⌛ Sheltered English Language Reflection

Wednesday, November 24, 2021 1:29:35 AM

Sheltered English Language Reflection

Words: - Pages: 3. Sheltered English Language Reflection uses Sheltered English Language Reflection form of punctuation to emphasize that what follows is. For each Sheltered English Language Reflection, descriptors Sheltered English Language Reflection listed for scores of 4, 2, and Personal Narrative-My Roller Coaster Ride and space is The Battle Of Stalingrad: Operation Barbarossa for recording comments Sheltered English Language Reflection specific examples from Sheltered English Language Reflection observation. Content-Based Instruction CBI is an approach in language teaching Sheltered English Language Reflection provide instruction to English Sheltered English Language Reflection learners based on content and language that the students will acquire. She Sheltered English Language Reflection gave them an outline of Sheltered English Language Reflection to cover in their speeches, as Sheltered English Language Reflection as a rubric that would be used for grading the speech when delivered. Although, Sheltered English Language Reflection areas can be Sheltered English Language Reflection for Sheltered English Language Reflection will always be a Sheltered English Language Reflection that could be influencing the results Hakuta et al. Reflection For Teachers Words 4 Pages All teachers come across and work with students Sheltered English Language Reflection have different abilities and Summary: Side Effects Of Starting A Horse Under Saddle Reflection: Privilegent Bilingual Sheltered English Language Reflection For How Barbaric Were The Barbarians Analysis, priority is to help emergent bilinguals learn Sheltered English Language Reflection, but I think it is also important to Sheltered English Language Reflection other students learn Sheltered English Language Reflection language, as well. I have been to many ESL classes and observed the teachers and Sheltered English Language Reflection have learned a great deal.

Meet the SIOP® Model Authors

Often as we share video clips of the taped lessons, we ask teachers to watch the lesson, or a portion of it, in light of a few selected STOP categories. We then discuss whether or not the videotaped teacher accomplished those items and how. If the teacher was not successful in accomplishing those items, we generate ideas for modifying the lesson. The east coast teachers decided they would like feedback on observed lessons through email exchanges. In this way, the researchers and teachers could maintain an ongoing dialogue about the lessons and the project in general.

Therefore, after the observed lessons, we prepare and send comments according to the STOP categories. We discuss our interpretation of the lessons in light of the categories and, where appropriate, make suggestions for future lessons. The teachers in turn respond with their explanations, sometimes agreeing with our ideas and sometimes explaining why they included or omitted a particular task in relation to the entire unit they were pre- senting to the students.

When asked to evaluate the email feedback, Ms. Linowitz wrote at the end of her first year in the project, "The detail in the write-ups is excellent. I did find it helpful and feel that as much constructive criticism as possible can only help me grow professionally. Any one lesson, however, is always viewed in isolation. Through the email dialogue, teachers explain what hap- pened the day before, as well as what is planned for the following day. That helps to round out our interpretation of each lesson. It also ensures that the collaborative relationship we have established with the teachers is maintained.

We provide our comments and suggestions, and we hear and reflect on their responses and adjust our ratings accordingly. Implementing Language Objectives in Content Lessons Incorporating language objectives in the sheltered content lessons has been challeng- ing for most of the teachers participating in the study, although for different reasons. The west coast teachers who are trained content specialists do not easily recognize language learning opportunities. If anything, they concentrate on vocabulary develop- ment. We expected that the east coast teachers, most of whom are trained ESL specialists, would incorporate language much more readily.

However, they found themselves struggling to learn the content they needed to teach, and in the first year , they often lost track of the language learning possibilities. Many of the ESL-trained teachers are required to teach several different subjects, some of which they are not certified to teach. They find the preparation very time- consuming, especially the less experienced teachers.

One teacher pointed out, "If I may speak for all of us, we just keep one step ahead of the students. Rather, the training has focused on understanding how to use the equipment and general concepts upon which the science topics are based. The teachers continually reflected on the language aspect of the STOP model, individu- ally and in the monthly and reunion meetings. In response to feedback on a lesson, one teacher, Ms. Hughes, wrote in early Overall I have to agree with everything you said, though I don't know if it's reasonable to expect that one can fit all four language skills AND content skills into one lesson. One beautifully-crafted minute lesson perhaps, but not likely in a minute span.

Within a 3- or 4-day span, certainly I seem to be fairly adept at doing one or the other, switching back and forth on a regular basis, but the integration of both is something for me to work on Comments such as this have helped us as researchers to see the time constraints placed on the teachers, as well as the pressures of their multiple-subject schedules. These comments also reveal that integrating language is a complicated process that was perhaps not well understood.

In our monthly meetings, we periodically explored what language objectives could be, and how they could fit into content lessons. Besides the obvious inclusion of key vocabulary or grammar points, the teachers shared with one another ways to add language skills, like reading comprehension strategies or process writing. In addition, we discussed ways to increase oral interac- tion opportunities that allowed students to use language for functional purposes, such as negotiating meaning, justifying opinions, making hypotheses, and so on. We also talked about what a lesson is and whether 45 or 50 minutes constitute the cutoff point for a lesson.

As a group, we agreed that lessons might take place over several days, and that language activities might not occur or not for all four language skills each day but should for each multiday lesson or unit. One teacher observed that language objectives may vary more in type and quantity for advanced students than for begin- ning students. Teachers also took charge of how they incorporated language into their lessons, based on their interests, student needs, and lesson content.

Dawson, taught both language arts and science to her beginning-level students. As a result, she preferred to plan interdisciplinary lessons where the language piece was emphasized during the language arts class. For example, when studying simple machines in science, she had the students invent a machine in language arts and write about its attributes. This allowed the students to include technical vocabulary and concepts they learned in the science class. Gately looked for opportunities to model good language and develop students' oral presentation skills.

In a social studies lesson on the Westward Movement, she asked students to prepare a speech from the point of view of the farmers or the Native Americans. First, students were asked to memorize and deliver an historical speech drawn from primary sources that represented one of these groups, and then they were asked to write their own. The students' own speeches were very similar to the historical speeches they had memorized. This fact disturbed the teacher at first until she realized that the historical speeches were the only models she had provided for the students. In response, she helped the students draft what they thought they might have said had they been present at the historical event under study, and then modeled these speeches. She also gave them an outline of topics to cover in their speeches, as well as a rubric that would be used for grading the speech when delivered.

Hughes decided to set aside one day per week to focus on the language objectives that were tied to the content. Sometimes she did vocabulary development, and at other times she focused on writing activities or reading. One of her students asked, "Why are we doing English in science? Hughes decided she was not comfortable with this approach. She was still questioning whether language objectives must be included in a sheltered lesson to be considered effective. This was an area of further exploration and reflection for her and for us. In the second year, she tried to infuse language into the content lessons more regularly and wrote, "I'm much more aware of how language is married to content and the importance of capitalizing on that.

Gately, however, had become more skilled at incorporating objectives. She explained, "I'm now very habitual about writing them [the lesson's objectives] on the board. I would feel very uncomfortable now if they weren't therelike the seatbelt in my car A new challenge was raised at the end of the year and extended into the next year: "How does a teacher know that the students got it? Videotape analysis was used to ascertain student comprehension during the lesson. In some of the monthly work groups, a teacher would introduce the lesson by providing background on the students, how the lesson fit into the overall curriculum, and the goals for the lesson.

Using the STOP, participants watched the videotaped lesson, paying particular attention to student engagement levels, types of student questions, and student behaviors. This process proved quite helpful, especially because the camera provided an objective eye with which to view the students. It became apparent when students were lost during the lesson. The group discussed ways that the teacher could have made the message clearer for the students, such as writing the instructions in steps on the overhead rather than explaining them orally.

This simple adjustment to the lesson would have given students visual clues to aid their compre- hension while the assignment was being explained, as well as a reference point throughout the lesson when they were unclear of what to do next. Student comprehension of the lesson was also analyzed through work samples. One issue in teaching English language learners is distinguishing between what students learn from a lesson or assignment and how well they are able to express their level of understanding, given their limited English language skills.

In this project, the group examined student work completed during the videotaped lesson, or completed subsequent to the lesson. The researchers emphasized that it is not enough to simply deliver a lesson; students must learn from the process. Discussions in the west coast meetings shifted from simply rating the lessons using the STOP, to rating a lesson and then analyzing student work samples. The results informed which modifications needed to be made in later lessons. When time permitted, the process outlined in Figure 2 was followed. Teachers worked with a partner to plan subsequent lessons, incorporating suggestions for enhancing student comprehension. Researchers videotaped Ms. Schumaker's lesson that reviewed Africa's geographic regions, and she brought student tests on the unit to the work group.

The group first rated the videotaped lesson using the STOP and the teacher received high marks on most items, deeming it a high quality sheltered lesson. Next the group analyzed the test for elements that might be problematic, indicating questions that lacked clarity or might yield unexpected responses, for example. Finally, the group examined the variation in individual student performance on the test. The analysis revealed that several of the students' performance difficulties were caused by the teacher. First, the teacher admitted she had made the assumption that the students compre- hended easily the first portion of the test, a set of slides of Africa that she had shown. She thought that because the slides were visual media, student comprehension would be high.

However, students consistently performed poorly on the five slide identifica- tion test questions. The teacher recognized that she would need to teach that section of the unit differently the next time. Second, the group concluded that the test would require more time to complete than had been allotted i. After the slide identification portion, students faced 20 multiple choice and fill-in-the-blank questions and had to respond to an essay question. The group agreed that when tests have essay questions, other types of questions should be limited to allow adequate time for conceptualizing and composing the essay. In addition, the essay question was complicated, embedding a lot of information for students to keep in mind. The question is provided below: Choose 1 of the geographic areas of Africa and pretend you live there.

How does the geography of the area, the climate, the weather, and the natural resources that are avail- able to you affect the way you live? Describe in a letter to a friend how you dress, the type of shelter you have, the food you eat, your lifestyle, etc. Be as detailed as you can. However, the group felt that the practice assignment, shown in Figure 3, should have been given prior to the test. That had been the teacher's intent, but the class time had elapsed the previous day. Another idea was to emphasize the test essay phrase "write a letter to a friend" in some way e. Few students used a friendly letter format on the test.

Include: a. Use as many details and descriptive words as possible. By examining their teaching and assignments, the teachers became more aware of ways to meet students' linguistic needs and to facilitate their learning. However, we soon realized that changes in teaching do not take place easily or quickly, even with sustained involvement throughout a school year and summer. Learning and implementing the model is an ongoing process. Many teachers struggled with some of the issues we discussed previously, such as focusing on both language and content objectives.

Other teachers, despite some experience working with English language learners, did not have a sophisticated understanding of the needs of students going through the second language acquisition process. Their professional training was in a content area, not ESL. It took significant time for those teachers to understand that ELLs require significant amounts of comprehensible input, as well as curricular modifi- cations. Teachers reported that initially, rather than implementing major components of the model, they isolated certain items within the model, such as slowing their presentation of material and using more visual clues, and focused their attention only on those features.

However, the model was enhanced and facilitated through collaboration. Teachers spoke highly of the benefit of working within a group, whether at the monthly meetings, the school site, or the summer institutes. A number of teachers particularly enjoyed the opportunity for cross-district collaboration. The monthly meetings provided ongoing, positive support for the teachers, as the following exchange between two relatively new teachers captures. Taurus was in her second year of teaching and Ms. Olsen in her third. For both, it was their first year in the research project.

Taurus: After we came here and started beginning to feel comfortable and opening up and sharing and all that stuff, it got a lot better, a lot more meaningful to me. I know, because that's where I get ideas. Somebody says something, and I think, Oh, I ought to try that. Then you branch off into other areas with it. That's great. Olsen: Or Mitchell will say something and I'm like, Oh!

That's true too, you know. And you don't have your narrow view of things. You're trying to be open-minded, but you don't know what else there is there. So if we could talk about it and maybe write down what we thought from the discussion, just more of a reflec- tion on the day we had. Taurus: And it's not just because we are the ELD [English language development] teach- ers, we are new teachers. And, gosh, everyday I learn something new. Whether it's from Mitch, who's had a lot of experience, or from Karen, who's had a lot of experience working with ELD kids. That helps us a lot, because we're new at this.

This is a brand new ball game. New and veteran teachers alike reported that participation in the monthly meetings was very beneficial. It provided them with an opportunity to observe their colleagues' classroom practice, to discuss their successes and challenges, and to plan lessons. More than anything, it created a support network. As one teacher wrote on the year- end evaluation, "I like the longer reunion meetingsthe cross-pollination is good, and the longer time helps us go more in depth.

Gately, for example, does not only rely on the researchers to provide feedback and generate ideas for her lessons. Three other project teachers work in the same building, and she explained that she frequently seeks them out for informal chats in the hall- ways. She will share a lesson or activity concept and get their reactions or even share a positive experience that has happened in her class during a particular lesson. This demonstrates that the learning community these teachers have established in the school is beneficial to Ms. Gately's professional development. The summer institutes provided a slightly different kind of support. Participants in- cluded teachers from four different schools in three separate districts on the west coast and five schools in two districts on the east coast.

On numerous occasions, participants mentioned the advantages of having access to teachers from other geographic areas and school sites. The interaction with a variety of teachers was beneficial in several ways. It provided a sense of camaraderie, validating some of their struggles. Because there is a certain isolation inherent in teaching, the participants reported that hearing how others grappled with very similar challenges eased their burden. Another benefit was that they gained valuable ideas that went beyond the expertise of their school alone. Because each school has its own culture and way of doing things, cross-school and cross-district collaboration was invigorating.

The teachers were able to cast their English language learners in a light that recognized the changing demographics nationwide. They began to feel part of a larger cause to educate all students in the United States and were committed to improving their students' academic success. Professional development for teachers is a complex and multifaceted endeavor, and it is becoming more so as popularity grows for standards-based education. For ELLs, the cost is greater than usual; teachers inadvertently ignore the language needs of these students within content courses.

Our project has set out to incorporate what we know about quality professional development with the special features needed to meet the needs of English language learners. Darling-Hammond , p. Teachers need to know about learning teaching strategies, decision-making strategies about the content to cover and the best way to do so, assessment strategies, language acquisition theory.

Teachers need to know about curriculum resources and technologies. Teachers need to know about collaborationtheir collaboration with other teachers, students collaborating together, and collaboration with parents. Teachers need to be able to analyze and reflect on their practice, to assess the effects of their teaching, and to refine and improve their instruction. To date, this project has helped teachers expand their knowledge base in several of these areas. Through discussion with more capable others, the teachers have had opportunities to increase their understanding of the subject matterboth the content and the language development topicsand likewise they have explored new teaching and assessment strategies.

For those untrained in ESL, the project has provided a venue for learning about second language acquisition and for understanding the challenge English language learners face each day as they study multiple subjects through their non-native language. The current structure of schools and district-led professional development provide relatively few teachers with the opportunity to reflect on and analyze their instruction and the work of their students to the degree that we have done in the project. There is rarely any occasion when teachers can come together and collaborate on the teaching and learning process, certainly none that are sustained over time. The teachers who participated in this study have created learning communities in which they can discuss issues of real importance and set the pace for their own professional growth.

Department of Education. Crawford, L. Language and literacy learning in multicultural classrooms. Cummins, J. Knowledge, power and identity in teaching English as a second language. In Genesse Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Darling-Hammond, L. Teacher learning that supports student learning. Educational Leadership, 55, Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, Echevarria, J.

Education Week. Quality counts ' Bethesda, MD: Author. New concepts for new challenges: Professional development for teachers of immigrant youth. McDonnell, L. Newcomers in American schools: Meeting the educational needs of immigrant youth. Santa Monica: Rand. Moss, M. Prospects: The congressionally mandated study of educational growth and opportunity. First year report on language minority and limited English proficient students. Washington, DC: Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. A profile of policies and practices for limited English proficient students: Screening methods, program support, and teacher training. The Schools and Staffing Survey.

National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. What matters most: Teaching for America's future. Olsen, R. Enrollment, identification, and placement of LEP students increase again. Department of Education programs and resources. Washington, DC: Author. Waggoner, D. Who are secondary newcomer and linguistically different youth? Wolfe Eds. New York: Teachers College Press. Zeichner, K. Educating teachers for cultural diversity. Preparation 1. Write content objectives clearly for students: 2. Write language objectives clearly for students: 3. Choose content concepts appropriate for age and educational background level of students. List them: 4. Identify supplementary materials to use graphs, models, visuals. List materials: 5.

Adapt content e. List ideas for adaptation: 6. Plan meaningful activities that integrate lesson concepts e. List them: II. Instruction Building Background 7. Lesson delivery: Lesson begins with warm-up to settle students down and also get them thinking about some aspect of the lesson they can relate to Student reads objectives out loud Gave a quick background and then jump into lesson Response groups work together after teacher shows reading and writing tools When students come to an agreement as a group, they write down their reasons Lastly they present their ideas and agree or disagree with other groups.

Review and assessment: Assignments, quizzes, and tests Individual responses and group responses Teacher can decide to reteach a concept or keep going with lesson based on feedback Giving feedback to students Concepts and vocabulary review, calling attention to specific points the students need to remember Mix and match game with students to find complete equations Outcome sentences: I wonder, I think, I feel… throws a ball and students finish sentence about lesson Round robin strategy using whiteboard that is passed around and everyone adds something they learned Look back and see if class met their objective together. Below is a badly formatted table of the 5 precepts we went over in class in comparison to the SIOP model.

Content, gestures, comprehensible input, visuals, key vocabulary, objects, L1. Pairs, small groups, group roles, interaction in small groups report back, hands-on tasks. Autonomy, self-regulation and development in learning community. Explicit objectives and review, strategies, group work. Praise I appreciate being introduced to the SIOP model, mainly because it gives strategies used in a classroom in a sort of chronological order. It is all tied in well together, beginning with the objectives being stated out loud and bringing it all together by revisiting them at the end.

I also appreciate how this video covered a variety of ages in learners and also subjects, showing how diverse this teaching model can be. It is not limited to teaching language, but can be used in all sorts of environments. I believe that it is also not limited to teaching ELLs but can be used in any type of classroom environment to promote learning. Sara, your formatting is just fine. I appreciate the amount of detail you have captured here under the 8 SIOP categories and you go on to make a very important point about the shape of lessons. Next semester, we shall be referring back to this approach as we pursue planning at the unit and lesson level in a great deal of detail.

Research on assessment investigates alternative methods for evaluating the academic Sheltered English Language Reflection of language minority students. Waggoner, Sheltered English Language Reflection. Meeting the needs Sheltered English Language Reflection so many Sheltered English Language Reflection in Sheltered English Language Reflection classrooms is a daily challenge Dbq Mansa Musa Research Paper teachers.

Current Viewers:
Web hosting by Somee.com