How to Integrate Content and Language Learning Effectively for English Language Learners

Academic Language Research & Training, USA
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education 2017;13(7b):4237–4260
Publish date: 2017-06-21
This paper describes the challenges and successes of developing and scaling up a research-based instructional intervention known as the SIOP (Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol) Model. The SIOP Model is an approach used widely in the United States for teaching subjects like mathematics and science to students learning through English, a new language. Teachers integrate techniques that make the concepts accessible with techniques that develop the students’ skills in the academic language of the specific subjects. This article describes a program of research that developed the SIOP Model in one study and then tested its efficacy and refined its professional development design in subsequent studies in a number of different contexts over 15 years. Results revealed that students with teachers who were trained in the SIOP Model and implemented it with fidelity performed better on assessments of academic language than students with teachers who were not trained in the model.
1. Abedi, J. (2002). Standardized achievement tests and English language learners: Psychometric issues. Educational Assessment, 8(3), 234–257.
2. Ballantyne, K., Sanderman, A., & Levy, J. (2008). Educating English language learners: Building teacher capacity. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/3/EducatingELLsBuildingTeacherCapacityVol1.pdf .
3. Batt, E. (2010). Cognitive coaching: A critical phase in professional development to implement sheltered instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education 26, 997–1005.
4. Batalova, J., Fix, M., & Murray, J. (2007). Measures of change: The demography and literacy of adolescent English learners. A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.
5. Braswell, J., Dion, G., Daane, M., & Jin, Y. (2005). The nation’s report card: Mathematics 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
6. Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
7. California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Unit. (2004). Statewide Stanford 9 test results for reading: Number of students tested and percent scoring at or above the 50th percentile ranking (NPR). Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/.
8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd Edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Cook-Gumperz, J. (Ed.) (2006). The social construction of literacy. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10. Crandall, J. (1993). Content-centered learning in the United States. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 111-126.
11. Donnelly, W. B., & Roe, C. J. (2010). Using sentence frames to develop academic vocabulary for English learners. The Reading Teacher, 64(2), 131-136.
12. Echevarria, J., Richards, C., Canges, R., & Francis, D. (2009). Using the SIOP model to promote the acquisition of language and science concepts with English learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(3), 334–351. doi:10.1080/ 15235882.2011.623600.
13. Echevarria, J., Richards-Tutor, C., Chinn, V., & Ratleff, P. (2011). Did they get it? The role of fidelity in teaching English learners. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 54(6), 425-434. doi:10.1598/jaal.54.6.4.
14. Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: An instructional model for English language learners. Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 195-211. doi:10.3200/JOER.99.4.195-211.
15. Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2000). Making content comprehensible for English language learners: The SIOP Model. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
16. Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2017). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP Model. 5th edition. New York, NY: Pearson.
17. Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2010). SIOP Model for teaching mathematics to English learners. Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
18. Ellis, N. C. (1999). Cognitive approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 22-42.
19. Friend, J., Most, R., & McCrary, K. (2009). The impact of a professional development program to improve urban middle-level English language learner achievement. Middle Grades Research Journal, 4(1), 53–75.
20. Gass, S. (2013). Second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.
21. Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247–273. doi:10.2307/3588504.
22. Grigg, W., Daane, M., Jin, Y. & Campbell, J. (2003). The nation’s report card: Reading 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
23. Guarino, A .J., Echevarria, J., Short, D., Schick, J., Forbes, S., & Rueda, R. (2001). The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol. Journal of Research in Education, 11(1), 138–140.
24. Hajer, M., & Meestringa, T. (2009). Handboek taalgericht Vakonderwijs. Bussum: Coutinho.
25. Hedges, L.V. (2007). Effect size estimation in cluster-randomized trials. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 32, 341–370.
26. Howard, E., Sugarman, J., & Coburn, C. (2006). Adapting the sheltered instruction observation protocol (SIOP) for two-way immersion education: An introduction to the TWIOP. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
27. Illinois State Board of Education, Assessment Division (2004). The Illinois State Assessment: Technical Manual 2004. Retrieved from http://www.isbe.net/assessment/pdfs/isat_tech_2004.pdf .
28. Kindler, A. (2002). Survey of the states’ limited English proficient students and available educational programs and services. 2000-01 summary report. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition.
29. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York, NY: Longman.
30. McIntyre, E., Kyle, D., Chen, C., Muñoz, M., & Beldon, S. (2010). Teacher learning and ELL reading achievement in sheltered instruction classrooms: Linking professional development to student development. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49(4), 334–351.
31. Moschkovich, J. N. (2007). Examining mathematical discourse practices. For The Learning of Mathematics, 27(1), 24-30.
32. Moschkovich, J. N. (Ed.). (2010). Language and mathematics education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
33. National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Schools and staffing survey, 1999-2000. (NCES 2002-313). Washington, DC: Author.
34. National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA). (2011). The growing numbers of English learner students. Retrieved from www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/9/growingLEP_0809.pdf.
35. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. (2009). Certification and licensure of teachers of English language learners. Washington DC: Author. Retrieved from.
36. www.tqsource.org/pdfs/CertificationandLicensureforTeachersofELLs.pdf .
37. Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50, 417–528.
38. Ruiz-de-Velasco, J., & Fix, M. (2000). Overlooked and underserved: Immigrant students in U.S. secondary schools. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
39. Sheppard, K. (1995). Content-ESL across the USA. Volume I, Technical Report. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
40. Short, D., & Echevarria, J. (2016). Developing academic language with the SIOP Model. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
41. Short, D., Fidelman, C., & Louguit, M. (2012). Developing academic language in English language learners through sheltered instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 333-360. doi:10.1002/tesq.20.
42. Short, D., Vogt, M. E., & Echevarria, J. (2011). SIOP Model for teaching science to English learners. Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
43. Song, K. (2016). Applying an SIOP-based instructional framework for professional development in Korea. TESL-EJ, 20(1).
44. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–256). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
45. Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
46. Unsworth, L. (Ed.) (2000). Researching language in schools and communities: Functional linguistic perspectives. London: Cassell.
47. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. and Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
48. Watkins, N. M., & Lindahl, K. M. (2010). Targeting content area literacy instruction to meet the needs of adolescent English language learners. Middle School Journal, 41(3), 23–32.
49. Whittier, L. E., & Robinson, M. (2007). Teaching evolution to non-English proficient students by using Lego Robotics. American Secondary Education, 35(3), 19–28.
50. Zwiers, J., & Crawford, M. (2009). How to start academic conversations. Educational Leadership, 66(7), 70-73.
Copy url