content based and sheltered instruction - k12.wa.us
TRANSCRIPT
Joan Johnston Nelson, [email protected]
Content-Based and Sheltered Instruction:
Background, Research, and Basics
“[T]here is no equality of treatment
merely by providing students with the
same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and
curriculum; for students who do not
understand English are effectively
foreclosed from any meaningful
education.” (Lau v. Nichols, 1974)
Why we do what we do:
OSPI Bilingual Program Guidelines
Alternative
Instructional
Programs
Content-BasedInstruction(CBI)orShelteredInstruction(SI)
· ClassroomsofEnglishlanguagelearners
· InstructionconductedusingEnglish
· ELLteachersintegratecontentandEnglishlanguageinstructionusingstrategiesto
makecontentcomprehensibleandfosterEnglishlanguagedevelopment
· GoalofEnglishlanguageproficiencyintegratedwithgradelevelacademic
achievement
EnglishasaSecondLanguage(ESL)Pull-outorPush-in
· StudentsinmainstreamEnglishspeakingclassroomsmostoftheday
· ELLteachersprovideoroverseesupplementalEnglishlanguagesupportinsideor
outsideofthemainstreamclassroom
· InstructionconductedusingEnglishMainstreamcontentteacherscollaboratewith
ELLteacherorELLcoachtosupportlanguagedevelopmentandmeaningfulaccess
tocontentinstruction
· GoalofEnglishlanguageproficiencywithmainstreamsupport
Updated Program Models Guidelines
Content Based Instruction or Sheltered Instruction
For classes of ELL
Instruction using English
Integrate language
instruction and content
Emphasis on language
development
For classes of ELL
Instruction using English
Integrate language
instruction and content
Emphasis on content
instruction
CBI SI
Where did “Sheltered Instruction” come from?
Derived from Content Based Instruction
Early 1970s in English for Specific Purposes
(ESP) Programs (Grabe and Stoller, 1997)
University ESL Programs
“Sheltered” term introduced by Krashen
1982
1980s –
Sheltered Instruction Defined
Classes of limited English proficient students
Possess some English proficiency (intermediate level)
Specially designed instruction for content area
Separate from the mainstream classroom
Goal to mainstream students gradually
(Freeman and Freeman, 1988; Short, Echevarria, & Richards-Tutor, 2011)
According to Freeman and Freeman, students “are ‘sheltered’
in that they do not compete academically with native English
speakers since the class includes only LEP students” (1988, p. 2).
1990s –
Sheltered Instruction Takes Hold in k-12
“Whereas SI at the university level was intended to prepare language learners for future full participation in regular, unmodified academic courses,
SI at the K–12 level was particularly concerned with making the mainstream curriculum accessible to ELLs even before their language skills were fully developed.”
(Fritzen, 2011, p. 188)
1990s: Trainings and Approaches
Cognitive Academic
Language Learning
Approach (CALLA)
(Chamot & O’Malley, 1994)
Specially Designed
Academic Instruction in
English (SDAIE)
(Sobul, 1995)
Sheltered Instruction
Observational Protocol (SIOP)
(Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 1999)
Guided Language Acquisition
Development (GLAD)
(Brechtel, 2001)
Content Based Instruction* Sheltered Instruction**
*Emphasis on language development. **Emphasis on accessing content.
Since 2002 (and NCLB)
“Sheltered Instruction” term has taken on a variety
of interpretations across states and institutions:
Classes of All ELLs
Classes of Mostly ELLs
Classes of Many ELLs
Strategies in Mainstream w/some ELLs
???
Sheltered Instruction Programming in
Washington State Language Policy
‘Good teaching for all students?’:
(Stephens, C. and Johnson, D., Online
June 2014, in Print January 2015)
‘Good teaching for all students?’
SI (GLAD) implementation in a district in
Washington
Sheltered Instruction Program Model and State
Policy
1 ELL Specialist for the District
Classroom Observations with Teacher and
Principal Interviews
Findings:
Principal and teachers saw GLAD strategies as just
‘more tools in their toolkit’.
GLAD training for teachers was only language
“support” received by majority of ELLs.
Follow up GLAD training often nonexistent.
“the focus of conversation about SI is more often
about the needs of all students, sometimes to the
exclusion of the needs of ELLs” (p. 11)
‘It’s just good teaching’
“While we would argue that many strategies that
work for ELLs will also work for everyone else, the
converse is not true . . .
[the] discourse that ‘It’s just good teaching’ gives
teachers a reason to not accommodate ELLs.” (p. 12)
“Reason to not accommodate ELLs”
#1 – SIOP Studies
#2 – Sheltered and Mainstream Interaction
#3 – GLAD Study
Current Research
3 SIOP Studies by
SIOP Developers (Short and Echevarria)
6–8 Grade ELLs in
Sheltered Classes
Compared classrooms
with SIOP trained
teachers to non-SIOP
classrooms
6 -12 Grade ELLs
Various Subjects
Compared SIOP trained schools to non-SIOP trained schools
1998 – 1999 2004 – 2006
(Short, Echevarria, & Richards-Tutor, 2011)
6 - 8 Grade ELLs
Science Classes
Compared SIOP trained schools to non-SIOP trained schools
Series of 3 SIOP Studies by SIOP
Developers (Short and Echevarria)
Findings 1998-1999
ELLs in SIOP classrooms “outperformed, on
average, those in the control, although not
to a statistically significant degree”.
2004-2006 Studies
“some promise for the SIOP Model but
results are not generalizable”.
(Short, Echevarria, & Richards-Tutor, 2011)
• 2011- 2012
• Mixed Methods Study of English Verbal
Interactions
• 4-6 Grade Beginning Level ELLs
• Same Students in 3 Different Settings
Elementary ELL Interaction:
Mainstream v. Sheltered Settings
(Johnston, 2013)
Overall English Interactions
per Minute
0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
Mainstream Sheltered Pullout
0.265
0.637
2.031
Mean I
nte
ract
ion
s per
Min
ute
Mainstream v. Sheltered
(Johnston, 2013)
0.265
0.637
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
Mainstream Sheltered
Mean Inte
ract
ion
s per
Min
ute
Peer Interactions
0.114
0.400
0.298
Peer Interaction Rates
Mainstream
Sheltered
Pullout
Education Northwest – 4 Year “Project GLAD Study”
• $2.8 million grant from the Institute of Education Sciences (IES)
• Began in 2011
• Effect of GLAD on 5th grade students’ achievement in• reading comprehension
• vocabulary
• science
• writing
GLAD in Mainstream Classrooms
Findings:
Project GLAD Study
Year 1: Promising Results for ELLs
Improvement in vocabulary, reading
comprehension, aspects of writing
No meaningful differences in Science
Non-ELLs in both groups showed similar levels of
improvement
Year 2: Previous year’s promising results for ELLs not
replicated.
Education Northwest Study Conclusions:
“the impact for Project GLAD, though it
compares well to other approaches, is by itself
not large enough. We must think about
combining it with other things inside and outside
the classroom that we know make a difference.”
(Deussen, 2014)
What is the role of GLAD, SIOP, etc.?
The Supportive Mainstream:
Slide provide by Theresa Deussen,
Education Northwest
English Language Development:
Guidelines for Instruction
“Providing ELD instruction is better than not providing it.”
(p. 15)
“Researchers found that students who received focused second-language instruction made more than five times the gains of students who did not.”
(p. 17)
“English learners provided with a separate ELD instructional block outperformed English learners whose teachers tried to integrate ELD in the language arts block.”
(p. 17)
See Unlocking the Research:
Saunders, W., Goldenberg, C., & Marcelletti, D. (2013). English language development: Guidelines for instruction. American Educator, 37 (2), 13-25.
http://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Saunders_Goldenberg_Marcelletti.pdf
“What concerns are there regarding
having ELLs in a separate class?”
Regarding Grouping Students:
January 2015, “Dear Colleague” Letter From the Department of Justice and the Office of Civil Rights
pg. 22
“In determining whether an SEA or school district is
unnecessarily segregating EL students, the Departments
examine whether the nature and degree of
segregation is necessary to achieve the goals of an
educationally sound and effective EL program.”
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-el-
201501.pdf
Length of Time in ELL-only Classes
Program Goals
“school districts should not retain EL students in EL programs for periods longer or shorter than necessary to achieve the program’s educational goals”
Individual Student
districts should not “retain EL students in EL-only classes for periods longer or shorter than required by each student’s
level of English proficiency,
time and progress in the EL program, and the
stated goals of the EL program.”
(OCR, 2015, p. 22)
Non-Academic Subjects?
“...the Departments would rarely find a
program-related justification for instructing EL
and non-EL students separately in subjects like
physical education, art, and music or for
separating students during activity periods
outside of classroom instruction (i.e., during
lunch, recess, assemblies, and extracurricular
activities).”
(OCR, 2015, p. 22)
How can districts fund Content Based and
Sheltered Classes?
Changes have been made to how TBIP funding can
support Content Based and Sheltered classes.
For more information, attend the iGrant Application
Training:April 3, 2015
9:00 AM - 12:00 PM PDT
Register: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/238153936
Follow-up Training
“Content-Based and Sheltered Instruction:
Components for Success”
Look for Webinar in May (TBD)
Additional References
SIOP Studies
Short, D., Echevarria, J., & Richards-Tutor, C. (2011). Research on academic literacy development in sheltered instruction classrooms. Language Teaching Research , 15 (3), 363-380.
English Language Development: Guidelines for Instruction
Saunders, W., Goldenberg, C., & Marcelletti, D. (2013). English language development: Guidelines for instruction. American Educator, 37 (2), 13-25.http://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Saunders_Goldenberg_Marcelletti.pdf
Elementary ELL Interaction: Mainstream v. Sheltered
Instructional Settings
https://research.wsulibs.wsu.edu:8443/xmlui/handle/2376/4772?show=full
Project GLAD Study from Education Northwest
http://projectgladstudy.educationnorthwest.org