Does
the SIOP Model Show Measurable Academic Success
in English Language Learners?
by
Beth Houck
Having
seen a SIOP presentation by Ivanna Thrower of Charlotte-Mecklinburg
Schools and having viewed a sheltered instruction ESL (English
as a Second Language) class given by Rachel Smith, ESL teacher
at Surry County High School, one should be convinced of the
value of this model. However, not all teachers have a favorable
view of sheltered instruction. SIOP is an acronym for the
Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol, whose first version
was created in the 1990’s to provide an alternative method
of making English language understandable as students were
being taught academic content (Echevarria, Vogt, and Short,
2004, p. 16). The need for using this model has become increasingly
evident as the academic scores of children whose first language
(L1) is not English have been significantly lower than those
of their peers whose native language is English. According
to Short and Echevarria (1999), regular classroom teachers
are at a loss for an effective way to help their English Language
Learners (ELLs), ignoring the language needs of these students
as they teach them academic content, while expecting the ESL
teacher to compensate for this deficiency during their pullout
time. However, not all regular classroom teachers are enthusiastic
about adding a language objective to their preparation time
for teaching content in all subject areas such as math, science,
social studies, as well as language arts. Many see this as
a time-consuming, added burden.
Nevertheless,
recent research into this subject seems to conclusively support
the idea that using the SIOP model significantly closes the
gap between the academic scores of native English speakers
and English Language Learners. Through the Center for Research
on Education, Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE), a seven-year
research project was conducted from 1996 to 2003 involving
four middle schools located in large metropolitan school districts—two
on the East coast and two on the West coast. Data from a writing
assessment based on the Illinois Measure of Annual Growth
in English Test was collected from these middle school children
in grades 6-8. This test measured writing skills in the following
five areas: language production, focus, support and elaboration,
organization, and mechanics. The test also provided an overall,
composite score. A pre-test was administered in the fall and
a post-test given in the spring of the 1998-1999 school year
to students whose teachers were trained in the SIOP model
(the treatment group) and to students whose teachers had no
knowledge of the SIOP model (the control group). The students
in the treatment group not only improved their overall scores
from the fall to the spring, but also out-performed the students
in the control classes in their post-test assessment. Even
ELLs with special needs improved their scores in both narrative
and expository writing (Echevarria, Vogt, and Short, 2004,
pp. 214-216). This research provided an incentive for educators
to take a closer look at the SIOP model for teaching ELLs.
A
synopsis of this study was also recorded on the web site for
the Center for Applied Linguistics. Using the SIOP model required
both teachers of ELLs and teachers of English-only students
to reflect upon their teaching methodology and identify areas
of improvement such as clearer language and content objectives,
understandable vocabulary used in teaching, a slower pace
of speaking, and alternative ways of grouping students and
measuring their comprehension. Regular classroom teachers
found that peer support from and collaboration with their
fellow teachers enhanced their own implementation of the SIOP
model. The resource teachers and reading specialists who worked
with ELLs also benefited from using SIOP techniques in planning
their lessons, evaluating their teaching methods, and coaching
others (The Effects of Sheltered Instruction on the Achievement
of Limited English Proficient Students, 2003).
Another
study conducted by the New York City Board of Education in
conjunction with the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL)
for the 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 school years further illustrated
the benefits of the SIOP model. As part of this research study,
more than 200 educators from thirty school districts, including
resource specialists, principals, and accelerated academic
English teachers for grades 4-9, were trained in the SIOP
model of instruction. The training consisted of incorporating
both content and language objectives into each lesson taught,
strategies for learning the English language, cooperative
learning techniques, and methods for integrating students’
background knowledge in order to lay a foundation for further
learning. Video sessions showing particular features of the
SIOP model also enhanced the training sessions. After implementing
this training in their pedagogy, teachers saw a measurable
improvement in the academic scores of their ELLs, especially
when comparing the two school years mentioned above (Professional
Development for New York City Schools on the SIOP Model, 2003).
In
2003, the Center for Applied Linguistics also worked with
English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) teachers and
administrators from Prince George County in Maryland’s
public schools to develop curriculum helps for teaching ELLs
in algebra, biology, and government high school courses. These
guides included both language and content objectives for every
lesson, as well as practical activities that developed skills
for mastering English academic language along with learning
the particular content in the subjects mentioned above. Once
again, test results confirmed an improvement in test scores
in those high school courses for ELLs whose teachers presented
the material using the SIOP model of instruction ( Prince
George’s County (MD) Sheltered Curriculum Development
Project, 2003).
As
clearly shown from the research cited above, the sheltered
instruction approach demonstrates that ELLs familiar with
academic language can more effectively focus on new content.
From this perspective, the SIOP method can be viewed not merely
as requiring additional preparation time nor a totally new
set of instructional techniques. Rather, an educator utilizing
this method will have found something that will benefit all
his or her students. Indeed, it is designed for flexibility
and can be implemented in a variety of classroom situations,
regardless of the composition of the student population. This
could include classes having a mixture of native and non-native
speakers of English; or classes with students who have little
formal schooling or minimal English proficiency learning with
those who are strong academically. It is especially useful
for educating students who are new arrivals to the United
States with those who have been here for some time (Echevarria,
Vogt, and Short, 2004, p. 15).
Therefore,
the classroom teacher who is willing to make a paradigm shift
in order to see his or her ELLs succeed will soon realize
that the more English a child understands, the greater will
be his or her knowledge of content and, therefore, academic
literacy. This is is the simplest explanation as to why the
SIOP model works.
SIOP
consists of eight components: preparation, building background,
comprehensible input, strategies, verbal interaction, practice
and application, lesson delivery, and various means of review
and assessment. Simply put, in order to make the content of
a lesson clearly understandable to an ELL, the classroom teacher
must keep in mind the following: 1) linking past learning
to the new concept; 2) using slower speech, visuals, real
objects, manipulatives, etc. to clarify meaning; 3) using
scaffolding techniques beginning with students’ current
levels of understanding and moving on to higher levels so
they gradually attain the skills to complete tasks on their
own; 4) providing more wait time for an ELL’s response,
as well as more opportunities for student talk rather than
teacher talk; 5) pacing the lesson delivery to match the students’
ability level; and 6) providing many avenues of assessing
knowledge such as group verbal responses, art projects, cartooning
a story if writing is cumbersome, as well as paper tests.
The SIOP model provides a basis for acquiring language through
meaningful activities and interaction with peers. It also
integrates listening, speaking, reading, and writing (Echevarria,
Vogt, and Short, 2004, pp. 10-13).
When
a school system promotes the SIOP model to be used by all
classroom teachers, there are several advantages for both
the ESL teacher and all students. At the elementary, middle
school, and high school levels, this teacher could act as
a guide and facilitator in teaching classroom educators the
SIOP model of making academic language more meaningful. This
would multiply the effectiveness of the ESL teacher as all
students would benefit from the SIOP model, not just those
pulled out of their classroom for a separate lesson. Over
time, the classroom teachers should then see a remarkable
improvement in test scores because they are making content
meaningful and are using alternative methods to assess the
academic progress of their ELLs. This, in turn, would promote
a closure of the academic gap between native and non-native
speakers of English. Likewise, the provisions of the No Child
Left Behind Act would more likely be satisfied, and more schools
would be rewarded with federal and state funds because they
have met adequate yearly progress goals.
All
students (K-12) would benefit from laying a foundation of
knowledge, scaffolding to build upon that knowledge, seeing
real-life objects or photos to illustrate the content being
taught, and from being allowed to express what has been internalized
through several different mediums—writing, drawing, oral
responses, kinesthetic responses, and more. Using the SIOP
model would definitely benefit all students in any classroom.
However,
it ought to be understood that this model is not promoting
a “cookie-cutter” type of instruction. The SIOP
model allows for unlimited creativity upon the part of the
classroom teacher. It does require the classroom teacher to
“think outside of the box” in preparing and delivering
her lessons for a particular subject area (Echevarria, Vogt,
and Short, 2004, p. 18). The most pronounced negative aspect
seems to be the stalwart reticence of classroom teachers’
willingness to try something new. However, the reward of witnessing
the academic success of ELLs, and possibly all students, far
outweighs any potential inconvenience that might be perceived
by these teachers.
References
Echevarria,
J., Vogt., M., and Short, D. J. (2004). Making Content Comprehensible
for English Learners. Boston : Pearson, Allyn, and Bacon Publishers.
The
Effects of Sheltered Instruction on the Achievement of Limited
English Proficient Students (2003). Office of Educational
Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education,
subcontract from the Center for Research on Educa- tion, Diversity,
and Excellence (CREDE). Online document: http://www.cal.org/crede/si.htm
Prince
George ’s County (MD) Sheltered Curriculum Development
Project (2003). Prince George’s County (MD) Public Schools.
Online document: http://www.cal.org/projects/PGCPSshelteredcurriculum.htm
Professional
Development for New York City Schools on the Sheltered Instruction
(SIOP) Model (2003). Division of English Language Learners
and Parent Out- reach, New York City Department of Education.
Online document: http://www.cal.org/projects/si/si-nyc/
Short,
D. J. and Echevarria, J. (1999). The Sheltered Instruction
Observation Protocol: A Tool for Teacher-Researcher Collaboration
and Professional Development. CAL Digest (EDO-FL-99-09). Online
document: http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/sheltered.html#Top
