Content Teachers’ Attitudes toward English Language

Learners after SIOP Trainings

TESOL 2010 The 44th Annual Convention

Kim H. Song, University of Missouri – St. Louis (UMSL), songk@umsl.edu

Dawn Thieman – Bayless SchoolAlla Gonzalez Del Castillo – PhD Student at

UMSL

Challenges and Raised Problems Theoretical Framework

Positional TheorySIOP (Sheltered Instruction Observation

Protocol) Research Questions for Case Study Results

Data from Surveys Data from Interviews

Discussion and Implication

Outline of Presentation

From 1995 to 2001, the population of K-12 ELLs in the US grew about 105%, about 4.5 million ELLs (Kindler, 2002; Reeves, 2006).

The level of academic achievement for ELLs has lagged significantly behind that of their language-majority peers (Echevarria, Short, & Powers, 2006). There has been lack of research in teachers’ attitudes and perceptions of ELL inclusion, especially in the secondary settings (Reeves, 2006).

Challenges and Raised Problem

Researches indicate that ELLs do not receive appropriate support from mainstream content teachers because they don’t fully understand their roles and approaches to promote their ELLs’ academic growth (Mohr, 2004; Gersten, 1999; Yoon, 2008).

Many content classroom teachers consider the ELL ‘deficient’ and feel that handling them is a frustrating task (Fu, 1995; Gersten, 1999).

Challenges and Raised Problems

Many content teachers do not assume full responsibility for teaching ELLs even if they spend most of their time in the regular classroom.

The regular content teachers POSITIONED themselves as appropriate only for mainstream students while positioning the ESL specialist as appropriate only for ELL.

Challenges and Raised Problems

Miller’s study (2000) shows that the newly arrived ELLs in Australia are aware of their positioning as outsiders when interacting with native speaking insiders.

Norton’s (2000) findings with five female ELLs suggest ways in which individuals act and position themselves differently according to different contexts.

Reeve’s study (2006) positions that the secondary teachers expressed their disagreement to mainstream ELLs (75%) until they achieve English proficiency.

Challenges and Raised Problems

Many states do not require any TESOL course for the content teacher candidates;

Need for ESOL Professional Development of Content Teachers;

Challenges and Raised Problems

Question 1 (Yoon, 2008, Mohr, 2004; Gersten, 1999)

How do Bayless content area teachers (6-12th grades) see their roles in regards to teaching ELLs?

Is it frustrating to have ELLs in your content class?

Research Questions

Question 2 (Yoon, 2008, Reeves, 2006)

What changes happen in teachers’ attitudes toward ELLs’ participation in classes as a result of the SIOP workshops?

Research Questions

Question 3 (Yoon, 2008, Walker-Dalhouse, Sanders, & Dalhouse, 2009; Song & Eur, 2010)

What advantages and disadvantages do the content teachers have in implementing the SIOP pedagogies?

Research Questions

The main objective of the study is to examine the attitudes of the content area teachers toward ELLs using the positioning theory (Davies & Harre, 1990) and the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2008).

Main Goal

Positioning Theory is an attempt to articulate an alternate way of reading and understanding the dynamic of human relationships within a social constructivist paradigm (Davies & Harre,1990).

It is a study of “local moral orders as ever-shifting patterns of mutual and contestable rights and obligations of speaking and acting (Harre & van Langenhove, 1999, p. 1).”

Positioning Theory as a Belief/Moral Framework

There are two perspectives in this positioning theory: 1) self-positioning and 2) interactive positioning.

1) self-positioning – Individuals view the world from a certain position, and this guides the way how they act and think about their roles;

2) interactive positioning – Positioning the same person in different contexts limits or extends what they can say, do, and think (Adams & Harre, 2001);

Positioning Theory (Harre & van

Langenhove, 1999)

Positioning individuals as deficient may deny their cognitive performance and do not allow them to improve performance;

Positioning them as intelligent, however, may allow them the possibility to improve performance (Harre & van Langenhove,1999).

Teachers can intentionally or unintentionally position the students in more positive or more negative ways through their teaching approaches based on their own positions of teacher roles (Yoon, 2008).

Positioning Theory - continued

Self-positioning (guides person’s actions, thoughts)

Views of the teacher’s roles vary depending on whether they see themselves as educators of all students, or educators of a particular subject area

(Davies & Harre, 1999; Yoon, 2008)

Interactive positioning (what one says about positions of others)

These views, negative and/or positive views, influence the instructional process.

Lit. Framework: Positioning Theory

In 1997, a few scholars started creating the framework to help teachers to teach ELLs in these two areas, English language and content learning. It took three to four years to come up with Sheltered Instructional Observation Protocol (SIOP) as a best teaching practice framework.

The SIOP model is based on effective teaching practices that have been scientifically validated and found to be effective over time.

SIOP as a Pedagogical Framework

Features such as 1) teaching to objectives (language & content), focusing on 2) vocabulary development, 3) explaining academic tasks in a clear fashion, 4) explicitly teaching and using learning strategies, 5) asking higher order questions, 6) grouping students to achieve differentiated instruction, and 7) backwardly assessing student comprehension are but a few aspects of the SIOP model.

Thus, the SIOP model offers a way to consolidate the features of effective instruction into one model, making it compatible with a variety of methods and approaches associated with current reform efforts (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short , 2006).

Those approaches include the SIOP professional development workshops for content teachers, ESL teachers, administrators, SIOP district coaches, peer mentors, and university faculty, preservice teachers, graduate students.

SIOP - continued

1. Lesson Preparation (Language & Content Objectives as features!)

2. Building Background3. Comprehensible Input 4. Strategies 5. Interaction 6. Practice/Application 7. Lesson Delivery, and 8. Review/Assessment

SIOP Overview8 Components and 30 Features

3-year Bayless & UMSL initiatives 2-year workshops started August 2008 by

Pearson and two district coaches Some prior exposure

SIOP Workshops in Bayless with MSP Grant from Dept. of Education (2008-2010)

The number of the subjects participated in survey is 48 (74%, N = 65), and that in interview is 28.

The twenty-eight 6-12th grade teachers are randomly selected for the interviews. The data analysis is done through the transcripts from audio-taped interviews.

The 15-item teacher attitude survey is given to all of the participating teachers, and 48 surveys were turned in.

Most of the subjects (82%) had no prior training in teaching ELLs before the SIOP trainings.

Subject of Case Study

ELL demographics: 42% ELLs62% Bosnian20% Vietnamese5% Spanish13% Russian, Korean, Arab, African

ELL proficiency15% Beginners45% Intermediate40% Advanced

ELL Demography and Proficiency

1. 9-item instrument for Interview2. 15-item Teacher Attitude Survey Item development of both instruments:

Prior studies in attitude, roles, position, SIOP, and instruction (Race, 2001; Echevarria, Short, & Vogt, 2006;Yoon, 2008; Mohr, 2004; Gersten, 1999; Reeves, 2006)

Instruments

Mirriam’s (1998) two-stage analysis is adopted for the data analysis in this study: within case and cross case.

2-stage analysis: 1. within case (analyzing of each individual

interview and survey response)2. cross case (building a general pattern to

account for all cases) (Merriam, 1998)

Data Analysis

How do Bayless content area teachers (6-12th grades) see their roles in regards to teaching ELLs?

Results:1. Interview: 26 of 28 (93%) teachers consider teaching ELLs

their job responsibility (RQ1);2. Survey item 1: 43 of 48 subjects (89.6%) consider their

role as teachers for all students including ELLs. Why (Survey item 5):◦ 25/43 It is my responsibility to teach ALL;◦ 5/43– All students including ELLs must meet GLE;◦ NO response: 13/43

Results: RQ 1

Is it frustrating to have ELLs in your content class?

2. Result from Survey Q12. Do you think handling ELLs is a more frustrating task than handling regular students?◦ Yes (13/48, 27%), No (33/48, 73%)

Why? Why not?

◦Prepared to teach ELLs in content classes (more patience, more clarification);

◦ELLs are better to teach (motivated, hard working);

◦Beginning ELLs without much English competence – frustrating

RQ1

What changes happen in teachers’ attitudes toward ELLs’ participation in content class as a result of the SIOP workshops?

Results:1. Survey Q3: Do you encourage ELLs’ participation? Result: Yes (44/48 -92%) How?◦ SIOP (40/44, 90.9%)◦ Group configuration with similar interests (16/44)◦ Pair them with capable students for help (3/44)◦ Use sentence starters (6/44)◦ Others (teaching learning strategies, repetition of instruction,

extra opportunity, scaffolding, graphic organizers, think-pair-share, work with ELL specialists, etc.)

Research Question 2

2. Survey Q9: Have the ELLs changed their attitudes and behaviors after they had experience in participating in discussion?◦Result: Yes (42/48, 87.5%)

What did you see?◦More confidence (10/22)◦More engagement (7/22)◦Greater self-esteem ( 8/22)◦Greater academic achievement (8/22)

RQ 2

What advantages and disadvantages do the content teachers have in implementing the SIOP pedagogies?

Result 1. Survey Q7: Do teachers’ pedagogical approaches

influence ELL’s participation in regular class? Result: Yes (45/48)◦ Positive classroom environment (10/45);◦ Receptivity of emotional needs and pacing – wait

time;◦Modified instruction, scaffolding and DI ;◦High expectations;◦Guided readings and student-centered teaching

strategies;

RQ3

2. Interviews (advantages and disadvantages) Advantages:◦ 26 teachers modified their instruction following the SIOP

workshops; ◦ 20 (71%) teachers saw improvements in ELLs academics;◦ 27 (96%) teachers see SIOP benefits for non-ELLs as well;◦ 24 (86%) teachers agree on language and content

development of their students◦ 22 (79%) teachers put effort to write content and

language objectives Disadvantages:◦ time-consuming, overwhelming combination of content

and language strategies◦ SIOP trainings focus more on elementary and middle

school classroom practices than secondary settings, e.g., teaching scenarios the trainers use, video clips.

RQ3

The results of this study shows that majority of the participants consider teaching ELLs their job responsibility, differentiate their instruction and see the improvement in ELLs’ academics after using the SIOP framework unlike the previous researches (Reeves, 2006; Yoon, 2008; Miller, 2000).

Most of the content teachers show interactive positioning perspective in their perception of teacher roles (Yoon, 2008).

Summary of Results

Disadvantages include time-consuming, and overwhelming about implementing content and language delivery strategies.

It costs a lot of money to go through authentic and meaningful SIOP trainings to make difference in teaching and learning, e.g., school building/district based commitment, hiring and training coaches, bring trainers (Pearson), university content professors, and etc..

Disadvantages

The sample reflective comments are: ◦ “ ---For the students to be able to understand my

content, science, they need to understand English.

◦“ Tried reviewing, building background, advanced organizers. --- It worked. The students started discussing and I became a facilitator”. (9-12 gr., Physics/Chemistry teacher)

◦ --- Adding language objectives… at first, I thought they were completely pointless. It took me about 8 months to get used to writing them. Now it’s really easy. Language objectives enhance content objectives.”

Sample Reflections from Interviews

SIOP PD in general brings positive changes to teachers’ attitudes toward English language learners;

SIOP helps to develop language and content learning, especially advanced key vocabulary through language objectives;

SIOP works for all students; SIOP can be suggested to other school

districts with ELLs and other students; SIOP implementation causes overwhelming,

time-consuming, and delays of advanced content delivery.

Implications

Generalizations from one case study Sincerity of answers Bias in Interview vs. survey assessment

items

Thank you! songk@umsl.edu

Limitations/Further Research