Web viewIn this paper, I first examine the demographic and academic trends of English Language Learners (ELLs) enrolled in the United States school system, highlighting the

Running Head: SHELTERED INSTRUCTION OBSERVATION PROTOCOL (SIOP) MODEL 1

Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) Model:

In Search of Effective Instruction for English Language Learners

Jamie L. Embree

Texas Woman’s University

SHELTERED INSTRUCTION OBSERVATION PROTOCOL (SIOP) MODEL 2

Abstract

In this paper, I first examine the demographic and academic trends of English Language

Learners (ELLs) enrolled in the United States school system, highlighting the need for research-

based programs that guarantee ELLs receive high-quality instruction within the mainstream

classroom. Next, I will introduce the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) Model

by examining the eight components and thirty features within the SIOP Model, giving greater

attention to the specific components/features believed critical to the novice teacher. Then, I will

consider the model’s strengths and weaknesses, and ponder whether I believe the SIOP Model

would allow for effective instruction of English Language Learners.


Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) Model:

In Search of Effective Instruction for English Language Learners

Currently, English Language Learners (ELLs) represent the fastest growing population in

the United States school system (NEA, 2008). Demographic projections signal that the total

number of ELLs enrolled in public schools will continue to set unprecedented records every year

from now until the year 2020 (NCEL, 2012). Soon, one in every four students will be identified

as an ELL (NEA, 2008). With this knowledge, every teacher should expect to have ELLs in

his/her classroom.

As the number of students with diverse backgrounds grows, all teachers must be prepared

to meet the unique learning needs of students with limited English proficiencies.

Teachers must understand ELLs are not simply a homogenous group of learners (Morrow,

Gambrell, & Pressley, 2011). While it is true that the majority, approximately 80%, of ELLs in

the United States identifies Spanish as their native language, research confirms ELLs speak more

than 325 different languages (NCELA, 2011). In fact, ELLs also vary greatly in many other

aspects which include, but not are limited to, a student’s age, country of origin, socioeconomic

status, educational backgrounds, and personal learning styles (Morrow et al., 2011). Sadly,

many teachers are not adequately trained to meet the academic needs of this growing diverse

population.

The National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) reported in 2009 that the

academic achievements of ELLs in both Reading and Mathematics continue to remain

significantly lower than native English speaking students. Even more troubling, however, is the

unduly, high number of ELL school dropouts documented each year. The glaring truth is, native

English speaking students are not patiently awaiting their ELL peers to catch up with them


academically (Cummins, 2001). Lowering academic standards for those students who struggle

with grade-level content can no longer constitute as an acceptable instructional approach. So,

how do educators increase the likelihood that ELLs achieve high levels of academic success?

Current research provides promising evidence that bilingual education is highly

successful in closing the achievement gap of ELLs. A study conducted by Thomas & Collier

(2002) found that after receiving 5-7 years of formal education, bilingually educated students

outperformed monolingual students. Bilingually schooled students were also noted to have a

considerably lower dropout rate (Thomas & Collier, 2002). While bilingual education is

favored, unfortunately it is not always possible.

Budgeting funds in schools today are clearly not strong enough to support such an

endeavor as bilingual education. More often than not, monies to hire education professionals

who are proficient in a cornucopia of languages simply do not exist. Despite initiatives put forth

by the No Child Left Behind Act to improve student achievement and close the educational gap

by calling for every classroom to have highly-qualified teachers by 2006, few states mandate that

teachers receive professional training in second language acquisition, or English as a second

language (ESL) methodologies (Short & Echevarria, 2005). In fact, many ELLs receive

instruction from content-specific teachers who are completely unaware of the cross-cultural

background training needed to support students’ language development as they struggle to reach

high academic standards. Teachers now face multiple challenges and must turn to research-

based programs that help them meet the formidable task of guarantying all ELLs, regardless of

native language, receive high-quality instruction within the mainstream classroom.


Inception of the Sheltered Instruction Observational Protocol (SIOP) Model

Sheltered instruction is one such instructional approach widely proven in the educational

arena to help teachers meet the academic needs of learners with limited English proficiencies.

Sheltered instruction can best defined as an instructional approach that makes grade-level,

academic subject content (Reading, Mathematics, Science, etc.) comprehensible for ELLs while

simultaneously promoting students English language development (Short & Echevarria, 2005).

Though educators have been delivering varying degrees sheltered instruction for many years,

until recently, there was no research-driven, explicit model of sheltered instruction in existence

that teachers could use effectively in the classroom (Short & Echevarria, 2005).

To investigate the effects of sheltered instruction on the academic achievement of

students with limited English proficiencies, The Center for Research on Education, Diversity &

Excellence (CREDE) conducted a seven year study (1996-2003). Over the course of this study,

principal researchers Jana Echevarria, MaryEllen Vogt, and Deborah Short collaborated with

middle school teachers from both eastern and western U. S. school districts varying greatly in

student demographics. Findings from this study resulted in the development of the Sheltered

Instructional Operational Protocol (SIOP). In its inception, SIOP was used primarily as an

observational tool that aided the abilities of researchers to conclude whether or not those teachers

being observed were using sheltered instruction techniques in the classroom and, if so, to what

extent.

In subsequent years, the protocol underwent further analysis in which collected data

confirmed SIOP as “a highly reliable and valid measure of sheltered instruction” (Guarino,

Echevarria, Short, Schick, Forbes, & Rueda, 2001). Several succeeding research studies

provided further evidence that ELLs placed in classrooms with teachers adequately trained in


implementing SIOP were consistently noted to outperform, making significantly greater

academic gains than those ELLs with teachers with no previous professional development

training in SIOP (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2013). Currently, the SIOP Model is nationally

recognized as the only “research-validated model of sheltered instruction” and is being

successfully implemented in thousands of districts across all fifty states in the United States as

well as many other countries (Echevarria et al., 2013, p. xi).

Most commonly, the SIOP Model is used as a framework for lesson planning and

instruction delivery. The SIOP Model consists of eight broad components and thirty specific

features (Echevarria et al., 2013). The eight SIOP components are as follows: Preparation,

Building Background, Comprehensible Input, Strategies, Interaction, Practice and Application,

Lesson Delivery, and Review and Assessment. Each component and feature of the SIOP Model,

as well as any supporting details discussed in the pages to follow, has been adapted from the text,

Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners: The SIOP Model, by Echevarria, Vogt,

and Short (2013) unless noted otherwise.

Lesson Preparation Component of the SIOP Model

Few educators would disagree on the importance of lesson preparation, as it is the likely

the most decisive factor in assuring grade-level content is made accessible to each and every

student. For those learners with limited English proficiencies, the quality of a teacher’s lesson

preparation becomes even more critical. To maximize student learning, special planning must be

devoted to determining how to design lessons that are comprehensible and challenging for all

students. Within the lesson preparation component, the SIOP Model highlights six key features

as being essential in helping guide students on their path to academic success.


SIOP Feature 1: Content objectives clearly defined, displayed, and reviewed with

students. Determining exactly what knowledge and skills students need to acquire should

always be the first step in a teacher’s lesson preparation. Students’ learning objectives must be

specifically aligned with grade-level, content area state standards. Possibly due to the

comprehensive nature of state standards, teachers may find writing student learning objectives

difficult to articulate; however, most would agree that content objectives are an essential element

of the instructional plan and well worth the effort. Having sound instructional goals identified

early on in the lesson planning process will greatly influence future instructional decisions.

SIOP Feature 2: Language objectives clearly defined, displayed, and reviewed with

students. A fundamental distinction between SIOP and regular content instruction is the

presence of language objectives. Effectively written language objectives are directly related to

the language demands and learning tasks necessary for students to master previously defined

content objectives (Short & Echevarria, 2005). Though many teachers may be unfamiliar with

the process of writing language objectives, doing so is of particular importance for ELLs in that

developing language proficiency is essential to their academic achievement.

To be effective, all students must understand learning expectations; therefore, it is

imperative that both content and language objectives are communicated orally and in written

format in a manner that is comprehensible to students. When situations arise in which ELLs lack

the language knowledge to fully understand learning objectives, the teacher should modify

objectives without lowering expectations for ELLs, such support can be as easy as using very

basic language, pictures, and/or emphasizing key words.

SIOP Feature 3: Content concepts appropriate for age and educational background

level of students. Central to the SIOP Model, ELLs should be taught and learn the same grade-


level content knowledge as their native English speaking peers. Obviously, accomplishing this is

no easy feat; teachers must be committed to providing ELLs with quality accommodations,

knowing that the time devoted will make a positive impact on their academic successes. When

preparing to teach grade-level content to ELLs, the SIOP Model recommends that careful

consideration must be given to the following factors: student’s native language literacy skills,

English literacy proficiency, cultural implications, age appropriateness, and difficulty of

information being presented. In instances where ELLs lack the knowledge necessary to grasp

grade-level concepts being taught, best practices are not to resort to lowering academic standards

by minimizing ELLs exposure to challenging content, but rather to scaffold learning experiences

that facilitate the building of background knowledge and skills needed to be successful.

SIOP Feature 4: Supplementary materials used to a high degree, making the lesson

clear and meaningful. The old adage, “a picture is worth a thousand words” is especially true

with ELLs as supplementary materials greatly reduce the language load required to understand

and complete challenging learning activities. SIOP instruction calls for teachers to regularly

integrate known effective supplementary materials such as hands-on manipulatives, visual aids,

multimedia, demonstrations, adapted texts, and thematic sets within lessons in order to aid in an

ELL’s ability to drawing meaning from unfamiliar and/or difficult concepts. Also, using

supplementary materials regularly in the classroom makes for learning experiences that are much

more meaningful and enjoyable for ELLs.

SIOP Feature 5: Adaption of content to all levels of student proficiency. When

planning lessons, teachers must contemplate how grade-level texts and resource materials may

be adjusted without lowering expectations or reducing content information. Teaching from a

single textbook will surely not best serve the various intelligences and language proficiencies of


all students. To assist ELLs understanding of complex grade-level reading materials, SIOP

recommends teachers should plan to include graphic organizers, outlines, highlighted text, and/or

recorded texts into lessons. Also, whenever possible, the teacher should incorporate learning

materials in students’ native languages, thus providing ELLs with multiple opportunities to gain

content knowledge in a more accessible manner.

SIOP Feature 6: Meaningful activities that integrate lesson concepts with language

practice opportunities for reading, writing, listening, and/or speaking. Under the SIOP

Model, and with teachers’ thoughtful lesson planning, students are afforded many opportunities

to engage in authentic learning experiences. All learning activities should be purposely crafted

to allow students ample time to practice mastering content knowledge while also gaining

proficiency in English language literacy skills. Role playing, for example, is an effective and

meaningful activity that enables students to acquire content knowledge and develop language

skills simultaneously.

Building Background Component of the SIOP Model

Background knowledge is essential for text comprehension (Graves, Juel, Graves, &

Dewitz, 2011). ELLs, often have life experiences unlike those of native English speaking

students, which may affect their ability to successfully comprehend grade-level concepts and/or

textbooks that are often tailored to English majority students. However, SIOP experts,

Echevarria and Vogt (2010), advise against unreasonable teacher judgments that mistakenly view

ELLs as lacking prior knowledge. It is more appropriate, rather, for teachers to assume there is

“a mismatch between what they have experienced and learned, and the topic” being taught

(Echevarria and Vogt, 2010, p. 10). When building ELL’s background knowledge, the SIOP

Model outlines that special consideration must be given to the three specific features.


SIOP Feature 7: Concepts explicitly linked to students’ background experiences.

Prior to introducing a new concept, the teacher should briefly and informally assess students’

prior knowledge of an upcoming topic. For ELLs with limited topic knowledge and/or personal

related experiences, it is the responsibility of the SIOP teacher to assist them in building the

background knowledge necessary to make meaningful connections with new concepts and

information being presented. Supplementary materials, mentioned afore, are extremely

beneficial to ELLs as they provide context and a point of reference, essential for adequate

student comprehension of unfamiliar content. Also, discussions with the student(s),

brainstorming, completion of a KWL chart, and/or a variety of focused mini-lessons are a few

other methods the teacher might also utilize to help build important background knowledge.

SIOP Feature 8: Links explicitly made between past learning and new concepts.

Students learn best when given the opportunity to link previously learned knowledge with new

understandings. ELLs can often experience difficulty making connections between prior

learning and new information being presented. With this knowledge, teachers of ELLs must

provide explicit links between prior lessons and current learning, which can be effectively done

by quickly reviewing past learning materials and/or through eliciting student responses from

questions like, “Who can tell me what we learned yesterday?”

SIOP Feature 9: Key vocabulary emphasized. Without question, vocabulary is one of

the biggest challenges that ELLs have to overcome in order to develop proficiency in the English

language and achieve academic success. The SIOP Model proposes teachers must consciously

provide ELLs with explicit academic vocabulary instruction on word(s) deemed significant in the

understanding of important concepts.


SIOP highlights a variety of research-based methods proven effective in developing

ELL’s vocabulary knowledge and offers several suggestions to guide both content and general

academic vocabulary instruction. For example, when introducing new vocabulary, best practices

are to present key terms in context, rather than in isolation. Students, too, should be afforded the

opportunity to become active participants in their own vocabulary development; this can be

accomplished by also allowing for student self-selection of unknown terminology and/or having

ELLs create personal dictionaries which they may use as a later reference. In all, teachers must

make a concerted effort to provide students with a vocabulary-rich learning environment that

helps to foster students’ language development.

Comprehensible Input Component of the SIOP Model

Students acquire language when they receive sufficient comprehensible input (Krashen,

1985). While the language development among students may vary widely, the SIOP teacher

provides extensive use of scaffolding techniques, guaranteeing that all students receive an

abundance of comprehensible input throughout their academic day. The SIOP Model outlines

three features that, when applied consistently, significantly increase the likelihood that a

teacher’s language is sensitive to the various linguistic needs of all students.

SIOP Feature 10: Speech appropriate for students’ proficiency levels. A teacher’s

language should be adapted to compliment students’ levels of English proficiency. ELLs with

little English proficiency greatly benefit when speech is adjusted to a slower rate and when the

teacher also stresses clear enunciation of words. Teachers should remain cognizant to reduce the

complexity of their speech by simplifying speech patterns according to students’ levels of

English proficiency as needed. SIOP offers some practical teaching ideas to ensure speech is


comprehensible, such as avoiding idioms, frequent use of using paraphrasing and repetition,

highlighting cognates, and thoughtful use of sentence structure.

SIOP Feature 11: Clear explanation of academic tasks. Students must understand

precisely what they are expected to accomplish. When giving instructions to ELLs, the SIOP

Model suggests presenting directions in a step-by-step format, modeling or demonstrating each

step, sharing with students a model of the finish product, and providing students with directions

both verbally and in writing.

SIOP Feature 12: A variety of techniques used to make content concepts clear. The

SIOP Model recommends the use of various instructional techniques that are effective in making

communication much more understandable. Examples include the apt use of gestures, facial

expressions, objects to clarify speech, offering students previews of learning material to be

taught, providing students with models associated with learning activities or additional visual

support via multimedia and/or technology, and using graphic organizers. Also, varying the ways

in which students demonstrate their understandings of information and concepts is especially

important for beginning levels of ELLs as they may have difficulty articulating newly acquired

knowledge orally or in writing. This does not mean, however, that they do not understand.

Lastly, teachers of ELLs must understand that recurrent exposures to vocabulary, concepts, and

skills are essential in order for those students to develop proficiencies in English literacy skills

and fully comprehend academic content.

Strategies Component of the SIOP Model

Strategy instruction is another important component of the SIOP Model. Regardless of

native language, students use the same cognitive strategies when trying to make sense of what

they are reading and/or learning. Because the ultimate goal of teaching is for all students to


become competent, independent thinkers, the SIOP Model provides teachers with a framework,

outlined through three key features, for assisting ELLs in becoming successful, strategic learners.

SIOP Feature 13: Ample opportunities provided for students to use learning

strategies. To promote student learning, the SIOP Model highly encourages the explicit

teaching, modeling, and frequent practice of the three specific sets of learning strategies:

metacognitive, cognitive, and language learning. Metacognitive learning strategies require the

learner to monitor his/her own thinking. Predicting, generating questions, monitoring and

clarifying, evaluating and determining importance, summarizing, and visualizing are all

examples of metacognitive strategies the teacher should emphasize throughout lessons.

Cognitive learning strategies are those methods a student actively employs to self-regulate

learning in order to help them to achieve a specific goal. Cognitive activities may include re-

reading, highlighting key information, and/or completing a graphic organizer. Language

learning strategies are the techniques language learners utilize when trying to improve language

skills. For instance, sounding out an unknown word by breaking it into syllables is but one of

many language learning strategies that students must apply. Language learning strategies also

include social-affective strategies that students use to develop and gain language proficiency

through discussion and interaction with others. Through the explicit teaching, modeling, and

practice of learning strategies, students develop an awareness of their own learning processes and

learn how to self-regulate those processes. Students become active thinkers, a prerequisite for

highly effective learning.

SIOP Feature 14: Scaffolding techniques consistently used, assisting and supporting

student understanding. The extensive use of scaffolding, before, during, and after learning

instruction is absolutely crucial when working with ELLs. Quality scaffolded instruction


provides students with the support needed for learning challenging concepts and completing

difficult tasks, without the teacher having to reduce the complexity of material being taught. To

assist ELLs in learning language and content, the SIOP Model highlights three effective types of

scaffolding: verbal, instructional, and procedural. Verbal scaffolding techniques such as

paraphrasing, think-alouds, and simplified speech should be used regularly throughout the lesson

to teach and clarify concepts. ELLs also benefit from a teacher’s instructional scaffolding, such

as providing students with models and/or graphic organizers. Furthermore, SIOP teachers vary

the degree of student support through procedural scaffolding, more commonly referred to as

grouping techniques. Examples of procedural scaffolding that afford students a continuum of

teacher support ranging from highly structured activities such as explicit teaching, modeling, and

guided practice to those independent activities that require very little teacher support. SIOP

teachers understand that scaffolded instruction should always promote student independence

through the gradual release of responsibility. As students acquire more knowledge and

experiences, the teacher decreases the amount of support, thus allowing students the opportunity

to become skillful, independent learners.

SIOP Feature 15: A variety of questions or tasks that promote higher-order

thinking skills. Though it is common knowledge that teachers need to ask questions that

promote students’ critical thinking skills, even those teachers with good intentions can be guilty

of asking students too many lower-level questions (Stoops-Verplaetse, 1998). In the classroom,

this is especially true for ELLs as they are often only asked lower-end, simple recall questions

that require only one word responses. This SIOP feature highlights the fact that ELLs, including

those students in beginning stages of language acquisition, are capable of thinking critically.

Teachers must know students’ current stages of language acquisition in order to design


appropriate learning tasks and formulate higher-order questions that scaffold the ELL’s literacy

development.

Interaction Component of the SIOP Model

Interaction is perhaps one of the most powerful dynamics a teacher can use when creating

a positive and productive learning environment that nurtures students’ literacy development. In

the mainstream classroom, “English learners are often marginalized and their opportunities to

interact minimized” (Stoops-Verplaetse, 1998, p. 24). Recognizing this unfortunate truth, the

SIOP Model emphasizes that students must be afforded many opportunities throughout the

school day to interact with others, both socially and academically, in order for ELLs to become

proficient in English.

SIOP Feature 16: Frequent opportunities for interaction and discussion between

teacher/student and among students, which encourage elaborated responses about lesson

concepts. Teachers of ELLs must make a concerted effort to provide students with opportunities

to regularly engage in meaningful and productive classroom interactions by establishing a

balance between teacher and student talk. Effective SIOP teachers will design instruction that is

centered on increasing students’ oral interactions and their use of academic talk.

Still, teachers must be patient, with the knowledge that that ELLs go through natural

stages of language acquisition. Often, ELLs will go through a silent period, during which time

the SIOP teacher should be attentive and considerate to not force ELLs to engage in oral

production before they are ready (Carrasquillo, 1994). In such a learning environment, where

students do not feel pressured or anxious, SIOP teachers support ELLs to becoming less reticent,

taking greater risks with their language production.


With the understanding that ELLs are often passive learners, the SIOP teacher

encourages ELLs to actively participate in classroom dialogues and elaborate on their responses.

Appropriate teacher response might entail, “Can you tell me more about…?” Teachers and

students alike must have a mutual understanding that learning a second language is a complex

process, during which time language learners may be apprehensive to communicate verbally for

fear of making mistakes. Because the goal of interactions is to provide students with continuous

language exposure, SIOP instruction also recognizes effective classroom interactions need not

always be verbal exchanges, but can be in accomplished in written form as well. Most

importantly, when interacting with students, teachers must consistently use encouragement as a

means by which to support language learners in developing healthy academic attributes.

SIOP Feature 17: Grouping configuration support language and content objectives

of the lesson. To further promote student interactions, teaching instruction should vary in

grouping (whole, small, and independent). At minimum, each SIOP lesson should consist of two

different group configurations. While the grouping of students by ability for targeted instruction

does have benefits, effective SIOP teachers firmly believe that the grouping of students should

not always be at the students’ instructional level and must remain flexible. An observational

finding by Stoop-Verplaetse (1998) noted that certain grouping configurations, such as small-

group, facilitated greater opportunities for ELLs to interact with more knowledgeable peers and

also their teacher than did whole-class instruction. Such grouping provided learners with

increased chances for comprehension of targeted content and language objectives of the lesson.

SIOP Feature 18: Sufficient wait time for student responses consistently provided.

Teachers trained in SIOP provide an adequate amount of wait time before calling on students to

answer questions as well as before responding to students; this simple act of delay allows for


more thoughtful responses. When interacting with students, the teacher must be mindful that the

extent of wait time deemed appropriate may vary substantially according to one’s culture and

level of language proficiency. Additional wait time must be permitted for ELLs to process

information and fully express ideas.

SIOP Feature 19: Ample opportunity for students to clarify key concepts in L1 as

needed with aide, peer, or L1 text. Research indicates that numerous academic skills learned

in L1 transfer to L2; therefore, whenever possible, teachers of ELLs should draw on both

languages to explain concepts. Other individuals, such as students, parents, and/or other

teaching professionals who speak the same language and demonstrate higher levels of English

proficiency can be extremely helpful resources. ELLs should have unlimited classroom access to

numerous bilingual learning materials, such as dual language dictionaries, online word

translators, and reading materials in one’s native tongue. It has also been noted that for students

with low levels of English proficiencies, opportunities to use native language literacy skills to

familiarize and clarify concepts made writing and reading in English easier and more enjoyable

(Kelman, 1996).

Practice and Application Component of the SIOP Model

In order to master targeted skills, students must be given ample time to practice and apply

newly acquired information. ELLs, in particular, benefit from being granted multiple, varied

practice opportunities to better hone recently learned skills. Within this component of SIOP,

three features outline several methods by which teachers can make certain ELLs are provided

with quality practice and the adequate amount of time to successfully apply both content and

language knowledge.


SIOP Feature 20: Hands-on materials and/or manipulatives provided for students

to practice using new content knowledge in the classroom. Hands-on learning materials

and/or manipulatives are important tools that make content comprehensible for ELLs as they

provide students with the ability to actively construct new meanings of otherwise abstract ideas.

SIOP highlights, hands-on materials and/or manipulatives are especially beneficial to ELLs

because using such tools significantly lessens the language capacity required to actively

participate in learning activities. Hands-on materials also give ELLs the opportunity to confirm

new understandings, which is a gratifying experience that in turn helps build confidence in

learning abilities, making learning challenging content much more interesting and enjoyable.

SIOP Feature 21: Activities provided for students to apply content and language

knowledge. SIOP instruction asserts that students who learn a new language need not only

practice applying newly acquired content knowledge, but also practice using new language

knowledge in the classroom as well. SIOP recommends a few meaningful activities, effective in

making abstract ideas more tangible for ELLs, while also integrating practice of both content and

language knowledge. SIOP suggestions include having students use graphic organizers to

synthesize information, discuss and solve problems in cooperative learning groups, write in

student journals, and sharing in literature circles.

SIOP Feature 22: Activities integrate all language skills. SIOP teachers are

knowledgeable of how each of the four language processes (reading, writing, listening, and

speaking) are interconnected and reciprocally supportive of one another. Because effective SIOP

teachers are aware that practice in any one language skill will ultimately promote the

development of other language skills, many opportunities are made available for ELLs to

practice daily using each of the language processes, in a cohesive manner.


Lesson Delivery Component of the SIOP Model

Within the lesson delivery component, effective SIOP teachers are encouraged to place a

heavy emphasis on both content and languages, making certain students are actively involved in

meeting the specified learning objectives.

SIOP Feature 23: Content objectives clearly supported by lesson delivery. Like

mentioned before in the Lesson Planning component of SIOP, understandable content objectives

need to be presented to students both verbally and in written format. During the lesson, when

students are engaged in related learning tasks, the teacher must support ELLs learning by making

explicit connections to content objectives. Also, by referencing back to the content objectives

frequently throughout the lesson, the teacher increases the likelihood of on-task student

behaviors.

SIOP Feature 24: Language objectives clearly supported by lesson delivery.

Language objectives are the hallmark of SIOP instruction. Similar to content objective, language

objectives must be discussed and reviewed with students. Delivery of the lesson must address

and support language objectives.

SIOP Feature 25: Students engaged 90% to 100% of the period. Students with

teachers who are effectively trained in SIOP are noted to be on-task and actively engaged in the

learning process 90-100% of the time. To ensure high levels of student engagement during

delivery, lessons must provide differentiated instruction so as to accommodate those students

with various levels of English proficiencies. Also, simply providing opportunities for student

choice allows students to become active participants in the learning process.

SIOP Feature 26: Pacing of the lesson appropriate to students’ ability levels.

Establishing the proper rate at which to present new information to students can be challenging,


especially in classrooms that have native English speaking students and ELLs of multiple

proficiencies. SIOP trained teachers recognize that the pacing of lessons will fluctuate according

to the students’ level of prior knowledge and degree of difficulty of the lesson to be taught.

SIOP experts suggest teachers manage appropriate pacing and maintain student interest by

establishing task procedures and classroom routines early on, providing differentiated

instruction, using collaborative learning activities, designing thematic units, and forming

partnerships with the appropriate language specialist(s).

Review and Assessment Component of the SIOP Model

Even though the Review and Assessment happens to be the eighth and final component

of the SIOP Model, there is no hierarchy associated with the components. What is important to

the SIOP Model, however, is that each component and key features are implemented into every

lesson. Effectively trained SIOP teachers use assessments throughout lessons in order to gain a

greater understanding of students’ strengths, weaknesses, and interests. Information gleaned

from assessments must guide future teaching instruction, carefully tailored to meet students’

multiple learning needs. In order for teaching instruction to be successful, review of key

information is absolutely essential in helping ELLs determine importance. According to the

SIOP Model, review is not intended to be an activity that simply precedes formal assessments;

rather, it is an activity that continuously reoccurs throughout the entire lesson.

SIOP Feature 27: Comprehensive review of key vocabulary. The SIOP Model

suggests utilizing instructional practices to better support students’ development of academic

language through the review of key vocabulary. When reviewing vocabulary, the teacher should

relate new words to other words that follow the same pattern, thus emphasizing language

structures and patterns by drawing special attention to word tense, parts of speech, and sentence


structure. Multiple, varied exposures to newly learned words periodically throughout the lesson

increase ELLs familiarity with the English structures and also helps students better remember

words, which is essential for comprehension.

SIOP Feature 28: Comprehensive review of key content concepts. Content concepts

must be reviewed often during the lesson. Pausing momentarily during instruction to briefly

summarize information is one method SIOP suggests for informally reviewing content concepts.

Equally important is the review of content concepts at the conclusion of the lesson. SIOP

teachers recommend using sentence starters such as, “I wonder…I discovered…I still want to

know…I learned…I still don’t understand…I still have a question…I will ask a friend” as

effective end of lessons review of concepts.

SIOP Feature 29: Regular feedback provided to students on their output. To

support students’ proficiency in English, effective SIOP teachers provide students with frequent,

positive feedback, thereby placing value on each student’s contribution. Academic feedback

should always be constructive and focused on helping students clarify any misunderstandings

while also encouraging them to think further. SIOP teachers’ feedback should be given orally, in

writing, and through facial expressions and body language. For example, a smile, high five, or a

gentle pat on the back are but a few specific ways teachers can express students’ academic

efforts are fully supported.

SIOP Feature 30: Assessment of student comprehension and learning of all lesson

objectives throughout the lesson. In SIOP lessons, student assessments must not always be

formal. Informal assessments, too, should be given frequently before, during, and at the end of

lessons to gauge levels of student comprehension. SIOP teachers understand the importance of

embedding assessments into the lesson’s learning activities so as to determine whether or not


students are indeed progressing toward grasping the content and language objectives. Self-

evaluations, for example, are but one type of informal assessment that when administered often

before and/or at the conclusion of lessons, allow the teacher greater insight of individual

strengths, weaknesses, and interests (Sharkey, 1994). Teachers, then use results from

assessments to plan and adopt future instruction, which is crucial in determining those learners

who may be in need of re-teaching and/or additional, more concentrated interventions.

Critical Review of the SIOP Model

Even though most would agree on the importance of using sheltered instruction

techniques in the classroom as an effective means to support students’ comprehension of content,

not all educators share a favorable view of the SIOP model. Common criticisms of the SIOP

Model include teachers, already feeling pressured to cover all of the required curriculum within

strict time constraints, report implementation of the SIOP model in its entirety is simply too time

consuming. As a result, teachers repeatedly admit to implementing only isolated features within

the model (Short & Echevarria, 2004).

Teacher feedback also noted some of the features within the SIOP model were much too

complex, unlikely to ever be employed in sheltered classrooms (Martin, 2001). For example,

content teachers not formally educated in Language Arts may deliberately avoid SIOP Feature 2,

which calls for the integration language objectives into every lesson as they feel integrating

language objectives into lessons doubles an already heavy workload (Houck, 2006). Teachers

also voice that SIOP Feature 5 adapting content to all levels of student proficiency and SIOP

Feature 19 giving ample opportunities to clarify concepts in L1 may be unrealistic in a heavily

diverse classroom in which students represent many different native languages with varying

levels of English proficiencies (Martin, 2001). Due to time constraints, teachers also remark that


SIOP Feature 22 may be equally unreasonable to expect that all four language skills as well as

content objectives could be integrated into every lesson (Short & Echevarria, 2004).

Even more so problematic is the fact that many teachers readily confess that they have

received no professionally training in English as a Second Language (ESL) and are unfamiliar

with the specific needs of ELLs during the second language acquisition process (Short &

Echevarria, 2004). Professional development in SIOP entails a year or more of focused training

and requires focused coaching, collaboration, and observation (Short & Echevarria, 2004).

Teachers commonly voice that short-term, district determined in-service training, workshops,

and/or conferences do not provide administrators or teachers with the adequate amount of SIOP

training/resources and are, therefore, ineffective (Short & Echevarria, 2004). Teachers also

remark that collaboration with other professions during the implementation of SIOP is

inaccessible due to time constraints and/or report SIOP being inconsistently implemented

throughout the districts/schools (Short & Echevarria, 2004). In order to see a measureable

improvement in the achievement scores of ELLs, districts first must agree to fully absorb the

SIOP Model as intended, in its entirety. Such adoption is an extensive process, one that requires

time specially allocated for teachers to be involved in collaboration, planning, implementing, and

reflecting on their core teaching beliefs (Patton, 2006).

Changes in teacher practices take a great deal of commitment and collaboration (Short &

Echevarria, 2004). Much needed teacher support is especially difficult when fellow colleagues

and/or administration are reluctant to put forth the effort to improve instruction for ELLs. This

sentiment is among one of the most pronounced negative concerns regarding implementation of

the SIOP Model (Houck, 2006).


Conclusion

When I began reviewing the SIOP materials, I must admit, I, too, had my reservations.

As I continued studying each component and related features, my concerns grew. The model, I

felt, was much too lengthy and challenging for even the most seasoned, veteran teachers. Also,

while reading the textbook, titled in part, “Making Content Comprehensible” I thought it ironic

that the authors’ choice of wording throughout the book was at times a bit incomprehensible. As

a future educator, with no prior teaching experience and limited knowledge of the language

acquisition process, implementing the SIOP model in its entirety simply seemed impossible.

Despite my initial reluctance, I continued to investigate the SIOP Model.

Now, having read the textbook and many related articles, my prior thinking has changed.

I feel, as educators, it is important to remember that the basic goal of schools is to educate their

most precious natural-resource, the children, so that they become productive and successful

citizens in the future not as we see it, but in the future that they create. As our schools become

increasingly more culturally and linguistically diverse, teachers must question how they will

guarantee that all ELLs achieve high levels of academic success. I wholeheartedly agree that

providing all students, English learners and English speakers alike, with high-quality teaching

instruction will certainly make the difference and “is an important investment in America’s

future” (NEA, 2008).

I now affirm the SIOP Model to be the answer, as it provides teachers with a

comprehensive framework for becoming proficient in designing and delivering high-quality

lessons that meet students’ academic and linguistic needs. Though it will most certainly take

considerable time and effort, I believe that those teachers who adapt, become knowledgeable in

the language acquisition process, and choose to implement SIOP instruction into their


classrooms will no doubt help all students reach academic excellence, and in turn, reap the

benefits of immeasurable professional reward.


References

Carrasquillo, A. L. (1994). Linguistic foundations for teaching English as a second language. In

Teaching English as a second language. (pp. 3-31). New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2006). School Reform and standards-based education:

An instructional model for English language learners. Journal of Educational Research,

99(4), 195-211.

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2013). Making content comprehensible for English

learners: The SIOP model. Boston: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.

Echevarria, J., & Vogt, M. E. (2010). Using the SIOP model to improve literacy for English

learners. The NERA Journal, (46)1, 8-15.

Graves, M. F., Juel, C., Graves, B., & Dewitz, P. (2011). Teaching reading in the 21st century:

Motivating all learners (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson. (Referred to in the assignment schedule

as Graves)

Guarino, A. J., Echevarria, J., Short, D., Schick, J. E., Forbes, S., & Rueda, R. (2001). The

Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol. Journal of Research in Education, 11(1),

138-140.

Houck, B. (2006). Does the SIOP model show measurable academic success in English language

learners? ESL Globe 4(1). Retrieved on March 1, 2010 from

http://www.ncsu.edu/eslglobe/Volume4_No1/houck.htm

Kelman, J. (1996). Strategies of a monolingual ESL teacher ina bilingual classroom. TESOL

Journal, 5(3), 14-17.


Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.

Morrow, L.M., & Gambrell, L., Morrow, L.M., & Pressley, M. (2011). Best practices in literacy

instruction (4th ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2009a). The nation’s report card: Mathematics 2009

(NCES 2010-451). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of

Educational Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2009b). The nation’s report card: Reading 2009

(NCES 2010-458). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of

Educational Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.

Patton, C. (2006). Effectiveness of instruction for LEP students: Pullout vs. SIOP. ESL Globe,

3(2). Retrieved on March 1, 2013 from

http://www.ncsu.edu/eslglobe/Volume4_No1/patton.htm

Sharkey, J. (1994/1995). Helping students become better learners. TESOL Journal, 4(2), 18-23.

Short, D., & Echevarria, J. (2004). Teacher skills to support English language learners.

Educational Leadership, 62(4), 9-13.

Stoops-Verplaetse, L. (1998). How content teachers interact with English language learners.

TESOL Journal, 7(5), 24-28.

The National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction

Educational Programs (NCELA), 2012, retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=65


The National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction

Educational Programs (NCELA), 2011, retrieved from

http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/NCELAFactsheets/EL_Languages_2011.pdf

Thomas, W.P., & Collier, V.P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language

minority students’ long term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA, and Washington,

DC: Center on Research, Diversity & Excellence.

Hi, Jamie. Please find my comments in blue font.

Your score on your final paper is 20/20 pts. Please see the rubric below.

I look forward to your lesson. – Dr. Sanchez

Grading Rubric for Final Paper (20 pts. possible)

Length and submission compliance (paper includes statement of purpose, headings

& subheadings, adheres to outline, uses APA style correctly)……………………….. 4/4 pts.

Required number of references………..……………………………………………... 2/2 pts.

Quality of Research Summary……………………………………………………….. 5/5 pts.

Personal Critical Reaction: “I believe/disagree”……………………………………… 5/5 pts.

Mechanics (grammar, spelling)………………………………………………….…… 4/4 pts.

Documents

Web viewIn this paper, I first examine the demographic and academic trends of English Language Learners (ELLs) enrolled in the United States school system, highlighting the