jueves, 24 de marzo de 2011
The SIOP Model: Transforming the Experiences of College Professors(Part II. Strategies, Interaction, Practice/Application, Review/Assessment)
Diana M. Salcedo
Abstract
This paper, the second of two, shares the results of a study in a bilingual teacher’s college in Bogotá, Colombia when a group of professors implemented the sheltered instruction observation protocol (SIOP) in their classes. This educational model divided into eight components will be examined to determine what professors learn and found to be easy or challenging when using them in their lessons.
Keywords: sheltered instruction observation protocol (SIOP), English second language learners (ESLLs), content subject, grouping configurations, scaffolding strategies, libros de estudio de palabras.
Resumen
Este artículo, el segundo de dos, comparte los resultados de un estudio en una universidad de formación docente en educación Bilingüe en Bogotá, Colombia cuando un grupo de profesores implementó el modelo de investigación protegida (SIOP) en sus clases. Este modelo educativo dividido en ocho componentes será examinado para determinar que aprendieron los profesores y que encontraron fácil o desafiante cuando los utilizaron en sus lecciones.
Palabras claves: protocolo de observación de la instrucción protegida (SIOP), aprendiz de inglés como segunda lengua (ESLLs), materia de contenido, formas de agrupamiento, estrategias de andamiaje, libros de estudio de palabras.
The SIOP is an educational model and procedure which focuses on teaching language through a content-based approach. Those who designed it propose that educators give ESLLs a protected environment in which these students may safely build second language (L2) skills without abandoning their first language in the process. The protocol is designed to encourage students to employ their native language to support the learning process, particularly when moving from concrete to abstract knowledge. This model was developed from 1996 to 2003 by researchers of the Center for Applied Linguistics and California State University using data from exemplary US teachers. The protocol is composed of eight interrelated components: lesson preparation, building background, comprehensible input, strategies, interaction, practice/application, lesson delivery, and review/assessment.
The Center for Applied Linguistics (2010) defines SIOP as an instructional research-based and validated framework that trains and coaches teachers through concrete examples on key features of effective high-quality sheltered-teaching techniques.One of the main goals of this model is to help English learners to be successful in content classes and L2 skills. Additionally, it is used as an observation instrument to assess the implementation of effective strategies, their effects on students, and as a tool to be used by teachers in the planning and delivery of lessons. The model has been used and tested by elementary, secondary, two-way immersion, and bilingual teachers as well as school and district administrators (SIOP Institute, 2008).
The teacher’s college Institución Universitaria Colombo Americana has promoted the SIOP model as a framework for their professors’ class preparation since 2007. The model matches what the administration considers to be an effective teaching model. The school has used the content-based approach, which is the philosophical groundwork for SIOP, since 2004. The model is based on eight components which are applicable during lesson preparation as well as delivery. It has been demonstrated by researchers that students can learn English and content concepts much more easily when professors are implementing the model (Short & Echevarria, 1999).
Context
From its inception, the college’s administration and faculty have aimed at constructing a coherent program that included content in the fields of education, linguistics, research, history, and literature. In the first faculty meetings, one issue discussed was the importance of providing solid language skill acquisition to the students while teaching through content. Students have to graduate with a B2 Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) level, in accordance with the National Bilingual Program’s requirements for college students (Ministerio de Educación Nacional, 2007).The CEFR indicates that someone on the B2 level can understand the most important ideas of complex texts and technical conversations in his/her particular area of expertise. In addition, this person will be able to express his/her ideas on a high-intermediate level of fluency, capable of interacting with native speakers, and of generating detailed writings on a variety of topics (Council of Europe, 2001).
Currently, the college’s professors are teaching English skills through content, that is, subject courses such as educational research, language and society, or North American literature, as well as through language courses (English, writing, etc.) It has always been a challenge for the faculty to develop a project in which all agree upon a single method for accomplishing specific language and content objectives in the classrooms, which is why early in 2008 a group of professors and students began a research project to understand how the SIOP model could help the student body to accomplish language and content objectives in class.It was believed that the SIOP model would provide some key strategies that can scaffold student academic processes so that they would be well prepared as students and future teachers (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004).
This research project was carried out with five senior professors who voluntarily offered to participate. At the time, they were teaching content classes in the fields of education, research, and history. The classes observed were of groups from the fourth to eighth semester of study. One of these professors was a native English speaker while the others were non-native English speakers.
Area of Focus
This research is an attempt to describe the experience of college professors as they apply the SIOP model components (Strategies, Interaction, Practice/Application, Review /Assessment). The description will take into account the aspects of SIOP which professors were able to master. It will also define those factors which were both difficult and/or easy in the process of mastering those aspects.
Research Questions
1.What did professors learn using the SIOP model in their classes?
2.What were the components of the SIOP model which professors found more challenging to apply?
3.What were the components of the SIOP model which professors found easier to apply?
Data Collection and Data Sources
The data was collected by using five different sources:
a)Professor’s reflections: The research group organized meetings twice a month to analyze each of the SIOP model components. In these meetings, professors were asked to write down reflections about their experience with the model.
b)Video-tape checklists: Classroom visits were made by researchers in order to observe how professors were using the SIOP model. To gather data, researchers used the checklist provided in Echevarria, Vogt, and Short (2004). This checklist is composed of 30 features organized around the 8 SIOP components. Each item provides a score from 0 to 4, ranging from highly evident, and somewhat evident, to not evident.
c)Video and tape transcriptions (from both meetings and classes): All meetings were recorded and transcribed by the researchers. Afterwards, the transcriptions were analyzed in order to collect data. All classes were videotaped (Mills, 2003).
d)Surveys: During the process, the researchers collected some data through surveys which they sent to professors via e-mail. The professors answered the research questions based on their experience with using the SIOP components in their lessons.
e)Lesson plans: All professors participating in the research project handed in lesson plans (of videotaped classes) to the researchers.
Data Analysis and Interpretation
To analyze the collected data, the researchers identified and compared the items of the SIOP components through professors’ reflections, video-tape checklists, tape transcriptions, surveys, and lesson plans (Mills, 2003). For the first part of this study, the research took into account lesson preparation, building background, and comprehensible input: the first three components of the SIOP model.
Strategies
One of the most important aspects for English language learners to master is the use of strategies. It is essential because it improves students’ learning, comprehension, retaining and recalling of information (Holleran, 2003) According to the SIOP, teachers must plan and deliver their classes in order for students to use metacognitive, cognitive and social strategies. Another aspect that teachers must include when using strategies is the use of scaffolding techniques and questions that promote critical thinking. Additionally, in order to make the learning process an effective endeavor, educators must integrate the explicit training of strategies. As a result, students will become effective and strategic learners (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004).
What has been easy for professors when using strategies in their classes? After analyzing the data, it is justifiable to affirm that all teachers use strategies. Additionally, I noticed that professors used a variety of learning strategies suggested for the SIOP such as note-taking, getting the gist, rehearsal strategies and summarizing.
Professors’ reflections showed that the cognitive strategies they used the most were previewing stories to be read and filling-out graphic organizers. There was evidence showing that the metacognitive strategies most used were: matching ways of thinking with problem-solving activities within particular learning situations; and monitoring one’s own comprehension through self-questioning. Besides these, as evidence that affective strategies were being applied, researchers found that most professors have their students interact in group discussions and cooperative learning groups as one professor mentioned in a reflection:
I try to use cognitive and affective strategies in my classes through different tasks and group or pair work. Actually, I think I use these the most because I find them easier than the metacognitive ones.
According to the surveys and the checklists, professors used scaffolding techniques in their classes. All of them affirmed that they apply verbal scaffolding when they paraphrase students’ answers:
I usually paraphrase students’ utterances and reinforce contextual definitions, doing verbal scaffolding.
I think that verbal scaffolding is the one (method) we tend to use in a more spontaneous way, especially when it comes to eliciting or brainstorming information. This can be more necessary with shy students who often provide very short answers, and even for the high-risk taker who may need to be encouraged to elaborate more on his or her responses. By being just a little more verbally demanding, we are providing students with opportunities to have higher levels of proficiency.
I use verbal scaffolding when I paraphrase what students say in class.
Support and assistance was provided to the whole class. There was verbal scaffolding (prompting, questioning). A lot of teacher student interaction.
When talking about procedural scaffolding it was found that two professors made students work in groups that were organized depending on the students’ level:
I usually group weak students with more experienced ones (procedural scaffolding).
Procedural scaffolding is used when I make students work in groups according to their English level, students who have a high level with the ones that have a low level.
Instructional scaffolding was used by two professors:
I usually use graphic organizers (instructional scaffolding).
I use instructional scaffolding when I make students write graphic organizers to summarize texts.
Questioning techniques is another strategy that educators use in their classes. After analyzing the checklists, the lesson plans and the surveys, I may affirm that ÚNICA professors use different levels of high order questions. For instance, one professor asked his class:
¿Considera que los mitos nos ayudan a conservar nuestra cultura? ¿Por qué? [Do you consider that legends help us to preserve our culture? Why?]
Some of the professors are specific about how they make the questions they use in class:
In order to answer the high order question stated in the lesson plan, I just ask it directly to the students at the end of the lesson. Two educators explained how they used some higher-order questions in their classes and gave examples. The first asked the following question to his class in order to build background on the topic related to changes in teenagers’ bodies. The second was to use the information gained from the first in their future roles as teachers:
Could you define puberty, adolescence, growth spurt, formal operations and the ecological approach? How can you make the most out of the topic of puberty (teenage changes) in an academic setting? I asked this question to use the information they [students] have learned during the lesson in their roles as future teachers...The questions I use are related to knowledge, comprehension and evaluation. The knowledge questions are related to understanding concepts and key words, the comprehension questions are addressed when students have to do conceptual mapping to summarize texts, and the evaluation questions are answered by students when they have discovered the main difficulties they face with their English.
Often in whole or small group settings, while discussing the topic, I pose the questions at the beginning of the class… and then try to return to them at the close of the class as a review. With them, I can assess their level of comprehension.
One professor explained how she goes from one questioning level to others:
This lesson’s example has an evaluative question that guides the entire session: How do you know when an argument is a good one? But I begin with a knowledge-level question: Have you ever tried to convince your parents of something and lost? Have you won? Then I move to an analysis level question– How did you lose/win? With this, students are forced to identify the component that worked. Later, students have to define the criteria for a good argument… which moves their thinking to an evaluative level.
To conclude the high order questions the professors used the most were comprehension and evaluation questions. In second place were the knowledge and analysis questions. The next two quotes exemplify this fact:
I ask mostly comprehension, analysis and evaluative questions. Many times, I need to back up a bit and also ask application-level questions. Since my students are quite advanced I tend to assume they understand more than they probably do. By asking application level questions I can also have a peek at their level of comprehension.
I frequently use knowledge, comprehension and analysis types of questions.
Only one professor included higher-order questions related to application:
The questions I asked my students were intended to help them apply/compare the reading content to their reality as English learners and future teachers. The goal was to have the students examine in detail the assigned reading against their own second language learning process. First of all, they had to identify their stage of second language acquisition and support their answers with examples or evidence. To do this, they had to analyze each element, making up the various stages of second language acquisition before deciding where they should be categorized.
What has been challenging for professors when using strategies in their classes? I did not find data to support that professors were challenged in this regard.
What have professors learned when using strategies in their classes? Even thought professors applied strategies in their classes, in the checklists and transcription comments there is evidence showing that professors did not teach them explicitly in class as the following comments made by observers show:
Although Ss [students] are provided with opportunities to use affective and cognitive strategies, there is no evidence of explicit teaching. (In other words strategies are not mentioned or referred to during the course of the lesson).
There are opportunities for Ss to use strategies, but these are not taught explicitly. T [the professor] doesn’t mention or refer to strategies explicitly over the lesson.
Interaction
This SIOP component suggests the use and incorporation of techniques to students participate actively with their partners through a variety of grouping structures. Teachers who use interaction in their lessons facilitate students’ growth in functional language skills such as arguing, persuading, confirming or disagreeing (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004). Using this component increases students’ motivation because students become active participants in their own learning process (Blumenfeld, Kempler &Krajcik , 2006). In addition, it increases students’ achievement and peer work because it rewards students depending on their performance of their group. (Slavin, 1995).
What has been easy for professors when using Interaction in their classes? After analyzing the checklists, the reflections and the transcriptions of the meetings I conclude that it was easy for professors to make students interact in the classrooms:
I consider “group configuration” along with “opportunities for interaction” the two less difficult elements to put into practice.
Although at the beginning of the lesson I dominate the class by providing leading whole group discussions for building background and motivating the students… The rest of the time, I have students working in pairs or small groups to practice apply and create a process and/or a product.
Regarding opportunities for interaction I can affirm that professors found easy to use this strategy according to the checklists and the surveys:
I try to elicit information from students, so they extend their own contributions. I use phrases like (and… what do you really mean by…? That´s right but what if ….?. “Could you go further in the idea? Could you say the same in your own words?). I also encourage students to respectfully ask these types of questions to their classmates.
I apply some techniques for interaction taken from the SIOP book, for example I ask questions such as: What do you mean by…?, What else…?, How do you know… ?. Besides I always ask students to clarify their answers with examples.
Other professors used different strategies from the ones the SIOP proposes to make students interact in class:
…my students are always encouraged to voice their view points on the issues presented in class. I provide in-class oral interaction. Some written interaction is provided in class, and I have found Moodle a great [online] forum for students to support each other as they work towards improving their English writing and thinking skills.
I often ask students to teach each other through a jigsaw approach or just to explain something they understand to another peer who is still confused.
Professors used different kinds of grouping configurations that help students be more secure when speaking in class as this tape transcription, taken from a meeting, shows:
Professor 1 [P1]: Why do you make them work in groups?
Professor 2[P2]: [It is] Less threatening [for students]. That applies to all ages. Basically because they come to class with the material. So, it is their own vision what they expose in discussion. Here, I believe in activities at university level it is able to open up the discussion because they are fearless…
Another professor explained why using different grouping structures is essential in classrooms with second language learners:
In a classroom where we have language learners I think it is very important to vary the grouping configurations specially to break the class into smaller groups by doing that you maximize the opportunity for people to talk to express their points of views and you know, some people feel more comfortable working in small groups. On the contrary, if you ask like the whole class what do you think about this it’s usually the same people who participate.
The following reflection shows the most common grouping configurations professors used:
Having in mind that the university life is part of our daily life, I try to have my students interact a lot by means of pair or group work. I also try to use different ways of grouping configurations like “low” and “high” students [level], best friends, random configuration, etc.
Related to using L1 to clarify content concepts I can affirm that most professors do it whenever they see it is needed as this tape transcription and reflection show:In the presentation students were advised to use a piece of “La Vida es Sueño de Calderon de la Barca”. “Ellos encontraron en español un perfecto clip pero en Español.”. [They found a video clip in Spanish]. They should talk about Calderon de La Barca. So, I have to change it to Spanish.
I do allow my students to use L1 as they need to in order to clarify concepts. I will also, sometimes provide a brief word or explanation in L1 to help my students efficiently transfer knowledge between both linguistic systems.
What has been challenging for professors when using interaction in their classes? Some professors noticed that students like to work with the same partners, so when working with different classmates, they do not feel comfortable:It is difficult to join people who don´t like to work with certain partners. So I let them work with the same partners.
I think the most difficult part has been getting students to work with other students they are not normally used to interacting with…When I do so, I see reluctance with certain students and I think they end up not sharing very much. Sometimes they just seem frozen into their groups.
On the contrary, professors affirmed that when students worked with the same partners, they were unfocused:Some groups get distracted, so I have to ask them how work is going on… but if you think a little more you get it…you find appropriate strategies to make students work effectively…
Also when the students get into groups they sometimes socialized and lost their focus. This demands a bit more monitoring on my part.
A professor gave a piece of advice to avoid difficulties when making students work in groups: In terms of what might be considered difficult, I think that the key factor to avoid "difficulties" is to give clear instructions and walk the students through a sort of rehearsal in preparation to complete a given assignment.
What have professors learned when using Interaction in their classes? Waiting time is an element professors took into account and learned when using the interaction component in their classes. Teachers found out, that the SIOP model emphasizes, that the length of students talking time should be longer than the amount of time teachers talk in a lesson:Reading the chapter, I noticed that sometimes we tent to speak a lot in class. To fill the gaps [students leave when there is silence in the classroom]. It is related to wait time too Sometimes, we are not patient, we ask a question and then, maybe the student is thinking about it …we don`t let the student finish it, we finish the sentence.
Regarding the “wait time” subcomponent, I consider I should be more aware of the amount of time I am giving my students to answer. I may be throwing a question and answering the question myself, or interrupting my students too soon, so a constant reflection on the amount of time my students need to give a better answer should be paramount.
One professor realized about the importance of reducing the amount of time s/he used to make presentations in order for students to interact more:
…I’ve also learned to keep my presentations to twenty minutes or under to maximize their (students) attention and then quickly move to interaction.
Practice/Application
This is another significant element that the SIOP model proposes in order for students to utilize their skills to guarantee mastery of content concepts. Besides that, the incorporation of this component in classes help students to link the information acquired with concrete experiences (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004). Students connect the past learning with new information effectively when teachers promote the use of the four language skills during hands-on activities (Kristmanson, Dicks & Bouthillier, 2009).
What has been easy for professors when using Practice/Application(PA) in their classes? When talking about easy aspects the data showed that most professors applied hands - on activities. Some examples of the use of this component are role plays, web pages, portfolios, folders and radio programs:
…Since they [students] are beginners in the second semester, I usually review with them an audio book base on Halloween horror. So…they have to create their own mysterious book …I collect those papers, so they give me lost of drafts until finally they have a folder with all the drafts. Last week they went for the first time to the multimedia lab to start writing all those products on a web page… The idea is that all students check all web pages and observe what students do during the semester.
All professors declared that it was easy to integrate the four language skills when using the practice and application component:
The easier element to apply would be the integration of language skills, since I usually have my students get involved in tasks that allow them to speak, write, listen and read, so that their learning is fostered.
It is easy to integrate all four language skills in each lesson.
It is really easy for me to find activities where students are supposed to speak, write, read and listen.
One of these professors explained how he carried out one of the activities that included the four language skills:
…and as you can see the integration of the four skills goes like this: writing because they [students] have to go online to post, the second is reading because they have to read their partners drafts…the idea is to read as many as they can and they have to select at least one and in the classroom we do the discussion part which involves speaking and listening.
What has been challenging for professors when using PA in their classes? During one of the research meetings some professors affirmed that it was difficult to include all the subcomponents of PA in all classes:
P1:“But it is not necessary for the whole lesson because it is difficult sometimes to find every single component, so I don’t know if you see it…
P2: I agree with P1 maybe not in every single activity we’re gonna have all the components but at some point during the semester we’re gonna have one component, or the second one or the third. It depends on the nature of the activity”.
Regarding this conversation another professor agreed as this piece of a reflection exemplifies:It`s difficult to include hands on activities every single class.
Using hands-on activities in classes was challenging for some professors because they thought it is necessary to be creative when using this component as this reflection shows:
It has been challenging for me to create manipulatives or hands-on activities for the classes I am teaching. I am not a very creative person by nature, so I sometimes would like to bring more appealing activities to class, but I often fail.
Although using this component was challenging for some professors, they also claimed that they used it their classes:
I know that—in most cases-- a teacher´s imagination is his/her only limitation. In my personal case, I usually try really hard to find hands-on materials and/or manipulatives to enhance the learning experience. Of course, the types of content being taught as well as the learning objectives play a key role in the number of choices available.
Finding meaningful activities when using the practice and application component was something difficult for a professor:
I consider that trying to find meaningful activities for students to practice sociolinguistic issues, it is not easy.
One instructor talked about the lack of time when working with the PA:
... This is challenging for me though because the amount of time my students have during the semester is very limited in order to have them learn new processes of thinking and producing each step of the research process in one semester especially if their skills in academic writing are limited…
What have professors learned when using PA in their classes? A professor talked about the need of having students to practice and apply what they have learned in class and s/he mentioned the practice and application component as being an important tool for encouraging students to do so:
I have been aware of the pressing need to have our students apply and practice newly acquired skills. The fact that I have been teaching the use of the SIOP model has made more aware of this need.
Other professor learned what hands – on and manipulatives were:
I thought that manipulative or hands-on activities were, kind of, handcraft tasks. I now know that having students write a reflective paragraph in class, for example, can be a manipulative or hands-on activity…
Other professor said that he realized that practice and application was possible to use in university settings:
I learned that it is possible to have hands on activities in college classes.
Lesson Delivery
In order to improve the academic success of English learners, the SIOP model includes this component as a key element of its protocol. It suggests strategies that help teachers to support the content objectives, improve learners’ time on-task and have an appropriate pace throughout the lesson. By implementing these techniques, teachers will use the class period effectively, balance the pace of the information presented and its application in meaningful ways when delivering classes (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004).
What has been easy for professors when delivering classes with the SIOP model? After analyzing the data I am able to draw the conclusion that most professors used content and language objectives in their classes:
Students were provided with content and language objectives explicitly, so they were able to know what the lesson was headed at.
I think that both the content and language objectives were supported through different activities. First of all, the students were told what they were expected to learn, and they did mainly cooperative work to meet the class objectives.
…I can say that making sure our students accomplish these objectives will show our pupils progress in their learning process. Something that I have learned from the SIOP model is the importance of having objectives that are possible to measure. When planning my classes I take into account the activities I need to accomplish those objectives…
The previous examples also illustrate how professors took into consideration explicitness, achievability and grouping structures as techniques to guarantee the effectiveness of content and language objectives in class.
Content and language objectives stated orally and in written help teachers and students keep in mind the direction of the class. In this regard, a professor pointed out that even if the objectives he planned were appropriate, he could have highlighted them more:
I think objectives were supported well through the lesson although more emphasis on them could have been made (by mentioning them more often; for example), since this was a two-day lesson plan and students might have forgotten the objectives by the second day.
Regarding students’ engagement the majority of professors used different ways to keep students interested as a crucial strategy when delivering their classes:
In my opinion students should participate actively in class, they should be the ones who speak, write, produce, create, think, reflect etc... As we have talked in our SIOP meetings we learn when we do things, experience is very important in the learning process. We never forget about the things we experience.
After giving instructions to students on what to do in groups, I think they were constantly engaged in the activities by reading, speaking, writing and listening to others.
The students were engaged all the time. At first, they worked by themselves and gradually they began doing group work. The students knew what they had to do, and they dealt with assignments that were challenging but achievable.
What has been challenging for professors when delivering classes with the SIOP model? According to the data collected, professors had difficulties related to the pace of the lesson: At times the amount of time given to students for finishing an activity didn’t seem enough, so while some students were explaining and already engaged in an activity, others were still preparing.
In a reflection one professor affirmed that regularly he had problems calculating the degree of difficulty when he planned a task, so he does not know how much time students are going to spend when doing an activity:
Concerning students´ pace, I have to say that I frequently struggle with considering the extent to which my students will find a task difficult. In others words, I may prepare an activity and think my students will take little time to go through it, but they find it difficult and take more time than expected. This, of course, does not allow me to go on as planned. However, I am of the opinion that if students are actively engaged in an activity that was first thought to take less time, they should be allowed to finish it, even if that means to make sudden changes to the lesson plan. If students are doing well, why stop them?
What have professors learned about delivering classes with the SIOP model? Stating measurable objectives when delivering lessons is one of the strategies that a professor learned from the SIOP model. This is exemplified in the following quote taken from a survey:
Something that I have learned from the SIOP model is the importance of having objectives that are possible to measure.
Pacing is an aspect in LD that another professor has learned. He considered that he tented to present the information in a fast way when delivered his lessons:
My newest learning has been with pacing. Since I tend to work mostly with masters level students … working with undergraduate students has shown me that I move too quickly sometimes…
Review/Assessment
According to the SIOP review and assessment (RA) are processes that sheltered teachers should plan and apply throughout lessons. Paraphrasing, Work Study Books, games and Outcome Sentences are some of the techniques that it suggests in order for teachers to review key concepts and vocabulary in class. Curtain (2004) states that effective assessment is an ongoing process where teachers use multiple indicators to get information about students’ performance. The SIOP proposes formal and informal methods to assess students’ comprehension and learning to give regular and supportive feedback to students.
What has been easy for professors when using RA in their classes? The video-tape checklists, transcriptions and lesson plans show that the majority of professors reviewed and/or assess key vocabulary and concepts throughout the lessons. The techniques they applied the most were Word Study Books, paraphrasing, role plays and games:
“After students read an article about physical and intellectual development in adolescence, students are organized in groups of three. Professor asks them to write five content words and five words that are not related to the content. Students write the definition of these words using dictionaries…Professor picks up the lists and gives each group a different list of words. Per group one student explains the meaning of the word in order for the members to guess it…Each group wins points depending on the words they guess…Then students answer and discuss questions about adolescence…Finally students role play situations to show what they can do as teachers to take advantage of those changes in class… Through the class professor motivates students to use the vocabulary they learned in a charade game”
Some professors encouraged their students to use individual Word Study Books. The SIOP defines Word Study Books as a student-made personal notebook where students keep track of frequently words and concepts” (p.146):
Professor asked them (students) to write the words they didn’t understand. They had to write an example and the phonetic transcription of the words…They can draw pictures to memorize them. Students should organize these new words by topic I meant according to the readings assigned.
Professor checked the Word Study Books at the end of the class.
Assess objectives is another technique that a professor used:
At the end of the lesson, we went through the objectives and students reflected and said if such objectives had been met and why. This also allowed me to realize if the goals had been appropriately supported and, from what my students responded orally in class, I think they were.
Use a variety of formal and informal assessment tools to evaluate students are other techniques professors incorporated:
Professor uses homework to give feedback...Professor makes a pop quiz about the key vocabulary students keep in the word study book.
Students were assessed throughout their portfolios and audio books.
During the lesson assessment was conducted throughout discussion, oral group responses. Also professor used thumbs up/thumbs down to know if students agree/disagree…
Students will individually write a three-paragraphed reflection (introduction, body, and conclusion) about the role of code switching as a marker of identity.
In groups students analyze some samples of speech in monolingual communities by mentioning the social factors related to the linguistic choices people make when communicating. }
What has been challenging for professors when using RA in their classes? There was not data to support that professors had difficulties in this regard.
What have for professors learn when using RA in their classes? There was a professor who used the wrap up sentences technique, recommended in the SIOP, in one of the lessons:
Professor gave students a piece of paper. Professor asked students to write sentences using these post sentences starters: Today…I learned…I wonder…I think…I discovered…I still want to know…Students read what they wrote in the papers.
Conclusions
In a meeting on strategies, professors talked about the importance of making explicit references to strategies during class time. They came to the conclusion that it is essential to explain the strategies used in class because ÚNICA students are going to be teachers and they will need to be clearly aware of the implementation of strategies in order to be able to use them on their own.
Regarding interaction professors agreed that it is very important to vary the grouping configurations to maximize the opportunity for students to participate. These interactions should be meaningful and centered in the quantity and the quality of English taking into account students’ proficiency levels and learning styles.
The professors believed that using the PA components help students to strength and consolidate the knowledge they get in the classroom where materials should offer opportunities for meaningful content and language practice in and after class. They consider that the SIOP does not sufficiently emphasize the use of technology which provides the access to authentic sources to enhance students’ learning and interaction with multiple audiences.
With reference to the LD component professors taught lessons where the content and language objectives engaged students in active learning tasks and allow them to practice the target language. Additionally professors come up to the conclusion that they should deliver the classes according to the nature of the class and the students’ needs.
Finally, it was observed that professors employed a variety of review and assessment strategies to monitor students learning and report students’ progress. Professors pointed out that to guarantee a comprehensive understanding and review of key concepts and vocabulary they allow students access to review core vocabulary in each language during instructional time.
References
Blumenfeld, Kempler &Krajcik. (2006) Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In R.K Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of Learning Sciences (pp. 475-488). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Center for Applied Linguistics. (2010). Sheltered instruction observation protocol. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/siop/about/index.html
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf
Curtain, H. (2004). Language and children: Making the match (3rd ed.). New York: Pearson.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2004). Making content comprehensible for English language learners: The SIOP model (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Kristmanson, Dicks & Bouthillier. (2009). Pedagogical Applications of a Second Language Writing Model at Elementary and Middle School Levels. Writing and Pedagogy, pp. 38-62. Retrieved from http://www.unbf.ca/L2/Research/current/documents/EquinoxarticleECRI.pdf
Mills, G. (2003). Action Research: A guide for the teacher researcher (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.
Ministerio de Educación Nacional (MEN). (enero, 2007). Se inicia la consolidación de la enseñanza de inglés. Revolución Educativa Colombia Aprende. 8(1), pp. 2-3. Retrieved from http://www.mineducacion.gov.co/cvn/1665/printer-115872.html
Short, D. & Echevarria, J. (1999). The sheltered instruction observation protocol: A tool for teacher-researcher collaboration and professional development. ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics, Washington DC. Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/2000-3/protocol.htm
SIOP Institute. (2008). Abstracts of SIOP research studies presented at the 2008 American Educational Research Association conference & upcoming research studies on SIOP. Retrieved from http://www.siopinstitute.net/research.html
Slavin, Robert (1995). Research on Cooperative Learning and Achievement: What We Know, What We Need to Know. Office Of Educational Research and Improvement, U S Department of Education (No. OERI-R-117-D40005. Retrieved from http://socialfamily535.pbworks.com/f/slavin1996[1].pdf
Diana M. Salcedo
Abstract
This paper, the second of two, shares the results of a study in a bilingual teacher’s college in Bogotá, Colombia when a group of professors implemented the sheltered instruction observation protocol (SIOP) in their classes. This educational model divided into eight components will be examined to determine what professors learn and found to be easy or challenging when using them in their lessons.
Keywords: sheltered instruction observation protocol (SIOP), English second language learners (ESLLs), content subject, grouping configurations, scaffolding strategies, libros de estudio de palabras.
Resumen
Este artículo, el segundo de dos, comparte los resultados de un estudio en una universidad de formación docente en educación Bilingüe en Bogotá, Colombia cuando un grupo de profesores implementó el modelo de investigación protegida (SIOP) en sus clases. Este modelo educativo dividido en ocho componentes será examinado para determinar que aprendieron los profesores y que encontraron fácil o desafiante cuando los utilizaron en sus lecciones.
Palabras claves: protocolo de observación de la instrucción protegida (SIOP), aprendiz de inglés como segunda lengua (ESLLs), materia de contenido, formas de agrupamiento, estrategias de andamiaje, libros de estudio de palabras.
The SIOP is an educational model and procedure which focuses on teaching language through a content-based approach. Those who designed it propose that educators give ESLLs a protected environment in which these students may safely build second language (L2) skills without abandoning their first language in the process. The protocol is designed to encourage students to employ their native language to support the learning process, particularly when moving from concrete to abstract knowledge. This model was developed from 1996 to 2003 by researchers of the Center for Applied Linguistics and California State University using data from exemplary US teachers. The protocol is composed of eight interrelated components: lesson preparation, building background, comprehensible input, strategies, interaction, practice/application, lesson delivery, and review/assessment.
The Center for Applied Linguistics (2010) defines SIOP as an instructional research-based and validated framework that trains and coaches teachers through concrete examples on key features of effective high-quality sheltered-teaching techniques.One of the main goals of this model is to help English learners to be successful in content classes and L2 skills. Additionally, it is used as an observation instrument to assess the implementation of effective strategies, their effects on students, and as a tool to be used by teachers in the planning and delivery of lessons. The model has been used and tested by elementary, secondary, two-way immersion, and bilingual teachers as well as school and district administrators (SIOP Institute, 2008).
The teacher’s college Institución Universitaria Colombo Americana has promoted the SIOP model as a framework for their professors’ class preparation since 2007. The model matches what the administration considers to be an effective teaching model. The school has used the content-based approach, which is the philosophical groundwork for SIOP, since 2004. The model is based on eight components which are applicable during lesson preparation as well as delivery. It has been demonstrated by researchers that students can learn English and content concepts much more easily when professors are implementing the model (Short & Echevarria, 1999).
Context
From its inception, the college’s administration and faculty have aimed at constructing a coherent program that included content in the fields of education, linguistics, research, history, and literature. In the first faculty meetings, one issue discussed was the importance of providing solid language skill acquisition to the students while teaching through content. Students have to graduate with a B2 Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) level, in accordance with the National Bilingual Program’s requirements for college students (Ministerio de Educación Nacional, 2007).The CEFR indicates that someone on the B2 level can understand the most important ideas of complex texts and technical conversations in his/her particular area of expertise. In addition, this person will be able to express his/her ideas on a high-intermediate level of fluency, capable of interacting with native speakers, and of generating detailed writings on a variety of topics (Council of Europe, 2001).
Currently, the college’s professors are teaching English skills through content, that is, subject courses such as educational research, language and society, or North American literature, as well as through language courses (English, writing, etc.) It has always been a challenge for the faculty to develop a project in which all agree upon a single method for accomplishing specific language and content objectives in the classrooms, which is why early in 2008 a group of professors and students began a research project to understand how the SIOP model could help the student body to accomplish language and content objectives in class.It was believed that the SIOP model would provide some key strategies that can scaffold student academic processes so that they would be well prepared as students and future teachers (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004).
This research project was carried out with five senior professors who voluntarily offered to participate. At the time, they were teaching content classes in the fields of education, research, and history. The classes observed were of groups from the fourth to eighth semester of study. One of these professors was a native English speaker while the others were non-native English speakers.
Area of Focus
This research is an attempt to describe the experience of college professors as they apply the SIOP model components (Strategies, Interaction, Practice/Application, Review /Assessment). The description will take into account the aspects of SIOP which professors were able to master. It will also define those factors which were both difficult and/or easy in the process of mastering those aspects.
Research Questions
1.What did professors learn using the SIOP model in their classes?
2.What were the components of the SIOP model which professors found more challenging to apply?
3.What were the components of the SIOP model which professors found easier to apply?
Data Collection and Data Sources
The data was collected by using five different sources:
a)Professor’s reflections: The research group organized meetings twice a month to analyze each of the SIOP model components. In these meetings, professors were asked to write down reflections about their experience with the model.
b)Video-tape checklists: Classroom visits were made by researchers in order to observe how professors were using the SIOP model. To gather data, researchers used the checklist provided in Echevarria, Vogt, and Short (2004). This checklist is composed of 30 features organized around the 8 SIOP components. Each item provides a score from 0 to 4, ranging from highly evident, and somewhat evident, to not evident.
c)Video and tape transcriptions (from both meetings and classes): All meetings were recorded and transcribed by the researchers. Afterwards, the transcriptions were analyzed in order to collect data. All classes were videotaped (Mills, 2003).
d)Surveys: During the process, the researchers collected some data through surveys which they sent to professors via e-mail. The professors answered the research questions based on their experience with using the SIOP components in their lessons.
e)Lesson plans: All professors participating in the research project handed in lesson plans (of videotaped classes) to the researchers.
Data Analysis and Interpretation
To analyze the collected data, the researchers identified and compared the items of the SIOP components through professors’ reflections, video-tape checklists, tape transcriptions, surveys, and lesson plans (Mills, 2003). For the first part of this study, the research took into account lesson preparation, building background, and comprehensible input: the first three components of the SIOP model.
Strategies
One of the most important aspects for English language learners to master is the use of strategies. It is essential because it improves students’ learning, comprehension, retaining and recalling of information (Holleran, 2003) According to the SIOP, teachers must plan and deliver their classes in order for students to use metacognitive, cognitive and social strategies. Another aspect that teachers must include when using strategies is the use of scaffolding techniques and questions that promote critical thinking. Additionally, in order to make the learning process an effective endeavor, educators must integrate the explicit training of strategies. As a result, students will become effective and strategic learners (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004).
What has been easy for professors when using strategies in their classes? After analyzing the data, it is justifiable to affirm that all teachers use strategies. Additionally, I noticed that professors used a variety of learning strategies suggested for the SIOP such as note-taking, getting the gist, rehearsal strategies and summarizing.
Professors’ reflections showed that the cognitive strategies they used the most were previewing stories to be read and filling-out graphic organizers. There was evidence showing that the metacognitive strategies most used were: matching ways of thinking with problem-solving activities within particular learning situations; and monitoring one’s own comprehension through self-questioning. Besides these, as evidence that affective strategies were being applied, researchers found that most professors have their students interact in group discussions and cooperative learning groups as one professor mentioned in a reflection:
I try to use cognitive and affective strategies in my classes through different tasks and group or pair work. Actually, I think I use these the most because I find them easier than the metacognitive ones.
According to the surveys and the checklists, professors used scaffolding techniques in their classes. All of them affirmed that they apply verbal scaffolding when they paraphrase students’ answers:
I usually paraphrase students’ utterances and reinforce contextual definitions, doing verbal scaffolding.
I think that verbal scaffolding is the one (method) we tend to use in a more spontaneous way, especially when it comes to eliciting or brainstorming information. This can be more necessary with shy students who often provide very short answers, and even for the high-risk taker who may need to be encouraged to elaborate more on his or her responses. By being just a little more verbally demanding, we are providing students with opportunities to have higher levels of proficiency.
I use verbal scaffolding when I paraphrase what students say in class.
Support and assistance was provided to the whole class. There was verbal scaffolding (prompting, questioning). A lot of teacher student interaction.
When talking about procedural scaffolding it was found that two professors made students work in groups that were organized depending on the students’ level:
I usually group weak students with more experienced ones (procedural scaffolding).
Procedural scaffolding is used when I make students work in groups according to their English level, students who have a high level with the ones that have a low level.
Instructional scaffolding was used by two professors:
I usually use graphic organizers (instructional scaffolding).
I use instructional scaffolding when I make students write graphic organizers to summarize texts.
Questioning techniques is another strategy that educators use in their classes. After analyzing the checklists, the lesson plans and the surveys, I may affirm that ÚNICA professors use different levels of high order questions. For instance, one professor asked his class:
¿Considera que los mitos nos ayudan a conservar nuestra cultura? ¿Por qué? [Do you consider that legends help us to preserve our culture? Why?]
Some of the professors are specific about how they make the questions they use in class:
In order to answer the high order question stated in the lesson plan, I just ask it directly to the students at the end of the lesson. Two educators explained how they used some higher-order questions in their classes and gave examples. The first asked the following question to his class in order to build background on the topic related to changes in teenagers’ bodies. The second was to use the information gained from the first in their future roles as teachers:
Could you define puberty, adolescence, growth spurt, formal operations and the ecological approach? How can you make the most out of the topic of puberty (teenage changes) in an academic setting? I asked this question to use the information they [students] have learned during the lesson in their roles as future teachers...The questions I use are related to knowledge, comprehension and evaluation. The knowledge questions are related to understanding concepts and key words, the comprehension questions are addressed when students have to do conceptual mapping to summarize texts, and the evaluation questions are answered by students when they have discovered the main difficulties they face with their English.
Often in whole or small group settings, while discussing the topic, I pose the questions at the beginning of the class… and then try to return to them at the close of the class as a review. With them, I can assess their level of comprehension.
One professor explained how she goes from one questioning level to others:
This lesson’s example has an evaluative question that guides the entire session: How do you know when an argument is a good one? But I begin with a knowledge-level question: Have you ever tried to convince your parents of something and lost? Have you won? Then I move to an analysis level question– How did you lose/win? With this, students are forced to identify the component that worked. Later, students have to define the criteria for a good argument… which moves their thinking to an evaluative level.
To conclude the high order questions the professors used the most were comprehension and evaluation questions. In second place were the knowledge and analysis questions. The next two quotes exemplify this fact:
I ask mostly comprehension, analysis and evaluative questions. Many times, I need to back up a bit and also ask application-level questions. Since my students are quite advanced I tend to assume they understand more than they probably do. By asking application level questions I can also have a peek at their level of comprehension.
I frequently use knowledge, comprehension and analysis types of questions.
Only one professor included higher-order questions related to application:
The questions I asked my students were intended to help them apply/compare the reading content to their reality as English learners and future teachers. The goal was to have the students examine in detail the assigned reading against their own second language learning process. First of all, they had to identify their stage of second language acquisition and support their answers with examples or evidence. To do this, they had to analyze each element, making up the various stages of second language acquisition before deciding where they should be categorized.
What has been challenging for professors when using strategies in their classes? I did not find data to support that professors were challenged in this regard.
What have professors learned when using strategies in their classes? Even thought professors applied strategies in their classes, in the checklists and transcription comments there is evidence showing that professors did not teach them explicitly in class as the following comments made by observers show:
Although Ss [students] are provided with opportunities to use affective and cognitive strategies, there is no evidence of explicit teaching. (In other words strategies are not mentioned or referred to during the course of the lesson).
There are opportunities for Ss to use strategies, but these are not taught explicitly. T [the professor] doesn’t mention or refer to strategies explicitly over the lesson.
Interaction
This SIOP component suggests the use and incorporation of techniques to students participate actively with their partners through a variety of grouping structures. Teachers who use interaction in their lessons facilitate students’ growth in functional language skills such as arguing, persuading, confirming or disagreeing (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004). Using this component increases students’ motivation because students become active participants in their own learning process (Blumenfeld, Kempler &Krajcik , 2006). In addition, it increases students’ achievement and peer work because it rewards students depending on their performance of their group. (Slavin, 1995).
What has been easy for professors when using Interaction in their classes? After analyzing the checklists, the reflections and the transcriptions of the meetings I conclude that it was easy for professors to make students interact in the classrooms:
I consider “group configuration” along with “opportunities for interaction” the two less difficult elements to put into practice.
Although at the beginning of the lesson I dominate the class by providing leading whole group discussions for building background and motivating the students… The rest of the time, I have students working in pairs or small groups to practice apply and create a process and/or a product.
Regarding opportunities for interaction I can affirm that professors found easy to use this strategy according to the checklists and the surveys:
I try to elicit information from students, so they extend their own contributions. I use phrases like (and… what do you really mean by…? That´s right but what if ….?. “Could you go further in the idea? Could you say the same in your own words?). I also encourage students to respectfully ask these types of questions to their classmates.
I apply some techniques for interaction taken from the SIOP book, for example I ask questions such as: What do you mean by…?, What else…?, How do you know… ?. Besides I always ask students to clarify their answers with examples.
Other professors used different strategies from the ones the SIOP proposes to make students interact in class:
…my students are always encouraged to voice their view points on the issues presented in class. I provide in-class oral interaction. Some written interaction is provided in class, and I have found Moodle a great [online] forum for students to support each other as they work towards improving their English writing and thinking skills.
I often ask students to teach each other through a jigsaw approach or just to explain something they understand to another peer who is still confused.
Professors used different kinds of grouping configurations that help students be more secure when speaking in class as this tape transcription, taken from a meeting, shows:
Professor 1 [P1]: Why do you make them work in groups?
Professor 2[P2]: [It is] Less threatening [for students]. That applies to all ages. Basically because they come to class with the material. So, it is their own vision what they expose in discussion. Here, I believe in activities at university level it is able to open up the discussion because they are fearless…
Another professor explained why using different grouping structures is essential in classrooms with second language learners:
In a classroom where we have language learners I think it is very important to vary the grouping configurations specially to break the class into smaller groups by doing that you maximize the opportunity for people to talk to express their points of views and you know, some people feel more comfortable working in small groups. On the contrary, if you ask like the whole class what do you think about this it’s usually the same people who participate.
The following reflection shows the most common grouping configurations professors used:
Having in mind that the university life is part of our daily life, I try to have my students interact a lot by means of pair or group work. I also try to use different ways of grouping configurations like “low” and “high” students [level], best friends, random configuration, etc.
Related to using L1 to clarify content concepts I can affirm that most professors do it whenever they see it is needed as this tape transcription and reflection show:In the presentation students were advised to use a piece of “La Vida es Sueño de Calderon de la Barca”. “Ellos encontraron en español un perfecto clip pero en Español.”. [They found a video clip in Spanish]. They should talk about Calderon de La Barca. So, I have to change it to Spanish.
I do allow my students to use L1 as they need to in order to clarify concepts. I will also, sometimes provide a brief word or explanation in L1 to help my students efficiently transfer knowledge between both linguistic systems.
What has been challenging for professors when using interaction in their classes? Some professors noticed that students like to work with the same partners, so when working with different classmates, they do not feel comfortable:It is difficult to join people who don´t like to work with certain partners. So I let them work with the same partners.
I think the most difficult part has been getting students to work with other students they are not normally used to interacting with…When I do so, I see reluctance with certain students and I think they end up not sharing very much. Sometimes they just seem frozen into their groups.
On the contrary, professors affirmed that when students worked with the same partners, they were unfocused:Some groups get distracted, so I have to ask them how work is going on… but if you think a little more you get it…you find appropriate strategies to make students work effectively…
Also when the students get into groups they sometimes socialized and lost their focus. This demands a bit more monitoring on my part.
A professor gave a piece of advice to avoid difficulties when making students work in groups: In terms of what might be considered difficult, I think that the key factor to avoid "difficulties" is to give clear instructions and walk the students through a sort of rehearsal in preparation to complete a given assignment.
What have professors learned when using Interaction in their classes? Waiting time is an element professors took into account and learned when using the interaction component in their classes. Teachers found out, that the SIOP model emphasizes, that the length of students talking time should be longer than the amount of time teachers talk in a lesson:Reading the chapter, I noticed that sometimes we tent to speak a lot in class. To fill the gaps [students leave when there is silence in the classroom]. It is related to wait time too Sometimes, we are not patient, we ask a question and then, maybe the student is thinking about it …we don`t let the student finish it, we finish the sentence.
Regarding the “wait time” subcomponent, I consider I should be more aware of the amount of time I am giving my students to answer. I may be throwing a question and answering the question myself, or interrupting my students too soon, so a constant reflection on the amount of time my students need to give a better answer should be paramount.
One professor realized about the importance of reducing the amount of time s/he used to make presentations in order for students to interact more:
…I’ve also learned to keep my presentations to twenty minutes or under to maximize their (students) attention and then quickly move to interaction.
Practice/Application
This is another significant element that the SIOP model proposes in order for students to utilize their skills to guarantee mastery of content concepts. Besides that, the incorporation of this component in classes help students to link the information acquired with concrete experiences (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004). Students connect the past learning with new information effectively when teachers promote the use of the four language skills during hands-on activities (Kristmanson, Dicks & Bouthillier, 2009).
What has been easy for professors when using Practice/Application(PA) in their classes? When talking about easy aspects the data showed that most professors applied hands - on activities. Some examples of the use of this component are role plays, web pages, portfolios, folders and radio programs:
…Since they [students] are beginners in the second semester, I usually review with them an audio book base on Halloween horror. So…they have to create their own mysterious book …I collect those papers, so they give me lost of drafts until finally they have a folder with all the drafts. Last week they went for the first time to the multimedia lab to start writing all those products on a web page… The idea is that all students check all web pages and observe what students do during the semester.
All professors declared that it was easy to integrate the four language skills when using the practice and application component:
The easier element to apply would be the integration of language skills, since I usually have my students get involved in tasks that allow them to speak, write, listen and read, so that their learning is fostered.
It is easy to integrate all four language skills in each lesson.
It is really easy for me to find activities where students are supposed to speak, write, read and listen.
One of these professors explained how he carried out one of the activities that included the four language skills:
…and as you can see the integration of the four skills goes like this: writing because they [students] have to go online to post, the second is reading because they have to read their partners drafts…the idea is to read as many as they can and they have to select at least one and in the classroom we do the discussion part which involves speaking and listening.
What has been challenging for professors when using PA in their classes? During one of the research meetings some professors affirmed that it was difficult to include all the subcomponents of PA in all classes:
P1:“But it is not necessary for the whole lesson because it is difficult sometimes to find every single component, so I don’t know if you see it…
P2: I agree with P1 maybe not in every single activity we’re gonna have all the components but at some point during the semester we’re gonna have one component, or the second one or the third. It depends on the nature of the activity”.
Regarding this conversation another professor agreed as this piece of a reflection exemplifies:It`s difficult to include hands on activities every single class.
Using hands-on activities in classes was challenging for some professors because they thought it is necessary to be creative when using this component as this reflection shows:
It has been challenging for me to create manipulatives or hands-on activities for the classes I am teaching. I am not a very creative person by nature, so I sometimes would like to bring more appealing activities to class, but I often fail.
Although using this component was challenging for some professors, they also claimed that they used it their classes:
I know that—in most cases-- a teacher´s imagination is his/her only limitation. In my personal case, I usually try really hard to find hands-on materials and/or manipulatives to enhance the learning experience. Of course, the types of content being taught as well as the learning objectives play a key role in the number of choices available.
Finding meaningful activities when using the practice and application component was something difficult for a professor:
I consider that trying to find meaningful activities for students to practice sociolinguistic issues, it is not easy.
One instructor talked about the lack of time when working with the PA:
... This is challenging for me though because the amount of time my students have during the semester is very limited in order to have them learn new processes of thinking and producing each step of the research process in one semester especially if their skills in academic writing are limited…
What have professors learned when using PA in their classes? A professor talked about the need of having students to practice and apply what they have learned in class and s/he mentioned the practice and application component as being an important tool for encouraging students to do so:
I have been aware of the pressing need to have our students apply and practice newly acquired skills. The fact that I have been teaching the use of the SIOP model has made more aware of this need.
Other professor learned what hands – on and manipulatives were:
I thought that manipulative or hands-on activities were, kind of, handcraft tasks. I now know that having students write a reflective paragraph in class, for example, can be a manipulative or hands-on activity…
Other professor said that he realized that practice and application was possible to use in university settings:
I learned that it is possible to have hands on activities in college classes.
Lesson Delivery
In order to improve the academic success of English learners, the SIOP model includes this component as a key element of its protocol. It suggests strategies that help teachers to support the content objectives, improve learners’ time on-task and have an appropriate pace throughout the lesson. By implementing these techniques, teachers will use the class period effectively, balance the pace of the information presented and its application in meaningful ways when delivering classes (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004).
What has been easy for professors when delivering classes with the SIOP model? After analyzing the data I am able to draw the conclusion that most professors used content and language objectives in their classes:
Students were provided with content and language objectives explicitly, so they were able to know what the lesson was headed at.
I think that both the content and language objectives were supported through different activities. First of all, the students were told what they were expected to learn, and they did mainly cooperative work to meet the class objectives.
…I can say that making sure our students accomplish these objectives will show our pupils progress in their learning process. Something that I have learned from the SIOP model is the importance of having objectives that are possible to measure. When planning my classes I take into account the activities I need to accomplish those objectives…
The previous examples also illustrate how professors took into consideration explicitness, achievability and grouping structures as techniques to guarantee the effectiveness of content and language objectives in class.
Content and language objectives stated orally and in written help teachers and students keep in mind the direction of the class. In this regard, a professor pointed out that even if the objectives he planned were appropriate, he could have highlighted them more:
I think objectives were supported well through the lesson although more emphasis on them could have been made (by mentioning them more often; for example), since this was a two-day lesson plan and students might have forgotten the objectives by the second day.
Regarding students’ engagement the majority of professors used different ways to keep students interested as a crucial strategy when delivering their classes:
In my opinion students should participate actively in class, they should be the ones who speak, write, produce, create, think, reflect etc... As we have talked in our SIOP meetings we learn when we do things, experience is very important in the learning process. We never forget about the things we experience.
After giving instructions to students on what to do in groups, I think they were constantly engaged in the activities by reading, speaking, writing and listening to others.
The students were engaged all the time. At first, they worked by themselves and gradually they began doing group work. The students knew what they had to do, and they dealt with assignments that were challenging but achievable.
What has been challenging for professors when delivering classes with the SIOP model? According to the data collected, professors had difficulties related to the pace of the lesson: At times the amount of time given to students for finishing an activity didn’t seem enough, so while some students were explaining and already engaged in an activity, others were still preparing.
In a reflection one professor affirmed that regularly he had problems calculating the degree of difficulty when he planned a task, so he does not know how much time students are going to spend when doing an activity:
Concerning students´ pace, I have to say that I frequently struggle with considering the extent to which my students will find a task difficult. In others words, I may prepare an activity and think my students will take little time to go through it, but they find it difficult and take more time than expected. This, of course, does not allow me to go on as planned. However, I am of the opinion that if students are actively engaged in an activity that was first thought to take less time, they should be allowed to finish it, even if that means to make sudden changes to the lesson plan. If students are doing well, why stop them?
What have professors learned about delivering classes with the SIOP model? Stating measurable objectives when delivering lessons is one of the strategies that a professor learned from the SIOP model. This is exemplified in the following quote taken from a survey:
Something that I have learned from the SIOP model is the importance of having objectives that are possible to measure.
Pacing is an aspect in LD that another professor has learned. He considered that he tented to present the information in a fast way when delivered his lessons:
My newest learning has been with pacing. Since I tend to work mostly with masters level students … working with undergraduate students has shown me that I move too quickly sometimes…
Review/Assessment
According to the SIOP review and assessment (RA) are processes that sheltered teachers should plan and apply throughout lessons. Paraphrasing, Work Study Books, games and Outcome Sentences are some of the techniques that it suggests in order for teachers to review key concepts and vocabulary in class. Curtain (2004) states that effective assessment is an ongoing process where teachers use multiple indicators to get information about students’ performance. The SIOP proposes formal and informal methods to assess students’ comprehension and learning to give regular and supportive feedback to students.
What has been easy for professors when using RA in their classes? The video-tape checklists, transcriptions and lesson plans show that the majority of professors reviewed and/or assess key vocabulary and concepts throughout the lessons. The techniques they applied the most were Word Study Books, paraphrasing, role plays and games:
“After students read an article about physical and intellectual development in adolescence, students are organized in groups of three. Professor asks them to write five content words and five words that are not related to the content. Students write the definition of these words using dictionaries…Professor picks up the lists and gives each group a different list of words. Per group one student explains the meaning of the word in order for the members to guess it…Each group wins points depending on the words they guess…Then students answer and discuss questions about adolescence…Finally students role play situations to show what they can do as teachers to take advantage of those changes in class… Through the class professor motivates students to use the vocabulary they learned in a charade game”
Some professors encouraged their students to use individual Word Study Books. The SIOP defines Word Study Books as a student-made personal notebook where students keep track of frequently words and concepts” (p.146):
Professor asked them (students) to write the words they didn’t understand. They had to write an example and the phonetic transcription of the words…They can draw pictures to memorize them. Students should organize these new words by topic I meant according to the readings assigned.
Professor checked the Word Study Books at the end of the class.
Assess objectives is another technique that a professor used:
At the end of the lesson, we went through the objectives and students reflected and said if such objectives had been met and why. This also allowed me to realize if the goals had been appropriately supported and, from what my students responded orally in class, I think they were.
Use a variety of formal and informal assessment tools to evaluate students are other techniques professors incorporated:
Professor uses homework to give feedback...Professor makes a pop quiz about the key vocabulary students keep in the word study book.
Students were assessed throughout their portfolios and audio books.
During the lesson assessment was conducted throughout discussion, oral group responses. Also professor used thumbs up/thumbs down to know if students agree/disagree…
Students will individually write a three-paragraphed reflection (introduction, body, and conclusion) about the role of code switching as a marker of identity.
In groups students analyze some samples of speech in monolingual communities by mentioning the social factors related to the linguistic choices people make when communicating. }
What has been challenging for professors when using RA in their classes? There was not data to support that professors had difficulties in this regard.
What have for professors learn when using RA in their classes? There was a professor who used the wrap up sentences technique, recommended in the SIOP, in one of the lessons:
Professor gave students a piece of paper. Professor asked students to write sentences using these post sentences starters: Today…I learned…I wonder…I think…I discovered…I still want to know…Students read what they wrote in the papers.
Conclusions
In a meeting on strategies, professors talked about the importance of making explicit references to strategies during class time. They came to the conclusion that it is essential to explain the strategies used in class because ÚNICA students are going to be teachers and they will need to be clearly aware of the implementation of strategies in order to be able to use them on their own.
Regarding interaction professors agreed that it is very important to vary the grouping configurations to maximize the opportunity for students to participate. These interactions should be meaningful and centered in the quantity and the quality of English taking into account students’ proficiency levels and learning styles.
The professors believed that using the PA components help students to strength and consolidate the knowledge they get in the classroom where materials should offer opportunities for meaningful content and language practice in and after class. They consider that the SIOP does not sufficiently emphasize the use of technology which provides the access to authentic sources to enhance students’ learning and interaction with multiple audiences.
With reference to the LD component professors taught lessons where the content and language objectives engaged students in active learning tasks and allow them to practice the target language. Additionally professors come up to the conclusion that they should deliver the classes according to the nature of the class and the students’ needs.
Finally, it was observed that professors employed a variety of review and assessment strategies to monitor students learning and report students’ progress. Professors pointed out that to guarantee a comprehensive understanding and review of key concepts and vocabulary they allow students access to review core vocabulary in each language during instructional time.
References
Blumenfeld, Kempler &Krajcik. (2006) Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In R.K Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of Learning Sciences (pp. 475-488). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Center for Applied Linguistics. (2010). Sheltered instruction observation protocol. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/siop/about/index.html
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf
Curtain, H. (2004). Language and children: Making the match (3rd ed.). New York: Pearson.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2004). Making content comprehensible for English language learners: The SIOP model (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Kristmanson, Dicks & Bouthillier. (2009). Pedagogical Applications of a Second Language Writing Model at Elementary and Middle School Levels. Writing and Pedagogy, pp. 38-62. Retrieved from http://www.unbf.ca/L2/Research/current/documents/EquinoxarticleECRI.pdf
Mills, G. (2003). Action Research: A guide for the teacher researcher (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.
Ministerio de Educación Nacional (MEN). (enero, 2007). Se inicia la consolidación de la enseñanza de inglés. Revolución Educativa Colombia Aprende. 8(1), pp. 2-3. Retrieved from http://www.mineducacion.gov.co/cvn/1665/printer-115872.html
Short, D. & Echevarria, J. (1999). The sheltered instruction observation protocol: A tool for teacher-researcher collaboration and professional development. ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics, Washington DC. Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/2000-3/protocol.htm
SIOP Institute. (2008). Abstracts of SIOP research studies presented at the 2008 American Educational Research Association conference & upcoming research studies on SIOP. Retrieved from http://www.siopinstitute.net/research.html
Slavin, Robert (1995). Research on Cooperative Learning and Achievement: What We Know, What We Need to Know. Office Of Educational Research and Improvement, U S Department of Education (No. OERI-R-117-D40005. Retrieved from http://socialfamily535.pbworks.com/f/slavin1996[1].pdf
miércoles, 9 de marzo de 2011
On-task behavior within SIOP Model in college students
On-task behavior within SIOP Model in college students
Daniel Pardo Vásquez
Abstract
Throughout this paper, the sheltered instruction observation protocol (SIOP) is analyzed and described, focusing on on-task behaviour of first semester students at Universidad Colombo Americana (UNICA). This SIOP Model is an approach designed to teach second language. It includes academic content and controls all the aspects of pedagogy, including behavior. The use of this model has been successful in schools in the United States and Japan. However, the study of behaviour management within this model has not been studied enough. That is why the analysis and study of this approach in the area of behaviour is important to determine the efficiency of this Model and how it works, especially in a college setting.
Introduction
Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (better known as the SIOP model) is an approach to help students learn academic material and a second language at the same time. Books, articles, and research studies referring to this model affirm the effectiveness and success it has had in foreign countries. However, there is not enough information showing how this methodology works in settings where the mother tongue is spoken. There are no research studies addressing how SIOP controls and manages on-task behavior issues in class. Thus, I have a strong interest in knowing whether this teaching model limits itself to academic issues or also addresses behavioral issues.
As a method, the SIOP model has been applied in schools with significant, positive results, (Echevarria, 2000). At UNICA University, this model is being applied at a college level. Although the results of valuable research studies are not public yet, based on my own experience as a student and as a student-teacher, I can assert that it has a favorable impact on the quality of the education offered there. However, the research done until now regarding on-task behavior has been limited.
My interest in describing and analyzing this method may support other future studies, but at this point in another area of pedagogy that is as important as the academic field: behaviorism. I strongly believe that first semester is a good starting point, due to the transition that students have to face changing from a school to a college settings. This transition is a strong change in their lives. At a college level, rules, procedures, and thought processes are extremely modified as the structure of learning becomes more flexible and permissive. That is why this study is focused on students in this educational setting.
Hopefully, my research can help form a better idea of how SIOP model can not only help students academically and linguistically, but also as a tool to manage, control, and improve on-task behavior in class. Through the description of the management of this approach in the field of behavior, this research study expects to contribute other future studies within the SIOP model but in a different context and with a different type of population.
Area of focus statement
The purpose of this study is to understand and describe various strategies applied in the SIOP Model in order to improve attendance, misbehavior, and work accomplishment.
Research Questions
a. How does SIOP Model manage students’ behavior in class?
b. How does SIOP Model control and encourage students’ attendance?
c. How does SIOP Model help students efficiently accomplish their work?
d. Does the SIOP model influence attendance?
Theoretical framework
As the number of English learners increases in ESL schools throughout the United States, a group of researchers and educators, looked for effective ways to help students succeed in academic settings as they are becoming bilingual. After systematic observation, the SIOP model developed as the result of the work of Jana Echevarria, MaryEllen Vogt and Deborah J. Short. The model was implemented in different schools where immigrants are considerable in number.
This model supports teachers in planning and delivering classes that promote students’ second language development, while making school subjects comprehensible for students of other languages. (Echevarria, 2000)
The SIOP Model includes eight correlated components:
Lesson preparation: Concerns what teachers have to take into account when preparing lessons [such as clearly defining content objectives for students, clearly defining language objectives for students, content concepts appropriate for age and educational background, supplementary materials designing a clear and meaningful lesson (e.g., graphs, models, visuals), and adaptation of content (e.g., text, assignments for all levels of student proficiency). Meaningful activities that integrate lesson concepts should also be included (e.g., surveys, letter writing, simulations, and constructing models) with language practice opportunities for reading, writing, listening, and/or speaking. (Echevarria, 2000)
Building Background: Here, teachers need to consider what concepts should explicitly be linked to students' background experiences, links explicitly made between past learning experiences and new concepts, where key vocabulary should be emphasized (e.g., introduced, written, repeated, and highlighted for students to see). (Echevarria, 2000)
Comprehensible Input: Here, teachers learn what kind of appropriate speech to use properly for students‘ proficiency level (e.g., slower rate, careful enunciation, and simple sentence structure for beginners). The teacher must present a clear explanation of the academic task, and a variety of techniques should be used to make content concepts clear (e.g., modeling, visuals, hands-on activities, demonstrations, gestures, body language). (Echevarria, 2000)
Strategies: There should be ample opportunities for students to use strategies and consistent use of scaffolding techniques (incrementing the difficulty of the task step by step) throughout the lesson, thus assisting and supporting student understanding. A variety of question types should be used, including those that promote higher-order thinking skills throughout the lesson (e.g., literal, analytic, and interpretive questions). (Echevarria, 2000)
Interaction: Here, teachers should offer frequent opportunities for interaction and/or discussion between teacher/student and among students with the purpose of encouraging elaborate responses on lesson concepts. Grouping supports language and content objectives of the lesson. A sufficient “wait time” for student response should be allowed, and ample opportunities for students to clarify key concepts in L1 (as needed with aide, peer, or L1 text) (Echevarria, 2000).
Practice/Application: Teachers should think of hands-on materials and/or other resources for students to practice using new content knowledge, activities for students to apply content and language knowledge in the classroom. Finally activities that integrate all language skills (reading, writing, listening, and speaking) should be planned (Echevarria, 2000).
Lesson Delivery: Teachers need to identify content objectives clearly supported by lesson delivery and language objectives. Also, students should be engaged approximately 90-100% of the period and the pacing of the lesson should be appropriate for the students’ ability level (Echevarria, 2000).
Review/Assessment: Here, teachers must provide comprehensive review of key vocabulary, comprehensive review of key content concepts, and regular feedback to students on their output. To end the lesson, teachers must assess student comprehension and learning of all lesson objectives. (e.g., spot checking, group response) (Echevarria, 2000).
In the classrooms, many "behavior problems" are often the result of the lack of understanding by the students in relation to what they are supposed to do. (Echevarria, et al., 2000. p. 67). The techniques the SIOP promotes provide meaningful lessons for students learning English and content areas, including adapting the content to students' proficiency levels; highlighting key vocabulary; using scaffolding techniques and providing opportunities for students to use their own strategies; and providing activities that allow students to apply newly acquired content and language knowledge. (Echevarria, et al., 2000. p. 70). Besides, the use of these eight SIOP components mentioned above allows teachers to design and deliver lessons that address the academic and linguistic requirements of English learners keeping in mind that students must not only English vocabulary and grammar but also the English used in core content classes (Echevarria, et al., 2000. p. 8).
In addition, effective classes within the SIOP are characterized by a variety of grouping structures such as individual work, peers, triads, small groups, cooperative learning groups, and the whole-group. Groups also vary according to language proficiency, language background, and/or ability (Echevarria, et al., 2000. p. 104). The variety of groups helps to maintain students' interest and varying group structures increases the chance that a student's preferred mode of instruction will be matched (Echevarria, et al., 2000. p. 104).
Review of Related Literature
There are many controversial points of view regarding discipline. Based on my experience observing classes at some schools and at a college, I have noticed the discord among teachers and students as to whether on-task behavior is directly related to academic proficiency. Some teachers assert that on-task behavior is strongly related to students’ academic development, and this way teacher can control and manage behavior through on-task progression. However, on the other hand, students and a few teachers do not agree. They see on-task behavior and academic proficiency as unrelated elements. Therefore, to discern what is true, it is necessary to analyze disciplinary practices to determine if these help teachers control students’ behavior in class or, on the contrary natural class flow is enough to manage and control any kind of on-task behavior.
In order to create an ideal environment for learning, it is essential for institutions to provide rules and clear bylaws that may be regulated. The majority of the reports, reviews and studies through this literature review support five practices that have been studied for a long time in different educational centers of The United State and European countries, such as England, France, and Germany. The practices will serve as parameters to support this research study. Punishment, supporting stimulus, reconciliation, socio-cultural understanding enhancement, and classroom control are the variables that serve as reference. If SIOP is utilized, but is not accompanied by these practices, is it enough to control and manage on-task behavior, or, on the contrary, is their application necessary?
Disciplinary Practices:
Punishment
Cotton and Savard (1982) have thought that punishment can be a good method of remediating misbehavior at an individual level, improving conduct in the classroom, as long as this is established ahead of time and it does not include acts such as physical punishment, insults or anything that goes against to the rights of the student (Allen, 1981; Cotton and Savard, 1982; Doyle, 1989; and Miller, 1986). A good example of this is suspension. The programs of suspension that include guides, support, planning change, and opportunities to create new skills have demonstrated to be effective regarding the improvement of students’ behavior. Nevertheless, the punishments are often applied incorrectly. In these cases, they have the opposite effect. However, with SIOP this type of control is apparently unnecessary because students are involved in a variety of scaffolding and dynamic activities that are of their interest, thus avoiding misbehavior.
To solve the problem regarding incorrect application of punishment, a disciplinary system called Assertive Discipline, developed by Lee and Marlene Canter (1976) was developed. This system helps students to understand the consequences of their behavior; "As its basic premise the reinforcement of appropriate behavior" (Render, Padilla, and Krank, 1989, p. 609).This disciplinary approach is a good tool in order to use punishment in a suitable way. Thus, the next requirement of assertive discipline is followed: corrective action, when rules are broken.
Additionally, to facilitate the use of Assertive Discipline, punishment consequences should be established for classroom management to be assertive, for instance, a method of rewards and punishments are devised by the teacher to let students know when they have performed correctly or incorrectly. Moreover, more severe penalties should be given to students who keep making unacceptable choices.
Supporting stimulus
Miller (1986) asserts that students frequently need motivation to improve their behavior as well as a guide on how to do this. The key to “Assertive Discipline” is that there should be positive reinforcements from the teacher, including lots of praise (Canter, 1988). According to Hitz and in contrast to Canter, these extrinsic motivations should be just a small part of the teacher’s strategy, not the center of the class (Hitz, 1988). For example, when a teacher tends to give lots of praise to the students depending on their behavior, the pupils will behave well because of the reward and not because they understand the importance and the consequence of their actions. That is why sometimes teachers prefer not to use this practice in normal conditions. This is usually applied when misbehavior problems persist (Crockenberg, 1982).
Students need a guide to know how to perform according to what the norm establishes or what the teacher expects. Canter (1988) states that the rules should be observable and concise, i.e., a specific rule for specific actions that everybody in the classroom can understand through examples provided by the teacher. In this way, students are sure about what they can or cannot do. In SIOP, the same practice is seen as a behavior control. Students and teachers clearly know what to do or what is expected from the class through exemplification of every activity and the statement of content and language objectives (Lesson Delivery, Comprehensible input).
Reconciliation
Brophy (1983) says that centers of conciliation (points where both parts, teacher and students, agree in mutual solutions) are required for students with unacceptable behavior. These students have difficulties understanding the rules or interpreting them in the right way. Many positive results have been achieved in schools where this practice has been used. Students learn their limits efficiently and assume their responsibility seeing or analyzing the consequences in a more individualized and specific manner with the help of a tutor or a guide. This teacher is in contact with the homeroom teacher and the student, monitoring the process change.
Most of the time, when a child has trouble following teacher’s instructions or classroom norms, it is because the child misunderstands what these rules mean. In these cases, moments of conciliation, through a tutor, personalize the teaching of this set of laws. For example, when a child is used to hitting his classmates, it is because possibly at home, he has been educated in this way. At school, these actions are not allowed, but the student does not consciously understand why this norm exists if at home it is a normal act. In these cases, the application of reconciliation practice is recommended. Within the SIOP model this issue is not mentioned, but I hope to find out evidence of its use after my study.
Socio-cultural understanding enhancement
Fillmore (1991) explains how teaching and learning are social, not individual activities. Socio-cultural understanding enhancement takes place when students from different backgrounds and experts (teachers or other students) work together to solve a common problem. In this practice, the roles of student and teacher are more permeable and flexible than in traditional classes because both work at the same level of hierarchy. Thus, nobody knows more than the other, but everyone comes up with valuable ideas focused on one purpose.
This purpose is a joint productive activity. Joint refers to who participates and how; while productive refers to what the objective is and the cause for working as a group, and activity refers to what the participants are doing in collaboration. This kind of activity may help to improve understanding of the school rules because the community participated in creating them.
Other examples of socio-cultural enhancements are agreements of contingency (Allen, 1981; Cotton and Savard, 1982) and the approach of organizational development (Gottfredson, 1989). Agreements of contingency are established with the participation of the students’ spokesmen. Through this participation, the consequences which students would face in case they break an agreement become clear. This practice helps to understand why rules are necessary and why everybody should follow them. Additionally, the approach of organizational development has, as its main component, institutional reforms towards disciplinary improvement. The participation of students, professors and educational administrators with the same intensity and with no hierarchy has contributed meaningfully to understanding and creating better disciplinary policies. The SIOP model is used in ESL schools in the United States as a tool for socio-cultural understanding (Echevarria, 2000). This socio-cultural aspect is the most related practice to the SIOP with concern to behavior control and management because in both (SIOP and the practice described above) the agreement and the mutual participation of both parts (teachers and students) plays an important role when establishing the rules for a class without behavior problems.
Classroom control
Glasser (1984) suggests that the practice of classroom control is frequently carried out by discipline and academic coordinators along with teachers in order to ensure the quality of the learning process and student’s well-being. Glasser (1984) also relates discipline to classroom control. “In schools, the most widely and practiced interpretation of the word discipline is control" (Wlodkowski 1982, p. 2.). Glasser (1984) complementarily says children need to be taught how to control their behavior. People read the world in different ways. These perceptions are based on their needs and how these are fulfilled. "Most people, however, do not believe they have a choice" (Glasser, 1989, p. 2.). The cause is that they were not taught how to make choices. Thus, teachers are directly responsible for teaching students how they should choose and act. "The teacher's task is to help students make good choices by making clear the connection between student behavior and its consequences" (Emmer, 1986, p. 7.).
Through this practice, the teacher shows the student the consequences of his/her actions and helps him/her to identify inappropriate behavior. This exercise should be done by the student and not by the teacher for it to be more meaningful. Then the student is encouraged to design a plan to change his/her misbehavior. Here, the teacher helps the student to carry out the plan. Otherwise, he will have to face the consequence (Edwards, 1993). Edwards (1993) and Emmer (1986) report that all of the studies using classroom management that assessed effects on student variables showed at least one student change that differed significantly for the E [Experimental] and C [Control] groups. This application is strongly related to the seven SIOP components, especially “Lesson Delivery”, because in this part of SIOP, the teacher applies his/her skill all their own skills and experience in controlling the class both academically and behaviorally.
Most educators see misbehavior as the number one problem in public schools (Wlodkowski, 1982). This is the process of understanding and internalizing a set of rules, norms and agreements previously established between all members involved. The understanding of these rules would be reflected in the actions of individuals that follows them. Although on-task behavior is expected from every student; students, teachers, and educational administrators have different viewpoints with regard to what this entails. A harmonic environment with expectations of discipline should be clarified and established before starting any activity in a group. Many problems in a classroom are attributed to the misbehavior of students. Thus, the topic of discipline is very complex and polemic and needs many studies in order to apply efficient policies that can help solve the conflicts that result from disciplinary motives. Yet, the question is if on-task behavior can be used to control and properly manage classrooms within the SIOP model.
Data Collection
Qualitative data collection techniques were used as the primary research methods for this study. Most of the time, the author of this paper is an active observer because he is the student-teacher. However, in some opportunities, he is a passive observer because his participation is not required. However, many times he teaches classes using all the components of the SIOP Model. In addition, he uses surveys at the end of his observation for students and teachers and interviews for teachers.
Data Sources
Surveys: 24 students and 5 teachers filled out a survey designed independently to provide insights regarding their thoughts about the classes procedure and the management of on-task behaviour. The results of the survey aim to know if students are pleased with the class in terms of behavior and methods applied.
• Interviews: 6 teachers who use the SIOP model are part of these interviews in order to provide valuable insights that can help me support my evidence in my observations.
• Observation and field notes: They are taken to keep record of all events, to describe and analyze each activity, and to provide me with more variables for the surveys and interviews.
• Journal: Its purpose is that my perceptions of the activities and personal conclusions are recorded for later analysis. This is important when analyzing all the data because it may help me understand certain aspects that other sources cannot answer.
• Attendance record: It provides quantitative information that measures one of my research questions: improvement in attendance
Data analysis and interpretation
The next triangulation matrix states what kind of sources was used to answer each of the research questions. It is important to highlight that in order to answer each question, it was necessary to use at least four sources as the following chart displays below.
The following results are organized according to the analysis of each component of the SIOP, the practices used to apply in classrooms to control behavior, and the evidence that was found through data sources.
In the surveys, students and teachers who have a clear idea about the SIOP assert that the relationship between the application of the SIOP and work accomplishment and behavior is strong. All the students answered that with this approach, the class, in general, works more efficiently. The misbehavior showed in other classes decreases considerably in the two classes where the SIOP is applied. However, the evidence presented here regarding attendance is not enough to confirm whether the SIOP improves it or not.
Only 15 out of 24 students surveyed had a clear idea of what the SIOP model is about. Those 15 students were the ones who were taken into consideration for the survey. The next chart shows students` and teachers` agreement about the effectiveness of the class implementing the SIOP model.
In addition, students state that they feel more secure through clear instructions, clear objectives, and scaffolding activities full of examples. The surveyed students coincide in saying that they feel better accomplishing their work and feel the results have a higher quality. Regarding behavior, students realize there is a change compared to other classes because they clearly know what to do and what is the objective of the lesson. Also, misbehavior is rarely a problem due to the activities’ time limit. Students are involved in these activities and there is no time to do other things.
In the interviews, teachers emphasize that through the use of the SIOP, they have improved their lesson thanks to the eight components that help teachers reduce all kind of behaviors than interrupt the class. Teachers within the SIOP have found a reduction of misbehavior through the use of the whole approach. They believe that by using the SIOP, students know what to do and where the class is leading. In this way, students feel involved in the class procedure and leave distracting actions aside. Also, referring to work accomplishment, most of the surveyed teachers state that it is not an issue the SIOP should be in charge of, but it is something that the teacher and students previously agree.
Surveyed teachers agree on four points. First, using effectively “Lesson Delivery” students feel more comfortable and sure about what they have to do and hand in at the end of class. Also, students identifying the objectives can carry out their work easily and more creatively because they know what goals they have to achieve. Second, planning their classes while taking into account the needs of the class and students and keeping in mind the elements that are part of the “Lesson Preparation”, teachers emphasize that the class is enough to avoid task behavior problems because students are led towards the topic and have no time for actions out of the class tasks. Third, efficiently using the “Building Background” component, helps students realize that the objectives are meaningful and sufficiently relevant to motivate and engage active participation. When students are motivated, interruptions are reduced and students behave properly and accomplish their responsibilities.
Fourth, when using “Practice/application” component, teachers affirm they can control misbehavior in class by using a variety of materials and activities within a limited amount of time ensure the attention of students; diminishing distractions; monitoring the work and behavior of students.
Lastly, in the observations, journal, and field notes I could identify the teachers’ point of view. In behavior, I see a huge change between the first classes I taught at the beginning of my practicum and the ones I taught later within the SIOP model. Students seemed more encouraged with the class and with the topic. Also, I had identified a group of problematic students that interrupted class and had behaviors that distracted their partners, for example, standing up several times and talking to others about other subjects. Yet, by using SIOP these actions decreased because this group was meaningfully involved in activities and class procedures.
Concerning work accomplishment, I observed substantial changes as well. When the teacher asks students for a product after the objectives have been explained, the quality of this product and the creativity shown are really outstanding, compared with the first classes. However, when these products are complemented at home, the results varied and I cannot find strong evidence to confirm that students achieved the objectives.
Lastly, referring to attendance, I cannot provide any evidence that proves the efficiency of the SIOP controlling or improving the attendance of the students analyzed in this study. Nevertheless, I noticed that students that were absent several times had different motives which were not related to the method of the class. In the surveys, interviews, journal, and attendance record, less than half of the students provided positive information referring to the connection between the SIOP model and the attendance control.
Findings
After analyzing the data, I conclude that two factors are managed and controlled efficiently within the SIOP model, behavior and accomplishment of work. The data collected from the students, teachers, and my own intervention are enough to assert that using the whole SIOP approach helps to improve, control, and manage behavior without the use of additional practices used in most educational settings. By using SIOP, teachers do not have to spend time of their classes in addressing behavior problems.
However, no evidence related to the improvement or management of students’ attendance was found. The data gathered does not point to a specific conclusion or direction so in relation to this variable, this research study does not determine anything in this regard.
Action Plan
Based on the results and findings emerged from this study, the following changes will be made:
• I will apply this research study in different setting, not only at a college level, but at a high and primary school in order to see if the results change, especially the variable that I could not find strong evidence -attendance improvement.
• I will show this research study to teachers that are not working with the SIOP model, in order to make them realize how this approach works not only in academic but also in behavioral areas.
• I will provide this document to future student teachers that need help in the area of on-task behavior.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this study shows that the application of the SIOP model, including the eight components, is enough to control and manage on-task behavior without the need to apply the most common practices used to regulate behavioral issues in formal education. According to Emmer (1986) and Glasser (1989) who assert in their studies that teaching and controlling behavior in class, using disciplinary techniques, are necessary. This study has shown that keeping students busy through scaffolding activities planned carefully within the SIOP model is more than enough to avoid any kind of misbehavior, at least at a college level.
Final thoughts
The students chosen for this study are facing the transition between school and college. I strongly believe that this study can be carried out at different levels of formal education. Starting at the elementary school level, the effective use of the SIOP model can bring results that help teachers expand and enrich their classes and at the same time control and positively manage on task behavior in class. Finally, the time used for this study (5 months) is enough to find evidence and arrive at results to conclude that this approach is an excellent tool to control disciplinary actions.
References
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2000). Making content comprehensible for
English language learners: The SIOP Model. Allyn & Bacon. P.p.1, 8, 67, 70, 104
Allen, S. (1981). A Study to Determine the Effectiveness of a Positive Approach to Discipline System for Classroom Management. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, CA, April 1981. Retrieved October 15, 2008, from http:// www.hup.sjsu.edu/faculty/.../5School-wide%20Discipline.doc%20(web).doc
Brophy, J. (1986). Classroom Management Techniques. Education and Urban Society. P.p.182-194 Retrieved October 14, 2008, from http://books.google.com.co/books?hl=es&lr=&id=D7QyxhQzo-kC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=Brophy,+J.+(1986).+Classroom+Management+Techniques.+Education+and+Urban+Society.+P.p.182-194.&ots=PWpNs6pkPW&sig=UhUVmcdIHNdM3phUthAC-6MaNu0#v=onepage&q=Brophy%2C%20J.%20(1986).%20Classroom%20Management%20Techniques.%20Education%20and%20Urban%20Society.%20P.p.182-194.&f=false
Canter, L. (1988). Assertive discipline and the search for the perfect classroom. Young Children. p. 24 Retrieved October 14, 2008, from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0193397399000131
Cotton, K., and Savard, W. (1982). Student Discipline and Motivation: Research Synthesis. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory Retrieved October 15, 2008, from http:// www.hup.sjsu.edu/faculty/.../5School-wide%20Discipline.doc%20(web).doc
Crockenberg, V. (1982). Assertive discipline: A dissent. California Journal of Teacher Eduction, P.p. 59- 74. Retrieved October 14, 2008, from http://www.brains.org/classroom_management.htm
Doyle, W. (1989). "Classroom Management Techniques." In Strategies to Reduce Student Misbehavior, edited by Oliver C. Moles. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, P.p. 11-31. Retrieved October 15, 2008, from http:// www.hup.sjsu.edu/faculty/.../5School-wide%20Discipline.doc%20(web).doc
Edwards, C. (1993). Classroom discipline and management. New York: Macmillan College. Retrieved October 15, 2008, from https://dspace.uta.edu/bitstream/handle/10106/1145/umi-uta-2273.pdf?sequence=1
Emmer, E. (1986). Effects of teacher training in disciplinary approaches. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 316 927). P. 7 Retrieved October 15, 2008, from http:// www.hup.sjsu.edu/faculty/.../5School-wide%20Discipline.doc%20(web).doc
Fillmore, L. (1991). Language processing by bilingual children: Second language learning in children: A model of language learning in social context. New York: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved October 15, 2008, from http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/ECP/bilingualcenter/Newsletters/Acquiring2ndLangV3-1.pdf
Glasser, W. (1984) & (1989). Control theory in the practice of reality therapy. New York: Harper & Row. P. 2 Retrieved October 17, 2008, from http://jbr.org/articles.htmlhttp://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/10072/1658/1/23769_1.pdf
Gottfredson, D. (1989). Developing Effective Organizations to Reduce School Disorder. In Strategies to Reduce Student Misbehavior, edited by Oliver C. Moles. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. P.p. 87-104 Retrieved October 15, 2008, from http://www.umich.edu/~psycours/561/welsh.pdf
Hitz, R. (1988). Assertive discipline: A response to Lee Canter. Young Children. p. 25-26. Retrieved October 14, 2008, from http:// www.brains.org/classroom_management.htm
Miller, D. (1989). Effect of a Program of Therapeutic Discipline on the Attitude, Attendance, and Insight of Truant Adolescents. Journal of Experimental Education P.p. 49-53 Retrieved October 15, 2008, from http:// www.hup.sjsu.edu/faculty/.../5School-wide%20Discipline.doc%20(web).doc
Render, G., Padilla, J., & Krank, H. (1989) Assertive discipline: A critical review and analysis. Teachers College Record, P. 609 Retrieved October 16, 2008, from http:// etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0007020/forrestel_p.pdf
Wlodkowski, R.J. (1982). Discipline: The great false hope. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 224 782) Retrieved October 113, 2001, from http://www.cios.org/readbook/cal/cal.pdf
Daniel Pardo Vásquez
Abstract
Throughout this paper, the sheltered instruction observation protocol (SIOP) is analyzed and described, focusing on on-task behaviour of first semester students at Universidad Colombo Americana (UNICA). This SIOP Model is an approach designed to teach second language. It includes academic content and controls all the aspects of pedagogy, including behavior. The use of this model has been successful in schools in the United States and Japan. However, the study of behaviour management within this model has not been studied enough. That is why the analysis and study of this approach in the area of behaviour is important to determine the efficiency of this Model and how it works, especially in a college setting.
Introduction
Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (better known as the SIOP model) is an approach to help students learn academic material and a second language at the same time. Books, articles, and research studies referring to this model affirm the effectiveness and success it has had in foreign countries. However, there is not enough information showing how this methodology works in settings where the mother tongue is spoken. There are no research studies addressing how SIOP controls and manages on-task behavior issues in class. Thus, I have a strong interest in knowing whether this teaching model limits itself to academic issues or also addresses behavioral issues.
As a method, the SIOP model has been applied in schools with significant, positive results, (Echevarria, 2000). At UNICA University, this model is being applied at a college level. Although the results of valuable research studies are not public yet, based on my own experience as a student and as a student-teacher, I can assert that it has a favorable impact on the quality of the education offered there. However, the research done until now regarding on-task behavior has been limited.
My interest in describing and analyzing this method may support other future studies, but at this point in another area of pedagogy that is as important as the academic field: behaviorism. I strongly believe that first semester is a good starting point, due to the transition that students have to face changing from a school to a college settings. This transition is a strong change in their lives. At a college level, rules, procedures, and thought processes are extremely modified as the structure of learning becomes more flexible and permissive. That is why this study is focused on students in this educational setting.
Hopefully, my research can help form a better idea of how SIOP model can not only help students academically and linguistically, but also as a tool to manage, control, and improve on-task behavior in class. Through the description of the management of this approach in the field of behavior, this research study expects to contribute other future studies within the SIOP model but in a different context and with a different type of population.
Area of focus statement
The purpose of this study is to understand and describe various strategies applied in the SIOP Model in order to improve attendance, misbehavior, and work accomplishment.
Research Questions
a. How does SIOP Model manage students’ behavior in class?
b. How does SIOP Model control and encourage students’ attendance?
c. How does SIOP Model help students efficiently accomplish their work?
d. Does the SIOP model influence attendance?
Theoretical framework
As the number of English learners increases in ESL schools throughout the United States, a group of researchers and educators, looked for effective ways to help students succeed in academic settings as they are becoming bilingual. After systematic observation, the SIOP model developed as the result of the work of Jana Echevarria, MaryEllen Vogt and Deborah J. Short. The model was implemented in different schools where immigrants are considerable in number.
This model supports teachers in planning and delivering classes that promote students’ second language development, while making school subjects comprehensible for students of other languages. (Echevarria, 2000)
The SIOP Model includes eight correlated components:
Lesson preparation: Concerns what teachers have to take into account when preparing lessons [such as clearly defining content objectives for students, clearly defining language objectives for students, content concepts appropriate for age and educational background, supplementary materials designing a clear and meaningful lesson (e.g., graphs, models, visuals), and adaptation of content (e.g., text, assignments for all levels of student proficiency). Meaningful activities that integrate lesson concepts should also be included (e.g., surveys, letter writing, simulations, and constructing models) with language practice opportunities for reading, writing, listening, and/or speaking. (Echevarria, 2000)
Building Background: Here, teachers need to consider what concepts should explicitly be linked to students' background experiences, links explicitly made between past learning experiences and new concepts, where key vocabulary should be emphasized (e.g., introduced, written, repeated, and highlighted for students to see). (Echevarria, 2000)
Comprehensible Input: Here, teachers learn what kind of appropriate speech to use properly for students‘ proficiency level (e.g., slower rate, careful enunciation, and simple sentence structure for beginners). The teacher must present a clear explanation of the academic task, and a variety of techniques should be used to make content concepts clear (e.g., modeling, visuals, hands-on activities, demonstrations, gestures, body language). (Echevarria, 2000)
Strategies: There should be ample opportunities for students to use strategies and consistent use of scaffolding techniques (incrementing the difficulty of the task step by step) throughout the lesson, thus assisting and supporting student understanding. A variety of question types should be used, including those that promote higher-order thinking skills throughout the lesson (e.g., literal, analytic, and interpretive questions). (Echevarria, 2000)
Interaction: Here, teachers should offer frequent opportunities for interaction and/or discussion between teacher/student and among students with the purpose of encouraging elaborate responses on lesson concepts. Grouping supports language and content objectives of the lesson. A sufficient “wait time” for student response should be allowed, and ample opportunities for students to clarify key concepts in L1 (as needed with aide, peer, or L1 text) (Echevarria, 2000).
Practice/Application: Teachers should think of hands-on materials and/or other resources for students to practice using new content knowledge, activities for students to apply content and language knowledge in the classroom. Finally activities that integrate all language skills (reading, writing, listening, and speaking) should be planned (Echevarria, 2000).
Lesson Delivery: Teachers need to identify content objectives clearly supported by lesson delivery and language objectives. Also, students should be engaged approximately 90-100% of the period and the pacing of the lesson should be appropriate for the students’ ability level (Echevarria, 2000).
Review/Assessment: Here, teachers must provide comprehensive review of key vocabulary, comprehensive review of key content concepts, and regular feedback to students on their output. To end the lesson, teachers must assess student comprehension and learning of all lesson objectives. (e.g., spot checking, group response) (Echevarria, 2000).
In the classrooms, many "behavior problems" are often the result of the lack of understanding by the students in relation to what they are supposed to do. (Echevarria, et al., 2000. p. 67). The techniques the SIOP promotes provide meaningful lessons for students learning English and content areas, including adapting the content to students' proficiency levels; highlighting key vocabulary; using scaffolding techniques and providing opportunities for students to use their own strategies; and providing activities that allow students to apply newly acquired content and language knowledge. (Echevarria, et al., 2000. p. 70). Besides, the use of these eight SIOP components mentioned above allows teachers to design and deliver lessons that address the academic and linguistic requirements of English learners keeping in mind that students must not only English vocabulary and grammar but also the English used in core content classes (Echevarria, et al., 2000. p. 8).
In addition, effective classes within the SIOP are characterized by a variety of grouping structures such as individual work, peers, triads, small groups, cooperative learning groups, and the whole-group. Groups also vary according to language proficiency, language background, and/or ability (Echevarria, et al., 2000. p. 104). The variety of groups helps to maintain students' interest and varying group structures increases the chance that a student's preferred mode of instruction will be matched (Echevarria, et al., 2000. p. 104).
Review of Related Literature
There are many controversial points of view regarding discipline. Based on my experience observing classes at some schools and at a college, I have noticed the discord among teachers and students as to whether on-task behavior is directly related to academic proficiency. Some teachers assert that on-task behavior is strongly related to students’ academic development, and this way teacher can control and manage behavior through on-task progression. However, on the other hand, students and a few teachers do not agree. They see on-task behavior and academic proficiency as unrelated elements. Therefore, to discern what is true, it is necessary to analyze disciplinary practices to determine if these help teachers control students’ behavior in class or, on the contrary natural class flow is enough to manage and control any kind of on-task behavior.
In order to create an ideal environment for learning, it is essential for institutions to provide rules and clear bylaws that may be regulated. The majority of the reports, reviews and studies through this literature review support five practices that have been studied for a long time in different educational centers of The United State and European countries, such as England, France, and Germany. The practices will serve as parameters to support this research study. Punishment, supporting stimulus, reconciliation, socio-cultural understanding enhancement, and classroom control are the variables that serve as reference. If SIOP is utilized, but is not accompanied by these practices, is it enough to control and manage on-task behavior, or, on the contrary, is their application necessary?
Disciplinary Practices:
Punishment
Cotton and Savard (1982) have thought that punishment can be a good method of remediating misbehavior at an individual level, improving conduct in the classroom, as long as this is established ahead of time and it does not include acts such as physical punishment, insults or anything that goes against to the rights of the student (Allen, 1981; Cotton and Savard, 1982; Doyle, 1989; and Miller, 1986). A good example of this is suspension. The programs of suspension that include guides, support, planning change, and opportunities to create new skills have demonstrated to be effective regarding the improvement of students’ behavior. Nevertheless, the punishments are often applied incorrectly. In these cases, they have the opposite effect. However, with SIOP this type of control is apparently unnecessary because students are involved in a variety of scaffolding and dynamic activities that are of their interest, thus avoiding misbehavior.
To solve the problem regarding incorrect application of punishment, a disciplinary system called Assertive Discipline, developed by Lee and Marlene Canter (1976) was developed. This system helps students to understand the consequences of their behavior; "As its basic premise the reinforcement of appropriate behavior" (Render, Padilla, and Krank, 1989, p. 609).This disciplinary approach is a good tool in order to use punishment in a suitable way. Thus, the next requirement of assertive discipline is followed: corrective action, when rules are broken.
Additionally, to facilitate the use of Assertive Discipline, punishment consequences should be established for classroom management to be assertive, for instance, a method of rewards and punishments are devised by the teacher to let students know when they have performed correctly or incorrectly. Moreover, more severe penalties should be given to students who keep making unacceptable choices.
Supporting stimulus
Miller (1986) asserts that students frequently need motivation to improve their behavior as well as a guide on how to do this. The key to “Assertive Discipline” is that there should be positive reinforcements from the teacher, including lots of praise (Canter, 1988). According to Hitz and in contrast to Canter, these extrinsic motivations should be just a small part of the teacher’s strategy, not the center of the class (Hitz, 1988). For example, when a teacher tends to give lots of praise to the students depending on their behavior, the pupils will behave well because of the reward and not because they understand the importance and the consequence of their actions. That is why sometimes teachers prefer not to use this practice in normal conditions. This is usually applied when misbehavior problems persist (Crockenberg, 1982).
Students need a guide to know how to perform according to what the norm establishes or what the teacher expects. Canter (1988) states that the rules should be observable and concise, i.e., a specific rule for specific actions that everybody in the classroom can understand through examples provided by the teacher. In this way, students are sure about what they can or cannot do. In SIOP, the same practice is seen as a behavior control. Students and teachers clearly know what to do or what is expected from the class through exemplification of every activity and the statement of content and language objectives (Lesson Delivery, Comprehensible input).
Reconciliation
Brophy (1983) says that centers of conciliation (points where both parts, teacher and students, agree in mutual solutions) are required for students with unacceptable behavior. These students have difficulties understanding the rules or interpreting them in the right way. Many positive results have been achieved in schools where this practice has been used. Students learn their limits efficiently and assume their responsibility seeing or analyzing the consequences in a more individualized and specific manner with the help of a tutor or a guide. This teacher is in contact with the homeroom teacher and the student, monitoring the process change.
Most of the time, when a child has trouble following teacher’s instructions or classroom norms, it is because the child misunderstands what these rules mean. In these cases, moments of conciliation, through a tutor, personalize the teaching of this set of laws. For example, when a child is used to hitting his classmates, it is because possibly at home, he has been educated in this way. At school, these actions are not allowed, but the student does not consciously understand why this norm exists if at home it is a normal act. In these cases, the application of reconciliation practice is recommended. Within the SIOP model this issue is not mentioned, but I hope to find out evidence of its use after my study.
Socio-cultural understanding enhancement
Fillmore (1991) explains how teaching and learning are social, not individual activities. Socio-cultural understanding enhancement takes place when students from different backgrounds and experts (teachers or other students) work together to solve a common problem. In this practice, the roles of student and teacher are more permeable and flexible than in traditional classes because both work at the same level of hierarchy. Thus, nobody knows more than the other, but everyone comes up with valuable ideas focused on one purpose.
This purpose is a joint productive activity. Joint refers to who participates and how; while productive refers to what the objective is and the cause for working as a group, and activity refers to what the participants are doing in collaboration. This kind of activity may help to improve understanding of the school rules because the community participated in creating them.
Other examples of socio-cultural enhancements are agreements of contingency (Allen, 1981; Cotton and Savard, 1982) and the approach of organizational development (Gottfredson, 1989). Agreements of contingency are established with the participation of the students’ spokesmen. Through this participation, the consequences which students would face in case they break an agreement become clear. This practice helps to understand why rules are necessary and why everybody should follow them. Additionally, the approach of organizational development has, as its main component, institutional reforms towards disciplinary improvement. The participation of students, professors and educational administrators with the same intensity and with no hierarchy has contributed meaningfully to understanding and creating better disciplinary policies. The SIOP model is used in ESL schools in the United States as a tool for socio-cultural understanding (Echevarria, 2000). This socio-cultural aspect is the most related practice to the SIOP with concern to behavior control and management because in both (SIOP and the practice described above) the agreement and the mutual participation of both parts (teachers and students) plays an important role when establishing the rules for a class without behavior problems.
Classroom control
Glasser (1984) suggests that the practice of classroom control is frequently carried out by discipline and academic coordinators along with teachers in order to ensure the quality of the learning process and student’s well-being. Glasser (1984) also relates discipline to classroom control. “In schools, the most widely and practiced interpretation of the word discipline is control" (Wlodkowski 1982, p. 2.). Glasser (1984) complementarily says children need to be taught how to control their behavior. People read the world in different ways. These perceptions are based on their needs and how these are fulfilled. "Most people, however, do not believe they have a choice" (Glasser, 1989, p. 2.). The cause is that they were not taught how to make choices. Thus, teachers are directly responsible for teaching students how they should choose and act. "The teacher's task is to help students make good choices by making clear the connection between student behavior and its consequences" (Emmer, 1986, p. 7.).
Through this practice, the teacher shows the student the consequences of his/her actions and helps him/her to identify inappropriate behavior. This exercise should be done by the student and not by the teacher for it to be more meaningful. Then the student is encouraged to design a plan to change his/her misbehavior. Here, the teacher helps the student to carry out the plan. Otherwise, he will have to face the consequence (Edwards, 1993). Edwards (1993) and Emmer (1986) report that all of the studies using classroom management that assessed effects on student variables showed at least one student change that differed significantly for the E [Experimental] and C [Control] groups. This application is strongly related to the seven SIOP components, especially “Lesson Delivery”, because in this part of SIOP, the teacher applies his/her skill all their own skills and experience in controlling the class both academically and behaviorally.
Most educators see misbehavior as the number one problem in public schools (Wlodkowski, 1982). This is the process of understanding and internalizing a set of rules, norms and agreements previously established between all members involved. The understanding of these rules would be reflected in the actions of individuals that follows them. Although on-task behavior is expected from every student; students, teachers, and educational administrators have different viewpoints with regard to what this entails. A harmonic environment with expectations of discipline should be clarified and established before starting any activity in a group. Many problems in a classroom are attributed to the misbehavior of students. Thus, the topic of discipline is very complex and polemic and needs many studies in order to apply efficient policies that can help solve the conflicts that result from disciplinary motives. Yet, the question is if on-task behavior can be used to control and properly manage classrooms within the SIOP model.
Data Collection
Qualitative data collection techniques were used as the primary research methods for this study. Most of the time, the author of this paper is an active observer because he is the student-teacher. However, in some opportunities, he is a passive observer because his participation is not required. However, many times he teaches classes using all the components of the SIOP Model. In addition, he uses surveys at the end of his observation for students and teachers and interviews for teachers.
Data Sources
Surveys: 24 students and 5 teachers filled out a survey designed independently to provide insights regarding their thoughts about the classes procedure and the management of on-task behaviour. The results of the survey aim to know if students are pleased with the class in terms of behavior and methods applied.
• Interviews: 6 teachers who use the SIOP model are part of these interviews in order to provide valuable insights that can help me support my evidence in my observations.
• Observation and field notes: They are taken to keep record of all events, to describe and analyze each activity, and to provide me with more variables for the surveys and interviews.
• Journal: Its purpose is that my perceptions of the activities and personal conclusions are recorded for later analysis. This is important when analyzing all the data because it may help me understand certain aspects that other sources cannot answer.
• Attendance record: It provides quantitative information that measures one of my research questions: improvement in attendance
Data analysis and interpretation
The next triangulation matrix states what kind of sources was used to answer each of the research questions. It is important to highlight that in order to answer each question, it was necessary to use at least four sources as the following chart displays below.
The following results are organized according to the analysis of each component of the SIOP, the practices used to apply in classrooms to control behavior, and the evidence that was found through data sources.
In the surveys, students and teachers who have a clear idea about the SIOP assert that the relationship between the application of the SIOP and work accomplishment and behavior is strong. All the students answered that with this approach, the class, in general, works more efficiently. The misbehavior showed in other classes decreases considerably in the two classes where the SIOP is applied. However, the evidence presented here regarding attendance is not enough to confirm whether the SIOP improves it or not.
Only 15 out of 24 students surveyed had a clear idea of what the SIOP model is about. Those 15 students were the ones who were taken into consideration for the survey. The next chart shows students` and teachers` agreement about the effectiveness of the class implementing the SIOP model.
In addition, students state that they feel more secure through clear instructions, clear objectives, and scaffolding activities full of examples. The surveyed students coincide in saying that they feel better accomplishing their work and feel the results have a higher quality. Regarding behavior, students realize there is a change compared to other classes because they clearly know what to do and what is the objective of the lesson. Also, misbehavior is rarely a problem due to the activities’ time limit. Students are involved in these activities and there is no time to do other things.
In the interviews, teachers emphasize that through the use of the SIOP, they have improved their lesson thanks to the eight components that help teachers reduce all kind of behaviors than interrupt the class. Teachers within the SIOP have found a reduction of misbehavior through the use of the whole approach. They believe that by using the SIOP, students know what to do and where the class is leading. In this way, students feel involved in the class procedure and leave distracting actions aside. Also, referring to work accomplishment, most of the surveyed teachers state that it is not an issue the SIOP should be in charge of, but it is something that the teacher and students previously agree.
Surveyed teachers agree on four points. First, using effectively “Lesson Delivery” students feel more comfortable and sure about what they have to do and hand in at the end of class. Also, students identifying the objectives can carry out their work easily and more creatively because they know what goals they have to achieve. Second, planning their classes while taking into account the needs of the class and students and keeping in mind the elements that are part of the “Lesson Preparation”, teachers emphasize that the class is enough to avoid task behavior problems because students are led towards the topic and have no time for actions out of the class tasks. Third, efficiently using the “Building Background” component, helps students realize that the objectives are meaningful and sufficiently relevant to motivate and engage active participation. When students are motivated, interruptions are reduced and students behave properly and accomplish their responsibilities.
Fourth, when using “Practice/application” component, teachers affirm they can control misbehavior in class by using a variety of materials and activities within a limited amount of time ensure the attention of students; diminishing distractions; monitoring the work and behavior of students.
Lastly, in the observations, journal, and field notes I could identify the teachers’ point of view. In behavior, I see a huge change between the first classes I taught at the beginning of my practicum and the ones I taught later within the SIOP model. Students seemed more encouraged with the class and with the topic. Also, I had identified a group of problematic students that interrupted class and had behaviors that distracted their partners, for example, standing up several times and talking to others about other subjects. Yet, by using SIOP these actions decreased because this group was meaningfully involved in activities and class procedures.
Concerning work accomplishment, I observed substantial changes as well. When the teacher asks students for a product after the objectives have been explained, the quality of this product and the creativity shown are really outstanding, compared with the first classes. However, when these products are complemented at home, the results varied and I cannot find strong evidence to confirm that students achieved the objectives.
Lastly, referring to attendance, I cannot provide any evidence that proves the efficiency of the SIOP controlling or improving the attendance of the students analyzed in this study. Nevertheless, I noticed that students that were absent several times had different motives which were not related to the method of the class. In the surveys, interviews, journal, and attendance record, less than half of the students provided positive information referring to the connection between the SIOP model and the attendance control.
Findings
After analyzing the data, I conclude that two factors are managed and controlled efficiently within the SIOP model, behavior and accomplishment of work. The data collected from the students, teachers, and my own intervention are enough to assert that using the whole SIOP approach helps to improve, control, and manage behavior without the use of additional practices used in most educational settings. By using SIOP, teachers do not have to spend time of their classes in addressing behavior problems.
However, no evidence related to the improvement or management of students’ attendance was found. The data gathered does not point to a specific conclusion or direction so in relation to this variable, this research study does not determine anything in this regard.
Action Plan
Based on the results and findings emerged from this study, the following changes will be made:
• I will apply this research study in different setting, not only at a college level, but at a high and primary school in order to see if the results change, especially the variable that I could not find strong evidence -attendance improvement.
• I will show this research study to teachers that are not working with the SIOP model, in order to make them realize how this approach works not only in academic but also in behavioral areas.
• I will provide this document to future student teachers that need help in the area of on-task behavior.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this study shows that the application of the SIOP model, including the eight components, is enough to control and manage on-task behavior without the need to apply the most common practices used to regulate behavioral issues in formal education. According to Emmer (1986) and Glasser (1989) who assert in their studies that teaching and controlling behavior in class, using disciplinary techniques, are necessary. This study has shown that keeping students busy through scaffolding activities planned carefully within the SIOP model is more than enough to avoid any kind of misbehavior, at least at a college level.
Final thoughts
The students chosen for this study are facing the transition between school and college. I strongly believe that this study can be carried out at different levels of formal education. Starting at the elementary school level, the effective use of the SIOP model can bring results that help teachers expand and enrich their classes and at the same time control and positively manage on task behavior in class. Finally, the time used for this study (5 months) is enough to find evidence and arrive at results to conclude that this approach is an excellent tool to control disciplinary actions.
References
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2000). Making content comprehensible for
English language learners: The SIOP Model. Allyn & Bacon. P.p.1, 8, 67, 70, 104
Allen, S. (1981). A Study to Determine the Effectiveness of a Positive Approach to Discipline System for Classroom Management. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, CA, April 1981. Retrieved October 15, 2008, from http:// www.hup.sjsu.edu/faculty/.../5School-wide%20Discipline.doc%20(web).doc
Brophy, J. (1986). Classroom Management Techniques. Education and Urban Society. P.p.182-194 Retrieved October 14, 2008, from http://books.google.com.co/books?hl=es&lr=&id=D7QyxhQzo-kC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=Brophy,+J.+(1986).+Classroom+Management+Techniques.+Education+and+Urban+Society.+P.p.182-194.&ots=PWpNs6pkPW&sig=UhUVmcdIHNdM3phUthAC-6MaNu0#v=onepage&q=Brophy%2C%20J.%20(1986).%20Classroom%20Management%20Techniques.%20Education%20and%20Urban%20Society.%20P.p.182-194.&f=false
Canter, L. (1988). Assertive discipline and the search for the perfect classroom. Young Children. p. 24 Retrieved October 14, 2008, from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0193397399000131
Cotton, K., and Savard, W. (1982). Student Discipline and Motivation: Research Synthesis. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory Retrieved October 15, 2008, from http:// www.hup.sjsu.edu/faculty/.../5School-wide%20Discipline.doc%20(web).doc
Crockenberg, V. (1982). Assertive discipline: A dissent. California Journal of Teacher Eduction, P.p. 59- 74. Retrieved October 14, 2008, from http://www.brains.org/classroom_management.htm
Doyle, W. (1989). "Classroom Management Techniques." In Strategies to Reduce Student Misbehavior, edited by Oliver C. Moles. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, P.p. 11-31. Retrieved October 15, 2008, from http:// www.hup.sjsu.edu/faculty/.../5School-wide%20Discipline.doc%20(web).doc
Edwards, C. (1993). Classroom discipline and management. New York: Macmillan College. Retrieved October 15, 2008, from https://dspace.uta.edu/bitstream/handle/10106/1145/umi-uta-2273.pdf?sequence=1
Emmer, E. (1986). Effects of teacher training in disciplinary approaches. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 316 927). P. 7 Retrieved October 15, 2008, from http:// www.hup.sjsu.edu/faculty/.../5School-wide%20Discipline.doc%20(web).doc
Fillmore, L. (1991). Language processing by bilingual children: Second language learning in children: A model of language learning in social context. New York: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved October 15, 2008, from http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/ECP/bilingualcenter/Newsletters/Acquiring2ndLangV3-1.pdf
Glasser, W. (1984) & (1989). Control theory in the practice of reality therapy. New York: Harper & Row. P. 2 Retrieved October 17, 2008, from http://jbr.org/articles.htmlhttp://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/10072/1658/1/23769_1.pdf
Gottfredson, D. (1989). Developing Effective Organizations to Reduce School Disorder. In Strategies to Reduce Student Misbehavior, edited by Oliver C. Moles. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. P.p. 87-104 Retrieved October 15, 2008, from http://www.umich.edu/~psycours/561/welsh.pdf
Hitz, R. (1988). Assertive discipline: A response to Lee Canter. Young Children. p. 25-26. Retrieved October 14, 2008, from http:// www.brains.org/classroom_management.htm
Miller, D. (1989). Effect of a Program of Therapeutic Discipline on the Attitude, Attendance, and Insight of Truant Adolescents. Journal of Experimental Education P.p. 49-53 Retrieved October 15, 2008, from http:// www.hup.sjsu.edu/faculty/.../5School-wide%20Discipline.doc%20(web).doc
Render, G., Padilla, J., & Krank, H. (1989) Assertive discipline: A critical review and analysis. Teachers College Record, P. 609 Retrieved October 16, 2008, from http:// etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0007020/forrestel_p.pdf
Wlodkowski, R.J. (1982). Discipline: The great false hope. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 224 782) Retrieved October 113, 2001, from http://www.cios.org/readbook/cal/cal.pdf
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)