Module 4: Discussion: Reading Reflection
I found this week’s material to be particularly actionable – full of information that can be put to immediate use in the classroom and not limited to reflective value. A couple of things that stood out to me include the following:
The Echevarria and Graves article captured, under academic proficiency skills, that “talking, listening, reading, writing, thinking and studying are academic proficiency skills necessary for success in schools (Graves, 1987) (p. 228). This is the first time in this certification program that I’ve seen thinking and studying specifically called out amongst language skills and I love, love, love it and it really caught my attention. The authors go on to categorize skills into three buckets: language, content, and thinking/studying. At this point in the week, I’ve already turned in my SIOP-centered lesson plan on volcanos, but reflecting on my work, I think I could add value to it by adding those three buckets to the organization of my suggested activities.
The other thing that piqued my interest was the terrific Short and Echevarria paper. Of course, I’d like more data on the matter, but that “ELLs whose teachers were trained in implementing the SIOP Model performed significantly better on academic writing assessments than did a comparison group of ELLs whose teachers had no exposure to the model (Echevarria, Short, & Powers, 2003) (p.3) makes me curious about what efforts are being made to expand the Model to teachers currently in the profession in addition to those of us going through teaching programs. More, please! Also, I lean towards hope-filled skepticism (is there such a thing – I think so) but without present data and with the words “significantly better” I’m really sitting on the edge of my seat with wonder about the controls in that research. In other words, is it really the case that in the absence of SIOP, classroom teachers are not implementing other, perhaps less formal, modifications? Is this a comparison of one really good idea with the worst-case scenario as a sales tactic or is it as awesome as it sounds? Probably more of the latter but there are so many amazing teachers in this world that it’s worth thinking about.
References
Echevarria, J., & Graves, A. (2003). Curriculum Adaptations. In Sheltered content instruction: Teaching English-language learners with diverse abilities (2nd ed., pp. 224-247). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Short, D., & Echevarria, J. (2004). Teacher skills to support English language learners. Best of Educational Leadership 2004-2005, 62 (Summer 2005).
Reply Eric Wolford
You know, as I was working on my SIOP lesson plan, it made me consider consulting our ELL teacher to discuss whether she uses SIOP in her lesson plans for students and how successful they have been in the past. Heck, maybe I could consult her experience while I am working n my SIOP plans for our final project in a couple of weeks!
(On a side note: Our ELL teacher also happens to be our Spanish teacher, which as we saw in the Echevarria and Graves reading could be a successful approach to ELL teaching if our students were primarily Spanish-speakers. However, I doubt she uses this with our current intensive ELL students, who all but one speak Tagalog.)
Reply Julia Isbell
Hi Melinda,
I also wonder what model the authors were comparing SIOP to in that instance. I can definitely see how SIOP would be better for increasing both language and academic levels when compared to the solely English language focused classrooms. I thought it was really interesting to read how this structure can provide English skills, but then the students get behind their peers on the subject curriculum. It might be that students’ academic writing in SIOP is improved because they better understand the academic topic and have been more exposed to academic writing conventions. Another option might be a comparison to a traditional classroom with no emphasis on ELL, just informal needs-based modifications, which again I could see causing non-native speakers to score lower on academic writing assignments. Something else I consider is teachers’ attitudes. I think teachers who have this SIOP training background might be more sensitive to the needs and abilities of ELL students, whereas those without might be less aware. Thinking back on my experiences growing up, we had some teachers who treated ELL classmates as if they were ‘dumb’, but they were actually just incapable of communicating their knowledge in English. This might lead these students to be less invested in by the teachers and get less instruction, could make them feel less engaged and motivated to learn, and might make them vulnerable to stereotype threat - all outcomes that could potentially lead these students to perform worse.
The Echevarria and Graves article captured, under academic proficiency skills, that “talking, listening, reading, writing, thinking and studying are academic proficiency skills necessary for success in schools (Graves, 1987) (p. 228). This is the first time in this certification program that I’ve seen thinking and studying specifically called out amongst language skills and I love, love, love it and it really caught my attention. The authors go on to categorize skills into three buckets: language, content, and thinking/studying. At this point in the week, I’ve already turned in my SIOP-centered lesson plan on volcanos, but reflecting on my work, I think I could add value to it by adding those three buckets to the organization of my suggested activities.
The other thing that piqued my interest was the terrific Short and Echevarria paper. Of course, I’d like more data on the matter, but that “ELLs whose teachers were trained in implementing the SIOP Model performed significantly better on academic writing assessments than did a comparison group of ELLs whose teachers had no exposure to the model (Echevarria, Short, & Powers, 2003) (p.3) makes me curious about what efforts are being made to expand the Model to teachers currently in the profession in addition to those of us going through teaching programs. More, please! Also, I lean towards hope-filled skepticism (is there such a thing – I think so) but without present data and with the words “significantly better” I’m really sitting on the edge of my seat with wonder about the controls in that research. In other words, is it really the case that in the absence of SIOP, classroom teachers are not implementing other, perhaps less formal, modifications? Is this a comparison of one really good idea with the worst-case scenario as a sales tactic or is it as awesome as it sounds? Probably more of the latter but there are so many amazing teachers in this world that it’s worth thinking about.
References
Echevarria, J., & Graves, A. (2003). Curriculum Adaptations. In Sheltered content instruction: Teaching English-language learners with diverse abilities (2nd ed., pp. 224-247). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Short, D., & Echevarria, J. (2004). Teacher skills to support English language learners. Best of Educational Leadership 2004-2005, 62 (Summer 2005).
Reply Eric Wolford
You know, as I was working on my SIOP lesson plan, it made me consider consulting our ELL teacher to discuss whether she uses SIOP in her lesson plans for students and how successful they have been in the past. Heck, maybe I could consult her experience while I am working n my SIOP plans for our final project in a couple of weeks!
(On a side note: Our ELL teacher also happens to be our Spanish teacher, which as we saw in the Echevarria and Graves reading could be a successful approach to ELL teaching if our students were primarily Spanish-speakers. However, I doubt she uses this with our current intensive ELL students, who all but one speak Tagalog.)
Reply Julia Isbell
Hi Melinda,
I also wonder what model the authors were comparing SIOP to in that instance. I can definitely see how SIOP would be better for increasing both language and academic levels when compared to the solely English language focused classrooms. I thought it was really interesting to read how this structure can provide English skills, but then the students get behind their peers on the subject curriculum. It might be that students’ academic writing in SIOP is improved because they better understand the academic topic and have been more exposed to academic writing conventions. Another option might be a comparison to a traditional classroom with no emphasis on ELL, just informal needs-based modifications, which again I could see causing non-native speakers to score lower on academic writing assignments. Something else I consider is teachers’ attitudes. I think teachers who have this SIOP training background might be more sensitive to the needs and abilities of ELL students, whereas those without might be less aware. Thinking back on my experiences growing up, we had some teachers who treated ELL classmates as if they were ‘dumb’, but they were actually just incapable of communicating their knowledge in English. This might lead these students to be less invested in by the teachers and get less instruction, could make them feel less engaged and motivated to learn, and might make them vulnerable to stereotype threat - all outcomes that could potentially lead these students to perform worse.