & González, 2001; Moll & González, 2004; Nieto, 1999; Tharp,Estrada, Dalton, & Yamauchi, 2000). Classic studies from this perspective (Heath, 1983;Tharp & Gallimore, 1988) illustrate the mismatch that often happens between studentsand their teachers in terms of cultural understandings and discourse patterns. Subsequentstudies from a sociocultural perspective (August & Erickson, 2006; Delpit, 1995; Finn,1999; Gay, 2002; Irvine, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Lesaux & Geva, 2006) illustrate thateffective instruction involves attention to students’ cultural understandings and discoursepatterns. Such instruction involves a rigorous curriculum with high-level thinking, problemsolving, excellent literature, frequent movement, use of manipulatives, small group instruc-tion, heavy monitoring of individual progress, and high levels of support in the name of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

336 E. McIntyre et al.

direct and explicit teaching of skills. Indeed, much recent research on reading achievementwith a sociolinguistic/sociocultural perspective characterizes reading instruction in muchthe same way and has much to offer in explaining why some children succeed and othersfail in language and literacy (McIntyre, 2010).

A second dimension of sociocultural theory appropriate for this study is that newunderstandings are constructed through interactions with others. Dialogue is a primarytool for learning, and when used skillfully can help children achieve new understandings(McIntyre, Kyle, & Moore, 2006; Billings & Fitzgerald, 2002; Christoph & Nystrand,2001; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Wells & Wells, 1989). In the SIOP model, interactionis one of eight principles for teaching and learning. The teachers are expected to providemuch time and opportunity for students to use language as a tool for learning. In the pro-fessional development project described here, the facilitators did the same, working to helpteachers construct understandings through interactions with others and particular materialtools as well. Indeed, Wertsch (1991) emphasizes the importance of a variety of tools, bothphysical and mental, for learning. The facilitators demonstrated and encouraged the useof graphic organizers, visuals of all sorts, Internet resources, and realia as tools for ELLs’learning.

Researchers at the University of California, Long Beach and the Center for AppliedLinguistics (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004) developed the SIOP model for the purpose ofincreasing academic achievement of language minority students in the United States. Theseresearchers hold sociocultural perspectives on learning and favor the practices describedearlier. Sheltered instruction is a means for making grade-level academic content (e.g.,science, social studies, math) more accessible for language minority students while at thesame time promoting their language and literacy development. In sheltered instruction,teachers highlight key language features and incorporate strategies that make the contentcomprehensible to students, strategies that have been widely accepted as key to improv-ing reading comprehension of all learners (Duke & Pearson, 2002; Pressley, Woloshyn, &Associates, 1995). Thus, we hypothesized that while this model is not focused specifi-cally on raising reading achievement, it may be an appropriate instructional model forsimultaneously improving both content learning and reading achievement of ELLs.

The recently released Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report ofthe National Literacy Panel and Language Minority and Youth (August & Shanahan,2006a) confirms the efficacy of the components of the SIOP model, although no referenceis made specifically to the model. The report emphasizes that language minority studentsneed “enhanced teaching of what is good for native-language speakers” (p. 16), whichincludes building on students’ backgrounds, explicit and challenging discourse, activeinvolvement of all students, activities that students can complete successfully, scaffoldedinstruction, visual and graphic organizers, feedback to students, a variety of reading activ-ities, and attention to discourse (e.g., speaking distinctly). The SIOP model examined inthis study is reflective of these principles.

Research on Professional Development

Much recent research on teachers’ professional development has illustrated the problemwith traditional forms of inservice education. Educators recognize the futility of one-shotworkshops, or even a series of workshops, if teachers have little or no ownership in theprofessional development sessions, and the sessions are removed from the actual work ofteaching (Anders, Hoffman, & Duffy, 2000; Guskey, 2002; Sandholtz, 2002). Professionaldevelopment will likely not affect practice if it is not related to the standards the teachers

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


must already address (Guskey, 2002) or if the teachers did not assist in planning and imple-menting the structure and delivery of the sessions (Anders, Hoffman, & Duffy, 2000; Garet,Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001).

In contrast, several recent studies and syntheses of studies have shown that some kindsof professional development can positively affect teacher practice, if participation is volun-tary and includes most of the people in the school building (Garet et al., 2001). The projectmust focus on reducing professional isolation through activities that connect the teachersto other professionals (Guskey, 2002). Other studies have shown that teachers must haveownership in the delivery of the model (Anders, Hoffman, & Duffy, 2000; Guskey, 2002),be collaborative, (bottom up from teachers and top down from goals of school, district, orstate), and be the kind of education (as opposed to training) that allows for teacher decisionmaking and adaptive teaching (e.g., Duffy, 2004). Finally, teachers learn more when theycan apply what they learn directly to their teaching, and when the professional develop-ment connects to the curriculum materials already in use and attends to district and stateacademic standards guiding teachers’ work (AERA, 2005; Goldenberg & Gallimore, 1991;Guskey, 2002). Importantly, regular dialogue must occur among participants so they canassist in monitoring each others’ progress (Anders et al., 2000).

One example of the kind of professional development that exemplifies the afore-mentioned characteristics is the professional learning community (PLC). Vescio, Ross,and Adams (2008) recently reviewed the existing research on how PLCs affect teachers’practices and student learning. Schools using PLCs as their approach to professional devel-opment reduce isolation by involving teachers in a collaborative effort to examine andreflect on their instructional practices. The assumption is that improved practice will leadto improved student learning over time. Although the authors found relatively few empir-ical studies, the results of those studies indicated a strong positive connection betweenPLCs and student achievement (Vescio et al., 2008). This review has provided insight forthe findings of the present study and will be addressed in the Discussion of this study.

A summary of research on effective professional development, specifically on instruc-tion for language minority students (August & Shanahan, 2006b), reflects the afore-mentioned studies. This summary shows that effective professional development usuallyincludes meetings, workshops, follow-up, opportunities for hands-on practice, and is typ-ically conducted by outside collaborators. The facilitator of the sessions is central tothe success of the professional development, as this person or group must motivate andinspire (August & Shanahan, 2006b; AERA, 2005). Because change is time consuming andrequires considerable investment on the part of change agents as well as teachers (August& Shanahan, 2006b), long-term projects usually succeed more than short-term projects,although what is taught (content) and how it is taught matters most. Finally, initiatives thatseem to affect long-term teacher practice and teacher decision making are those that focusprimarily on teaching thinking and decision making rather than on a set of activities (Duffy,2004). The project conducted as part of the present study focused on the sheltered instruc-tion model described earlier and included some, but not all, of the principles of effectiveprofessional development. The features of professional development that seemed to pro-mote and limit achievement in this study will be explained in the Discussion portion of thisarticle.

Implementation Fidelity

Studies in the last two decades of the effectiveness of various instructional models revealedthat implementation was often taken for granted (Snyder et al., 1992; Taylor, Perry, &

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Adelman, 1999). Indeed, some models were assumed to have failed when, in fact, theywere not wholly or even partially implemented. Referred to by researchers of reform as“implementation fidelity” (O’Donnell, 2008; Snyder et al., 1992), one of the concernsrests with measuring the degree to which a particular instructional model or interventionis implemented as planned. O’Donnell synthesizes the definitions of this concept as the“determination of how well an intervention is implemented in comparison with the originalprogram design during an efficacy or effectiveness study” (O’Donnell, 2008, p. 33).

O’Donnell’s review of literature from the field of public health indicates two categoriesof implementation fidelity. The first is when the implementers adhere to the structure ofthe model, which includes whether the participants implemented the various componentsof the model (in the case of the current study, the eight components of SIOP, describedlater) and the duration of the implementation or how long they continued the effort (in thecase of the current study, during the 18 months of the project).

The second category of implementation fidelity is fidelity to process, which includesthe quality of delivery of the model, participant responsiveness, and program differentiation(or how the model differs from other instructional models). In this study, differentiationincluded, among other practices, attention to both content and language objectives in everylesson and to “comprehensible input” (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004) or those physicaland linguistic practices that make instructional delivery more understandable by students.This view of implementation fidelity aligns well with findings from a previous study ofthe first author (McIntyre et al., 2007), which compared the implementation of variousreading instructional models. In that study, some teachers adhered to the structure of thereading model while others implemented both structural and process aspects of the model,and the differences helped explain the achievement variance. In order to link professionaldevelopment, teacher learning, and student achievement, the concept of implementationfidelity that considers both structure and process becomes critical.

Method

This study took place in a large urban school district in the Midwest. As noted previously,the purpose of this study was to examine the reading achievement growth of English lan-guage learners in classrooms of teachers trained in the implementation of the SIOP modelcompared to students of teachers who did not have the training. Our research design con-tributes to the growing body of research that attempts to link professional developmentto student learning through the intervening vehicle, teacher learning. The details of thedesign are described later, but first we present the instructional model and the professionaldevelopment more fully.

ELL Instructional Model: SIOP

The professional development focused on sheltered instruction practices that reflect socio-cultural theory. The goal of the SIOP model is to guide teachers toward teaching contentto all students and simultaneously assist English learners in developing literacy skills.The eight components of the model include: (1) Preparation, which includes writingboth content and language objectives, choosing appropriate content concepts for the agegroup, identifying supplementary materials, adapting content for all levels of proficiencyin English, and planning meaningful activities that integrate lesson contents; (2) BuildingBackground, which includes explicitly linking concepts to students’ backgrounds andexperiences, explicitly linking past and new concepts, and emphasizing new vocabulary;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


(3) Comprehensible Input, which includes using speech appropriate for students’ level(rate, enunciation, simple sentence structure), clear explanations of academic tasks, and avariety of techniques to make concepts clear (modeling, visuals, gestures, body language);(4) Strategies, which includes opportunities for students to use strategies (student problemsolving, predicting, organizing, summarizing, categorizing, evaluating, self-monitoring),scaffolding techniques and understandings such as how much support to provide and whento relinquish support, and a variety of question types; (5) Interaction, which includesproviding opportunities for academic talk, group sizes for maximum language develop-ment, sufficient wait time, and ample opportunities for students to clarify key concepts;(6) Practice/Application, which includes providing hands-on materials, authentic activi-ties for applying content and skills, and opportunities for integrating all language skills(reading, writing, listening, speaking); (7) Lesson Delivery, which includes high stu-dent engagement, appropriate pace, and addressing content and language objectives; and(8) Review/Assessment, which includes giving a comprehensive review of key vocabu-lary, giving a comprehensive review of key concepts, providing feedback, and conductingassessments of comprehension on all objectives.

We gave each participant a copy of Making Content Comprehensible for EnglishLearners: The SIOP Model (Echevarria et al., 2004), which is a book written about themodel. We also provided copies of a few other professional development books, such asTools for Teaching Content Literacy (Allen, 2004), which provides several graphic orga-nizers, tools recommended for English language learners (August & Shanahan, 2006b).

Participants

Twenty-three classroom teachers participated over the 18-month project. They ranged ingrade-level from kindergarten through upper elementary (with 18 of the 23 in grades 3–5),and they ranged in years of teaching experience from early career to veteran teachers.All taught in a large, highly diverse, urban school district. All 23 teachers’ instructionalpractices were assessed prior to and after the 18 months of professional development. Then,we selected a subset of teachers to be included in the analysis of student learning (explainedbelow).

Professional Development Model

The professional development began with three full Saturday sessions, followed by eight3-hour after-school sessions for a total of more than 50 hours across 18 months. While thesessions specifically focused on one component at a time (e.g., comprehensible input orstrategies), lesson demonstrations reflected many of the components. For instance, facil-itators always included content and language objectives for the sessions; used hands-onactivities, visual aids, graphic organizers, group work, paired interactions, practice ses-sions, and review; and shared video clips of successful SIOP teachers. Importantly, oftenin the sessions, the facilitators referred to and discussed the rubric used to assess teach-ers for pre- and post-observations. The teachers filled out feedback forms after eachsession.

The professional development required much of the 23 participating teachers. Theywere to prepare action plans on how they were going to implement the eight componentsacross the school year. They collected student work samples at the beginning of the schoolyear and again in the spring (toward the end of the project) to examine how their students

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


were progressing. They analyzed and shared a videotape of their teaching with the assess-ment rubric in hand. The teachers also prepared a lesson plan signifying several of the eightcomponents in order to provide a focus for the coaching visit the facilitators of the projectmade to each teacher in order to observe and provide feedback. In addition, the facilitatorshosted a “Share Fair” at the end of the project for the participants to showcase their work.The teachers shared their work with each other and guests at the Share Fair.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection and analysis involved a three-step process. First, after achieving inter-rater reliability (described below), we assessed teacher learning on the SIOP rubric (alsodescribed below). Then, based on teachers’ scores on the rubric, we selected teacher partic-ipants to be included in the analysis of student achievement. Finally, we analyzed studentachievement of students in the selected teachers’ classrooms by comparing them to acontrol group of students.

Teacher Learning. A research assistant (third author) trained in the model but who did notserve as a professional development facilitator conducted the pre- and post-observationsof teachers. Her observations lasted 1–2 hours each, and she scored the teachers’ observedlessons on the rubric (described below) designed for evaluating the implementation of thismodel. Prior to the observations, the assistant and project directors (first two authors of thisarticle) observed three teachers and scored them multiple times in order to achieve inter-rater reliability and to be able to communicate meanings of instructional moves teachersmade using the same language. That is, our goal was to be able to interpret what was meantby some of the more obscure indicators on the SIOP rubric. To do this, the research assis-tant and first author made one visit, scored the teacher separately, and then met to compareand negotiate scores. The goal was to come to agreement on the meanings of the termsin the rubric and the quality of the implementation of each component. Then the researchassistant and second author observed a different teacher, scored the teacher individually,and discussed and negotiated the scores. Finally, all three researchers observed a teacher,scored the teacher and calculated interrater reliability for each component. Because theSIOP is a 5-point rubric, the lower scores (0–2) indicate little or no evidence of the prac-tice, and the higher numbers (3 and 4) indicate much or expert evidence of the practice. Wecalculated agreement among all three researchers on whether the scorer gave a low scoreor a high score on each indicator of each component for a total of 30 indicators acrossthe 8 components. The three researchers had 93% agreement when using the high/lowdichotomy.

The rubric is called the SIOP observation tool and is published in the book describ-ing the model (Echevarria et al., 2004). The aspects of teaching captured in this instru-ment include the components of the model: Preparation, Building Background,Comprehensible Input, Strategies, Interaction, Practice/Application, Lesson Delivery, andReview/Assessment. The instrument is an elaborate 5-point rubric (0–4) with several sub-components (indicators) under each component. For instance, “Preparation” has six areasfor coding: (1) Clearly defined content objectives for students; (2) Clearly defined lan-guage objectives for students; (3) Content concepts appropriate for age and educationalbackground level of students; (4) Supplementary materials used to a high degree, mak-ing the lesson clear and meaningful (e.g., computer programs, graphs, models, visuals);(5) Adaptation of content (e.g., text assignments) to all levels of student proficiency; and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


(6) Meaningful activities that integrate lesson concepts (e.g., surveys, letter writing, sim-ulations, constructing models) with language practices opportunities for reading, writing,listening, and/or speaking. An “NA” category allows for points deducted from a total pos-sible of 120, resulting in a score of 100% even if the teacher does not exhibit certain aspectsof the model, because they are not applicable to a particular lesson or group of students.The authors of the instrument have tested the validity and reliability of the instrument inother studies (Short, & Echevarria, 1999; Short, Hudec, & Echevarria, 2002).

After the research assistant completed all teachers’ pre- and post-observation scores,we calculated mean scores for all teachers on pre- and post-observations and rankedteachers by growth score. Then, we calculated mean scores across the teachers on eachcomponent to see how fully the group implemented each component and how much growth(from pre- to post) the group exhibited on each component.

Full Implementers. In order to obtain an evaluation of the SIOP model relative to studentachievement, and not other confounding variables, it was imperative that we study studentachievement only in classrooms in which the model was fully implemented. Only seventeachers of the 23 in the professional development project implemented the model fullyby the end of the project, as judged by the scores on the rubric and by the conservativejudgments of the researcher who conducted the pre–post assessment observations and thefacilitators who delivered the model and coached the teachers. That is, those chosen forstudent achievement analysis adhered fully to the model at least at the structural level(O’Donnell, 2008). We compared the achievement of the 50 children in their classroomsto a demographically matched sample of students in classrooms of teachers who had notparticipated in the professional development.

Student Learning. To assess student learning in the “fully implemented” classrooms,achieved after 18 months, we began with a hypothesis that after one school year, theEnglish language learners in classrooms with teachers who have fully implemented theSIOP model and family involvement will improve on the reading portion of the PredictiveAssessment Scales (PAS) test statistically significantly more on average than a matchedsample of students in classrooms with non-participating teachers.

The Predictive Assessment Scales (PAS) Test. The Predicative Assessment Scale is a seriesof equivalent assessments designed to match, predict, and improve the knowledge andskills tested by state standards aligned to nationally normed California Test of Basic Skills(CTBS) and state criterion tests. These assessments are administered at three crucial pointsin the school year and provide prompt feedback to teachers and students. They allow teach-ers to focus on learning objectives that have not been mastered at appropriate levels. Theytest reading, language, and math and results are reported to teachers within two weeks.The tests are designed to provide teachers with predictive data that can be used to adjustinstruction, plan academic interventions and improve student learning. The English lan-guage learners tested are those who are slated to take the state test during the school year;thus, “newcomers” were not included. The PAS has been highly correlated with the statecriterion test give annually in the district.

Procedures. This analysis was a factorial experiment (Campbell & Stanley, 1963) involv-ing (a) one-way analysis of variance design (Keppel & Wickens, 2004). The independentvariable was: (a) group (SIOP model treatment, comparison). The dependent variable wasreading test scores as measured by the PAS. The method used to determine the minimum

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


acceptable sample size for this evaluation research was a power analysis conducted accord-ing to procedures established by Cohen (1988). The specifications for the power analysiswere: (a) a medium effect size (ω2 = .06), (b) a planned alpha size (α = .05), and aspecified power level of 80% (1-β = .80). We compared student achievement results inreading. We compared the PAS scores from the fall to the PAS scores in the spring ofour target sample of 50 students against a matched sample of 59 students. We selectedmatched classrooms within participating schools to minimize issues associated with con-founding variables. Only students with both pre- and post-test data were included in theanalysis. We conducted matching procedure checks using ANOVAs on the important pre-vious achievement variable. Although treatment and comparison students were in the sameschool and grades, findings indicated that previous test scores in reading, operationalizedusing PAS, were dissimilar between treatment and comparison group (F = 5.97, p < .05).It was observed that the comparison group (M = 64.56, SD = 16.60) had a notoriousadvantage when compared to the treatment group (M = 55.76, SD = 20.97) in the initialachievement status. As a result, PAS previous test scores were used as a covariate in theanalysis.

Findings

The purpose of this study was to examine the reading achievement of elementary ELLsin classrooms in which teachers implemented the SIOP (Echevarria et al., 2004) model ofinstruction compared to students of teachers who had not received instruction in the model.We also examined how well the teachers implemented the model in the context of 18months of professional development. While there were significant achievement differencesin classrooms where the model was well-implemented as compared to classrooms in whichthere was no SIOP teaching, the achievement differences come with qualifications. Toexplain, we first describe the findings on the teachers’ learning and implementation of themodel. Then we follow with findings on student achievement.

Summary of Assessment of Teacher Learning

With over 50 hours of professional development, much of it focused on specific in-classinstructional practices, it is not surprising that all 23 teacher participants in the projectscored higher on their total score on the SIOP observation tool on the post-observation, andthat all of the teachers scored higher on most or all of the eight components of the SIOPinstructional model on the post-observation. Many teachers scored dramatically differentlyon the post-observation as compared to their pre-observation.

The Teachers’ Overall Growth. We found that the teachers who grew most, according tothe SIOP tool, were either those who were already high scorers on the pre-observation orthose who went beyond expectations of the project, adopting new strategies and report-ing them to us at each meeting. As an example of the latter, one teacher reported that thisproject was the best professional development she had ever received. She came to eachsession with examples of her students’ work as a direct result of the lessons she was imple-menting. Eva was from Cuba and had little previous teacher training, yet she was eager tolearn.

The pattern of least change was more complex. It involved two high-scoring teachers,affected by the ceiling effect of the instrument, whose growth score changed minimally but

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


whose implementation was high (both were included in this study of student learning). Thiscategory of low-change also included three very traditional-style teachers (not includedin the present study of student learning) who lacked basic pedagogical strategies suchas the need to contextualize instruction with what students already know, have studentsparticipate in joint productive work, or maintain a rigorous, high-level curriculum. Theirinstruction was strikingly traditional—whole class reading or science instruction with stu-dents (some) sitting passively facing the teacher in listening position while the teacherattempted to incorporate SIOP components into the lesson. While the overall scores didrise, they did not rise in each of the areas we studied.

Specific Component Growth. On the pre-observation the teachers scored highest (on aver-age) on Building Background, followed by Strategies. The feature Building Backgroundincludes linking the known to the unknown as teachers begin new lessons, not anuncommon practice. Many teachers already practiced this component before the project.Strategies taught in the professional development sessions included research-based readingcomprehension strategies (Duke & Pearson, 2002) such as summarization and prediction. Itwas clear many teachers were already familiar with some of these strategies as well. Indeed,three elementary teachers taught prediction strategies and one taught summarization as partof their lessons during the pre-project observations.

The features in which teachers’ growth scores grew the most from the pre-assessmentto the post-assessments included Building Background and Review, followed byPreparation. It was somewhat surprising the teachers grew most on Building Backgroundbecause they had already scored well on this feature. However, the professional devel-opment facilitators demonstrated using students’ “funds of knowledge” (Vélez-Ibáñez &Greenberg, 1992) to connect home and school, one aspect of the Building Backgroundcomponent that may have been new to the teachers and inspired some to develop lessonsbased on students’ home and cultural backgrounds. Also, during sessions on familyinvolvement, facilitators emphasized how instruction could be changed to reflect and/orbuild on the students’ out-of-school lives.

On the pre-observation, the teachers scored lowest on the components Review andPreparation. The researcher rarely observed any sort of review during the pre-observation,and facilitators rarely observed review during the coaching observations. Facilitators madecomments during the professional development session on the lack-of-review phenomenonand how critically important it is for English learners (and all students) to have key ideasemphasized during and after each lesson. However, the professional development facili-tators were no better at demonstrating this feature of good teaching than were the K–12teachers as the facilitators often seemed to run out of time in the professional developmentsessions. Still, the teachers were cognizant of this feature as part of the assessment rubricand were able to demonstrate enough Review features to make it a high growth (althoughstill low-scoring) feature.

In terms of the feature Preparation, the teachers were well prepared for the visits.However, some features of this component were new to teachers, which were not exhibitedon the pre-project observations. For example, teachers did not know to include content andlanguage objectives for each lesson. These two areas were emphasized much during theprofessional development. Facilitators demonstrated this component by having written andverbal content and language objectives, used many varied supplementary materials, andplanned multiple meaningful activities that incorporated much language learning duringeach of the sessions, all of which are measures on the SIOP instrument. The facilitatorsmade instructional moves explicit as they taught the teachers about this SIOP component.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Table 1Mean component rank and growth scores (out of score of 120)

ComponentPre-

assessmentPost-

assessment

Rank ofgrowthscore

Rank offinal score

Buildingbackground

82 114 1 (32) 1

Review 59 91 1 (32) 7Preparation 69 98 3 (31) 5Comprehensible

input74 102 4 (28) 3

Strategies 76 104 4 (28) 2Interaction 74 101 6 (23) 4Lesson delivery 74 97 6 (23) 6Practice 71 90 8 (19) 8

One other area for high growth was Comprehensible Input (CI), one of the componentsnew to teachers and one the facilitators spent considerable time on in demonstration aswell as explanation during the professional development sessions. Indeed, in nearly everysession, facilitators used techniques of CI as they demonstrated strategies or explainedconcepts (e.g., they used visuals, eye contact, slower speech, written objectives, and soon). The order of SIOP component growth and the overall score rank for each componentcan be found in Table 1.

As stated in the Method section of this article, the analysis of student learning wasconducted with only seven teachers categorized as “full implementers” of the model. Also,while intervening variables existed in this study to affect the achievement of the studentsin the SIOP classrooms, a pattern of difference in achievement establishes the promiseof SIOP if it is fully implemented by teachers skilled in the practices assumed by themodel.

Student Learning

There is evidence that students served by the SIOP model benefited significantly morethan students not served by the model. As expected, the previous achievement covariatewas statistically significant (F = 83.76, p < .001). Importantly, however, results indicatedno statistically significant differences in PAS Reading test scores (F = 1.17, p > .05)between the treatment group (M Adjusted = 64.07, SD = 17.40) and the comparison group(M Adjusted = 61.20, SD = 18.51). This lack of significance could be due in part to thelimited sample size of 50 students. While the matched school design of the study washelpful in controlling for many contextual variables, in our case it also meant that the twogroups were highly dissimilar in previous test scores.

Due to dissimilar groups and issues with statistical power, we decided to use a pre–post-test design using a paired-sample t-test. The paired-samples t-test procedure comparesthe means of two variables for a single group. The procedure computes the differencesbetween values of the two variables for each case and tests whether the average differs from0. Indeed, significant differences were noted in the treatment group (t = 2.62, p < .05), butnot in the comparison group (t = .39, p > .05) when a paired-sample t-test was conducted.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


The gain for the treatment group was 5.28 (M = 55.76 to M = 61.04), but the comparisongroup had a loss of .80 (M = 64.56 to M = 63.76).

While this analysis about the effects of programs may be threatened by the typicalconfounding variables encountered in field settings (Cook & Campbell, 1979), the powerin improved standard deviation of the differences is reduced from the pooled standard devi-ation of the post-test scores by a function of the pre—post-test correlation (Cohen, 1988,p. 539). Figure 1 displays a graphical representation of the gains of the treatment groupand the loss in the control group on the PAS. Figure 2 illustrates the groups’ differencesand trajectory across the duration of the study.

64.5663.76

55.76

61.04

50.00

52.00

54.00

56.00

58.00

60.00

62.00

64.00

66.00

Control Pretest Control Postest Treatment Pretest Treatment Postest

FIGURE 1 Achievement gains from pre- to post-test in both treatment and comparisongroup.

SIOP Results

61.0

55.8

63.864.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

PostPre

Sco

res

Treatment Group Control Group

FIGURE 2 Achievement trajectory for treatment and control group on PAS.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Discussion and Conclusions

This study contributes to the growing research base on effective instructional modelsfor English language learners in U.S. schools. It contributes to the research literature oninstructional supports for reading achievement of ELLs. While SIOP is not a reading inter-vention, it is a popular model for ELLs and thus must be examined in light of whether ornot it is supportive of students’ achievement in reading. This study illustrates that the SIOPmodel at least does not appear detrimental to reading achievement and may even supportit, if it is fully implemented as intended by the model authors.

As described in the introduction, this study draws on sociocultural theory and studiesof language learning and achievement to explain the success (or lack of it) with ELLs.The SIOP model is grounded in sociocultural research; the goal of the model is to buildon students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds to help students connect instruction totheir known worlds and to use the language patterns of their first language to build Englishskills, much like the early work of Heath (1983) and Tharp and Gallimore (1993). Thepatterns of instruction described in the introduction of this article that exemplify culturallyresponsive instruction (Delpit, 1995; Finn, 1999; Gay, 2002; Irvine, 2003; Ladson-Billings,1994) are evident in this model. Importantly, this study contributes to the large body ofresearch that supports a sociocultural view to literacy learning and teaching (McIntyre,2010).

As well, this model can be characterized by cognitive strategy instruction in reading(e.g., Pressley, Woloshyn, & Associates, 1995). The SIOP model includes demonstration,strategies, a focus on objectives to frame lessons, and review and practice, aspects of cog-nitive strategy instruction. Indeed, the report of the National Literacy Panel for LanguageMinority Youth (August & Shanahan, 2006b) calls for “explicit and challenging discourse,active involvement of all students, activities that students can complete successfully, scaf-folded instruction, visual and graphic organizers, feedback to students, a variety of readingactivities, and attention to discourse” (p. 356). This model is strong in these areas, andlikely because reading strategy instruction has long been a focus of professional devel-opment in the geographic area, most of the teachers in these classrooms implementedthese strategies well. Thus, with the focus on both sociocultural and cognitive instruc-tional strategies, the model could be considered is a balance of what may be viewed as thestrengths of both sociocultural and cognitive practices (McIntyre, Hulan, & Lane, in press;Purcell-Gates, Jacobson, & Degener, 2004; Tharp & Gallimore, 1983).

The SIOP Model: Who For?

While the practices and goals of the SIOP model are well articulated and attractive to manyeducators, it became clear to us that as a general model of instruction, SIOP appears to bebetter for some teachers than for others. The SIOP component indicators seem to assumethe implementation of certain basic instructional principles associated with socioculturalmodels, such as the incorporation of group work (McIntyre, 2010; Tharp & Gallimore,1993; Tharp et al., 2002). In the case of a few teachers in the project (not those included inthe analysis of student learning), however, such basics were not implemented.

Indeed, as we stated, fewer than one-third of the participants in the project were con-sidered “full implementers” of the model, which may have been due in part to the structureof the professional development (addressed later) but may also have been due to the teach-ers’ entering level of teaching effectiveness and their repertoire of teaching strategies.Recall that several teachers were extremely traditional in their practice. Several rarely ever

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


used group work, visual aids, or manipulatives, and many did not seem to see the valueof student talk. Thus, principles such as Interaction and Comprehensible Input may havebeen a stretch for some of the teachers. While for some teachers, the principles seemed tohelp them refine their teaching, for the less skilled teachers, the opposite seemed to be thecase. While all teachers made progress on all components as measured by the SIOP model,much of the instruction was still problematic in our interpretations. For example, whileteachers may have included content and language objectives, these objectives seemed con-trived. When one teacher attempted to emphasize vocabulary with visual aids, the activityseemed forced.

In general, though, the study seems to support the model for most teachers. As stated,all teachers grew in their ability to implement the model, however modest the changes.Some teachers made quite dramatic changes, despite the limitations of the professionaldevelopment. Further, recall that the students measured in this study were those that qual-ified for testing. Thus, the testing did not include recent immigrants. In terms of studentachievement, the findings are moderate but significant for the 50 children of the seventeachers who were full implementers of the model as compared to children in classroomswith teachers who had no professional development in it. Despite possible intervening vari-ables, these data show the promise of this model. Yet, we have no knowledge whether themodel is appropriate for immigrant newcomers.

Professional Development for Teachers of ELLs

The project exemplified some aspects of best practices of professional development forteachers. It was long-term (18 months) and included regular sessions both inside teach-ers’ classrooms through coaching and outside their classrooms for reflection and teachinganalysis with other teachers. As suggested by August and Shanahan (2006a), the projectincluded meetings, workshops, follow-up opportunities for hands-on practice, and was con-ducted by outside collaborators. All teachers wrote positive evaluations after each session,and all seemed to grow as teachers during the 18-month period. Yet, from our experiencedoing this sort of work (Kyle, McIntyre, Miller, & Moore, 2002; McIntyre, Kyle, Chen,Kraemer, & Parr, 2008) and from the extensive studies of effective professional develop-ment (August, & Shanahan, 2006b; Ball & Cohen, 1999; Birman, Desimone, Porter, &Garet, 2000; Borko, 2004; Borko, Davinroy, Bliem, & Cumbo, 2000; Garet et al., 2001;Butler, Lauscher, Jarvis-Selinger, & Beckingham, 2004; Guskey, 2002; Sandholtz, 2002),we knew the project lacked some critical elements that may contribute to the fact thatfewer than one-third of the teachers were considered full implementers, and that some ofthese were considered full implementers only at the structural level, not at the process level(McIntyre et al., 2007; O’Donnell, 2008).

The project included 28 teachers and 2 coaches. Our schedules did not permit morethan one coaching visit per classroom, although each teacher was visited a total of threetimes including the pre- and post-research observations as well as the coaching visit. Thus,the relationships developed with the teachers were less like a caring supporter and morelike an evaluator. Despite our assurances that we were coming to help, support, scaffold,and not to judge, we still sensed the lack of a truly collaborative relationship with mostof the teachers. We seemed never to achieve the truly caring relations (Sztajn, 2008) socritical in work with practicing teachers. While we had friendly surface-level relationshipswith all teachers, we did not establish the deep, lasting relationships necessary for trustamong participants. We knew this because we had achieved such relationships in previousprojects (e.g. Kyle et al., 2002; McIntyre et al., 2008). The difference was in the time we

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


devoted to each person. Because the teachers were spread thinly across multiple schoolsand school districts, our time with each was limited.

While the quality of the professional development was generally high and very wellregarded as evidenced by all positive feedback on the teacher evaluations, the facilitatorswere less pleased with how some of the sessions went, not because delivery was not good,but often because they felt rushed and did not finish all they had intended. Further, theSIOP model lacks a focus on content and even on pedagogical content knowledge nec-essary for effective professional development (AERA, 2005). While our demonstrationsincluded content knowledge (e.g. structure of English language, science misconceptions),the professional development model does not explicitly address content as a necessary partof the training.

Further, we believe the professional development did not achieve the level of profes-sional learning community shown to be so effective in producing change (Vescio et al.,2008). In these communities, there is a sense of “we are all in this together,” and teachersassist one another in improving practice. Despite the growing evidence for school reformmeasures to include whole schools and not individual teachers (Garet et al., 2001; Guskey,2002; Sandholtz, 2002) and the need for professional practice communities, our projectstill selected participants on an individual basis. Because teachers were from many dif-ferent schools and districts, only about half the teachers had a colleague in their buildingalso in the project. Further, our attempt to include principals in the mission was inadequate.While all schools had principals who supported the work verbally, only a few had leaders inthe building familiar with the model. Only two showed up for an information session at thebeginning of the project. Finally, while we thought that spreading 50 hours over 18 monthswas a wise decision, giving the teachers more time to learn, it was not like a graduate classin which teachers meet every week and begin to bond by the third or fourth session. Theymet so infrequently that they did not get to know one another in the way we had hoped.

Conclusion

We believe it is impossible to tease out all confounding variables of the research to makedefinite claims about the SIOP model. Yet, because a significant difference in achievementoccurred for students in the classrooms of “fully implementing” teachers as comparedto students not served by the model at all, and because we observed change in teach-ers’ practices, we believe the model has promise. We also believe that enhancing theteachers’ development as excellent teachers of ELLs will be more likely if the teachersparticipate in personalized, small group settings in which collaborative relationships andfocused dialogue can occur, receive ongoing support and scaffolding of specific instruc-tional strategies, and can connect the professional development to the authentic work andissues they face in their classrooms. Finally, we believe the SIOP model could be tweakedto emphasize a focus on content as critical during the professional development. The SIOPinstructional model promises much when implemented well, but this requires paying atten-tion to the content, skills, and context for learning that teachers need so that they in turncan be responsive to what their ELLs need.

References

AERA (American Educational Research Association). (2005). Teaching teachers: Professionaldevelopment to improve student achievement. Research Points, 5, 1–4.

Allen, J. (2004). Tools for teaching content literacy. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Anders, P. L., Hoffman, J. V., & Duffy, G. G. (2000). Teaching teachers to teach reading: Paradigmshifts, persistent problems, and challenges. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, &R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. III (pp. 719–742). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

August, D. (2006). Demographic overview. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacyin second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language MinorityChildren and Youth (pp. 43–50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

August, D., & Erickson, F. (2006). Qualitative studies of classrooms and school practices. InD. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of theNational Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth (pp. 489–522). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006a). Introduction and methodology. In D. August & T. Shanahan(Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel onLanguage Minority Children and Youth (pp. 1–42). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006b). Synthesis: Instruction and professional development. InD. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report ofthe National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth (pp. 351–364). Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ball, D. L. & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In G. Sykes & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teaching asthe learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Billings, L., & Fitzgerald, J. (2002). Dialogic discussion and the Paideia seminar. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 39, 907–941.

Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000, May). Designing professionaldevelopment that works. Educational Leadership, 57, 28–33.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. EducationalResearcher, 33, 3–15.

Borko, H., Davinroy, K. H., Bliem, C. L., & Cumbo, K. B. (2000). Exploring and supporting teacherchange: Two third-grade teachers’ experiences in a mathematics and literacy staff developmentproject. Elementary School Journal, 100, 273–306.

Butler, D. L., Lauscher, H. N., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Becking ham, B. (2004). Collaboration and self-regulation in teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 435–455.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research.Florence, KY: Wadsworth Publishing.

Christoph, J. N., & Nystrand, M. (2001). Taking risks, negotiating relationships: One teacher’stransition toward a dialogic classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 36, 249–286.

Cook, D. T., & Campbell, T. D. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for fieldsettings. Florence, KY: Wadsworth Publishing.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dalton, S. S. (2007). Five standards for effective teaching: How to succeed with all learners. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: The NewPress.

Duffy, G. G. (2004). Teachers who improve reading achievement: What research says aboutwhat they do and how to develop. In D. Strickland & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Improving readingachievement through professional development (pp. 3–22). Norwood, MA: Christopher GordonPublishers.

Duke, N. & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. InA. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction(pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2004). Making content comprehensible for English languagelearners: The SIOP model(2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Farstrup A. E., & Samuels, S. J. (2002). What research has to say about reading instruction. Newark,DE: International Reading Association.

Finn, P. J. (1999). Literacy with an attitude: Educating working-class children in their own self-interest. New York: SUNY Press.

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes profes-sional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American EducationalResearch Journal, 38, 915–945.

Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53,106–116.

Goldenberg, C., & Gallimore, R. (1991). Changing teaching takes more than a one-shot workshop.Educational Leadership, 49, 69–72.

Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theoryand Practice, 8, 381–391.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Irvine, J. J. (2003). Educating teachers for diversity: Seeing with a cultural eye. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Keppel, G., & Wickens, T. D. (2004). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. New York:Prentice Hall.

Kyle, D. W., McIntyre, E., Miller, K., & Moore, G. (2002). Reaching out: A K–8 resource forconnecting with families. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Lee, C. D. (1998). Signifying in the zone of proximal development. In C. D. Lee and P. Smagorinsky(Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning through collaborativeinquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lesaux, N. K., & Geva, E. (2006). Synthesis: Development of literacy in language-minority youth.In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report ofthe National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth (pp. 53–74). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McIntyre, E. (2010). Sociocultural perspectives on children with reading difficulties. In R. Allington& A. McGill-Franzen (Eds.), Handbook of reading disabilities research (pp. 41–56). New York:Routledge.

McIntyre, E., Hulan, N., & Layne, V. (in press). Reading instruction for diverse classrooms:Research-based culturally responsive practice. New York: Guilford Press.

McIntyre, E., Rosebery, A., & González, N. (2001). Classroom diversity: Connecting curricula tostudents’ lives. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.

McIntyre, E., Kyle, D. W., & Moore, G. (2006). A teacher’s guidance toward small group dialoguein a low-SES primary grade classroom. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 36–63.

McIntyre, E., Kyle, D. W., Chen, C., Kraemer, J., & Parr, J. (2008). Six principles for teachingEnglish language learners in all classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

McIntyre, E., Powell, R., Coots, K. Jones, D., Powers, S., Deeters, F., ET al. (2007). Reading instruc-tion in the NCLB era: Teachers’ implementation fidelity of early reading models. Journal ofEducational Research and Policy Studies, 5(2), 66–102.

Moll, L., & González, N. (2004). Engaging life: A funds-of-knowledge approach to multiculturaleducation. In J. Banks (Ed.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 699–715). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. New York:Teachers College Press.

O’Donnell, C. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation andits relationship to outcomes in K-12 curriculum intervention research. Review of EducationalResearch, 78, 33–84.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Pressley, M., Woloshyn, V., & Associates. (1995). Cognitive strategy instruction that really improveschildren’s academic performance (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Purcell-Gates, V., Jacobson, E., & Degener, S. (2004). Print literacy development: Uniting cognitiveand social practice theories. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sandholtz, J. H. (2002). In-service training or professional development: Contrasting opportunitiesin a school/university partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 815–830.

Short, D. J., & Echevarria, J. (1999). The sheltered instruction observation protocol: A tool forteacher-researcher collaboration and professional development. Report to the Center for Researchon Education, Diversity, and Excellence. University of California Santa Cruz.

Short, D., Hudec, J., & Echevarria, J. (2002). Using the SIOP Model: Professional developmentmanual for sheltered instruction. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Snyder, J., Bolin, F., & Zumwalt, K. (1992). Curriculum implementation. In P. Jackson (Ed.),Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 402–435). New York: Macmillan Publishing.

Stein, M. K., Silver, E. A., & Smith, M. S. (1999). The development of professional develop-ers: Learning to assist teachers in new settings in new ways. Harvard Educational Review, 69,237–269.

Sztajn, P. (2009). Caring relations in the education of practising mathematics teachers. In B.Jaworski (Ed.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education, Vol. 4. Rotterdam, TheNetherlands: Sense Publishers.

Taylor, L., Perry, N., & Adelman, H.S. (1999) Scaling up reforms across a school district. Readingand Writing Quarterly, 15, 303–325.

Tharp, R. G., Estrada, P., Dalton, S., &Yamauchi, Y. (2000). Teaching transformed: Achievingexcellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Tharp, R. & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning and schooling in socialcontext. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vélez-Ibáñez, C., & Greenberg, J. (1992). Formation and transformation of funds of knowledgeamong U.S. Mexican households. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 23, 313–335.

Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional lean-ing communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24,80–91.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thought and language (Ed. ALEX Kozulin, 2nd printing). Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Waggoner, D. (2000). Who are secondary newcomer and linguistically different youth? In C. Faltis& P. Wolfe (Eds.), So much to say: Adolescents, bilingualism, and ESL in the secondary school(pp. 13–41). New York: Teachers College Press.

Wayne, A. J., Yoon, K. S., Cronen, S., & Garet, M. S. (2008). Experimenting with teacherprofessional development: Motives and methods. Educational Researcher, 37, 469–479.

Wells, G., & Wells, J. (1989). Learning to talk and talking to learn. Theory Into Practice, 23, 190–196.Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Documents

Teacher Learning and ELL Reading Achievement in Sheltered Instruction Classrooms: Linking Professional Development to Student Development