Reflections on Teaching Multilingual Learners

 

English learners, by definition, are still in the process of acquiring English, especially the academic language used in school. Beginning speakers need practice in developing social language so that they can be understood by others and understand what others are saying. However, many English learners are conversant in English but struggle with academic language. An element of academic language that is critical for students’ success in school is oral language proficiency. A conscious focus on developing oral language is warranted because as English learners strengthen their oral language skills, reading and writing skills improve as well.

It is important to keep in mind that these students have not had the advantage of growing up speaking and listening to English from infancy. The result is a significant gap between their oral language skills and those of their English-speaking peers. So, if English learners are to develop grade-level oral language proficiency, they must be provided lots of opportunities to practice speaking and listening in class.

Student interaction is called for in all state standards and emphasized in the Common Core State Standards. Some of the skills students must attain include the following:

• Prepare for and participate effectively in a range of conversations;
• Build on others’ ideas and express one’s own clearly and persuasively;
• Present information, findings, and supporting evidence such that listeners can follow the line of reasoning;
• Adapt speech to a variety of contexts and communicative tasks;
• Demonstrate command of formal English when indicated or appropriate.

As you can imagine, this level of language competence is challenging for students who are still in the process of acquiring English; they need support as they develop the skills called for in academic standards.

English learners benefit from classroom environments where student-to-student interaction is encouraged. But not all interaction is equal. There are a variety of techniques that can be utilized to encourage students to talk together, such as turn-and-talk, partner work, and circulating amongst classmates to share information. These techniques create opportunities for using academic language in a specific way, such as reporting on work, giving an opinion, or comparing answers.

A deeper level of oral language development comes from more extended discourse which allows students to engage in authentic, self-generated discussion about topics, and offers them a chance to grapple with ideas, make connections between others’ ideas and their own, build on a peer’s contribution, express disagreement, or make a counterargument.   Language frames  may be used, as needed, to scaffold students’ contributions to the discussion.

Teacher-student interaction patterns can also promote oral language development. Rather than accepting a single word response and expanding upon it, teachers should encourage elaborated responses by prompting with questions such as, Can you tell me more about that? and through elicitation, In other words…. (pause for student response). These techniques invite English learners to express their ideas more fully.

In a previous post, Student Interaction Gone Awry, I discussed the importance of finding the right balance between teacher and student talk. Teachers typically talk too much during lessons, which inadvertently denies students the opportunity to use extended language. However, asking students to think-pair-share every few minutes simply for the sake of reducing the teacher’s role is also ineffective. Purposeful interaction is the goal.

Research confirms that English learners need multiple exposures to academic words — to see and hear them, and use them in varied contexts — for the words to become part of their own linguistic repertoire. Engaging in oral language activities provides English learners with additional practice using academic words through listening and speaking.

 

 

An administrator recently asked me about how to maximize the effectiveness of ESL teaching (also called English language development, or ELD) because he is committed to advancing English learners’ language proficiency and literacy. Before I get to what I recommended, let me set the context.

First, ESL/ELD teaching is an important part of an English learner’s instructional day. Research indicates that students benefit from having dedicated time every day that gives English learners the opportunity to use language in authentic ways and that focuses on learning how English works. So, if that dedicated time is important for English learners to gain language proficiency, what should happen when they are in their ESL/ELD group?

The content and focus of ESL/ELD varies tremendously across the U.S. Some teachers pull together their own materials and develop a curriculum for their students, usually based on state ESL/ELD standards (e.g., California and Texas) or national standards such as WIDA, TESOL, or ELPA2 standards. Others use a commercial curriculum designed for ESL/ELD teaching, typically designed to meet standards. Some teachers use the time to assist English learners in completing assignments or preparing for an upcoming test. Other teachers do a combination of drawing on a curriculum for instruction but also use the time to “tutor” students when they have an assignment due or a test.

So, what did I recommend?

#1. Consider ESL/ELD its own subject area so that it is given the attention it deserves. When teachers — with the best of intentions — use the time to assist students with completing work for their other classes, it may help English learners in the short run but not over time. ESL/ELD teachers tend to be advocates for their English learners so naturally they want to support them in doing well in their classes and receiving passing grades. However, they are helping their students even more by consistently and systematically teaching to ESL/ELD standards, providing ample opportunity to read, write, listen to and speak English. Grouping students by proficiency level in small groups creates a comfortable learning environment and, in particular, gives learners a chance to develop speaking and listening skills in a low-risk setting. The focus of instruction should be on helping each student acquire the language she needs so that she can participate more fully in instruction in general education classes.

#2. Align teaching with core literacy instruction (ELA). When students struggle with literacy, they have difficulty accessing the core curriculum. In fact, more than 80% of academic difficulties are due to low literacy levels. So, developing literacy – which involves language development — is critical for English learners to be successful in school. It makes sense, therefore, for ESL/ELD teachers to spend their time supporting the content that is taught during ELA. Fortunately, there is significant informational text covered in ELA so students are exposed to a variety of texts, including those whose language and content are associated with science and social studies as well as literature. What would ESL/ELD time that is aligned with ELA look like?

• Students study an interesting and engaging topic in ELA such as, How People Respond to Natural Disasters, using grade-level text. During ESL/ELD, the teacher reinforces the concepts and language, including vocabulary (see below), by having students discuss the topic, participate in interactive activities around text, and practice using academic language in groups configured by English proficiency level. Also, students might develop further the skills that are the focus of the ELA lessons such as writing to sources or making inferences. In this way, the ESL/ELD teacher is maximizing the opportunity to advance English learners’ literacy skills by equipping them with the language they need to better understand instruction during ELA time, time explicitly dedicated to teaching literacy. The language and literacy skills EL students acquire during ELA are essential skills for learning in every subject area.

Too often, instruction isn’t aligned in the way described. Based on language     learning research, it seems counterproductive to introduce completely unrelated, new material during ESL/ELD, however interesting the materials may be. Picture an English learner who is beginning to understand the How People Respond to Natural Disasters text, its vocabulary, concepts and meaning. Then, during ESL/ELD time, the lesson is about, let’s say, the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Wouldn’t it be more strategic to provide the repetition and multiple exposures to material that English learners need? Aligning ELA with ESL/ELD teaching would give English learners the most bang for the buck.

#3. Study a set of vocabulary words intensively for several days. Explicit vocabulary instruction is beneficial for English learners but it’s important to select only a small number of words and teach them intensively. By the way, if the words are the same as or related to those covered in ELA, students would have additional opportunities during ESL/ELD to use the words in a variety of ways and learn them more deeply. Some of the ideas we recommend for helping students deepen their knowledge of key vocabulary include:

• Using semantic mapping, word sorts, and concept definition maps.
• Encouraging students to use personal dictionaries that contain key words with student-friendly definitions.
• Providing multiple exposures to words in a variety of contexts and drawing on various sources.
• Posting word-walls with relevant words and phrases as a reference during a unit of study.
• Using examples, non-examples, photos, realia, multimedia, and the like to explicitly teach and clarify definitions.

The time designated for ESL/ELD should be used purposefully and be relevant to the rest of the instructional day. In the past, instruction has often been disconnected from the core, or the time was used to help students “get through” their other classes. We need to respect the time that is specifically designed to advance English learners’ language proficiency and make sure that it is time well spent.

Collaborative discussions have become a part of classroom practice due in large part to CCSS listening and speaking standards as well as skills called for in other state standards. For English learners, it can be quite challenging to think critically about a topic and use academic language to express ideas, summarize another’s points, and pose the kinds of questions that advance a discussion. They need to be taught the skills to do so but they also need to spend time actually using academic language – talking, listening, interacting.

This creates a bit of a dilemma: finding the right balance.

An elementary school principal told me that at her school, which has a high percentage of English learners, they practice the 90-10 approach. That is, 90% student talk and 10% teacher directed instruction.

Now, I’ve been promoting less teacher talk since publishing research on instructional conversations in the early 1990’s. In fact, one of the eight components of the SIOP Model is Interaction. My colleagues and I have been encouraging teachers to “get out of the way” and give students opportunities to talk to one another for a couple of decades, especially those students who are learning English.

However, a 90%—10% approach seems extreme, especially for young English learners who are just beginning to learn about the world around them and the books in front of them. This ratio begs the question: What, for example, can second-graders teach each other or practice talking about for 90 percent of the school day, or even the ELA block? Especially students who are still in the process of learning English? Much of the interaction in classrooms involved techniques such as turn-and-talk, popcorn questioning, and think-pair-share.

Asking students to turn-and-talk or think-pair-share frequently simply for the sake of reducing teacher talk is a case of student interaction gone awry.

Interactive activities — for elementary and secondary students — should to be purposeful and used as a means of achieving specific learning goals. For students to participate in high quality interaction, teachers need to clearly communicate to students what they are going to talk about and why they are doing the interactive activity, whether the oral exchange is brief or is an extended academic discussion where students express their ideas, grapple with concepts, discuss issues, and argue a point.

In our book, Developing Academic Language (2016), my co-author Deborah Short and I present guidelines for conducting collaborative academic discussions. These include:

1. Teach students the rules for discussion. Participating in an academic discussion doesn’t come naturally for anyone so we can’t expect to set students loose to have a productive conversation. Rules such as turn-taking, staying on topic, being respectful, listening actively and building on each other’s comments are skills that need to be taught and practiced with guidance.
2. Align the discussion to the lesson objectives. The topic of discussion should reflect the lesson’s purpose but so should grouping configurations. Students might be organized in pairs, triads or groups of 4 to 6. The composition of groups might vary as well, depending on the objectives. Partners or groups are matched by English proficiency level (the same level or English learner with English proficient), language background (same language background for support or different languages), and reading levels.
3. Pose good questions to prompt high quality discussions. If you want students to have a productive, interesting discussion, you need to begin with an interesting question. And, good questions are those that drive higher-order thinking, that force students to grapple with an idea or issue and draw on information they’ve gained during the lesson or unit.
4. Teach students how to ask questions. Help students understand that there are different reasons for asking questions such as clarifying (Can you explain that more?), confirming (I think you said that…), eliciting (How does this connect to what we were reading?), or predicting (Do you think that in the next chapter…). Also, questions should advance the discussion rather than simply repeating a language frame or using similar questions over and over.
5. Link oral discourse with reading and writing. Research tells us that the domains of reading, writing, listening and speaking are interrelated and best developed together. Student discussions should include reference to text evidence, using text or writing as a basis for making a point and so forth.
6. Hold students accountable for their talk. The most productive discussions are those that have clear expectations and some type of accountability for each student’s participation such as the teacher circulating with a clipboard assigning points on a rubric or having students take responsibility for judging participation.
7. Set reasonable time limits. Students are sometimes left to turn-and-talk or think-pair-share for several minutes about questions that could be answered in 10-15 seconds, questions that are often mundane and without a strong instructional purpose. Those wasted minutes here and there add up to a lot of lost instructional time. With academic discussions, teachers should monitor pacing and make sure discussions don’t stall.

The need for these guidelines is exemplified in the following lesson on nutrition. The teacher asked students to talk to their partner and discuss, “What do you like to eat for after-school snacks?” Students talked for several minutes, then regrouped and shared their answers some of which included liking candy and hot dogs. The teacher accepted all answers, presumably not wanting to shut down participation, and went around the circle asking students to use a language frame to answer: I like _______ because ________. The process continued until each child had a turn.

Here are a few problems with this student-to-student interaction and why the guidelines above would be useful:

• The interaction needed to be more closely aligned with the topic of nutrition. Asking students to talk about healthy snack choices they’ve read about rather than asking them to talk about what they like to eat would have better met the objectives of the lesson. (#2, #5) Further, once some students reported that they like snack foods that are not nutritious, the teacher was caught in a bind. Either she points out why those foods may not be the best nutritional choice and risk criticizing the student and/or his family or she accepts the answer, makes no judgment (e.g., Ok, thanks Minh), and implicitly endorses the food choice. It appeared she did the latter. The problem could have been avoided with more purposeful planning.
• The question driving the interaction was mundane and didn’t require higher-order thinking. There aren’t many ways to think critically about why one likes a certain food! (#3)
• The same frame used repeatedly becomes boring and often leads to students disengaging. (#4) After students talk together, have several students report out using the frame, then move on with the lesson. Better yet, provide the frame for the students to use when talking together. The teacher can circulate to hear their language use and when the group reconvenes, call on one or two students to share.
• Too much time was spent on student talk; it takes only seconds to name a food and say why you like it. Also, having every student repeat the frame ate up time resulting in lost instructional minutes. (#7) Time spent on this part of the lesson could have been reduced significantly and been put to better use.

Back to the issue of balance: The amount of student talk vs. teacher directed or teacher facilitated instruction is tricky. Until we have empirical evidence to guide us, we need to rely on what seems reasonable to meet lesson objectives, meet standards, and develop students’ academic language.

But, the quality of interaction may be even more important than the amount. Hopefully, you’ll find the guidelines useful.

 

 

 

With the large and growing numbers of English learners (ELs) in the U.S., my colleagues Deborah Short, MaryEllen Vogt and I set out to develop and test an approach for making grade-level instruction understandable for ELs while at the same time, developing their English proficiency. That was 20 years ago…..

Since that time, there have been lots of books and other resources produced on the topic of effective instruction for English learners. Much of it is good and has been helpful to teachers who work diligently to educate the English learners in their classrooms.

In this post, I’d like to share what is unique about SIOP: It has a solid and growing research base that demonstrates that it actually helps kids achieve academically and improve their English proficiency.

SIOP is an approach for lesson planning and  delivery that is used widely across the U.S. and in numerous countries. SIOP’s features are research-based, as are most other programs and practices out there for teaching English learners.

However, the difference is that there are also empirical studies conducted on the SIOP Model itself demonstrating its effectiveness.

Selected research conducted thus far is described below followed by a more comprehensive list of SIOP research studies and resources.

• The observation protocol has a 5-point scale for each of SIOP’s features  which measures its level of implementation. A study was conducted to establish the validity and reliability of the SIOP protocol and found the SIOP instrument to be a highly reliable and valid measure of sheltered instruction (Guarino, et al., 2001);
• A professional development process was developed including training materials and videotapes, and it has been shown to be effective in improving teachers’ practice as they work with English learners (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2000; Short, Fidelman, & Louguit, 2012);
• When the features of the SIOP Model are implemented to a high degree, the achievement of English learners improves (Echevarria, Short, & Powers, 2006; Echevarria, Richards, Chinn & Ratleff, 2011);
• The features of the SIOP Model provide the language supports that English learners need to improve literacy skills. When teachers applied the features effectively, student reading scores in English improved (McIntyre, Kyle, et al., 2010);
• Students in middle and high school classes (mathematics, science, social studies, language arts, ESL, health, and computer) with SIOP-trained teachers outperformed comparison students (those without trained teachers) on the IDEA Language Proficiency Tests (IPT) to levels of statistical significance in oral language, writing, and overall mean scores, indicating that the SIOP Model had a positive impact on the development of English language proficiency (Short, Fidelman, & Louguit, 2012);
• There are multiple schools and districts that report increased student performance when teachers implement the SIOP Model (Echevarria, 2012; Echevarria, Short & Vogt, 2017);
• English-speaking students as well as English learners in SIOP classes outperformed similar students in control classes (Short & Himmel, 2013).

 

Batt, E. (2010). Cognitive coaching: A critical phase in professional development to implement sheltered instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education 26, 997-1005.

Bertram, R. L. (2011). Sheltered instruction: A case study of three high school English teachers’ experiences with the SIOP Model (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3486471)

Calderon, C. T., & Zamora, E. (2014). Factors affecting the implementation of sheltered instruction observation protocols for English language learners. National Forum of Educational Administration & Supervision Journal, 31 (3), 20-32.

Chen, C., Kyle, D., & McIntyre, E. (2008). Helping teachers work effectively with English language learners and their families. The School Community Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1.

Echevarría, J. (2012). Effective practices for increasing the achievement of English learners. Washington, DC: Center for Research on the Educational Achievement and Teaching of English Language Learners. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/create/resources/pubs/

Echevarria, J., Richards-Tutor, C., Canges, R., & Francis, D. (2011). Using the SIOP Model to promote the acquisition of language and science concepts with English learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 34 (3), 334-351.

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.

Echevarría, J., & Short, D. (2004). Using multiple perspectives in observations of diverse classrooms: The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP). In H. Waxman, R. Tharp, & S., Hilberg (Eds.), Observational research in U.S. classrooms: New approaches for understanding cultural and linguistic diversity. Boston: Cambridge University Press.

Echevarria , J., & Short, D. (2010). Programs and practices for effective sheltered content instruction. In California Department of Education (Ed.). Improving education for English learners: Research-based approaches. (pp. 250-321). Sacramento, CA: CDE Press.

Echevarría, J., & Short, D. (2011). The SIOP^® Model: A professional development framework for comprehensive schoolwide intervention. Washington, DC: Center for Research on the Educational Achievement and Teaching of English Language Learners. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/create/resources/pubs/professional-development-framework.html

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), 195-210.

Echevarria, J., & Vogt, ME. (2010). Using the SIOP Model to improve literacy for English learners. New England Reading Association Journal, 46 (1), 8-15.

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.

Guarino, A.J., Echevarria, J., Short, D., Schick, J.E., Forbes, S., & Rueda, R. (2001). The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol. Journal of Research in Education, 11(1), 138–140.

Himmel, J., Echevarria, J. & Short, D. (under review). Increasing teacher knowledge of sheltered instruction. Middle School Journal.

Himmel, J., Short, D.J., Richards, C., & Echevarria, J. (2009). Using the SIOP Model to improve middle school science instruction. Washington, DC: Center for Research on the Educational Achievement and Teaching of English Language Learners. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/create/resources/pubs/siopscience.htm

Honigsfeld, A., & Cohan, A. (2008). The power of two: Lesson study and SIOP help teachers instruct ELLs. Journal of Staff Development, 29(1), 24-28.

Kang, AeJin. (2005). How to promote comprehension and participation in CBI courses: The SIOP model. English Teaching, 60(4), 159-196.

Kareva, V. & Echevarria, J. (2013). Using the SIOP Model for effective content teaching with second and foreign language learners. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 1 (2), 239-248.

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.

Nora, J. & Echevarria, J. (2016). No more low expectations for ELLs (N. Duke & E..Keene, Eds.)  Not This But That series. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

O’Neal, D., Ringler, M. C., & Lys, D. B. (2009). Skeptics to partners: University teams with district to improve ELL instruction. Journal of Staff Development, 30(4), 52–55.

Polat, N. & Cepik, S. (2015). An exploratory factor analysis of the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol as an evaluation tool to measure teaching effectiveness. TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 0, No. 0, DOI: 10.1002/tesq.248

Portillo, C. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions on the use of Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol as a districtwide professional development reform. (Doctoral Dissertation) Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3723058)

Short, D. (2000). What principals should know about sheltered instruction for English language learners. NASSP Bulletin, 84 (619), 17-27. doi:10.1177/019263650008461902

Short, D. (2013). Training and sustaining effective teachers of sheltered instruction. Theory Into Practice, 52(2), 118-127.

Short, D., Cloud, N., Morris, P., & Motta, J. (2012). Cross-district collaboration: Curriculum and professional development. TESOL Journal, 3(3), 402-424.

Short, D., & Echevarria, J. (1999). The sheltered observation protocol: A tool for researcher-teacher collaboration and professional development. (Educational Practice Report No. 3). Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.

Short, D., & Echevarria, J. (2004). Teacher skills to support English language learners. Educational Leadership, 62(4), 9–13.

Short, D., Echevarria, J., & Richards-Tutor, C. (2011). Research on academic literacy development in sheltered instruction classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 363-380.

Short, D., Fidelman, C., & Louguit, M. (2012). Developing academic language in English language learners through sheltered instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 333-360.

Short, D., & Himmel, J. (2013). Moving research on sheltered instruction into curriculum and professional development practice. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, April 2013.

Song, K. (2016, February). Systematic professional development training and its impact on teachers’ attitudes toward ELLs: SIOP and guided coaching. TESOL Journal. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tesj.240/full doi: 10.1002/tesj.240 .

Song, K. (2016,). Applying an SIOP-Based instructional framework for professional development in Korea. TESL-EJ, 20 (1).

Vidot, J. L. (2011). The efficacy of sheltered instruction observation protocol (SIOP) in mathematics instruction on English language learners. (Doctoral dissertation) Available from http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/943/

Vogt, ME. (2012). English learners: Developing their literate lives. In R. M. Bean & A. S. Dagen (Eds.), Best practice of literacy leaders: Keys to school improvement (pp. 248-260). New York: The Guilford Press.

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.

Welsh, L. & Newman, K. (2010). Becoming a content-ESL teacher: A dialogic journey of a science teacher and teacher educator. Theory Into Practice, 49:137–144.

Whittier, L. E., & Robinson, M. (2007). Teaching evolution to non-English proficient students by using Lego Robotics. American Secondary Education, 35(3), 19–28.