Fidelity to the sheltered instruction observation protocol (SIOP): Is it possible?

There are many English Language Learners (ELLs) present in today's school system. Many of them are actually native U. S. Citizens. However there is a large gap between the learning of ELLs and their native English speaking peers. There are many programs the at have been suggested and used to make this gap smaller. This study challenges traditional or more common practices for ELLs and finds the best practice to use. The program that has been suggested as the best practice is the Sheltered Instruction Observat ion Protocol or SIOP model. This model includes 8 components and 30 features. It has been said that all components and features need to be implemented in the classroom for the best results. However, because of the enormity of the model it may be hard to implement all components and features into the classroom. This study also explores what are the easiest and the most difficult components to implement from the SIOP model to help teachers get a start on implementing this program.

FIDELITY TO THE SHELTERED INSTRUCTION OBSERVATION PROTOCOL (SIOP): IS IT POSSIBLE? by Elizabeth Cook A Senior Honors Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The University of Utah In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Honors Degree in Bachelor of Science In Elementary Education Approved: ______________________________ Ed Buendia Thesis Faculty Supervisor _____________________________ Mary Burbank Assistant Dean, College of Education _______________________________ Mary Burbank Honors Faculty Advisor _____________________________ Sylvia D. Torti, PhD Dean, Honors College April 2016 Abstract ii There are many English Language Learners (ELLs) present in today’s school system. Many of them are actually native U. S. Citizens. However there is a large gap between the learning of ELLs and their native English speaking peers. There are many programs that have been suggested and used to make this gap smaller. This study challenges traditional or more common practices for ELLs and finds the best practice to use. The program that has been suggested as the best practice is the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol or SIOP model. This model includes 8 components and 30 features. It has been said that all components and features need to be implemented in the classroom for the best results. However, because of the enormity of the model it may be hard to implement all components and features into the classroom. This study also explores what are the easiest and the most difficult components to implement from the SIOP model to help teachers get a start on implementing this program. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Table of Contents iii Introduction 1 Background Information 3 Literature Review 7 Methods 11 Results 15 Discussion 20 Conclusion 23 References 25 Appendix A 28 Introduction 1 In the United States there are many languages spoken by various groups. The use of many languages by the students and parents can become a challenge in U.S. schools when there is a focus on English language learning. Many children, who have grown up speaking a home language other than English, come into U.S. schools and may have a struggle learning English because of this influence. The U.S. context requires ELL students to learn in, and use, English when they get to school, even though they have a limited exposure to the academic register of the English language. The field of educational research employs many terms that are used to describe this group of students such as bilinguals, English as a Second Language students (ESL), Limited English Proficiency students (LEP), English as a Foreign Language students (EFL) or even English Language Learners (ELLs). In this paper the term English Language Learners or ELLs will be used, as this is what the government documents use to describe these students. There are many different kinds of ELLs as well (Escamilla, 2006; Valenzuela, 1999). There are ELLs who are already bilingual, able to read both English and their heritage language, with some understanding of the English language and are proficient in their first language. There are also monolingual students who come only knowing their first language and see English words as just letters or sounds with no meaning. Also included are the ELL students who lack literacy skills in phonics, fluency or even the ability to read in any language and only speak their first language. With this variance in even the ELL label it becomes a challenge for educators to know the students’ individual struggles with the English language and how to help them in the classroom. With all the variance in the situation with ELL students the question becomes how can teachers help 2 these ELL students who are monolingual and/or not literate to be able to learn in our schools and learn the English language at the same time? This thesis examines the following question: What is the best program that educators can use to help ELL students with learning academic English language? This question will be examined in the literature review portion. The argument proposed from that research is that the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP), written by Jana Echevarria, Deborah Short, MaryEllen Vogt, and Marilyn Amy Washam, is the best program for ELL students. However, the issue is that SIOP with its eight components and thirty features may be hard to be completely faithful to the entire model. There are so many elements is may be hard for educators to know how to implement all of it into the teaching practice. This thesis will argue that some aspects of the SIOP model are easier to implement while others are harder. It also argues that the different elements may be easier or harder for beginning teachers than it is for more experienced teachers. Because of the enormity of the SIOP model, the thesis also examines SIOP and asks the following question: What components of a model, deemed as best practice, are most easily implementable for educators and the potential limitation of these elements in the classroom? To explore and answer these questions the thesis will first situate the history of ELLs in the United States. Then it will discuss the different programs used for ELL students and explain the SIOP model and the arguments the educational field has made to argue that it may be the best program to use. There are eight components and thirty features for SIOP and this thesis will explore how easy or hard it was for a beginning and 3 experienced teacher to implement in the classroom. This study will help to give an idea of the best way to implement SIOP into the classroom to help ELL students have both their heritage language and culture as well as the academic English language and culture in the classroom and still be able to learn and progress in school. Background Information Historically, there has been an increasing number of ELLs in our public schools. With research done by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) we know that since 2002 there has been an increase of ELL students in our schools. In 2002 we had about 4.1 million in ELL students but in the 2013-2014 school year there were about 4.9 million ELL students in U. S. schools with about 3.8 million being Spanish-speaking (IES, 2015). It is interesting to see that the numbers keep rising and it is not because we have a lot of new immigrants coming into the U.S. The IES found that 74.8% of the ELL students ages 5-17 were actually second-generation or more in the U.S. (IES, 2015). This is alarming because being a second or third generation student they have had more interaction with the English language and would have probably learned more English by the time they get into schools. Students are constantly surrounded by the English language through the media, newspapers, store products, and many other ways. So why aren’t they able to speak English and read English with proficiency? What becomes even more alarming about the rising number of ELLs in U.S. schools is that these ELL students’ academic performance is significantly lower than that of their native English-speaking peers. Focusing on the Spanish-speaking student (because they encompass three-fourths of the ELLs) and their English-speaking peers, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) found that there was a gap in the 4 progress for these two groups. An example is that nationally in the area of reading there was a 21 point gap in their progress in the year 2012 (2013, p. 18). Just looking at the state of Utah in the CRTS for language arts in 2011 the Latino students performed at a high sixty percent level while their English-speaking peers performed at a high eighty percent. That is a 20 percent gap in their performance level just in the language arts (Park, Jesse, & Shumway, 2013, p.2). The reason why I focused on this test is because if the students struggle with reading and comprehension then all the other tests are harder to take because of the tests being written in the English language. English Language Learner students being so much lower in language arts makes them more at risk of not passing the other tests because of the lack of English language skills. Because of the performance gap on standardized testing, specifically language arts, between ELLs and their English-speaking peers there have been many attempts at different programs and interventions to try and close this gap. There are different programs such as pull-out English as a Second Language (ESL), English Language Development (ELD), bilingual programs, Dual-Immersion programs, and many others. Most of these programs are considered subtractive environments for ELLs. Subtractive means that they are either gradually taking away their use of heritage language in the classroom or they are completely taking their heritage language out of the classroom instruction (Valenzuela, 1999). There is a great focus in these programs to accelerate students’ use of only English in their learning environment and completely assimilate to the English-speaking culture. This focus prevails because there are many who give the message to these students that there is an importance in learning English and receiving a “Western education” that will allow them to have success in life and have job security 5 and wealth. They also give the message that if they retain their culture and language they will fail. (Lee, 2009, p. 308) However, not everyone thinks that losing their heritage language should be the case. There are many people, academic and regular citizens, who see these subtractive programs and ideas as detrimental to the student and their learning. In one teacher’s experience it was stated that these programs have low expectations for these students and their abilities to learn so the “students respond to these low expectations by disengaging.” (Menken & Kleyn, 2009, p. 408) Another teacher remarked that many of these programs emphasize English acquisition and even though these students may now be able to speak English their literacy skills are insufficient to pass their tests (Menken & Kleyn, 2009, p. 411). This is the reason why there is a search for a better practice that has higher expectations of students and allows for them to add onto their background knowledge and heritage language rather than subtract it from their lives. With the issues in each of these programs and accommodations there needs to be a different solution, or at least an easier one. The best way to find out if a program is effective as a resource is to actually implement it in the classroom and see if there is an improvement. It is best to implement language and culture into every aspect in the classroom, such as what we put on the walls, in the curriculum, and even the assignments and activities teachers use to teach. Teachers should be able to use native language and culture as a resource in every curricular area such as math, science, social studies, and especially language arts. By doing this teachers will be helping their students to become more fluent with as well as understand the English language. A specific example of the effect of using or failing to use student’s heritage 6 language and culture to help teach them can be found in the research of Lucila Ek, published in 2008. She followed immigrant students from Mexico for a few years as they attended school and church. What she noticed is that in the church during Sunday school the teachers would use Spanish and also relate what they were learning to the students’ life. They tried to incorporate the students’ cultural experiences and tried to create this idea of a combined community. With this bridging between contexts, an attempt at an additive approach, the students were more engaged. They wanted to go to church and they wanted to learn more. Specifically, one student said that he felt it was a place he could go and feel like he was understood and he felt successful. However, this was not the case at the school. This same student said that he felt the school was a prison. He said he felt isolated, fear, and trapped. When asked what the school taught him he said “that I not talk, that I behave, that I do my homework, hm, not talk a lot.” Unfortunately that is what schools seem to do in their subtractive approach in teaching ELLs. In this particular school they focused only on vocabulary and grammar and had them do mostly worksheets. There was no recognition of culture and previous experiences. This resulted in this particular students giving up on school and stop participating (Ek, 2008). The significance of the student’s experience in the Ek (2008) study illustrates the importance of including a student’s native language and culture into the classroom. It has been said that “no educational practices…are ever innocent of the social, economic, and institutional contexts in which schooling takes place” (as quoted in Ek, 2008, p.11). The dilemma or problem of the programs aren’t coming from the culture as much as it comes in the style of teaching and the content to be taught. The NEA has noticed that teachers are not being provided with appropriate resources and strategies to be able to 7 teach, evaluate, and nurture these ELL students. The NEA also points out that quite a few ELL students come from various different background and because of this they face many challenges in the classroom, not only related to the language. Unfortunately, most teacher training programs aren’t adequately teaching how to teach ELLs and be able to immerse them into the classroom environment (Lee, 2008, p. 3). Classroom teachers need to find the way to appropriately and easily include language and culture into the classroom. In the state of Utah there has been a start in trying to fix this problem of how to help educators teach our ELL students with the requirement, at least in the Granite and Salt Lake school districts of requiring their teachers to be ESL endorsed. These teachers are required to take classes that give them resources and strategies to use in their classrooms to help their ELL students. However, even with the requirement of an ESL endorsement it can still be hard to implement specific strategies in the classroom for many teachers. Informal conversations with educators report that the difficultly is that even with the training they receive from their ESL endorsements programs they still have a limited idea on how to implement the programs effectively. Literature Review The performance gap between ELL students and their English speaking peers on standardized testing remains a challenge for educators (NAEP, 2013, p. 18). As a result, teachers need to find a better solution, or a better way to incorporate the students’ background knowledge and experiences into the classroom pedagogy and curriculum. In doing so, it is more likely students will increase comprehension and potential for 8 performing more successfully on standardized tests. However, educators do have to keep in mind that there are a range of factors, like physical environment, physical health, or other special circumstance, that impact student performance on standardized test that are not directly related to their competencies in the subject. The challenge for educators is need to take what they have learn or what they have been taught in ESL programs and apply them in the classroom. The challenge is, some teachers feel that all they have to do is teach the ELL students the vocabulary and that this will improve their English (Wallace, 2007, p. 189). Other teachers feel that they just teach and what the students get they get and what they don’t they don’t. Further some feel that language learners should be put in the grade level of their English language proficiency and not be assigned into the grade of their age group. Other educators believe that students should be in a school of their own entirely. What really is the best way to help language learners? There are many programs and accommodations available to educators to use and help in the process of teaching the curriculum to our students English. One program that has been implemented is the English as a Second Language (ESL) program. The design of ESL Programs are to remove a student from the mainstream classroom for part of the day to give them specialized instruction in English. The instruction given is to help them help with oral, listening, reading and writing skills in English. Student participants are pulled out one to five times a week and given instruction only in English. This is considered a subtractive program, meaning educators want the students to learn English and stop using their first language. This approach takes students out of the classroom for a short time where educators teach students basic English words and phrases. In these 9 settings educators teach students only in English, never using their first language, and expect the students to learn English and not speak their native language. The research however shows that just teaching vocabulary, like in an ESL program, is not enough. There is more to learning a language then just vocabulary; there is a culture behind it as well. According to Iliana Reyes and Patricia Azuara learning is “viewed as a process in which the child’s existing knowledge interacts with mediating tools available in the environment” (2008, p. 374). This means that children are learning through their interactions with people and what they observe. This interaction is done, especially at home, in their native culture and language. They have these previous experiences in a different language and culture that contribute to their learning. In further support of this premise, the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) has suggested that teachers be aware of the students’ background and their prior literary experiences. The NCTE also suggests that teachers can help ELLs use their native language and family cultures as a resource to help them learn rather than having them be tossed aside (2008, p. 4-5). Another model frequently used is that of dual immersion. There are many different ways to implement this program. The aspect focused on for this paper is that in these programs the students are usually taught half the time in English and half the time in another language (Grayson, 2012, paragraph 6). In a recent observation in a dual immersion classroom in the public school system and the teachers could only speak the language in which they were teaching (for example, one can only speak English while the other teacher can only speak Spanish). This program is a little better philosophically than ESL because the students who speak another language are at least getting some 10 instruction in their heritage language and are, hopefully, able to understand half the time. The struggle for some of the teachers is an inability to speak the other language to help their students. For example, one of the two teachers in the program observed said she used a lot of hand gestures and pictures to help her students understand and that worked some of the time. The concern with this program though is that there isn’t any integration of the two languages. The teachers are not able to integrate the languages while they are teaching. When the students are being taught in English they are expected to only use English and when the students are taught in the other language they are expected to use only that language. There are no bridging activities for the two languages which can be a struggle for some students. One of the accommodations that trainers teach with the ESL endorsement in Utah schools is the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol model (“ESL Endorsement,” n.d.). The SIOP model uses pedagogical and curricular interventions, implemented by the teacher, to help the ELLs with their learning. Echevarria, one of the writers of SIOP stated that this model “emphasizes the importance of language development across the curriculum as well as providing ample opportunity for students to practice reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills” (2011, pg. 428). The SIOP model uses eight interrelated components that are lesson preparation, building background, comprehensible input, strategies, interaction, practice/application, lesson delivery, and review and assessment. Each component has different areas to focus on and implement while teaching the students. Research states that when implemented correctly ELL’s academic performance does improve (Center for Applied Linguistics, 2015). One of the biggest struggles for educators using this approach is getting enough 11 practice and understanding of the model to implement every single component and each of the different areas in each component. This is the idea of fidelity and why this study explored fidelity to SIOP. For this study fidelity is defined as “the degree to which an intervention or model of instruction is implemented as it was originally designed to be implemented” (Chin, Echevarria, Ratleff, & Richards-Tutor, 2011, pg. 426). Echevarria is one of the authors of the SIOP model and she wrote an article about the fidelity she has seen to her own model. She has noticed that there is some fidelity issues but states that “research-based practices are only as good as their implementation in terms of effect on student achievement” (2011, Pg. 426). She also states that student achievement will only improve when teachers are engaged and sustained in collaborative professional development that is specifically focused on deepening the teachers’ content knowledge and instructional practices (2011, pg. 427). However, in conversations with many teachers and other educators about the issue of teaching ELL students (informal conversation, Nov. 2016) most explained an instructional concern with which they struggle is how to incorporate a student’s native language and culture into their classroom and teaching practices, especially through the SIOP model. Respondents reported incorporating a student’s native language and culture can be an important aspect in their classroom. Teachers understand the concept from what they have learned from ESL endorsement classes. However, the educators struggle in their ability to actually put the different programs for teaching ELLs into their practice. As teachers, there needs to be an understanding and realization that it takes time and effort to incorporate language and culture into the classroom. By taking the time and 12 putting in the effort it will be worth it for the students and the teacher as they begin to see the improvements being made. The teacher, by incorporating the students’ heritage language and culture, will be able to help their students learn and then find out if the student needs more help to learn and recognize if it is a language barrier or another concern. Realizing that the barrier of language may be making it a struggle for ELLs to learn educators are trying to finding easy ways to incorporate the students’ native language into the classroom. The struggle to incorporate the language and the models is the struggle this study is looking into. The study is examining the SIOP program and finding the best and easiest way to incorporate this program into the classroom. The SIOP program is taught in many ESL endorsement programs in the state of Utah. As such many teachers will likely consider how to implement elements of the program. The concern, however, is how large the SIOP model is and how it can feel overwhelming to implement. Because of the enormity of the model the researcher of this study specifically wondered is it possible to implement with fidelity the SIOP model. If it isn’t possible to implement the SIOP model with fidelity than which of the eight components would be the easiest to incorporate into the classroom. The researcher also wondered if it is easier for a more experienced teacher to be better able to implement the program than a beginning teacher. Methods Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework employed for this study is that of the reflective practitioner. The study involved an experienced teacher and a novice teacher, where 13 the the focal goal is to understand how is it that educators can begin to think about their practice in their work with language learners. To meet this goal they adopted the practices common to reflective practices. Specifically, reflective teachers are “active participant in a perpetual growth requiring critical reflection on classroom practices” (Larrivee, 2000, p.306). In research on critical reflection, Larrivee (2008) describes many good practices that teachers have to be willing to do in relation to their thoughts, beliefs, and actions in the classroom. A reflective practitioner uses both critical inquiry and self-reflection to become a better teacher. The reflective practitioner doesn’t just take the different programs, like SIOP, and just implement them without caring if the program works or not. They take the program and examine it for the ethical implications it could have as well as the impact of the practices in the classroom (Larrivee, 2000, p. 294). The teacher needs to be aware of the honorable intentions of the program but also recognize that elements that they may implement related to the program or in their own teaching practice may humiliate or confuse the student rather than being supportive or clarifying. This is why critical reflection is necessary. Engaging in these practices allows educators to improve upon their practice and have the different programs and models, like SIOP, work in their classroom. To be a reflective practitioner, in this particular study, the reflexive loop that Larrivee talks about in her article is employed. This reflective loop is a circular process using data, adding personal meaning to the data, drawing conclusions, adopting beliefs, and taking action based on that data. (2000, p. 295). During this process both teachers with in the study followed this process with critical and self-reflection to decide if the 14 program was working. Findings illustrate if these teachers made changes to their practice or beliefs to better help the students involved in the process. Participants The participants were a first year teacher, Elizabeth Cook, and an experienced teacher, Mindy Layton, working at a Title I school in the Granite School District in Utah. Elizabeth first started thinking about being a teacher as she went to Snow College and graduated with her Associates of Science degree. She then went to Guatemala for a year and half and had the experience of a second language learner in a different culture. At the time Elizabeth realized that she had learned the language and about the culture easier when the people there incorporated her own language of English and her culture. She decided that this would be a great way to teach students who were learning English. She made her decision then to be a teacher. She has continued her education, since returning from Guatemala, at the University of Utah. There she was required to take many classes related to ELLs and one specifically focused on the SIOP model. After completing courses and getting ready to student teach she was invited to participate in an internship where she would be the teacher the whole school year with the students. Her goal for this internship was to help all her students learn, but to especially help her ELL students with learning English within the context of all the academic subjects. She wanted to incorporate her knowledge of language instruction as methods for assisting the English learners in her classroom. The other participant, Mindy, graduated in 2001 from Snow College with an Associates of Arts and certification in TEFL, Teaching English as a Foreign Language, and taught conversational English at that time. Mindy taught English using SIOP 15 strategies to Chinese students in Taiwan R.O.C for one year. She graduated in 2006 with a certificate in TESOL, teaching English as a second official language. Then she went on to study, research, and teach English in a Bilingual setting until 2009 when she graduated with her Masters of Arts from the University of Utah. Mindy attended local and national conferences, has been a trainer of trainers, and had exposure to SIOP strategies. She employs her expert knowledge and understanding in the 4th grade classroom in which she currently teaches, entering her 9th teaching year in an Elementary setting. Upon accepting the invite to participate in this study, Mindy was willing to connect the novice teacher with district resources and attend a district wide SIOP training together so that they began on the same understanding of the SIOP model. (M. Layton, personal communication, March 9, 2016). The grades being taught in this study were sixth and fourth. There were approximately forty eight students between the two classes during the time that data was collected. These students were from 7 different countries (i.e., Somali, Tonga, Burma, Nepal, Congo, U.S., and Mexico) and spoke the languages of Somali, Tongan, Karen, Burmese, Nepali, Spanish, Portuguese, and English. There were also students in all levels of the World-class Instructional Design and Assessment ( WIDA) including entering:1, emerging:2, developing:3, expanding:4, and bridging:5. Methods The purpose of this study was to identify which of the eight components of SIOP proved easiest for the study participants while still being able to teach the core curriculum efficiently. To teach with both goals in mind both teachers had a table (see appendix A) with the eight components listed with their areas of focus and each of the different classroom situations that can be encountered in a day. The participants kept this table 16 with them throughout the day and ranked from 0-3, 0 being not seen at all to 3 got it all in, each component in each classroom situation. The eight different SIOP components are lesson preparation, building background, comprehensible input, strategies, interaction, practice and application, lesson delivery, and review and assessment. The different classroom situations were writing, whole group reading, small group reading, whole group math, small group math, science, and specials such as computer lab, art, and PE. This study was to be completed for one month. The data were collected after one month and averages were found for each of the components and classroom situations for each teacher individually and collectively as can be seen in table 1. Within the table teacher one is identified as the more experienced teacher and teacher two is the first year novice teacher. Using the numbers the teachers were able to see to what extent they used that particular component in total and in the different classroom situations. Based on how often they used SIOP they knew if we were doing well or if they felt they needed to improve upon their use of that component. Each week they identified how well they were doing and tried to improve and do a better job at implementing the SIOP model the next week. Results The results show that the easiest SIOP component to implement from the average of both teachers’ data was the practice and application component with it being used at a 2.045 level or 68.2% of the time. The rest followed, from easiest to hardest, as interaction (1.99, 66.3%), building background (1.96, 65.3%), lesson preparation (1.935, 64.5%), 17 comprehensible input (1.855, 61.8%), lesson delivery (1.83, 61%), review and assessment (1.79, 59.7%) and with strategies (1.73, 57.7%) as the hardest to implement. The easiest classroom setting in which to implement all SIOP components, using the averages of the combined total, was small group reading, the level of use being 2.39 or 80% of the time, with small group math being second, the level of use being 2.25 or 75% of the time. The rest followed, from easiest to hardest, as whole group math (2.02, 67.3%) and reading (1.77, 59%), science (1.75, 58.3%), writing (1.68, 55%), and then the computer lab (1.37, 45.7%). For total averages among the teachers, the more experienced teacher was able to better implement all the SIOP components compared to the first year teacher. The level of use on average for the total SIOP program for the more experienced teacher was 2.18 which means she used SIOP 72% of the time, while the level of use for the novice teacher, was 1.60 using SIOP 53% of the time. Now the total difference in use between the two teachers was 0.58 which is only a 19% difference overall in level. Table 1. SIOP Components 1. Lesson Preparation Teacher 1 (Expert) Teacher 2 (Novice) 2. Building Background Teacher 1 Teacher 2 3. Comprehensible Input Teacher 1 Teacher 2 4. Strategies Science Computer Lab Total Average Use Total Use in % for Component 2.38 1.75 1.35 1.935 64.50% 2.25 2.75 2 1.57 2.26 75.30% 2 1.625 2 1.5 1.125 1.61 53.70% 1.81 2.31 2.31 2.31 1.88 1.29 1.96 65.30% 2.375 1.25 2.25 1.375 2.5 2.125 2.5 2.125 2.5 2.125 2.14 1.625 1.57 1 2.26 1.66 75.30% 55.30% 1.81 1.75 2.25 1.875 2.19 1.62 1.49 1.855 61.80% 2 1.625 1.5 2.375 1.125 1.5 3 1.5 2.31 2.375 1.375 1.81 2.625 1.75 2.125 1.86 1.375 1.61 1.86 1.125 1.24 2.3 1.41 1.73 76.70% 47% 57.70% Writing Whole Group Reading Small Group Reading Whole Group Math Small Group Math 1.75 1.875 2.5 1.94 2.125 2.125 3 1.375 1.625 1.81 Teacher 1 Teacher 2 5. Interaction Teacher 1 Teacher 2 6. Practice & Application Teacher 1 Teacher 2 7. Lesson Delivery Teacher 1 Teacher 2 8. Review and Assessment Teacher 1 Teacher 2 Total Average Use Teacher 1 Teacher 2 Total Use in % for Setting Teacher 1 Teacher 2 18 1.75 1.25 1.5 1.625 1.375 1.875 1.125 2 2.25 1.75 2.5 2.125 2.81 3 2.625 2 1.625 2.19 2.125 2.25 2.5 1.75 2.5 2.625 2.375 1.71 1.5 1.81 1.86 1.75 1.86 0.625 1.11 1.71 0.5 2.03 1.43 1.99 2.17 1.8 67.70% 47.70% 66.30% 72.30% 60% 1.875 2.06 2.5 2.06 2.38 1.96 1.48 2.045 68.20% 2.375 1.375 2.25 1.875 2.75 2.25 2.25 1.875 2.875 1.875 2.29 1.625 1.71 1.25 2.36 1.73 78.70% 57.70% 1.75 1.75 2.125 1.94 2 1.68 1.57 1.83 61% 1.5 2 1.875 1.625 2.375 1.875 1.625 2.25 2 2 1.86 1.5 2.15 1 1.91 1.75 63.70% 58.30% 1.44 1.44 2.31 2.06 2.13 1.695 1.45 1.79 59.70% 1.625 1.25 1.625 1.25 3 1.625 2.125 2 2.375 1.875 2.14 1.25 2.29 0.625 2.16 1.41 72% 47% 1.68 1.77 2.39 2.02 2.25 1.75 1.37 1.9 63.30% 1.92 1.44 2.08 1.47 2.77 2.02 2.16 1.89 2.53 1.97 1.98 1.52 1.84 0.91 2.18 1.6 72.70% 53.30% 56% 59% 79.70% 67.30% 75% 58.30% 45.70% 63.30% 64% 69.30% 92.30% 72% 84.30% 66% 61.30% 72.70% 48% 49% 67.30% 63% 65.70% 50.70% 30.30% 53.30% The differences between the novice teacher and the more experienced teacher though were evident. The more experienced teacher, never went below 60% on her use of SIOP in the classroom while the novice teacher only ever made it up to 60% once and the rest of the measured instances were in the 50% and 40% levels of use. It is also interesting to see the difference in the order that the two teachers used the SIOP components. The experienced teacher had practice and application first, using it 78.6% of the time and the rest in order were comprehensible input (76.7%), building background (75.3%), lesson preparation (75.3%), interaction (72.3%), review and assessment (72%), strategies (67.7%) and lesson delivery (63.7%). The novice teacher had a completely different order for the use of the SIOP components. The easiest component for the novice teacher to use was interaction, using it 60% of the time. The 19 rest of the components for me in order were lesson delivery (58.3%), practice and application (57.7%), building background (53.3%), lesson preparation (54%), strategies (47.7%), comprehensible input (47%), and review and assessment (47%). A proposal for these differences in the use of the SIOP model is presented below. Upon completing this study, the two teachers agreed that the SIOP model was easier and most effective to implement during the small group situations. This finding was confirmed by the data evidenced in reading small groups where the teachers implemented the components 80% of the time and in small group math where the teachers implemented them 75% of the time. When discussing the data with the experienced teacher she reflected that she became conscious of how unconscious many of the strategies are embedded within her teaching practice. Through peeling back the layers of the weekly survey the experienced teacher became self-aware that small groups times lent to better practice and immediate feedback to students, whereas in whole group settings students needed more opportunities to talk and reflect with each other. Therefore, the data collection process pushed the experienced teacher to be aware and modify aspects of instructions for all students to be successful learners during whole group activities (M. Layton, Personal Communication, March 9, 2016). Through the novice teacher’s reflection she noticed the same results in her small groups and found that some elements of SIOP did come unconsciously but that others were still hard to implement in her classroom. To support the claims that some elements of SIOP come unconsciously, the data from this study concur. For example, some features of the interaction component where 20 teachers are less aware include grouping configurations and frequent time for interaction and discussion. The grouping configurations can come naturally from the seating chart if the educator has put though into who the students are sitting next to and why. For example, the novice teacher tried to have her ELL students sit next to students who speak their same language as well as with others who speak English. She also had them work together. These practices lent themselves to interactions and discussions between the students at the tables where the discussion could be about the content area or about life and culture. The interaction between students is just something that naturally occurs in the classroom, further, there can also be constant changes in the way students are grouped for different activities. While looking at the data, the two easiest classroom situations in which to implement SIOP were the reading and the math small groups. It is a lot easier to help students activate their background knowledge, help with the key vocabulary (in their heritage language), and give them opportunities to interact and discuss. Whole group instruction is more challenging because of the different levels and needs of all the students. The novice teacher’s favorite time of the day is to have small group time. She found that most of her ELL students are more willing to join in the interaction and discussion than they are in whole group class time. She also found it easier to use hands on materials and manipulatives and also have the students do their reading and speaking. During whole class instruction the teacher can give the students the opportunity to read and speak but it is harder to see if they are actually reading and they usually don’t speak up because all their English speaking peers do the talking. The novice teacher has had 21 this happen many times in her class but in small group spaces there is less pressure and it can be easier for both the teacher and student to use all the components of SIOP. Interestingly the practice and application component was the easiest on average to implement for both teachers, while the strategies component was the most difficult, on average, for both teachers. One of the hardest parts of the strategies component is asking the Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) questions. For example from the novice teachers classroom, while reading a story in their books called “The Day They Parachuted Cats on Borneo” the teacher spent most of the time asking only surface questions with one answer like, “Why did they parachute cats on Borneo?” The teacher could have taken the time to get them to think deeper about the story and delve more into the details by asking a question like, “Predict what will happen when they spray DDT in their houses and on their plants?” Many times we only ask the surface questions and then move on but we need to get to those HOTS questions. This may take a while to be able to consistently learn how to ask these questions. This strategy is something that even the experienced teacher still struggles with in her teaching. Discussion If there is one thing to learn from the process in this study it is that it takes time and effort to learn and to implement the SIOP model. By the obvious difference in the ability of the more experienced teacher, who had a 2.18 or 72.6% average of implementing SIOP, to the first year teacher who had a 1.6 or 53% average of use of SIOP, it can be seen that some of it just takes time and practice. Even so after nine years of teaching it is still hard to implement all components and features of SIOP, as seen by 22 the experienced teacher’s data and that she only used the SIOP model 72.7% of the time. This idea that it takes time and practice is not made very clear to students in an ESL endorsement class. The feeling in ESL endorsement classes can be that they drop it all on teachers and make them think that they have to be able to implement all of it right away and that can be hard. Another thing that can be learned is that the materials are also important. Experienced teachers have usually gathered a lot of different materials that they can try and use to help their students while the first year or novice teacher barely has any materials. It can also be difficult when the school doesn’t have that many materials for the students or teachers to use. Time and materials are very important in this whole process and can certainly make a difference in how the SIOP model is implemented in the classroom. One of the possible reasons why there is such a difference between the experienced teacher’s data and the novice teacher’s data is that she has had more time to learn how to do and use the different SIOP components and she has more strategies that she has learned and she has had more trial and error to learn. She has had more time to be the reflective practitioner and be able to change her practice and application in the classroom to better fit her style of teaching and her students. By having more strategies that she is able to implement it can be easier to implement these SIOP strategies that they ask us to use, especially in the strategies component of SIOP. A first year teacher is still trying to figure out what to do with the room and getting use to the curriculum. It can be hard for the first year teacher to teach the core to the English speaking students and the ELLs making it harder to implement all of SIOP with this struggle. Many of the components of SIOP have features that are related to the curriculum and by implementing 23 them the students are able to connect with the curriculum. That is why there may be such a difference between the experienced teacher’s data and the novice teacher’s data. The experienced teacher has also had more experience with the SIOP model and has taught it to others before while the novice teacher has only had two classes about SIOP. However, Echevarria did know that this struggle with fidelity to the model might occur as she explored fidelity to the SIOP model herself. She said that “changing teacher practice requires significant time and ongoing support.” She also said that some teachers require more time learning and practicing new strategies and techniques than do others (2011, pg. 433). She thought that maybe if the people who weren’t able to implement it as well, or with as high of fidelity, had “received more support through a learning community or had had more intensive coaching, they would have used effective practices to a greater degree” (2011, pg. 433). The findings in this may actually show that this is true. The novice teacher worked collaboratively with the experienced teacher and through their conversations they were able to adjust some of their practices. They also went to the same classes and were able to have the same understanding. There was some effort involved and the willingness to change to help make their SIOP practices better. When speaking about the SIOP model with the experienced teacher as well as Nathan Moore, teacher leader of the equity and equality department at Granite School District, they had useful suggestions for a teacher to start with the SIOP model. They said that the most important thing that teachers should learn to implement first is the language and content objectives. These pieces of a lesson are included under the lesson preparation and lesson delivery components. The lesson preparation component has the teacher prepare the objectives, while the lesson delivery component has you introduce the 24 objectives to the students. If there is one thing that a teacher needed to start with to help all their students, especially their ELL students, to learn better it is to have those objectives written and displayed. Writing objectives has actually shown to be a really difficult task to complete for many of the teachers involved with the discussion on SIOP. Once writing and displaying the objectives is implemented the students do seem more motivated to learn because they understand what and why they are learning. One of the more difficult features of the SIOP model to include is the key vocabulary in a student’s heritage language. A large barrier for this feature is not knowing the words in the student’s heritage language. Finding the words in other languages has been especially difficult for the novice teacher and her Burmese, Nepali, Somali and Portuguese speaking students. She does have the advantage of being able to speak Spanish and she has noticed a difference in her Spanish speaking students’ interactions compared to her other ELL students’ interactions. The novice teacher however felt that the data is true in that the four easiest components to implement are practice and application, interaction, building background, and lesson preparation. These components of SIOP also are the most important to help students, especially ELL students, learn. As we allow the students to have more interactions and opportunities to practice they are able to learn more and sometimes more quickly. Also the fact that it is easier to implement in small groups is really important and is a very key time for teaching and helping students learn. Conclusion There are still many ELL students in our school systems and teachers need to find the best way to teach them. There have been different programs like ESL, duel 25 immersion, and bilingual programs but they don’t seem to have enough effect as can be seen by the 21 point gap in their progress in the year 2012 (NAEP, 2013, p. 18). After doing the research it seems that by integrating the SIOP model in the classroom the students are able to do better in their classroom environment and with their learning. Speaking with other teachers, observing, and applying this method it appears that the SIOP model does work. The students are more engaged, more willing to participate, and better able to learn when they are surrounded by their native language with the use of SIOP. The easiest way to get started using SIOP is by giving ELL students the opportunity to practice and apply what they learn and by giving the students opportunities for interaction. These are SIOP components five and six, and they are important. By starting with the small things like allowing conversation between the students and making sure that the learning objectives are made and shared with students so they are better able to learn. The building background component, which is made up of including the students’ heritage languages and cultures, also make it easier to help ELL students learn. Thinking about this research and what might be done different, if done again, is getting more teachers involved to see if there are trends and to get more opinions and thoughts about the SIOP process. Another question to ask might be if the materials used makes a difference in the learning for the ELL students. If done again I would include the novice teacher and explore if being a second year teacher with more strategies and experience would make a difference in her ability to implement the SIOP model. It would be good to also try and incorporate more of Lucila Ek’s (2008) findings from her church vs. school research as well. Does the atmosphere that the church had about teaching and incorporating the students make the difference? If I tried to include more of that 26 atmosphere of inclusion in my classroom would it make a difference in how my ELL students learn the English language? Thinking about the SIOP model, and all of its components and features, it may be hard at first to implement and integrate into the classroom but it is worth it to all the students and their education. Take it one step at a time and know that it will take time, patience, and practice for the teacher and the students. Together teacher and students will be able to learn about each other and from each other and be able to incorporate the language and culture into the classroom and help all students, especially ELLs, learn better. References 27 Center for Applied Linguistics (2015). What is the siop model? Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/siop/about/ Chin, V., Echevarria, J., Ratleff, P., & Richards-Tutor, C. (2011). Did they get it? The role of fidelity in teaching english learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(6), 425-434 Ek, L. D. (2008). Language and literacy in the Pentecostal church and the public high school: A case study of a Mexican ESL student. The High School Journal, 92(2), 1-13 Escamilla, K. (2006). Semilingualism applied to the literacy behaviors of spanishspeaking emerging bilinguals: Bi-illiteracy or emerging biliteracy?. Teachers College Record, 108(11), 2329-2353. ESL endorsement (n.d.) Dixie State University College of Education. Retrieved from http://education.dixie.edu/elementary-education/esl-endorsement/ Grayson, K. (2012) Two-way dual language immersion programs. Intercultural Development Research Association. Retrieved from http://www.idra.org/IDRA_Newsletter/April_2012_Curriculum_Quality/TwoWay_Dual_Language_Immersion_Programs/ Institute of Educational Services (2015). Digest of Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/2015menu_tables.asp Hornberger, N. H., & Link, H. (2012). Translanguaging in today's classrooms: A biliteracy lens. Theory Into Practice, 51(4), 239-247. Larrivee, B. (2000). Transforming teaching practice: Becoming the critically reflective 28 teacher. Reflective Practice, 1(3), 293-307. Lee, T. S. (2009). Language, identity, and power: Navajo and pueblo young adults' perspectives and experiences with competing language ideologies. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 8(5), 307-320. Menken, K., & Kleyn, T. (2009). The long-term impact of subtractive schooling in the educational experiences of secondary english language learners. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13(4), 399-417. National Assessment of Educational Progress (2013). The nations’s report card: Trends in academic progress. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/main2012/pdf/2013456. pdf National Council of Teachers of English (2008). English language learners: A policy brief produced by the national council of teachers of English. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/PolicyResearch/ELLResearch Brief.pdf National Education Association (2008). English language learners face unique challenges. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/ELL_Policy_Brief_Fall_08_(2).pdf Park, J. W., Jesse, J., & Shumway, L. (2012). Utah statewide scores on the criterionreferenced tests (CRT) 2010-2011. Utah State Office of Education – Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.schools.utah.gov/assessment/Reports/Results_CRT_State_10-11.aspx Reyes, I., & Azuara, P. (2008). Emergent biliteracy in young Mexican immigrant children. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(4), 374-398. Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S. mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press. Wallace, C. (2007). Vocabulary: The key to teaching english language learners to read. Reading improvement, 44, 189-192. 29 Appendix A 30