• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Buy
Continue searching

Evaluation of a high school Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) implementation

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 2011
Dissertation
Author: Samuel L Ray
Abstract:
Many school systems across the USA have implemented sheltered instruction observation protocol (SIOP) strategies to help their English language learners (ELLs) master core content while they learn English. Most studies have reported positive results from using SIOP strategies with ELLs. Elementary and middle school studies were available, but studies of SIOP implementation in a comprehensive high school were lacking. This action research project was initiated by teacher leaders (department chairs) and the school principal. It included a year of combined SIOP training and implementation. After the first academic year of utilizing SIOP school-wide, an anonymous electronic survey was used to collect information on teacher implementation, the teachers' perceptions of students' success, and teacher plans for future use of the SIOP model. This study was implemented in a comprehensive high school in the Rocky Mountain region. The research questions were: To what degree, do teachers having received in-service training in SIOP, report implementing the various components of the program in their daily instruction? After one school year of implementing the SIOP model, what are teachers' perceptions regarding the effectiveness of using the SIOP model with students? How does SIOP need (number of ELLs per class), class size, years of teaching experience, teaching subject, or prior English as a second language (ESL) training relate to a teacher's perception of SIOP effectiveness scale? Is the level of implementation related to the teacher's perceptions of effectiveness? Do teachers plan to use the SIOP model in the future? Teachers reported a high degree of implementing SIOP strategies. They perceived the strategies improved student learning in most cases. There was no statistically significant relationship found between the degree of SIOP implementation and perceptions of the effectiveness of SIOP. Correlational analyses indicated that SIOP need (number or ELLS per class), class size, years of teaching experience, teaching subject, and prior ESL training did not affect the degree of implementation or perceptions of the effectiveness of the SIOP model in this comprehensive high school.

Many school systems across the USA have implemented sheltered instruction observation protocol (SIOP) strategies to help their English language learners (ELLs) master core content while they learn English. Most studies have reported positive results from using SIOP strategies with ELLs. Elementary and middle school studies were available, but studies of SIOP implementation in a comprehensive high school were lacking. This action research project was initiated by teacher leaders (department chairs) and the school principal. It included a year of combined SIOP training and implementation. After the first academic year of utilizing SIOP school-wide, an anonymous electronic survey was used to collect information on teacher implementation, the teachers’ perceptions of students’ success, and teacher plans for future use of the SIOP model. This study was implemented in a comprehensive high school in the Rocky

iv

Mountain region. The research questions were: To what degree, do teachers having received in-service training in SIOP, report implementing the various components of the program in their daily instruction? After one school year of implementing the SIOP model, what are teachers’ perceptions regarding the effectiveness of using the SIOP model with students? How does SIOP need (number of ELLs per class), class size, years of teaching experience, teaching subject, or prior English as a second language (ESL) training relate to a teacher’s perception of SIOP effectiveness scale? Is the level of implementation related to the teacher’s perceptions of effectiveness? Do teachers plan to use the SIOP model in the future? Teachers reported a high degree of implementing SIOP strategies. They perceived the strategies improved student learning in most cases. There was no statistically significant relationship found between the degree of SIOP implementation and perceptions of the effectiveness of SIOP. Correlational analyses indicated that SIOP need (number or ELLS per class), class size, years of teaching experience, teaching subject, and prior ESL training did not affect the degree of implementation or perceptions of the effectiveness of the SIOP model in this comprehensive high school. (139 pages)

v

CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... vii

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1

Evaluation of a High School SIOP Implementation .......................................... 1 Problem Statement ............................................................................................. 2 Purpose, Significance, and Future Implications ................................................ 2 Sheltered Instruction and SIOP Defined ............................................................ 6 Research Questions ............................................................................................ 8 Summary ............................................................................................................ 9

II. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................. 10

Professional Development ................................................................................. 10 Literature Search Methods for SIOP-Related Studies ....................................... 24 SIOP Studies ...................................................................................................... 32 Other SIOP-Related Articles .............................................................................. 40 SIOP Manuals .................................................................................................... 41 Summary ............................................................................................................ 43

III. METHODS AND DATA ANALYSIS .............................................................. 44

Study Design ...................................................................................................... 48 Action Research ................................................................................................. 46 Survey Research ................................................................................................. 47 Research Questions ............................................................................................ 49 Participants and Training ................................................................................... 49 Survey Instrument .............................................................................................. 51 Data Collection .................................................................................................. 53 Analysis.............................................................................................................. 55 Reliability/Validity ............................................................................................ 58 Limitations ......................................................................................................... 58

IV. FINDINGS ......................................................................................................... 60

vi

Page

Question #1 ........................................................................................................ 60 Question #2 ........................................................................................................ 63 Question #3 ........................................................................................................ 65 Question #4 ........................................................................................................ 70 Question #5 ........................................................................................................ 71 Survey Comments .............................................................................................. 73 Summary of Findings ......................................................................................... 78

V. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................... 82

Research Questions ............................................................................................ 82 Lessons for Practitioners .................................................................................... 91 Implications for Future Research ....................................................................... 98 Looking to the Future......................................................................................... 101

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 103

APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. 108

Appendix A: List of Acronyms ......................................................................... 109 Appendix B: Sheltered Instruction Protocol ..................................................... 112 Appendix C: Survey Instrument ....................................................................... 117

CURRICULUM VITAE ................................................................................................ 131

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Dissertations/Master’s Thesis ............................................................................ 25

2. Articles (Report of a Study) ............................................................................... 30

3. SIOP Model Implementation Descriptive Statistics .......................................... 61

4. Implementation Frequency of the Eight SIOP Components .............................. 63

5. Teachers’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of SIOP with Students .................. 64

6. Perceptions of SIOP Need Descriptive Statistics and Mean Scores on Perceptions of SIOP Effectiveness Items .......................................................... 66

7. Class Size and Mean Scores on Perceptions of SIOP Effectiveness Items ....... 67

8. Years of Teaching and Mean Score on Perceptions of SIOP Effectiveness Items ................................................................................................................... 68

9. Prior ESL Training and Mean Scores on Perceptions of SIOP Effectiveness Items ................................................................................................................... 68

10. Subject Taught and Mean Scores on Perceptions of SIOP Effectiveness Items ................................................................................................................... 70

11. Teachers’ Perceptions of Future Use ................................................................ 72

12. Teachers’ Desire for Additional Training .......................................................... 73

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

In the age of school accountability, many schools have struggled to help all of their students achieve academic grade level mastery. The U.S. Department of Education (as cited in Fratt, 2007) reported that English language learners (ELLs) were 1 in 20 American students in 1990, 1 in 9 in 2007, and projected to represent 1 in 4 in 2025 (p. 60). With the number of ELLs on the rise, addressing their needs is essential for schools to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) and to achieve the aims of “Race to the Top,” the Obama administration’s replacement for No Child Left Behind (NCLB). For a complete list of acronyms defined, see Appendix A.

Evaluation of a High School SIOP Implementation

The setting for this study was a comprehensive high school in the Rocky Mountain region serving a student body approaching 50% poverty (free/reduced lunch), over 27% Hispanic and just short of 35% minority. Almost 30% of the students spoke a language other than English in the home. At the time of this study the school served almost 300 students on an Individual Education Plan (IEP) under the Individual with Disabilities Act (IDEA) and another 300 students who received or at one time received ESL services. Many of these students struggled academically due to lack of academic vocabulary. This school has a rich academic tradition serving middle class students with educated parents for many decades, so the change in demographics has been a challenge for teachers. As these educators sought ways to better meet the needs of their students,

2

they turned to a very popular teaching and learning model, the sheltered instruction observation protocol (SIOP). For a actual copy of the protocol, see Appendix B.

Problem Statement

Many ELLs and students from low socioeconomic (SES) backgrounds lack the academic language skills necessary to succeed in many grade-level high school core academic classes. Research studies suggest that the ELL students of teachers using sheltered instruction observation protocol (SIOP) show significantly increased academic gains over students of teachers not using SIOP (Echevarria, Short, & Powers, 2006). Educators at schools that used SIOP have also noticed that students from low SES also benefit from teachers’ use of SIOP strategies (Pascopella, 2008). Schools, districts and even state departments of education have adopted SIOP strategies (Echevarria, Short, & Vogt, 2008). Several studies have been conducted to explore the implementation of elementary and middle school SIOP instruction in sheltered classrooms with ELL students. Only one study has been found that included training high school teachers, but the effectiveness of high school SIOP implementation was not evaluated (McBride, 2007). Increasingly, the SIOP model has been used in high schools around the nation, but no studies have evaluated high school application of the SIOP model.

Purpose and Significance

This was a self-study or action research project undertaken by a comprehensive

3

high school located in the Rocky Mountain region. Action research is “an enquiry undertaken with rigor and understanding so as to constantly refine practice” (Koshy, 2005, p. 1). The school in this study was starting the fifth year of training in each of the Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence (CREDE) standards, one per year. The CREDE (2010) standards, as outlined on the CREDE home site hosted on the University of California, Berkley Graduate School of Education website include: 1. Joint productive activities or teacher and students producing together 2. Language development or developing language and literacy across the curriculum 3. Contextualization or making meaning: Connecting school to students' lives 4. Challenging activities or teaching complex thinking 5. Instructional conversation or teaching through conversation

Having completed training in each of the other standards, the school leaders sought a meaningful way to address language development across the curriculum, specific to their struggling students. The teacher leaders (department chairs) in this study, in collaboration with the principal, decided to pursue a school-wide year of SIOP professional development to train teachers in this standard. About a dozen teachers at the school had participated in SIOP training and desired a refresher, while many of those not yet trained desired a chance to receive the training. The teachers requested an evaluation of the professional development experience to determine future use of the model at the school. The teacher leaders desired SIOP training, but sought to limit their participation in the peer coaching part of the model to one observation a year rather than once per month to

4

limit their time commitment. The principal agreed to prepare a survey to evaluate the effectiveness of the SIOP implementation. As a partner with teachers, the school principal was the primary action researcher, and the teachers gave input regarding their professional experience as secondary action researchers. The survey provided a forum to determine how much teachers implemented the SIOP model, how they perceived its effectiveness and if the teachers desired future training to more fully implement the SIOP model. Koshy (2005) described action research as practical research concerning the practices of people within their setting to “improve practice—either one’s own practice or the effectiveness of an institution” (p. 9). This study was undertaken by professional educators to improve their practice and institution. Therefore it was a practitioner driven, action research study of professional practice. While there has been considerable research about SIOP use with younger students, high schools are unique environments. High school teachers in traditional schools often “function as a collection of independent contractors united by a common parking lot” (Eaker, DuFour, & DuFour, 2002, pp. 10-11). High school teachers as content specialists often see more than 200 students per term and rarely see the same student for more than four hours per week. So, while the SIOP model has been evaluated in elementary self- contained classrooms and in middle school interdisciplinary teams (Echevaria et al., 2006) an assessment of a school-wide implementation of SIOP strategies in a comprehensive high school is needed. This SIOP implementation included an August, full day of SIOP exposure

5

conducted by an out-of-state SIOP trainer at a district in-service. The one-day training was for all secondary teachers, except special education and career and technical education (CTE) teachers who were in separate training sessions that day. All other trainings included all certified staff to include teachers, counselors, principals, and media specialists. The following day, an on-staff certified SIOP trainer, following Using the SIOP model: Professional Development Manual for Sheltered Instruction (Short, Hudec, & Echevarria, 2009) conducted an additional two hours of introduction to SIOP teaching activities. Each teacher was also given a copy of Making Content Comprehensible for Secondary English Learners: The SIOP Model (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2010). Throughout the year, the certified SIOP trainer on the school staff also conducted monthly training focused on one of the eight SIOP components each month. Following SIOP training each month, departments met to determine how each component fit in their subject area, determined their implementation strategy for the coming month, reported on their previous month’s implementation and shared from the assigned monthly reading. The assistant principals also volunteered to provide nonevaluative peer observations for all teachers to provide some of the benefits lost through lack of teacher peer observations. This SIOP implementation was a fairly standard professional development model outlined in SIOP manuals and used by most districts evaluated in the SIOP studies reported in this literature review (Echevarria et al., 2008). The first step of this study was to discover if this implementation model would work in a high school with independent content specific teachers serving as many as 200 students per term. Several studies have sought ways to improve effective implementation

6

of the SIOP model in lower grades (McBride, 2007; Montes, 2005; Pelliccioni, 2009; Torres, 2006). Montes reported that even after years of implementation, daily practice was not significantly impacted in elementary classrooms, so lasting effect was a serious consideration. Specifically, this study sought to determine the extent of teacher implementation of the SIOP model, teachers’ perception of SIOP effectiveness scale with students, and teachers’ desire for future use of the SIOP model in a comprehensive high school. In highly individualized high school classrooms teachers must have used the SIOP model appropriately before an accurate measure of the SIOP implementation for improved student achievement could be assessed. Comparison of comprehensive student achievement data was not possible in this study because of seriously flawed state testing results due to computer system failures the year immediately prior to and after the SIOP implementation. Rather, this research sought teacher perception of effectiveness because teacher buy-in is essential for continued use of a model. This study lays the foundation for future quantitative analysis of high school student achievement assessment for schools using SIOP intervention strategies.

Sheltered Instruction and SIOP Defined

Sheltered instruction (SI) is a professional development model designed to improve teaching ELLs core content while students learn English. Rather than place ELLs in mixed mainstream classes for math, science, social studies, and other academic classes, sheltered instruction places students in an ELL only core content class with an

7

English as a second language (ESL) endorsed or trained content teacher. The teacher then modifies instructional practice to help ELLs learn the content while building their limited English skills. The SI model, typically used to teach ELLs core content with primarily English instruction, adds vocabulary instruction and practice to proven best teaching practices. According to the literature, this model not only helps ELLs stay current in content classes while learning English, but it also increases English acquisition (Short & Echevarria, 2004/2005). The SIOP was drafted in the early 1990s to improve the effectiveness of sheltered instruction. According to Echevarria, Vogt, and Short, (2004), in 1996 CREDE, funded by the U.S. Department of Education, included a study of sheltered instruction. The CREDE team developed an explicit model of sheltered instruction (SIOP) and used the model to train teachers and conduct field experiments to evaluate the effects of sheltered instruction (see Appendix B). A preliminary study in 1997 validated the SIOP model as a reliable measure of SI (Echevarria et al., 2004, p. 16). SIOP began as a way to observe and measure elements of effective sheltered instruction for ELL students. It evolved into a framework for developing lesson plans and guiding instructional delivery. The current framework is composed of thirty features grouped into eight main components. The eight components as outlined by Echevarria and colleagues (2004) are described below. 1. Preparation includes language/content objectives, use of supplementary materials and meaningfulness of activities. 2. Building background focuses on making connections with student background, prior learning and developing vocabulary. 3. Comprehensible input considers adjusting teacher speech, modeling academic

8

tasks and using multimodal techniques to enhance comprehension. 4. Strategies emphasize teaching learning strategies to students, scaffolding instruction and promoting higher order thinking skills. 5. Interaction encourages elaborated speech and student grouping for language and content development. 6. Practice/application extends language and content learning. 7. Lesson delivery ensures teachers deliver instruction to meet planned objectives. 8. Review/assessment reviews key language, content concepts, assesses student learning and provides feedback on student output. (p. 17)

SI has been a widely used model for helping ELLs master core content while accelerating English language acquisition. SIOP was considered to be a successful structure to maximize the effectiveness of SI, but it has been increasingly implemented more broadly, school-wide, district-wide and even statewide as an instructional model (Echevarria et al., 2008). However, no research was found regarding high school SIOP implementation and little research concerning mainstream use of the SIOP model.

Research Questions

This study describes and analyzes a school-wide teacher implementation of the SIOP model at a comprehensive suburban/urban high school in the Rocky Mountain region. The research questions addressed are as follows. 1. To what degree, do teachers having received in-service training in SIOP, report implementing the various components of the program in their daily instruction? 2. After one school year of implementing the SIOP model, what are teachers’ perceptions regarding the effectiveness of using the SIOP model with students?

9

3. How does SIOP need (number of ELLs per class), class size, years of teaching experience, teaching subject, or prior ESL training relate to a teacher’s perception of SIOP effectiveness scale? 4. Is the level of implementation related to the teacher’s perceptions of effectiveness? 5. Do teachers plan to use the SIOP model in the future?

Summary

In an effort to improve student achievement, a high school in the Rocky Mountain region undertook a year of full-faculty SIOP training and then evaluated teachers’ perceptions of implementation with a survey. SIOP is a flexible collection of teaching strategies, designed to help teachers maximize the learning of ELLs and has been promoted as a program to improve learning for other students as well. This self-study or action research project, seeks to improve student learning by exploring the use of SIOP by teachers in all discipline areas in a comprehensive high school.

10

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review establishes a framework to guide this study with an overview of professional development literature, including the use of professional learning communities and action research. This chapter then contains a description of search methods used to locate literature specifically on the SIOP model and an overview of the studies that were located. Finally, an analysis of these SIOP research studies along with a discussion of other SIOP literature is shared.

Professional Development

Given that this study looked at the implementation of a school-wide SIOP model, as approved by teacher leaders, it was important to review the knowledge base about professional development. Professional development is a very broad field. It encompasses not only the field of education, but other professions as well. In this section the researcher reviews only educational approaches to professional development. The researcher provides an historical perspective for a baseline followed by a report on a large secondary analysis on professional development. A study on SIOP professional development specifically and an overview of current professional development in professional learning communities (PLCs) and action research are also shared. Finally, it contains a section focused on most recent professional development texts.

11

Historical Perspective There has been much research concerning teacher professional development. However, “most staff development reports are simply statements of participant satisfaction, which are then used to determine the success of the program” (Wade, 1984/1985, p. 84). Wade (1984/1985) reviewed 300 journal articles from 1968 through 1983 and selected 91 to include in her meta-analysis. Only articles concentrated on K-12 public school teachers, that included adequate quantitative data related to the study questions (enough to calculate mean effect size) were included in the analysis. Through this process, she identified 28 variables of teacher behavior and grouped them into eight categories. The effect level or goals of the training was the first category. This category included variables related to participant reactions, increases in learning, change in behavior of the participants, and results in terms of impact on the classroom. The reaction variable, which assessed how positively the participants felt about the in-service training, yielded a moderately effective .42 mean effect size. The learning variable (usually measured through pre-post tests) yielded a large mean effect size of .90. Behavior variables, which measured whether participants changed their behavior or not had a moderately large .60 mean effect size. Finally, the variable results, which determined whether there was an impact in the classroom, had a moderate .37 mean effect size. All other variables discussed in the categories below were examined in terms of whether they had an impact on the goal of the training variables mentioned above.

12

Duration was the second category. Studies in this category examined time spent training and professional development training spread over time. The effect size for the time spent in training variable, which included a range from a few hours to 30 hours, was not statistically significant. Training spread over time, from less than six months to more than six months, also reflected no statistically significant effect for length of treatment. The third category was training group characteristics, which included elementary or secondary teachers only, combined secondary/elementary teachers, voluntary or required participation and group size. Elementary teachers had a greater effect size for training than secondary teachers. Combined groups of secondary and elementary teachers, yielded a moderately large .67 mean effect size, which was higher than either elementary or secondary teachers alone. Voluntary or required participation showed no significant difference in effect size. Group size (1-20, 21-40, 41-60, or 60+) did not reflect a significant effect size difference either. Location and scheduling of training, included on-site, off-site, during and out of school training. None of the variables, onsite, off site, during or outside of school time provided a statistically significant effect size. Sponsorship compared the funding support for the training program. Programs funded by state, federal or university dollars yielded a moderately large .69 effect size, significantly more than teacher-initiated programs. Participant incentives compared rewards for participation. Selective process or designated representative yielded a large .76 mean effect size, which was the largest effect size of any incentive studied. There was a possibility that this effect size was

13

biased because the strongest teachers volunteered or were selected. College credit and release time both produced moderate effect sizes, while pay incentive and no incentive showed only small positive effects sizes. Structure compared independent study, workshops, courses, mini courses and institutes. Independent study showed the largest mean effect size .98, possibly because it included highly motivated teachers. Workshops, courses, mini courses, and institutes showed similar moderate mean effect sizes. There do not appear to be important differences between these formats. Various professional development instructional techniques were evaluated to determine if some instructional activities were more effective than others. The most effective techniques were observation, microteaching, video-audio feedback, and practice. Observation yielded an impressively large .81 effect size, microteaching yielded almost as large an effect size at .78, video-audio feedback yielded another impressive .64 mean effect size, and practice yielded a moderately large .55 mean effect size. Other instructional techniques such as discussion, lecture, games/simulations, field trips, and coaching all yielded significantly smaller effect sizes. Regarding who delivered the instruction, self-instruction provided the highest effect; support staff and college personnel moderate effect; and teachers and state department representatives produced only small gains. “In classes where participants were encouraged to teach each other through classroom presentations, group work, and discussion sessions, a lower effect size results” (Wade, 1984/1985, p. 53). Wade (1984/1985) suggested that “there is no magic formula,” but she made

14

suggestions to improve effectiveness. These suggestions included the following. 1. Combine elementary and secondary teachers in professional development opportunities where possible. 2. Encourage state, federal and university initiated programs; use incentives of enhanced status or college credit where possible. 3. Provide opportunities for self-instruction and independent study as alternatives. 4. Encourage instructors to set goals for participants. 5. The use of observation, microteaching, practices and audio/video feedback when possible. (p. 53) This meta-analysis outlined the foundation for professional development traditionally used for the last few decades. It is focused more on training teachers, rather than the more current model of teacher driven professional development. It also does not address student learning.

Recent Secondary Analysis Desimone, Smith, and Phillips (2007) updated the body of professional development literature to understand how policy implementation affected teaching and learning. They performed a secondary analysis of how policy influenced almost 4,000 math (high stakes) and science (low stakes) teachers’ participation in professional development using a three-tiered hierarchical model. They reported, “Teachers with more influence on school policy are more likely to engage in interactive professional development” (p. 1110). They found that evaluating teachers for evidence of improvement and student achievement decreased participation in professional development. They also reported that consistency of professional development was

15

unrelated to participation, but teacher turnover did have a significant negative association with participation in professional development. “Specifically, an increase in the percent of teachers in a school who had been there for 3 or more years was associated with an increase in content-focused professional development for both math and science” (p. 1111). In summary, Desimone and colleagues (2007) concluded, “The carrot is more effective than the stick” (p. 1113). They discovered that authority or policy persuasiveness, improved teaching and learning more than power or accountability. They suggested a focus on content, instructional strategies, and professional collaboration concerning curriculum and instruction was important when considering professional development programs. They found that stability or lack of teacher turnover was associated with effective professional development. These authors further suggested that allowing teachers significant influence over school policies, and encouraging teacher leadership within the school and control of their classrooms are more important than principal evaluation and other methods of external control. In short, teachers need to take the lead in improving their teaching.

Recommendations from SIOP Professional Development

Two studies were found that looked specifically at SIOP professional development. The first, by Friend, Most, and McCrary (2009), was a mixed-methods study. The quantitative portion of this study had significant methodological flaws, but the qualitative portion, specifically focused on SIOP professional development, is relevant.

16

The qualitative portion of the study considered seventy middle-level teachers’ perception of professional development, specifically SIOP training, and therefore had value in this section. The authors conclude that teachers in the study said they believed the SIOP training was more effective than previous training and many teachers perceived the strategies learned in SIOP training were effective with ELLs. Based on their findings, Friend and colleagues (2009) recommended SIOP training include a five course, methods based training cycle, focused on best practices, assessment, diversity, linguistics, second language acquisition, and followed up by an action research project to apply and assess implementation. This professional development program encouraged the use of cooperative learning with heterogeneous grouping, academic language, key concept vocabulary, first language tools, and hands-on activities with authentic materials, demonstrations, modeling, explicit teaching and background knowledge. In the second SIOP professional development study, Kraft (2005) sought to determine if a relationship existed between the teachers’ sense of efficacy with diverse students, and the support and training teachers’ received from their respective induction programs, as measured by the SIOP model. Kraft found that induction programs needed to help novice teachers serving diverse students create and implement lessons with language objectives and provide more training on instructional strategies that support meeting those objectives .

This dissertation study, as an action research project, is similar to the professional development design outlined by Friend and colleagues (2009) and Kraft (2005). It

17

follows the generally accepted professional development model for improving the teaching of ELLs through the use of SIOP training. It was interesting to compare ideas for SIOP implementation to the recent professional development secondary analysis provided by Desimone and colleagues (2007). Friend and colleagues (2009) used a model that empowered teachers with new skills, and asked them if they were effective. In their model, teacher perception rather than administrative or outside expertise was most highly valued. Since the SIOP model relied on teacher self-assessment and peer coaching, rather than administrative evaluation, the SIOP model was all about empowering teachers, rather than controlling teacher behavior. In this way the SIOP model matched recommendations by Desimone and colleagues.

Professional Learning Communities Historically, teachers have worked independently, initially in one-room schools and later behind closed classroom doors. Other professions have a long history of learning from each other through not only conferences, but through daily collaboration in every aspect of their professional practice. Professional learning communities developed as a way to help teachers work collaboratively. They began in the midst of the standards based movement as a way to improve student academic performance through teacher professional empowerment. They have focused on student achievement based in research proven practice, all driven by teacher collaboration. Professional development in the twenty-first century has often evolved into structured adult learning also known as professional learning communities (PLCs). PLCs

18

were specifically undertaken to better serve students and improve student learning. After conducting a synthesis of research, Marzano (2003) suggested that professional development activities should be designed to promote continuous growth for adults in the school, and improve the effectiveness of teaching and learning. Aligned with Marzano’s description including student learning, Robbins and Alvy (2004) stated, “Professional Development consists of any activity that directly affects the attitudes, knowledge base, skills, and practices that will support individuals in performing their roles—present or future--to serve students” (p. 135). This broader, more current approach to professional development expanded beyond the traditional teacher focused in-service model discussed earlier in the meta-analysis by Wade (1984/1985). In 2005, many national experts on school reform joined forces to produce “On Common Ground: The Power of Professional Learning Communities,” a book edited by Dufour, Eaker, and DuFour (2005). In this publication, many experts united to discuss pieces of the larger PLC Model, each providing a chapter in his or her area of prowess. DuFour and colleagues introduced PLCs. Reeves (2005) gave input on standards, assessment and accountability. Stiggins (2005) addressed confident learners. Saphier (2005) discussed motivation. Barth (2005) outlined an argument for creating life-long learners. Schmoker (2005) reminded the reader that PLCs must focus on results. Sparks (2005) built a case for transforming teaching and learning. Lezotte (2005) outlined effective schools. Eason-Watkins (2005) described the Chicago experience. Finally, Fullan (2005) summarized with a discussion of systems change. In this seminal work on the development of PLCs, Dufour and colleagues (2005) described PLCs as schools

Full document contains 140 pages
Abstract: Many school systems across the USA have implemented sheltered instruction observation protocol (SIOP) strategies to help their English language learners (ELLs) master core content while they learn English. Most studies have reported positive results from using SIOP strategies with ELLs. Elementary and middle school studies were available, but studies of SIOP implementation in a comprehensive high school were lacking. This action research project was initiated by teacher leaders (department chairs) and the school principal. It included a year of combined SIOP training and implementation. After the first academic year of utilizing SIOP school-wide, an anonymous electronic survey was used to collect information on teacher implementation, the teachers' perceptions of students' success, and teacher plans for future use of the SIOP model. This study was implemented in a comprehensive high school in the Rocky Mountain region. The research questions were: To what degree, do teachers having received in-service training in SIOP, report implementing the various components of the program in their daily instruction? After one school year of implementing the SIOP model, what are teachers' perceptions regarding the effectiveness of using the SIOP model with students? How does SIOP need (number of ELLs per class), class size, years of teaching experience, teaching subject, or prior English as a second language (ESL) training relate to a teacher's perception of SIOP effectiveness scale? Is the level of implementation related to the teacher's perceptions of effectiveness? Do teachers plan to use the SIOP model in the future? Teachers reported a high degree of implementing SIOP strategies. They perceived the strategies improved student learning in most cases. There was no statistically significant relationship found between the degree of SIOP implementation and perceptions of the effectiveness of SIOP. Correlational analyses indicated that SIOP need (number or ELLS per class), class size, years of teaching experience, teaching subject, and prior ESL training did not affect the degree of implementation or perceptions of the effectiveness of the SIOP model in this comprehensive high school.