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