Session 4: Content-based instruction
This week we learned about the different learning environments and strategies used to teach English learners, such as specially designed academic instruction in English (SDAIE) and content-based instruction-English language development (CBI-ELD). Thanks to this course, I am more familiar with these terms and how the teaching of English learners has changed so that now it is preferable to have them to be in sheltered instruction.
Amanda's reflection on Feb. 11, 2014:
I must admit that many of the acronyms used in this field are new to me. I believe I have a better grasp of the distinctions between SDAIE and CBI-ELD from reading the Diaz-Franco (2008) ch 5. SDAIE is also referred to as sheltered instruction and seems to be a way for content-teachers to present the content in an appropriate and accessible way within classrooms where they are aware of the language needs of their learners. I think that this is intended to be with a content teacher who has been trained to work with English Learners. They would need to be familiar with the best strategies for learning and also moderate their own speech and presentation of content so that it is clear and understandable to the ELs. By contrast CBI-ELD makes use of a language expert to be the ELD teacher presenting the content of a class outside of the course intended for native English speakers. The ELD teacher would use texts in that content to teach (possibly re-teach) the content class and in the meantime assist the students with their academic language and social communication development.
Regardless of the instructional methods or coteaching arrangement, a class that has students who are learning English is going to be a class that can use the strategies of the SIOP model. I have never seen this or do not remember ever using it in my teaching development, but I recognized some of the strategies and practices because they have been recommended as ways to increase student achievement, be they ELs or otherwise. Really I see this checklist as a way to improve the UDL (universal design for learning) that could greatly help struggling learners or students in special education. If teachers began their career understanding how to plan lessons that meet these guidelines I believe that they would see the best possible outcomes for their students' achievement. Many of the strategies increase retention, motivation & engagement, social skills, and student independence. It would be daunting to think about designing each lesson of each day to achieve "highly evident" for every item in the SIOP checklist. Instead we as professionals can consider the framework behind the components; then we can design our teaching to make room for language objectives.
I know that at the beginning of a unit on teaching I take some time each year to rethink what background knowledge my particular classes might bring with them. We did brainstorming and anticipatory sets for many of the lessons or units. My first job was in a district that pushed us to teach using cooperative learning, so many of the daily routines in my class included interacting with peers (shoulder partners, think-pair-share, round table discussion, etc) which seemed to boost student participation a great deal. I felt that my weakness would be in providing enough language supports and modifications of the texts, partly because the ELs' English Language Development teacher and I did not collaborate or have much communication about student progress.
As an English Language Arts content teacher, I am again convinced that this ELD knowledge is important to any content teacher. I am not sure how much other content areas are familiar with the Language Arts standards and standardized tests, but they can emphasize many of the academic skills talked about so far. Students are expected to read expository selections with little context and analyze for text features, vocab, and accompanying diagrams. If each class were teaching students about their textbooks I think students would be more comfortable working with these expository texts. I think it was in the Echiavarra chapter that they mention how much more difficult the expository texts are to comprehend because they do not follow a predictible structure like narrative. Every class in a student's day needs language objectives that help students work with these texts not only for knowledge of the subject but also English development & academic success.
Kaylee's reply:
I completely agree with your post!
The suggested strategies and practices of the SIOP checklist are important for all learners. Though we are not likely to reach "highly evident" in each lesson, every time, I do believe that as you grow as a teacher, some of the items on the checklist become more and more natural, as they are important strategies for every learner in every classroom.
I also agree that considering background knowledge is very beneficial and important. Especially with ELLs, anticipitory sets provide an opportunity to spark interest and understand if there are any varying cultural interpretations of the material/vocabulary. Building background knowledge really helps the students see why the material is important and address what their biggest interests are surrounding the material, which then will help the teacher plan a more relevant unit!
Dr. Cho's response:
Hi Amanda,
Thanks for your thoughtful post. You sound like a very reflective and passionate teacher. I understand that all those acronyms can be confusing at first, but not to worry! Once you hear (and read) about them more often, you will get used to the meanings of them (no need to memorize them though).
I also really like what you wrote: "It would be daunting to think about designing each lesson of each day to achieve "highly evident" for every item in the SIOP checklist. Instead we as professionals can consider the framework behind the components; then we can design our teaching to make room for language objectives."
I agree with you that all content teachers should make language objectives explicit not only for ELLs, but for ALL students. That is one of the essential components of SIOP---designing the language objectives---forms and functions---for each lesson so that academic language as well as content knowledge can be learned at the same time.
I once again agree with you that "this ELD knowledge is important to any content teacher," but unfortunately, in reality many content teachers (math, science, etc.) believe that it is not their responsibility to assist ELLs with language learning and that they are responsible just for teaching content knowledge/skills. However, without making the academic language more accessible to ELLs (and all learners), content instruction cannot be effective, either, as we all read/watched in this week's materials.
Thanks for sharing your insight as an ELA teacher,
Hyesun
Ryan Olesh
RE: Session 4 discussion questions RE: Session 4 discussion questions
Collapse
Parent Post
Question 1:What is your understanding of content-based instruction?
I am glad we as students get the practice to learn about SIOP and apply its principles into a teaching unit assignment later this semester. Admittedly I had to get a bit of extra help from the Diaz-Rico textbook from pages 315-320 as well as from the Internet to understand these concepts. Within pages 315-320, the authors describe a continuum of teaching language instruction, common particularly in the context of English language development in the U.S. On one end of the continuum, we have “submersion,” or “sink or swim” in terms of learning the target language in exclusion of the native language. Next we have “Transitional,” “Sheltered Instruction” and, on the opposite end of the spectrum, “Two-way immersion,” the last of which having the explicit goal of dual language proficiency. The Sheltered Instruction Observational Protocol (SIOP) is, to my understanding, more of a “transitional” model (though in the second video it was also used within a “dual model” classroom) whose goal is to integrate academic content: it is a “Content-based” approach. The priority of this curriculum is to integrate students ELL into the mainstream of school life and to minimize missing out on meeting state and/or Common Core teaching standards. In the context of the K-12 curriculum, this is, of course, an admirable goal. By the way, another term and acronym related to SIOP to remember is “Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English” (SDAIE).
The Sheltered Instruction Observational Protocol (SIOP) is, to my understanding, not a curriculum per se but, according to the first video, a “framework” of observable qualities of effective classroom teaching. I see two major themes with regards to the concept and aims of “Sheltered instruction”: (a) inclusion/integration involving a more “top-down” approach (as compared to a “bottom-up approach” - I saw these terms used in the article by Gibbons later in the syllabus – session 6) and a reduced emphasis on ‘remedial’ “bottom-up approach” work and (b) the importance of adaptations in order to make this integration possible.
With regards to (a) inclusion/integration, presumably, students would have as much opportunity as possible to take classes with “native” English-speaking students. The way in which students could be able to reconcile the “zone of proximal development” (in the words of Vygotsky) is not only through social interaction, for example discussion of ideas, but also through the adaptations proposed by Short and Echevarria, proponents of the model. In this way, students are integrated into the mainstream as much as possible and are not marginalized from the mainstream daily life of the school.
With regards to (b) adaptations, the authors provide numerous suggestions such as longer wait time provided and other ways to deconstruct concepts to provide for a sort-of scaffolding for student learning (“Key Components of SIOP”). These affordances strike me as being similar to Universal Design for Learning (UDL), which I think was developed / proposed around the early 1990s within the field of special education and I would suspect that Short and Echevarria, whose work came out later in that decade, were probably influenced by these ideas. The SIOP materials emphasize that students have varying experiences as they enter school such that these affordances need to be implemented differently for all students.
Question 2: Have you learned/heard about SIOP before? If so, when and where? How do you implement it into your teaching (if applicable)?
Before I took this class, I had heard about “sheltered instruction” through taking Dr. Markham’s Second Language Acquisition class, C&T 822; nevertheless, I had never heard about the SIOP model before taking this class.
I teach at the Applied English Center (AEC) here at KU. Teaching adult students in a college context is different in many ways than teaching students in a K-12 context. In many teaching contexts including the one I teach in, it would be logistically impractical, impossible, or just undesirable with regards to students to teach using content-based approaches or dual-language approaches. That is, just as business, math or science is not taught explicitly within most high school and university foreign language classes (though they may be used for the sake of example), content knowledge is generally not taught in the classes where I work. Skills, not content, are the focus for the most part. Moreover, though it admittedly would be ideal if more AEC teachers knew more of the languages spoken by students, since there are often a multitude of language backgrounds represented by the student body, it would be very difficult to implement a dual language model where I work.
Having said that, the aforementioned ‘adaptations’ such as allowing for wait time and providing communicative practice, within the SIOP model are definitely those that I implement as part of my work. Although rare within Intensive English Programs where I work, occasionally there are programs for more advanced students involving partnerships between language teachers and university content-area teachers involving content-based curricula, for example in the area of psychology. Again this is somewhat rare and more difficult to organize since it necessitates enough students wanting/willing to take a particular content-area class.
Question 3: In this week's readings, what are some instructional strategies you found useful in providing content-based instruction for ELLs?
I found all of the adaptations to be useful ideas. For example, allowing for students’ use of native language within the classroom, use of graphic organizers, building background, promoting higher-level thinking and reflection, and use of portfolios are all strategies I often use. Of course, these ideas are not necessarily unique to the trademarked SIOP program. I found that SIOP program is more reliant upon “top-down” / constructivist concepts and by its nature of being concerned with integration of the content areas, “bottom-up” strategies such as phonics and so forth are either treated a bit more incidentally as a side issue or not addressed clearly.
Questions I Still Have about SIOP and Closing Thoughts
Perhaps SIOP is just as useful for content-area non-language teachers as it is for language teachers. I am left with a few questions and hesitations, for example, (i) regarding the degree to which ‘pull out’ programs would be acceptable within the program, (ii) the degree to which “bottom-up” approaches could be used, and (iii) which contexts SIOP would be used. It seems to me that SIOP is more useful for particular contexts than others. For example, adult education for refugee students may be less well-served by the program. Elementary-level students may require more “pull out” time. Similarly, if I were studying a new language, say Chinese, as a true beginner, I would hope to have access to “bottom up” approaches such as drills to help me with basic vocabulary, pronunciation, tones, etc. before attempting to, say, give an extended speech on political affairs too early in my language development and stressing me out.
In my opinion, it does no good to subordinate such “bottom up” strategies as being somehow “inferior.” I would argue that teachers maintain an open-mind towards a variety of ‘approaches, ’methods,’ ‘frameworks,’ ‘protocols’ and so forth that could potentially be useful. As the Gibbons article we will read during week 6 suggests, there has been a bit of a ‘language war’ between more behaviorist “bottom-up” methods and constructivist, “top-down” methods. In my opinion, it is best to take the middle road and not lean to one side, as SIOP might, unless one were dealing with advanced students, in which case yeah, constructivism would be the way to go. Nevertheless, SIOP is indeed admirable in its encapsulation of many of the research-supported, common-sense ideas and theories in chapter 5 of Diaz-Rico; the SIOP framework indeed seems flexible although a lot seems a bit vague to me. It almost seems as if it is impossible for one single framework to address all the different ability levels and contexts of language learners.
In addition, my fourth (iv) point of confusion: I am a bit confused with regards to the focus on “comprehensible input’ and the goal of ‘90% to 100% of instruction’ (Making Content Comprehensible for English Language Learners: SIOP Model) being student-centered (working individually or in groups) with an avoidance of too much “teacher talk”. A common, seemingly-respected teaching mode is teacher questioning the students, for example to predict what might come next in a reading passage, wait time, and students responding. Would this count as “too much teacher talk” or “active student engagement”? I am hesitant to let, say, very elementary students work only with peers or individually for this much time.
I have a lot of unanswered question that I would need to have address before I would recommend all teachers or even just K-12 teachers to immediately adopt the trademarked SIOP program. Teachers are often asked to adopt new programs without truly understanding them or without their administrations truly understanding their teaching contexts. Teachers who have proven themselves to be competent should be treated as a knowledgeable professionals and allowed to maintain a degree of executive control in understanding the particular teaching context of the classroom and implementing an appropriate curriculum, using the trademarked SIOP program or whatever else is deemed to be best. Again, despite my questions and hesitations, which I am sure will be cleared up at some point, I am still glad to view ESOL through the lenses of the SIOP perspective through the thematic unit project this semester.
Reply Quote Email Author
Hide 3 replies
Message Unread
Mark as Unread
Message Not Flagged
Set Flag
3 months ago
Ryan Olesh
RE: Session 4 discussion questions RE: Session 4 discussion questions
Collapse
Parent Post
...I do sympathize with the ideas of "comprehensible imput" and the need to limit "teacher talk" in the sense that I remember a lot of long college-level lectures on Spanish grammar in the target language and truly I believe that this is not the best way to teach language.
Reply Quote Email Author
Message Unread
Mark as Unread
Message Not Flagged
Set Flag
3 months ago
Amanda Williams
RE: Session 4 discussion questions RE: Session 4 discussion questions
Collapse
Parent Post
Hi, Ryan! Thanks so much for your post. I think you and I took away some of the same impressions of the SIOP framework and its potential applications in different classrooms.
I noticed the alignment with UDL principles as well. I think many of the modifications and supports we give to ELs are similar if not the same as those chosen for students in special education. Strategies like increased wait time, graphic organizers and reduced writing on long assignments are notable for their effectiveness with learners. This is probably because the students (who receive ESL or SPED) do not necessarily feel like they can be successful with the content until they are allowed to activate their knowledge and get comfortable in practicing the skills with the class. Really for many students who struggle academically this is true, which is why it would beneficial to use the SIOP framework in traditional class settings. The exceptional students may find their peers seem to know what to do with the information given in class while they are struggling to keep up with all of the incoming information.
I noticed the language used in the checklist said things like " appropriate to students " several times and could see that it would be difficult to find a class where all assigned work is going to be appropriate to all the students in that class. Differentiation for ESL or SPED is essential, although in general education it is taking time for the teaching profession to catch on. A problem unique to ESL programs is that the students are at a variety of stages of acquisition with the English Language within their peer group and may not share the same L1. Therefore just drawing on the group's background knowledge is going to be complex and unpredictable, but it is still a positive step to take toward activating those connections, and giving students low-risk chances to socialize and share their own voice in class. What SIOP refers to as "concepts appropriate for age and educational background level of students" and "Adaptation of content (e.g., text, assignment) to all levels of student proficiency" to me speaks clearly of UDL, designing a curriculum that meets students at all levels of readiness so that they can learn in the Zone of Proximal Development.
So then I invision teams of curriculum planners and cross-content teaching making the SIOP framework more realistic overall. The way course content is organized, students are age-grouped, teacher case load, and the way students show proficiency is sometimes mandated at the district level in k-12 schools. Then, taking into account student diversity and learning styles the individual teacher can implement some of the specific strategies found in SIOP that are best for his/her learners.
Reply Quote
Hide 1 reply
Message Unread
Mark as Unread
Message Not Flagged
Set Flag
2 months ago
Ryan Olesh
RE: Session 4 discussion questions RE: Session 4 discussion questions
Collapse
Parent Post
Thank you for your reply. Yes, you summed up many of my favorable opinions towards SIOP as a few of my questions/concerns. SIOP has many great ideas in my opinion, but I feel it is a bit vague in the sense that, yeah, I'm unsure if whether "differentiation" in your words is possible.