University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The degree to which the use of sheltered instructional strategies in classrooms impact student access to common core content as a consequence of professional development

(USC Thesis Other)

The degree to which the use of sheltered instructional strategies in classrooms impact student access to common core content as a consequence of professional development

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 1
THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE USE OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES
IN CLASSROOMS IMPACT STUDENT ACCESS TO COMMON CORE CONTENT
AS A CONSEQUENCE OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
by
Darvin Jackson
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2015
Copyright 2015 Darvin Jackson
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 2
Acknowledgments
My parents instilled in me at an early age high expectations, commitment, and the pursuit
of excellence in any endeavor undertaken. I have made these pillars by which I lead my life and
have used them as I traversed the many challenges presented during my course of study as a USC
doctoral student. Therefore, I want to acknowledge my parents, George and Bertha Jackson, for
their unending support and encouragement throughout my time in the program. I thank my
brothers as philosophically, we always remind one another to finish with diligence every task we
start. I am grateful to my future wife, Jennifer Gates, for supporting me and allowing me the gift
of time to complete this milestone in my life.
I would like to acknowledge my cohort members who served as a resource throughout
this process. I could not ask for a greater group of intellectuals in my Trojan family. In addition,
this study would not have been possible without my “Wildcat Family.” I sincerely appreciate
their participation in this study; they provided insight into the use of instructional strategies that
allow access to the Common Core content for English language learners. I thank them for
bringing the content alive with the goal of closing the achievement gap. Finally, a sincere thank
you to my Monrovia Unified School District staff and community members who have assisted
me over the past 3 years. Their contributions have not gone unnoticed.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments 2
List of Tables 5
List of Figures 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem 9
Statement of the Problem 11
Purpose of the Study 15
Research Questions 15
Theoretical Framework 16
Statement of Methodology 16
Assumptions, Delimitations, and Limitations 17
Definition of Terms 18
Academic Performance Index (API) 18
AYP 18
CELDT 18
CCSS 18
CST 19
Effective Direct Instruction 19
ELLs 19
Language Acquisition 19
Professional Development 19
Project-Based Learning (PBL) 19
SI 20
SIOP Methodology 20
Organization of the Study 20
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 22
Background 22
Literature Review 22
Types of ELLs 27
Professional Development Content for Teachers 29
SIOP 32
Chapter Summary 35
Chapter Three: Research Methods 38
Restatement of the Problem 38
Purpose of Study Restated 42
Research Questions 43
Methodology 43
Sample: Participant Selection 44
Site Selection 45
Data Collection 46
Interviews 46
Observations 47
Procedures 49
Data Analysis 51
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 4
Ethical Considerations 52
Limitations 54
Chapter Summary 55
Chapter Four: Findings 56
Description of Sample 56
Results for Research Questions 58
Research Question 1 58
Research Question 2 59
Preobservation Interview Data 60
Postobservation Interview Data 69
Chapter Summary 80
Chapter Five: Discussion 82
Restatement of the Problem 83
Discussion of Findings 84
Description of Sample 84
Research Question 1 85
Research Question 2 85
Implications 90
Limitations of Study and Recommendations 92
References 95
Appendices
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 105
Appendix B: Observation Protocol 111
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 5
List of Tables
Table 1: Student Subgroup Performance at Monrovia High School in 2011 39
Table 2: Selected Participants’ Responses Regarding Why They Became Teachers
(N = 12) 57
Table 3: Selected Participants’ Responses About Their Professional Development
Experiences in Regard to Instructional Strategies for English Language
Learners (ELLs) Before the Common Core State Standards (N = 12) 66
Table 4: Selected Participants’ Responses About Their Limited Professional
Development Experiences in Regard to Instructional Strategies for
English Language Learners (ELLs) Before the Common Core State
Standards (N = 12) 67
Table 5: Selected Participants’ Responses About How They Had Established
Teacher and Student Goals Prior to Transitioning to the Common Core
State Standards (N = 12) 68
Table 6: Selected Participants’ Responses About How They Had Established
Teacher and Student Goals Post the Transitioning to the Common Core
State Standards (N = 12) 74
Table 7: Selected Participants’ Responses About Their Professional Development
Experiences in Regard to English Language Learner (ELL) Instructional
Strategies After the Implementation of the Common Core State Standards
(N = 12) 75
Table 8: Two Participants’ Negative Responses About Setting Goals After
Implementation of the Common Core State Standards (N = 12) 76
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 6
List of Figures
Figure 1: Subject areas taught by study participants 58
Figure 2: Participants responses to interview question #4 (“What SI instructional
strategies have you used before the implementation of CCSS?”) 61
Figure 3: Participants’ responses to interview question #5 (“Which SI strategies
resulted in increased student achievement?”) 62
Figure 4: Participants’ responses to interview question #8 (“What were the
essential resources provided to you to support SI instruction?”) 63
Figure 5: Participants’ responses to interview question #10 (“What assessment
methods have been used to provide you with feedback to adjust your
classroom instruction pre CCSS?”) 63
Figure 6: Participants’ responses to interview question #12 (“What is the extent of
your SI knowledge prior to CCSS that enabled you to successfully teach
the content?”) 64
Figure 7: Participants’ responses to interview question #6 (“Which SIOP instructional
strategies have you used transitioning to the CCSS?”) 70
Figure 8: Participants’ responses to interview question #7 (“Which ones have
garnered results in increased student achievement?”) 70
Figure 9: Participants’ responses to interview question #9 (“What do you perceive
are the essential resources to support SI instructional strategies post the
implementation of the CCSS?”) 71
Figure 10: Participants’ responses to interview question #11 (“What assessment
methods have been used to provide feedback to adjust your classroom
instruction post the transition to the CCSS?”) 72
Figure 11: Results obtained from initial and final observations of the instructional
strategies presented for control and pilot groups 79
Figure 12: Flowchart of dissertation study 89
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 7
Abstract
English language learners (ELLs) will be faced with the challenges of demonstrating proficiency
on the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in the future. The purpose of this study was to
explore the degree to which the use of Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) instruc-
tional strategies in classrooms have an impact on student access to the Common Core content as
a consequence of professional development. Two research questions were posed regarding (a) to
what degree the use of SIOP instructional strategies in classrooms impacts student access to the
core content as a consequence of professional development; and (b) what resources are required
to provide teachers with effective implementation of SIOP professional development to support
the transition to the CCSS. A comparative analysis on sheltered instruction (SI) strategies was
conducted pre and post the implementation of the CCSS. The study population was 12 second-
ary teachers providing instruction to beginning to intermediate California English Language
Development Test (CELDT)-level students. The methodology included qualitative data from pre
and post interviews and observations. This method allowed the assessment of how teachers were
attending to the instructional strategies presented and how it impacted their teaching in the
classroom. Instruments were 18 open-ended interview questions and an observation protocol.
Using triangulation through document analysis, interviews, and observations, contributed to the
internal validity of this study. The following themes emerged: (a) lesson preparation, building
background knowledge, and use of strategies were the most frequently utilized components of
SIOP; (b) lesson preparation and building background knowledge were believed to foster in-
creased student achievement; (c) group projects, written assignments, and class discussions were
most frequently used to adjust classroom instruction, thereby improving access to the content; (d)
goal setting for both teachers and students was seen as having an increased importance as they
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 8
transitioned into the CCSS; (e) peer collaboration time, follow-up professional developments,
and materials and curriculum are essential; and (f) frequent professional developments are
needed to implement SIOP with fidelity. Recommendations for further study are provided.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 9
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM
Understanding the historical aspects of the political, legal, and accountability educational
reform issues is essential to the study of English language learners (ELLs). Over the past 50
years, the government increasingly emphasized the use of English by non-native speakers. Presi-
dent Lyndon Johnson’s Civil Rights Act of 1964 along with the case of Lau v. Nichols (1974)
served as the foundation for future legislation for ELLs. In Lau v. Nichols, students of Chinese
descent filed a lawsuit against the San Francisco Unified School District. They were not benefit-
ting from instruction in English. As a right, the court ruled, under the auspices of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, that ELLs be provided with bilingual education or some other form of educa-
tion. In 1967, Congress approved funds for the purposes of supporting poverty-stricken students
as well as bilingual programs. Mandates did not occur until 1974. In 1983 a publication was
released indicating that the American educational system was at risk, as the National Commis-
sion of Excellence in Education (1983a) identified that there was a lack of qualified teachers to
meet the needs of ELLs. This report led to the 1984 Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA; as cited in U.S. Department of Education, 2010) reauthorization, which required profes-
sional developments to ensure adequate qualified, teachers to meet the needs of these students
(Bunch, 2011).
Proposition 227 was passed in 1998 by 61% of the California electorate (Parrish et al.,
2006). Parrish et al. (2006) indicated that it required ELLs to be taught “overwhelmingly in
English” (p. vii) through sheltered-structured English immersion (SEI) programs during a
“temporary transition period not normally intended to exceed one year” (p. vii) and then trans-
ferred to mainstream, English-language classrooms. As a result, ELLs receiving bilingual
instruction with English language development (ELD) dropped from 30 to 8% (Parrish et al.,
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 10
2006). Of concern was the focus solely on English-only instruction, thereby reducing the impact
of a student’s language development.
In addition to legislative reform, the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP; as cited in O’Sullivan, Reese, & Mazzeo, 1997) has been at the forefront of creating the
assessment movement since the mid-1960s with the inception of the current accountability
system in 2001. The current system incorporates summative assessments that are performance
based, with a focus on content standards that can be legally defended in court. The No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002 revamped the existing ESEA. The legislation was intended to
reform schools by improving academic opportunities for those groups who were otherwise left
out of the educational process. Historically, these individuals tended to be students of color,
ELLs, students with special needs, or those considered socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED).
This legislation increased schools’ academic expectations for all students and sought to close the
achievement gap between struggling students and those subgroups that were meeting proficiency.
NCLB sought to improve the instruction in the classroom by requiring teachers to satisfy require-
ments, deeming them “highly qualified” professionals. Schools were required to prove their
students achieved Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) as well as 100% proficiency by 2014 on
standardized multiple-choice tests. The NCLB legislation required all states to report assessment
results of all enrolled students. States must also report on the progress of significant subgroups,
determined as 100 or more students in a particular ethnic group. The report must include stu-
dents with disabilities as well as SED students.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 11
Statement of the Problem
ELLs will be faced with the challenges of demonstrating proficiency on the Common
Core State Standards (CCSS) in the future. Darling-Hammond (2002) asserted that no matter
what content area they are teaching, teachers must understand language learning and literacy
development, which are at the heart of the learning process for all students, especially ELLs, who
must learn how to communicate in English while they are simultaneously learning content.
CCSS were developed in an effort for national standards to be shared, ensuring that students in
every state are held to the same level of expectations and to the same level in the world’s highest
performing countries (Kendall, 2011). How to provide ELL teachers with professional develop-
ment to allow beginning to intermediate California English Language Development Test
(CELDT)-level students successful access to content and create products with a higher level of
mastery poses a challenging task. These standards will require teachers to transition from
teaching solely the content they enjoy to content that students need (Kendall, 2011).
CCSS were developed through the collaboration of the National Governors’ Council
(NGC) on Education. The standards provide clear expectations of what students are to learn.
(California Department of Education [CDE], 2013). In addition, teachers will expect students to
achieve the proposed learning objectives; however, what is unknown is the level of teacher pre-
paredness or the quality of teacher professional development to ensure that the overall task is
achievable. Kendall (2011) indicated that teachers who practice intentional instruction carefully
select strategies appropriate to the type of content that students are learning, and establish an
environment conducive for learning by setting objectives, reinforcing effort, and providing
recognition. This type of instruction must become consistent across all classrooms in the United
States (Kendall, 2011). According to Budde (2011), teachers who are provided with quality
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 12
professional development are more active in teaching that, in turn, leads to higher student
achievement. Darling-Hammond (1999) asserted that the research indicates that quality profes-
sional development correlates to higher student achievement, to which teachers continue to aspire
as they transition to the CCSS. Educators at all levels need timely job- embedded assistance as
they struggle to adapt new curricula and new instructional practices to their unique classroom
contexts (Guskey & Yoon, 2009).
Research has provided the public at large, as well as educators, with information denoting
that U.S. students lag behind their counterparts on an international scale in the areas of English,
math, and science (Fleischman, Hopstock, Pelczar, & Shelley, 2010). Many 17-year-olds do not
possess the higher order intellectual skills expected of them. Nearly 40% cannot draw inferences
from written material, and only a third can solve a math problem requiring several steps (Johan-
ningmeier, 2010). Little is known as to how current teaching professionals will ensure that their
level of instructional expertise will provide students with access to and ability to master content
at high levels of achievement. Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, and Yoon (2001) stated that
professional development must be ongoing, carried out over time, and delivered in the context of
the teacher’s subject area. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan (No Child Left Behind,
2006) asserted that if America’s students are to remain competitive in a knowledge-based econ-
omy, the public schools must greatly accelerate the rate of progress of the last 4 years and do
more to narrow America’s large achievement gaps.
As indicated in the Nation at Risk report (National Commission on Excellence in Educa-
tion, 1983a), there were very few qualified teachers to meet the needs of ELLs. Thus, the re-
search indicates that professional development must occur consistently to provide teachers with
the skills to successfully transition to the CCSS and to allow ELLs access to the content. Barab
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 13
and Luehmann (2003) asserted that teachers play a key role in how materials are interpreted and
presented to students.
Professional development is key to helping teachers build capacity to use curriculum well
(Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman, 2002). Building teacher capacity is at the center of
developing the skills that teachers need to provide instruction for ELLs. Gulamhussein (2013)
substantiated this claim by stating that the real challenges that schools face are how to create
opportunities for teachers to grow and develop in their practice so that they, in turn, can help
students grow and develop their knowledge and ability to think critically. For teachers, merely
keeping students working from bell to bell is not enough; teachers have to learn new ways to
teach—ways that they likely never experienced themselves and that they rarely see their col-
leagues practice. This acknowledgment reflects the CCSS at their core, as the standards are
intended to move away from rote memorization to develop students’ critical thought (Dana,
Burns, & Wolkenhauer, 2013). A study by Nystrandt et al. (1997) indicated that 85% of eighth-
and ninth- grade instruction was a combination of lecture, recitation, and seatwork—activities
that require very little critical thinking. The foregoing observations point to the glaring weakness
that current teachers are not prepared to teach critical thinking, thereby having a significant
impact on ELLs. According to Kane and Staiger (2012), the CCSS calls for students participating
in meaning making and reasoning, investigation and problem-based approaches, questioning
strategies, and student generation of ideas and questions. Providing opportunities for higher
levels of critical thinking will assist ELLs in developing access, depth, and breadth with respect
to the CCSS.
As the current state data indicate, ELLs struggle to achieve consistent AYP on statewide
assessments. Students meeting AYP are those who performed at the proficient or above level on
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 14
statewide assessments in English language arts (ELA) and math by 2014 (CDE, 2012b). They are
defined as ELLs based on the following: The CELDT requires, by law, that those students in
kindergarten through Grade 12 whose home language is not English to take an English skills test.
This test helps schools to identify students who need to improve their skills in listening, speaking,
reading, and writing in English. Schools give this test each year to students who are still learning
English. Reclassified Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) are those students who have not scored at
the proficient level or above on the California Standardized Test (CST) in ELA three times after
being reclassified (CDE, 2012b). The most recent California data published for 2012 on the CDE
website indicated that non-ELLs at Monrovia High School (MHS) in Monrovia, California,
achieved 67% proficiency in comparison to ELLs achieving 7% proficiency on the ELA assess-
ment of the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE; CDE, 2012b). Currently, there exists
a 60% proficiency gap between non-ELL students and ELLs on the ELA part of the CST. Based
on these data, a study in regard to professional development focusing on ELLs instructional
strategies should be beneficial to teachers of ELLs.
Having read various studies on educational reform, it became clear to this researcher that
the perspectives of these comprehensive studies, from specially designed academic instruction in
English (SDAIE) to the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP), vary with respect to
professional development providing effective instructional strategies that allow access to content
for ELLs. The varied results based on the use of a variety of methodologies were deemed a major
gap in the literature due to the impact that teachers’ use of instructional strategies has on student
achievement. Conducting a comparative analysis on sheltered instruction (SI) strategies pre and
post implementation of the CCSS should serve as a benefit to those in the teaching profession.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 15
To ensure implementation of SI with fidelity, the SIOP can be utilized. Short (2000)
asserted that SIOP identifies the critical features of SI and can guide teachers to improve their
practice. SI is an approach to teaching content to ELLs in strategic ways that make the subject
matter concepts comprehensible while promoting students English language development. The
SI lessons incorporate the skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing, which make content
accessible to ELLs. SIOP is comprised of eight sections: (a) preparation, (b) building back-
ground, (c) comprehensible input, (d) strategies and interaction, (e) practice and application, (f)
lesson delivery, and (g) review and assessment, all of which aid in developing the skills of
teachers and thus increasing the opportunity for ELLs to gain access to the content.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore the degree to which the use of SIOP instructional
strategies in classrooms have an impact on student access to the Common Core content as a
consequence of professional development. Studies have shown it takes, on average, 20 separate
instances of practice before a teacher has mastered a new skill, with that number increasing along
with the complexity of the skill (Joyce & Showers, 2002). Identifying professional developments
containing the SIOP elements was essential to this study. Desimone et al. (2002) noted that
effective teacher professional development has substantial positive influence on teachers’ class-
room practices and student achievement.
Research Questions
The following questions were developed for this research study:
1. To what degree does the use of SIOP instructional strategies in classrooms have an
impact on student access to the core content as a consequence of professional development?
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 16
2. What resources are required to provide teachers with effective implementation of
SIOP professional development to support the transition to the CCSS?
Theoretical Framework
In social cognitive theory (SCT), human behavior is extensively motivated and regulated
by the ongoing exercise of self-influence (Bandura, 1977); SCT assists in framing this issue.
There are several aspects of SCT that correlate to the abilities of teachers. Teachers possess the
ability to adjust their behavior and the environment in a goal-directed manner. Teachers’ learn-
ing is affected by their own thoughts, self-efficacy about their abilities, and their learning envi-
ronment (Garet et al., 2001). Goal setting focuses on outcomes. This notion reinforces the
concept that teachers possess forethought to established goals and make progress to that effect.
In addition, peer collaboration in the form of observing other experts or teachers is an effective
strategy to close the gap. For collaboration to bring its intended benefits, “it, too, must be
structured and purposeful, with efforts guided by clear goals for improving student learning
(Guskey, 2003, p. 749).
However, teachers must attend to the information in order for learning to occur. These
observations can strategically occur though professional learning communities. Teachers must
think about what they may have learned already, but in different ways, to apply what is known in
a more integrated and systematic fashion to daily problems around student learning and success
(Rueda, 2011).
Statement of Methodology
Qualitative researchers are interested in understanding how people interpret their experi-
ences and what meaning they attribute to their experiences (Merriam, 2009). Qualitative method
allows access to how teachers are interpreting the various professional developments attended.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 17
This method allows the assessment of how teachers are attending to the instructional strategies
presented and how these strategies are impacting their teaching in the classroom. A qualitative
type of study was selected, as it is best suitable for collecting and analyzing data as well as its
alignment with the research questions. Qualitative researchers typically study a small number of
individuals and preserve the individuality of each participant during the analysis (Maxwell,
2013). In the case of the present study, it involved interviews, observations, and analyzing data
of high school ELL teachers of CELDT-level beginning to intermediate students. In addition, a
comparative analysis was conducted to compare the SIOP instructional strategies utilized pre and
post the implementation of CCSS.
Assumptions, Delimitations, and Limitations
A number of key assumptions were made for the purpose of this study, including the
framework that all participants in the study would answer the interview questions honestly and
provide insight as to the instructional strategies that have proven effective in providing ELLs
access to the content. It was assumed that the research questions provided addressed the purpose
of the study. It was further assumed that the sample population reflected teachers who had sig-
nificant impact on student achievement.
This study has a number of boundaries in terms of the reach of the work and how far it
can influence the literature on the subject of effective instructional strategies for ELLs. The study
used staff members from a high school and therefore had access to those who will participate in
instructional strategy professional developments. This process enabled the study to provide
information relating directly to the subject from informed experts. However, the relatively small
sample size of the population (due to resource limitations in terms of time and personnel) means
that the findings might be limited and not necessarily representative of the wider population of
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 18
members in the teaching profession. Several of the teachers observed were asked to establish
desired outcomes for the professional developments they attended, while several of the others
were not asked. Comparing the two groups did not necessarily indicate that establishing goals or
not correlated with implementing the instructional strategies with fidelity; however, the findings
can be used as a basis for further research on the subject.
Definition of Terms
Academic Performance Index (API)
A measure of academic performance and growth of schools based on the results of Cali-
fornia statewide testing (CDE, 2014).
AYP
The minimum level of improvement as measured by the standardized test chosen by a
state. AYP targets must be set for overall achievement and for subgroups of students, including
major ethnic-racial groups, economically disadvantaged students, and limited-English-speaking
students (CDE, 2014).
CELDT
An English skills test required by law for those students in kindergarten through Grade 12
whose home language is not English. This test helps schools identify students who need to
improve their skills in listening, speaking, reading, and writing in English.
CCSS
A set of high-quality academic standards in mathematics and ELA literacy. These
learning goals outline what students should know and be able to do at the end of each grade. The
standards were created to ensure that all students graduate from high school with the skills and
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 19
knowledge necessary to succeed in college, career, and life regardless of where they live
(Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2015).
CST
An assessment that reflects the state’s academic content standards for a particular grade.
ELLs
Students for whom English is a second language.
Language Acquisition
A subconscious process whereby language acquirers are not usually aware of the fact that
they are acquiring language but are only aware of the fact that they are using the language for
communication. The result of language acquisition, acquired competence, is also subconscious
(Krashen, 1982)
Professional Development
Features of activities that have significant, positive effects on teachers’ self-reported
increases in knowledge and skills and changes in classroom practice: (a) focus on content
knowledge, (b) opportunities for active learning, and (c) coherence with other learning activities
(Garet et al., 2001).
Project-Based Learning (PBL)
A teaching method through which students gain knowledge and skills by working for an
extended period of time to investigate and respond to a complex question, problem, or challenge
(Bell, 2010).
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 20
SI
An approach to teaching content to ELLs in strategic ways that make the subject matter
concepts comprehensible while promoting students’ English language development (Eschevarria
& Graves, 2007).
SIOP Methodology
Methodology that allows for ELLs to access core curriculum through a prescribed set of
instructional strategies as the teacher disseminates the curriculum (Eschevarria, Vogt, & Short,
2004).
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. The introduction chapter provides a
clear statement of the problem and identifies the main purpose of the study. Subsequently, the
chapter poses the research questions that formed the main critical analysis of this study and
highlights the major significance of the study. The study’s central assumptions and delimitations
are presented. Finally, definitions of key terms are delineated to guide the reader in understand-
ing the work and overall structure of the research effort that follows.
Chapter Two contains a detailed review of the literature, with a focus on SCT and the
perceptions of individuals involved directly in instruction (e.g., teachers). Chapter Three details
the research methodology, focusing on a qualitative methods approach for interviewing and
observing teachers in California. The methodology presents a research design that includes
qualitative data collection methods to ensure reliability and validity.
Chapter Four depicts the findings from the study, outlining the major results in relation to
the research questions posed. The presentation of the results from the review of the literature
enabled the triangulation of data that improved the reliability and validity of the findings.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 21
Chapter Five provides the major conclusions and recommendations to be taken from this study,
thus enhancing knowledge of the subject but also acknowledging the limitations of the current
work. Therefore, recommendations include possibilities for future study as well as the impact of
these results as they relate to effective instructional strategies that provide access to the content
for ELLs.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 22
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Background
MHS administrators and staff continue to strive for equal access to the core content for all
students. Although ELLs have made gains as well as students overall, it is essential for the staff
to continue to focus on incorporating research-based instructional strategies to inform decision
making when adjusting classroom instruction. ELLs have demonstrated growth over a 3-year
period as it pertains to AYP measures. ELLs achieved only 7.4% proficiency in ELA in 2011 but
doubled their proficiency by 2013, with 15.4% of the ELL population achieving proficiency
(CDE, 2012b). In 2011, ELLs were able to garner a mere 521 API score based on the results
from the CSTs. However, in 2013 ELLs demonstrated measurable gains as they achieved a 657
API score. These results correlated to an increase of 136 points over a 3-year period. Although
these are significant gains for this particular subgroup, ELLs continue to academically lag behind
their non-ELL counterparts. In 2011 the API for non-ELLs was 777 while today the current
achievement is measured at 807 (CDE, 2012a). The White subgroup alone has demonstrated
significant achievement by obtaining an API score of 874 as of the 2013 testing. In addition to
summative measures of achievement, ELLs currently lag behind their non-ELL counterparts in
graduation rates. As of 2013, based on adjusted school site data, 98.5% of non-ELLs graduated
in comparison to 90% of the ELL population. Based on the above data, a continued focus on
researched-based instructional strategies is essential to ensure continued opportunities for access
to the curriculum and academic growth.
Literature Review
The NCLB Act (2002) currently requires that all states, districts, schools, and teachers are
accountable for the education of ELLs as well as all other students. States are required to create
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 23
an accountability system that incorporates standards with goals and objectives for all core sub-
jects: ELA, math, science and social science. Assessments are to be developed and administered.
All schools must demonstrate AYP toward bringing all students to a level of mastery of these
standards, 100% (called proficient), with a goal that was to be accomplished by 2014; however,
the goal was not achieved (CDE, 2012b).
However, the debate has continued for decades as to the most effective way to educate
ELLs. In the educational system, politics, and the race to find the “one” answer to this conflict
has continued through various research studies with differing ideas on how to best integrate these
students into the classroom and provide them with appropriate instruction that will help build
connections between their native language (Spanish), their second language (English), and the
core curriculum aligned with the state content standards. Identifying the needs of ELLs and the
stages of language acquisition are imperative to student achievement. As demonstrated by the
Lau v. Nichols (1974) decision, children arriving in school with limited proficiency in English
and participating in immersion programs is a violation of their civil rights, according to the U.S.
Supreme Court. Reviewing the milestones of bilingual education history and bringing them into
the present to focus on the needs of ELLs is essential. As Crawford (2004a) asserted that there is
no contradiction between promoting fluent bilingualism and promoting academic achievement in
English; indeed, these goals are mutually supporting.
Over the past 100 years, the government has increasingly emphasized the use of English
by non-native speakers. In the 1906 Nationality Act in Texas, English was officially designated
as the only language to be taught in schools. It also required all immigrants to speak English in
order to be eligible to start their process of naturalization (as cited in Perez, 2004). In 1917, the
Burnett Act was passed by Congress, which required all immigrants to pass a literacy test and
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 24
prohibited immigration from Asia. President Theodore Roosevelt stated in 1926 that the United
States has “room but only one Language here and that is the English Language, for we intend to
see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans of American nationality and not as dwell-
ers in a polygot boarding house” (as cited in Crawford, 2001). This type of mentality, which
remained constant until the 1960s, created a hostile environment against all other languages
except English, which resulted in a decrease in bilingual programs in America.
President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Civil Rights Act of 1964 along with the case of Lau v.
Nichols (1974) served as the foundation for future legislation for ELLs. In Lau v. Nichols,
students of Chinese descent filed a lawsuit against the San Francisco Unified School District, as
they were not benefitting from instruction in English. The court ruled, under the auspices of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed discrimination, that ELLs be provided with bilingual
education or some other form of education a right. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act pertains to
education. It allowed funds to be withheld from districts that promoted segregation or did not
promote integration (Del Valle, 2003; Lyons, 1990).
The lack of access to a meaningful education hindered the possibility of full participation
in society for ELLs and blocked their upward mobility. Crawford (1989) asserted that these two
facts were the impetus behind the passing of the Bilingual Education Act of 1968. School
districts were encouraged to experiment with new pedagogical approaches by funding programs
that targeted principally low-income and ELL populations (Crawford, 1989; Del Valle, 2003;
Ricento,1998). The main idea was to provide part of the instruction in the student’s primary
language in order to see the student transition into general education classes. In Castaneda v
Pickard (1981, as cited in Crawford, 2004b), the Fifth Circuit established three requirements to
define what appropriate action meant when implementing programs to assist ELLs in overcoming
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 25
language barriers. The program must be established on research-based educational practices,
must have adequate support, and must be documents as being successful in teaching students
English (Del Valle, 2003).
During the 1980s, the Reagan Administration led a major campaign against bilingual
education in favor of “back-to-basics” education. In addition, Senator Hayakawa in 1981
founded a nonprofit organization that promoted English as the official language of the United
States and discredited bilingual education (Tinteren, 2009). However, the assessments against
bilingual education were discredited by critics as research indicated moderate differences sup-
porting bilingual education (Tinteren, 2009). In 1983 a publication was released by the National
Commission of Excellence in Education (1983b), indicating that the educational system was at
risk and identified that there was a lack of qualified teachers to meet the needs of ELLs. This
report led to the 1984 ESEA reauthorization, which required professional developments to ensure
adequate qualified teachers to meet the needs of these students (Bunch, 2011).
Under the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 (as cited in Linn, 2003), the Bilin-
gual Education Act was reauthorized. Crawford (2004a) asserted that the main purpose of the
law was to develop bilingual skills and multicultural understanding. It was seen as a way to
improve the nation’s competitiveness and assist ELLs in becoming fluent English speakers. The
law also assisted in developing what was coined “two-way” bilingual programs. According to
Crawford (2004a), students benefit from the opportunity to acquire and fully develop their skills
in a second language. However, in the fall of 1994 in California, Proposition 187 was passed,
which made it illegal for undocumented immigrants to attend public schools. This proposition
served only to limit the rights and benefits previously accorded to immigrants (Crawford, 2004a).
Then in 1996, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the designation of English as the
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 26
nation’s official language and banned the use of other languages by government agencies and
officials. In 1998 Proposition 227 was passed, which ended the bilingual education programs
throughout the state of California; English-only models were substituted (Crawford, 2004a).
This continued wave of educational policies undermined any progress that ELLs would be able to
make, as a consistent system of instruction or curriculum could not be implemented.
Finally, in 2002, the NCLB Act imposed a high-stakes testing system that promoted the
adoption and implementation of English-only instruction. All mention of bilingual education
was eliminated in the previous ESEA. The current system incorporates summative assessments
that are performance based, focus on content standards, and legally can be defended in court.
Standardized tests, known as benchmarks, have become the measure to hold schools accountable.
“Benchmarks include the percentage of students reclassified as fluent in English each year and
‘adequate yearly progress’ on English-language achievement tests, as required under Title I”
(U.S. Department of Education, 2010, p. G3). “AYP is an individual state’s measure of progress
toward the goal of 100 percent of students achieving state academic standards in at least reading/
language arts and math” (Title I, n.d., AYP section, para. 1). In addition to AYP scores, “annual
English assessments will be mandated, ‘measurable achievement objectives’ will be established,
and failure to show academic progress in English will be punished” (Evans & Hornberger, 2005,
p. 90). These sanctions prescribe a plan called Program Improvement (PI). Once a school does
not meet the federal requirements, that school becomes a PI school. MHS is currently in Year 5
of PI based on the lack of significant progress by its ELL subgroup population, as mandated by
the state.
Based on the above-mentioned bilingual historical events, there have been proponents for
and against bilingual education. Proponents against it feel that the use of a individual’s native
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 27
language delays the acquisition of English and that it is more efficient to place students in all-
English programs where they may receive language support (Gándara, 2005). It also skews the
process for assimilating immigrants. Hakuta, Butler, and Witt (2000) noted that it may take up to
7 years to master academic English; however, there exist arguments to the contrary.
As all of these policy changes toward the restriction or exclusion of bilingual education
were passed, evidence about the beneficial effects of bilingual education increased (Crawford,
2004a; Krashen, 1996). Nieto (2000) asserted that in a meta-analysis summarizing research on
bilingual education, ELLs taught using at least some of their native language performed signifi-
cantly better on standardized tests than similar students who were taught only in English. Addi-
tional studies indicated that providing instruction in students’ native language not only facilitates
English acquisition but also strengthens content knowledge attainment (Cummins, 2000; Krash-
en, 2004; Thomas & Collier, 1997).
Types of ELLs
Freeman and Freeman (2004) depicted the three types of ELLs and how teachers could
give these students effective instruction. Schools should not group second-language learners into
one category because the needs at various proficiency levels are very different. The identification
of the three types of learners helped to inform teachers on how they could better support their
students: the long-term learner, the limited formal schooling learner, and the learner who comes
to school with adequate academic and language proficiency in his or her primary language
(Freeman & Freeman, 2004). “The long-term learner had already been in school for a couple of
years and had developed conversational English” (p. 3) This student was able to communicate
with peers and understood enough to do most of the work but struggled on standardized tests.
The struggle of these students is related to a lack of academic language across the content areas.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 28
The appearance of these students is deceiving because of their ability to communicate to the
teacher and their peers in English.
The second type of learner, who has limited formal schooling, does not fare as well. This
learner struggles in school due to gaps in his/her education. Conversational and academic
language has not been developed; consequently, accessing the content information
through instruction is even more difficult. (p. 4)
The third type of learner has already acquired content knowledge and academic language in the
primary language. A student who came into an American school with this type of knowledge is
able to transfer knowledge from his or her primary language to the skills that he or she is learning
in English. This transfer made it easier for the student to use prior knowledge to understand the
content in English. This type of learner needs to acquire adequate proficiency in English and
conversational language. Vocabulary development is important with all learners, especially
learners new to the country and language, such as the third type of learner. All three types of
learners encounter difficulties while becoming proficient in the second language, but the first two
types of learners would be faced with more difficult challenges to overcome because of the fact
that they were not exposed to content knowledge and academic vocabulary in their primary
languages (Freeman & Freeman, 2004).
These types of students require effective instruction to succeed. Freeman and Freeman
(2004) found that students who did not come to school with primary language proficiency had to
achieve gains worth 2 years within the same year in order to close the gap between them and the
native speakers. Hope was not lost for these students, even though it seemed as though there
were daunting gains that these students needed to achieve.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 29
Freeman and Freeman (2004) indicated characteristics of effective instruction that helped
students achieve success. The first characteristic of effective instruction was that teachers
organized the curriculum into themes to develop content knowledge and academic concepts.
Themes seemed to be more comprehensible to students when the subject matter was related.
Students would be able to participate in different modes throughout the theme, depending upon
their language proficiency. Allowing students to respond in a variety of ways that fit their
proficiency promoted active participation by all students. Freeman and Freeman (2004) noted
that the second characteristic of effective teaching was related to prior knowledge. Building
knowledge upon a student’s background engages that student because he or she has something to
contribute in a discussion or activity. The third component of effective instruction was scaffold-
ing. Scaffolds such as oral sentence frames, graphic organizers, and making the information
comprehensible helped to raise student achievement. The gap between native speakers and
second-language learners is considerable and would only narrow with effective instruction for
these students.
Professional Development Content for Teachers
Researchers have indicated that there are several instructional strategies that should be
included in teacher developments of ELLs. In the 1999–2000 school year, “California was one of
five states with the largest English learner population (Freeman & Freeman, 2000, p. 2). Teach-
ers were always looking for ways to improve their instruction and support the needs of their
students. This article dealt with key questions concerning the planning of curriculum and how to
incorporate the needs of second language learners and the research to support the findings.
According to the article by Freeman and Freeman (2000), “one key finding was that the
curriculum had been organized around a “big” question, which was the learning objective for the
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 30
student” (p. 3). This question allowed students to see the “big picture” of what they were learn-
ing, and then they could try to relate that to the English they had already acquired. The big
question also integrated all content areas, contained repetition of vocabulary, and curriculum
could be connected to students’ real-life experiences, thus further engaging students who were
actively participating. Another key finding was that students need to be involved in authentic
reading and writing. Rich text was more comprehensible to second- language learners. Various
types of reading material and styles of writing encouraged literacy and cognitive, academic, and
language development for these bilingual students. Freeman and Freeman (2000) asserted that if
students are not interested, they will not learn; therefore, it is important to build upon students’
prior knowledge and give students choices so that they are interested in the material at hand. The
material or curriculum must be meaningful and serve a purpose for the students. The term
meaningful describes the way in which more difficult concepts are presented in instruction so that
the students acquiring English as a second language can understand and have access to the
information. According to Freeman (as cited in Brinton & Master, 1989), “teachers who under-
stand the needs of bilingual students recognize that language is best learned in the process of
studying academic content” (p. 5). When students are given language in its most authentic form,
they are motivated to learn.
Working in groups was another finding that supported second-language learners because
the students’ peers could help make the material easier to understand. While working together in
reading, writing, and/or discussions, “students were able to develop the necessary language
needed to further their knowledge of the academic content areas” (Freeman & Freeman, 2000, p.
2). Proficiency levels must be taken into account when grouping students. At times, the groups
would be heterogeneous and at other times homogeneous, depending upon the activity. It was
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 31
also noted that bilingual students needed to experience the four components of English profi-
ciency: reading, writing, listening, and speaking. “The different components are all dependent
upon one another to achieve proficiency” (Freeman & Freeman, 2000, p. 3). The above assertion
reenforces the research that learning the four components in students’ first language would help
to increase the rate at which they acquire their second language—in this case, English. Research
found that students who were proficient in their first language could transfer knowledge from that
language to their second language. All of these components are imperative for meeting the needs
of ELLs. Careful planning of instruction and curriculum could affect the way in which a second-
language learner accessed content knowledge.
Additional researchers indicated that teachers using research-based instructional strategies
to provide equitable opportunities for ELLs are essential for these learners to access the cur-
riculum. According to Frey and Fisher (2005), teachers must incorporate into their lesson plan
four phases of instruction to afford ELLs equitable instructional opportunities. Teachers must
establish what students should know and do with the material learned. Modeling and frequently
checking for understanding are key aspects of this phase. During the second phase, the teacher
guides the student through the learning process. Students must attend to the information that they
are expected to learn as the teacher seeks to foster the development of metacognitive skills. The
student, in essence, learns to take responsibility for what he or she knows and can learn and apply
(Resnick & Hall, 2003). In addition, the teacher scaffolds information in a way that provides
continual access to the content, develops self-efficacy, and persists to accomplish the learning
task. The teacher fosters student collaboration during the third phase. Students are asked to self-
reflect on the learning process during this time, as well as formulate and share thoughts about
what they are learning. In the fourth phase, the teacher allows for independent learning time.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 32
Students are expected to apply the knowledge that they have acquired. It is during this time that
learning can become most meaningful, as they are “doing” with what they have learned. Self-
management of learning is about students taking responsibility for their own learning by monitor-
ing and regulating their own cognitive processes with increasing spontaneity and sophistication
(Resnick & Hall, 2003). This task is also recognized by constructivists as meaningful learning,
as students engage in their own learning.
In addition to designing effective lesson plans, teachers must foster literacy development.
Teachers can no longer simply focus on vocabulary and grammar. They must focus on discourse,
explanation, and structure, which can occur collaboratively or independently via writing. Ac-
cording to Harper and Jong (2004), ELLs must be challenged with processing complicated
language. They must be required to write across all curricula and speak with a range of various
skills and strategies. Overall, teachers must foster the ability of students to make meaning of the
language.
SIOP
The aforementioned historical perspective of bilingual education, the review of literature,
and researchers’ perspectives on effective content of professional developments for teachers of
ELLs all substantiate a need for SI strategies that develop access and depth and breadth of
knowledge to the CCSS for beginner to intermediate ELLs via the SIOP methodology. Tradi-
tional instruction holds that teachers are the transmitters of information, often through lectures
and textbook readings, and the students are the receivers (Goodlad 1984; Tharp & Gallimore,
1988). Cummins (2000) asserted that this traditional style does not serve culturally and linguisti-
cally diverse students well. However, SI is an approach to teaching content to ELLs in strategic
ways that make the subject matter concepts comprehensible while promoting the students’
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 33
English language development. The SI lessons incorporate the skills of listening, speaking,
reading, and writing, which make content accessible to ELLs. To ensure implementation of SI
instruction with fidelity, the SIOP can be utilized.
SIOP is an observation instrument that provides concrete examples of those features of SI
that can enhance and expand teachers’ instructional practice (Echevarria et al., 2004). It can be
used as a tool for instructional planning and delivery. SIOP is comprised of eight sections:
preparation, building background, comprehensible input, strategies, interaction, practice and
application, lesson delivery, and review and assessment. Researchers have indicated that these
concepts are essential to ELLs with respect to gaining access to content. According to Short
(2000), SIOP identifies the critical features of SI and can guide teachers to improve their practice.
Teachers must prepare lessons that are appropriate. Each should include both content and
a language objective. The content should be grade-level appropriate, and the content should be
connected to the standards. Short (2000) asserted that a high school ELL beginner should not use
elementary-level materials, although these may meet the proficiency level needs. The lessons can
also include meaningful activities that integrate concepts with language practice and supplemen-
tary materials that support the academic text. For example, graphs, interaction with authentic
materials, audiovisuals, adapted text, or computer-based resources can be used.
Building background knowledge is another component of the SIOP. Immigrant students
often have gaps in their knowledge, even if they are well schooled, because other countries may
emphasize different topics in the curriculum (Short, 2000). Making connections between new
concepts and past student experiences is essential. According to Short (2000), these connections
assist students in organizing new information as part of their cognitive processing. Explicit
teaching and emphasizing key academic vocabulary are essential for ELLs, as these provide
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 34
access to concepts and opportunities to use the vocabulary in meaningful ways. August,
Shanahan, and Shanahan (2006) emphasized that ELLs need enhanced teaching of what is good
for native speakers, which includes attention to discourse.
Based on the proficiency level of their students, teachers must utilize comprehensible
input strategies, including controlling the rate of their speech, selection of their words, and
framing the complexity of their sentences. Teachers support their efforts by using graphic
organizers, visual aids, cooperative learning or native language supports. Directions are provided
in a clear, succinct manner. According to Short (2000), one error that secondary teachers often
make is in assuming that students have general procedural knowledge commonly taught in
elementary grades.
SIOP is inclusive of the use of strategies and interaction. Teachers use strategies that
allow students to know how to access and retain information. They utilize the scaffolding
strategy and promote higher order thinking skills. The focus on interaction reminds teachers to
group students appropriately for language and content development, as well as for promoting
elaboration of speech (Echevarria, Short, & Powers, 2006). Short (2000) asserted that it is
through discussion with classmates and with the teacher that ELLs practice important skills such
as elaborating, negotiating meaning, clarifying and confirming information, persuading, disagree-
ing, and evaluating.
Practice, application, and lesson delivery are essential components of SIOP. Teachers
should prepare lessons that require ELLs to practice and apply the content that they are learning.
Visual, hands-on, and kinesthetic activities can be used to support this effort. Practice and appli-
cation call for activities that extend language and content learning (Echevarria et al., 2006).
Teachers must ensure that the pacing of the lesson is appropriate when disseminating the content.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 35
The content and language objectives must be met, and students must be highly engaged through-
out the class period. According to Echevarria et al. (2006), effective lesson delivery ensures that
teachers present a lesson that meets planned objectives.
A final aspect of SIOP is review and assessment. Reviewing key language and content
concepts, assessing student learning, as well as providing feedback to students, are essential.
Short (2000) noted that high-quality lessons always include a wrap-up at the end of the period as
well as frequent feedback from teacher to students and informal assessment of student learning
throughout the lesson. These tasks can include individual performance-based assessments or
hands-on projects. Teachers can also require group projects, written or oral assignments, as well
as class discussion to assess student mastery of the content.
Chapter Summary
The review of the literature has underscored a number of crucial points in the discussion
of the importance of assessing professional development programs that will provide ELL teachers
with instructional strategies that develop access and depth and breadth of knowledge to the CCSS
for beginner to intermediate ELL students via the SIOP methodology. The evaluation of avail-
able work on the subject indicated that there was general agreement that ELLs require equitable
instructional opportunities. As highlighted, this study focused on discovering (a) to what degree
the use of SIOP instructional strategies in classrooms have an impact on student access to the
core content as a consequence of professional development; and (b) what resources (e.g., time,
fiscal allocation, expertise, goal setting) are required to provide teachers with effective imple-
mentation of SIOP professional development to support the transition to the CCSS.
The analysis of the literature utilized a range of journal articles and reports completed in
the United States and identifying essential aspects of SI using SIOP. There were relatively few
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 36
articles, if any, that addressed the issue from the perspective of implementing the CCSS via the
use of SIOP for ELL teachers. Having assessed the existing literature on the subject of providing
ELL teachers with instructional strategies that develop access and depth and breadth of knowl-
edge to the CCSS for beginner to intermediate ELL students via the SIOP methodology, it is
apparent to this researcher there is a need for a study such as this one. Although there were a
number of studies that focused on SI using SIOP in regard to the California state standards, there
were none that conducted it from the perspective of the CCSS. Therefore, this current study
should have important significance within the literature. It provides a detailed assessment of
instructional strategies for ELLs used pre and post the implementation of the CCSS. Hence, the
study will contribute to existing literature in this area and inform administrators and teachers of
the current SIOP strategies needed to successfully provide access and depth and breadth of
knowledge for ELLs relative to the CCSS.
Due to a lack of availability of literature that covered instructional strategies used to
provide access to the CCSS for ELLs, the review of the literature was generalized to reflect the
current California state standards. Thus, it included a wealth of studies that focused on SI and the
use of SIOP pre CCSS. As an overview, the studies seemed to find that there were specific
instructional strategies that were important to the success of teachers providing access and depth
and breadth of knowledge for ELLs relative to the CCSS. The research indicated that teachers
must design effective lesson plans inclusive of learning and language objectives. The teacher
must provide effective modeling, guided instruction, scaffolding, and frequent checking for
understanding. As well, fostering student collaboration was seen as beneficial as students build
language in this manner. Building background knowledge and literacy development were
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 37
deemed as essential components of instructional strategies. As a result, SIOP was seen as a
methodology that can be used successfully when implemented with fidelity.
SIOP is an instructional framework that incorporates best practices for teaching academic
English and provides teachers with a coherent, usable approach for improving the achievement of
their students (Echevarria, 2005). It provides a guide for modifying academic instruction while
promoting a challenging yet supportive academic environment. SIOP lessons place an emphasis
on building vocabulary and background knowledge and developing learning strategies that
contribute to students’ literacy development. For change to occur in teaching practice that leads
to improved academic performance by students, teachers cannot simply select their favorite
techniques; implementation of high-quality instruction must be systematic and steered by re-
search (Echevarria et al., 2006).
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 38
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODS
A high level of shared education is essential to a free, democratic society and to the
fostering of a common culture, especially in a country that prides itself on pluralism and individ-
ual freedom (Johanningmeier, 2010). ELLs’ access to a shared education is essential to their
development in this pluralistic environment; however, they struggle to achieve consistent AYP
on statewide summative assessments. Currently, there exists a 60% proficiency gap between
non-ELLs students and ELL students on the CST’s ELA. Non-ELL students achieved 67% pro-
ficiency versus 7% proficiency for ELL students on the ELA on the CAHSEE (CDE, 2012b).
Johanningmeier (2010), quoting A Nation at Risk (National Commission for Excellence in Edu-
cation, 1983), asserted that “the public understands the primary importance of education as the
foundation for a satisfying life, an enlightened and civil society, a strong economy, and a secure
nation” (pp. 14–15). ELL students’ academic achievement in this area is as vital as their
non-ELL counterparts in contributing to a flourishing nation.
Restatement of the Problem
MHS is a Grade 9-12 school located in an urban area of Los Angeles County. Seventeen
hundred students attended MHS during the 2011–2012 school year. Of these, 55% were Latino,
27% were White, and 10% were African American. The remainder of the student population
consisted of Asian or Pacific Islander students. ELLs comprised 6% of the entire student enroll-
ment. Forty-two percent of the students were eligible for free and reduced-price lunches (CDE,
2012b).
MHS, however, does not receive Title I funding. These additional federal monies would
provide additional resources where the academic needs are the greatest (CDE, 2012b). In com-
parison to similar schools with similar characteristics, MHS received a ranking of 7 out of 10 on
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 39
the similar schools index, with 10 being the highest ranking a school can receive (Ed-Data,
2011). While the overall school earned an API ranking of 777, the ELL subgroup earned a 521
(Ed- Data, 2011; refer to Table 1 for all performance information for the subgroups at MHS).
Table 1
Student Subgroup Performance at Monrovia High School in 2011
Number of % proficient or
Student subgroup pupils above
Schoolwide 270 67.3
White 93 86.1
Hispanic or Latino 133 58.8
Black or African American 25 53.2
Other subgroups
Socioeconomically disadvantaged 108 60.7
Students with disabilities 6 15.8
English learners 2 7.4
Total: all students included base AYP 261 100.0
Note. AYP = Adequate Yearly Progress.
Fifty-three percent of African American students, 86.1% of White students, 60.7% of
SED students, and 15.8% of students with special needs achieved the proficiency requirements.
However, only 7.4% of ELL students achieved the proficiency requirements (CDE, 2012b). As
evidenced by the performance numbers in Table 1, there exists a significant gap between ELLs
and non-ELLs that will require a review of possible organizational factors to determine variables
for the performance gap.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 40
The staff at MHS is not representative of the diversity reflective of the student population,
with 90% White, 8% Latino, and 1% African American and other ethnicities. A quarter of the
MHS teaching staff are alumni. As openings permitted recently, highly qualified and specialized
teachers have been hired to support ELLs in core curriculum areas. Few current teachers have
received training in the SIOP to support ELLs. Current instructional material provides core
content without provisions for supplemental materials relevant to supporting ELLs. Limited time
has been provided for professional development in effective instructional strategies for the ELLs.
Monthly, teachers are provided with only one day of collaboration time to discuss data from
summative or formative assessments. This time allows for limited review of data that would
allow them the ability to adjust their instruction based on the assessment results. Rueda (2011)
asserted that if the target of the solution is a long-standing and a well-entrenched belief, attitude,
or practice, impacting the goal may take more time.
The NCLB Act (2002) sought to improve instruction in the classroom by requiring
teachers to satisfy requirements deeming them “highly qualified” professionals. To be consid-
ered highly qualified, a teacher of core academic content must possess a bachelor’s degree, a
teaching or intern credential, and demonstrate core academic subject matter competence (CDE,
2012b). Schools were required to prove their students achieved AYP as well as 100% profi-
ciency by 2014 on a standardized multiple-choice test. The NCLB legislation requires all states to
report assessment results of all enrolled students. States must also report on the progress of sig-
nificant subgroups. Numerically significant subgroups are defined as 100 or more students with
valid California Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program scores or more than 50
students with valid STAR program scores who make up at least 15% of the total valid STAR
program scores (CDE, 2012b). The race and ethnicity subgroups are African American,
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 41
American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Filipino, Hispanic or Latino, Native Hawaiian or Pacific
Islander, White, and two or more races (multiracial). The report must include students with dis-
abilities as well as SED students. Students with disabilities are defined as students who receive
special education services and have a valid disability code on the student answer document or
students who were previously identified as special education but who are no longer receiving
special education services for 2 years after exiting special education. SED is defined as a student
neither of whose parents has received a high school diploma or who is eligible for the free or
reduced-price lunch program, also known as the National School Lunch Program (CDE, 2012b).
There are several consequences that have been established by the state for schools whose
students do not meet adequate yearly progress based on the proficiency requirements, which is
also defined as PI (CDE, 2012b). Depending on each failing school’s past performance, the
consequences tied to failing to make AYP range from public identification as a failing school, to
mandatory tutoring services, to state-lead school takeovers or school closings (Hemelt, 2011).
Should schools enter into Year 4 of PI, teachers, administrators as well as boards of education
could be replaced (Crane, Huang, Huang, & Derby, 2008).
ELLs failing to meet AYP have a negative impact on site staff and, more importantly,
they experience personal difficulty. School staffs tend to suffer lower morale due to having been
labeled a low-performing school. In addition, higher turnover rates exist as many staff members
transfer out of their school or change professions. ELLs tend to exhibit apathy as they randomly
choose answers, leave them blank, or become emotionally overwhelmed to the point of frustra-
tion or even vomiting (Wright & Choi, 2006). ELLs experiencing difficulty mastering a second
language may have an impact on retention or their ability to graduate. Garcia (2004) asserted that
nationally, approximately 50% of Hispanics (a large portion being ELLs) tend to leave school
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 42
prior to graduation. Almost 30% of ELLs repeated the ninth grade in the 2005–2006 school year
(Solórzano, 2008). The higher the rate of retention, the more likely students are to drop out. This
adversity will continue to serve as a societal barrier, thereby limiting options and preventing the
individuals with access to the community at large. According to Darling-Hammond (2006), these
students tend to leave school with a seventh- or eighth-grade education and join what is known as
the school-to-prison pipeline. In addition, Johanningmeier (2010) indicated that half of the
newly employed mathematics, science, and English teachers are not qualified to teach these sub-
jects—factor that also has a direct impact on the retention of ELLs. Determining to what degree
the use of SIOP instructional strategies in classrooms has an impact on student access to the core
content as a consequence of professional development poses a challenging task. Often school
debates center around what should be taught and how it should be assessed, rather than on how to
teach it (Rueda, 2011).
Purpose of Study Restated
The purpose of this study was to assess professional development that will provide ELL
teachers with instructional strategies that develop access, depth, and breadth of knowledge to the
CCSS for beginner to intermediate ELL students via the SIOP methodology. Studies have shown
that it takes, on average, 20 separate instances of practice before a teacher has mastered a new
skill, with that number increasing along with the complexity of the skill (Joyce & Showers,
2002). Identifying a professional development containing the above elements is essential to this
study. Desimone et al. (2002) asserted that effective teacher professional development has sub-
stantial positive influence on teachers’ classroom practices and student achievement. While all
types of knowledge are important in learning, some types are more critical to the kinds of goals
that schools ideally would try to promote, such as being able to acquire meaningful learning,
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 43
apply knowledge to solve problems, and transfer that knowledge to other settings and types of
problems (Rueda, 2011).
Research Questions
The following questions were developed for this research study:
1. To what degree does the use of SIOP instructional strategies in classrooms have an
impact on student access to the core content as a consequence of professional development?
2. What resources are required to provide teachers with effective implementation of
SIOP professional development to support the transition to the CCSS?
Methodology
Qualitative research is defined as research that “relies on data which is very detailed,
variable in content, closely linked to everyday life and has concrete meaning. Data with concrete
meaning are written facts, and documents, photos, videos and interviews to name a selection”
(Ernst, 2003, p. 3). Qualitative researchers are interested in understanding how people interpret
their experiences and what meaning they attribute to their experiences (Merriam, 2009). In the
case of this study, the qualitative method allowed access to how teachers were interpreting the
various SIOP professional developments that they attended. This method allows the assessment
of how teachers are implementing the SIOP instructional strategies presented and how these
strategies are impacting their teaching in the classroom. In addition, a qualitative study was
selected as it is most suitable for collecting and analyzing data as well as aligning with the
research questions. Qualitative researchers typically study a small number of individuals and
preserve the individuality of each participant during the analysis (Maxwell, 2013). This study
involved interviews, observations, and analyzing the data of high school ELL teachers of begin-
ner to intermediate students, thereby leading to the identification of an information-rich case.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 44
Sample: Participant Selection
The research questions for the study sought to understand how SIOP professional devel-
opment experiences provided ELL teachers with instructional strategies that developed access,
depth, and breadth of knowledge to the CCSS for beginner to intermediate ELL students. The
use of the purposeful selection of individuals was the focus for the study. According to Maxwell
(2013), particular settings, persons, or activities are selected deliberately to provide information
that is particularly relevant to one’s questions or goals and that cannot be obtained well from
other sources. Twelve participants were selected who could provide relevant information to the
research questions. These respondents (a) had to be teaching in a high school setting that was
transitioning to the CCSS, (b) had to be serving in an instructional capacity via the use of SIOP,
and (c) had to be demonstrating the ability to prepare lessons and establish a learning environ-
ment with high expectations. Walker (2008, 2010) asserted that lesson preparation and establish-
ing a learning environment are identifiable aspects of personal and professional characteristics of
an effective teacher. In addition, a pilot and control group were established for this study to
ascertain whether this procedure had any impact on implementing instructional strategies with
fidelity. Six participants self-selected to participate as pilot members, and six others self-selected
as the control group for this study. Based on the purposeful selection process, all 12 of the par-
ticipants fit the criteria and were appropriate for the pilot study.
The 12 participants served as both teachers and instructional leaders in the Monrovia
Unified School District. Asking the principal to refer this researcher to a minimum of 10 of these
individuals on campus was essential to this study. Another key process involved the researcher
meeting with each individual to briefly explain the purpose of the research and the university
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 45
with which the research would be associated. At the conclusion of these conversations, each
interviewee was deemed appropriate.
Site Selection
Purposeful sampling was used to select the site as well. Maxwell (2013) indicated that
researchers should identify locations that will uniquely be able to relate to the focus of the study.
Determining the high school teachers in the Monrovia Unified School District as capable of pro-
viding answers to the research questions was a necessary step in the process. As indicated above,
the site principal indicated that several of the staff members were comfortable being observed.
Gaining entry into these sites was a seamless task based on the researcher’s previous relation-
ships with the principal for many years. The existing relationship proved to be beneficial, as
confidence and trust had already been established. Gaining entry into a site begins with gaining
the confidence and permission of those who can approve the activity (Merriam 2009). The site
principal was a colleague and recommended teachers to observe. In addition, Bogdan and Biklen
(2007) recommended a low-profile entry where again, observations were possible based on the
researcher’s rapport with the principal. In addition, meeting with the teachers as a group to
provide the background information needed for the purpose of the observations was essential in
the process. Teachers were informed that the pilot study was being conducted through the
University of Southern California’s (USC) Ed.D. program and that the information would be
used only to draft a dissertation paper for the researcher’s doctoral program. They were also
informed that the observations were nonevaluative and would not be shared with the site princi-
pals. Once all of their questions were answered and they agreed to the pilot study, the dates and
times were established to conduct the study.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 46
Data Collection
The purpose of this study was to understand how SIOP professional development experi-
ences provide ELL teachers with instructional strategies that develop access to and depth and
breadth of knowledge to the CCSS for beginner to intermediate ELL students. The instruments
used to collect relevant data were interview protocols and observations. Merriam (2009) con-
veyed that using triangulation through document analysis, interviews, and observations contrib-
utes to the internal validity of the study.
Interviews
Eighteen questions were created to gain an understanding of teachers’ feelings and per-
ceptions around teacher professional development in using SIOP instructional strategies to
provide ELLs access to the CCSS. Ary, Jacobs, and Sorensen (2010) indicated that interviews
are appropriate because they provide opportunities to receive more candid answers in a personal
setting than those obtained in focus groups. Interviews receive a better response rate than surveys
and can be created so that they focus on gaining a detailed insight into the topic of the
researcher’s choice. Questions were developed in a manner that would best elicit informative
responses. Maxwell (2013) asserted that researchers should ask real questions—ones that they
are genuinely interested in rather than contrived questions designed to elicit particular sorts of
data. Interviews are also important because of the increased level of trust that occurs between
interviewer and interviewee, thereby leading the participant to open up and provide more reveal-
ing information on a topic (Ary et al., 2010). The questions were presented to an expert panel to
elicit constructive feedback to align the interview questions with the research questions. In
addition, participation in in-class mock interviews to adjust the questions for even better
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 47
alignment with the research questions was utilized. The final interview protocol consisted of 18
questions and prewritten probes to further clarify the questions (see Appendix A).
During the official interview process, all 12 participants were asked the same questions
but not necessarily in the same order. The questions were posed as open ended to allow partici-
pants the opportunities to provide deep and meaningful responses. In addition, various probes
were used depending on a participant’s answers to elicit richer responses. According to Creswell
(2009), this was considered a semistructured interview—one that included a list of questions with
additional probes to elicit richer responses. Using semistructured questioning enables the inter-
viewer to ask questions that may arise from the answers provided by the interviewee (Hatch,
2010). A formally structured interview would not allow this flexibility.
“Data with concrete meaning are written facts, and documents, photos, videos and inter-
views to name a selection” (Ernst, 2003, p. 3). Qualitative researchers are interested in under-
standing how people interpret their experiences and what meaning they attribute to their experi-
ences (Merriam, 2009). Kvale (1996) defined qualitative research as “attempts to understand the
world from the subject’s point of view, to unfold the meaning of people’s experiences, to uncover
their lived world prior to scientific explanations” (p. 28).
Observations
Collecting multiple sets of information from multiple sources assists in building credibil-
ity in the study (Maxwell, 2013). In addition to conducting interviews as a primary source of data
collection, observations were utilized as a part of the research design. This method supported the
study because the research questions focused on understanding how professional development
experiences related to the CCSS have been successful in providing teachers of ELLs with SIOP
instructional strategies. Maxwell (2013) asserted that triangulation involves using different
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 48
methods as a check on one another, seeing if methods with different strengths and limitations all
support a single conclusion. This method allowed the researcher to describe in detail what was
transpiring in the classroom in connection to the SIOP professional developments provided to the
teachers. Observations can enable one to draw inferences about a perspective that one could not
obtain by relying exclusively on interview data (Maxwell, 2013). According to Merriam (2009),
observations are also conducted to triangulate emerging findings—that is, they are used in con-
junction with interviewing and document analysis to substantiate findings.
The initial protocol constructed included details that reflected a focus on classroom
instruction. The elements involved observation of a learning objective; determination of align-
ment with the lesson or activity; checking for understanding, scaffolding of content, inquiry or
PBL; and effective first instruction concepts. A comments section was also included. Observer’s
comments serve as reflective parts of the observation (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). After the
researcher received peer feedback, the following key elements were added to comprise the final
observation protocol: date, time, the research question, school data, and space for contextual
description (see Appendix B). It is not only what is being told, how it is being told, and the
conditions of its being told, but also all the data surrounding what is being told (Maxwell, 2013).
These elements lend themselves to the concept of data surrounding what is being told.
The same purposeful sample and criteria for selecting teachers that would be observed at
the high school site and in their classrooms were used. In this case, the same 12 individuals
interviewed were observed. These participants were all teaching in a high school setting that was
transitioning to the CCSS and providing instruction to beginning to intermediate ELLs. They had
also demonstrated the ability to prepare lessons and establish a learning environment with high
expectations. All 12 participants fit the criteria and were deemed appropriate for the study. The
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 49
selected individuals were divided into groups of six: a pilot group and a control group. Merriam
(2009) suggested that observations take place in the setting where the phenomenon of interest
naturally occurs and that observational data represent a firsthand encounter with the phenomenon
of interest rather than a secondhand account of the world obtained in an interview.
According to Merriam’s (2009) description between observer and observed, serving in
what was described as the observer as participant was the plan. The purpose of the observation
was disclosed to the teachers as well as the researcher’s role as an information gatherer. As a part
of the observation, a recorder was used to assist the researcher later in the transcription phase.
The teachers were observed for the entire class period, which was scheduled for 59 minutes.
Sitting in the back of the classrooms allowed for the best sight line, providing access to all
students and the teacher. Attempting to focus on what the teacher was doing in relation to the
students and what the students were doing in relation to the teacher were of interest to the
researcher. Assessing various groups of students within the classroom to determine whether the
instructional strategies used were engaging them accordingly were a focus. According to Rueda
(2011), considering the actual cognitive processes involved in how one will be using and assess-
ing different kinds of knowledge helps assure that a more accurate picture of learning is created,
thus leading to more effective instruction in terms of where knowledge gaps might lie.
Procedures
Each participant was met at the district office in a quiet room that allowed for limited
interruptions. As previously indicated, the interview protocol was reviewed with each partici-
pant. A notation was made regarding his or her consent to participate in the interview process as
well as the university with which the research was connected. The interviews were recorded,
although there were very few distractions and attending to all information presented by the
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 50
participants was accomplished by the researcher. All interviews lasted approximately 45 min-
utes. At the conclusion of each interview, the participants were thanked for their time and assured
of the privacy of the interview.
The qualitative data were collected from in-person interviews where questions were
posited in an open-ended format. Teachers participated in a preobservation interview process
where they responded to 11 questions. Having done so, they then participated in a professional
development focused on SIOP instructional strategies. After completing the professional devel-
opment, they participated in two classroom observations providing instruction to beginning to
intermediate ELLs with at least 2 weeks in between the observations. Finally, the teachers par-
ticipated in a postobservation interview in which they responded to seven additional questions.
As all 12 teachers participated in all aspects of the interview and observation process, there was a
response rate of 100%.
The interview protocols contained 18 interview questions corresponding to the two major
research questions. The observation protocol was arranged in a Likert scale format to guide the
observer through the process to denote whether instructional strategies were in fact observed and
were engaging, organized, and done correctly. Specifically, the protocol was based on a 5-point
Likert scale referencing the eight components of SIOP. Scale 1 reflected the instructional
strategy not being observed. Scale 2 indicated the instructional strategy observed by the research-
er; however, the participant did not use the strategy correctly, was not able to engage students,
and was not well organized. Scale 3 reflected that the instructional strategy was observed and
implemented correctly; the participant was able to engage the students but was not well orga-
nized. Scale 4 indicated that the participant used the instructional strategy correctly and was well
organized; however, the participant was not able to engage the students. Scale 5 reflected that the
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 51
participant was using the instructional strategy correctly, engaged students, and was well orga-
nized.
Data Analysis
At the conclusion of the open-ended interview and observation process, reviewing the
data collected to analyze and code each source was essential. Through the process of triangula-
tion, the findings of the interviews, observations, and data analysis to determine convergent and
divergent themes were compared. Merriam (2009) recommended identifying themes and ideas
across all the data throughout the process. In addition, the use of comparative analysis was
utilized to compare instructional strategies prior to and after the implementation of CCSS in
providing ELLs access to the content.
The raw data from the transcribed interviews were coded to generate a general theory and
align it with the two guiding questions. Shenton (2004) indicated that coding allows the study to
be repeated and validated: “Coding facilitates the organization, retrieval, and interpretation of
data and leads to conclusion on the basis of that interpretation” (p. 157). In addition, a compara-
tive analysis of the observations data was used to compare goal setting in implementing instruc-
tional strategies after the professional development that the participants attended.
The aim of the research questions was to understand how professional development expe-
riences related to the CCSS have been successful in providing teachers of beginner to intermedi-
ate ELLs with effective SIOP instructional strategies. The research was conducted from a
grounded theory approach that validates and acknowledges the complexities of concepts being
studied and is a process of systemically and rigorously exploring and generating a theory regard-
ing a phenomenon (Creswell, 2009; Patton, 2002). In this case, exploring the complexities of the
mechanisms of teacher professional developments is essential. The researcher as the primary
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 52
instrument of data collection and analysis assumes an inductive stance and strives to derive
meaning from the data (Merriam, 2009). The transcripts of the observations and interviews were
read multiple times to determine emerging themes and categories. Merriam (2009) asserted that
data analysis is the process of making sense of the data collected, which involves consolidating
and interpreting what people have said and ultimately answering the research question. Using a
combination of handwritten notes, Microsoft Word
®
and Microsoft Excel
®
to organize the infor-
mation was essential in this process. During the data analysis, the information was highlighted to
distinguish the various themes identified.
Merriam (2009) asserted that ensuring validity and reliability in qualitative research
involves conducting the investigation in an ethical manner. Validity and reliability in the present
study were maintained through the method of triangulation, using multiple sources of information
such as document analysis, interviews, and observations to cross-check the data. Utilizing the 12
observations and interviews was essential to provide as much unbiased information as possible to
compare the data. Approximately an hour was spent conducting the classroom observations as
well as asking the same questions in the interviews along with probing questions to elicit richer
information. The goal was to ensure that the process was as reliable and valid as possible to
contribute to this dissertation study.
Ethical Considerations
The researcher successfully completed the CITI training offered by the USC’s Institu-
tional Review Board (IRB). The names of teachers were changed. Participation in this project
were voluntary. No information will be published without the consent of the individuals from
whom it was elicited. All transcribed interviews are stored in a secure location, access to which
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 53
are limited to the research team, the chairperson, and USC’s IRB. Transcriptions and audio
recordings will be destroyed in 2020.
When considering the protection of human subject, it was also vital to take into account
the ethical considerations of this study and the potential risks and benefits that existed during and
after its completion. The literature conducted on educational research underlines that it is crucial
for the researcher to take into account key ethical considerations, especially information that is
received that focuses on students that are under the age of consent (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison,
2013). This situation was not the case in this study, although the participants were discussing the
impact of SIOP instructional strategies on student learning; therefore, it was possible that the
discussion could include students. However, it is known that this study specifically focused on
how professional development programs provide ELL teachers with instructional strategies that
develop access and depth and breadth of knowledge to the CCSS for beginner to intermediate
ELL students via the SIOP methodology. Thus, the study did not deal directly with students.
Nevertheless, there are important ethical considerations that had to be highlighted before the
study was conducted. It has already been acknowledged that the information obtained by the
researcher from the participants in the study remained securely locked during the research
process. It should also be expressed that only the researcher and the examiners have access to the
data and that at all times, the researcher aimed to provide anonymity and confidentiality to the
teachers who participated in this study.
The literature underlined that it is often only through the guarantee of anonymity and
confidentiality that participants are willing to speak truthfully on certain subjects (Cohen et al.,
2013). Although it was not expected that any participant would intentionally not tell the truth,
the provision of anonymity and confidentiality assisted in their feeling comfortable enough to
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 54
share honest responses. In addition, the guarantee of confidentiality and anonymity were impor-
tant because it was seen as a way to allow participants the ability to relax, specifically in the
interview setting (Aubry, David, Godfrey, & Thompson, 2000). As a result, the participants were
relaxed and more candid in sharing how professional development experiences related to the
CCSS have been successful in providing teachers of beginner to intermediate ELLs with effective
SIOP instructional strategies.
Limitations
There were limitations to the study. Several of the teachers observed were asked to
establish desired outcomes for the professional developments attended, while several of the
others were not. Comparing the two groups did not necessarily indicate that establishing goals or
not correlated with implementing the instructional strategies with fidelity. There was no way to
ensure that the teachers were providing accurate information during the interviews. It was the
goal that the teachers would understand the importance of the study and feel secure that their
names would not be released with regard to specific answers on the interviews. The researcher
did not have any relationship with or influence over the teachers because the participants were
selected based on recommendations from the site principal of individuals who both met the
criteria for participation and were available to participate voluntarily in the study. This process
strengthened the validity and reliability of the study. In addition, the researcher as observer in the
classroom may have altered the outcome of instruction, as the teachers may have felt that all data
collected would be used as an evaluative measure and communicated to the site principal. How-
ever, the researcher made every effort to minimize these extraneous variables, knowing that they
could never be completely eliminated.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 55
Chapter Summary
The study was designed based on a qualitative approach involving open-ended questions
via the interview process and additional probes to elicit clarification of responses and/or to obtain
richer responses. A tool for classroom observation was developed to assist in determining how
professional development experiences related to the CCSS have been successful in providing
teachers of beginner to intermediate ELLs with effective SIOP instructional strategies. Data were
coded to elicit common themes developed from the interviews and observations. Findings from
these sources, along with those from the review of the literature, were triangulated to provide a
more robust and complex understanding of the professional developments that teachers have
experienced. The two research questions focused on answers from the perspective of the teacher.
It is felt that the use of this design methodology allowed the researcher the best possible chance
of securing a successful analysis of answers to the research questions. The findings are presented
in Chapter Four, with recommendations for further research following in Chapter Five.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 56
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
This chapter provides an analysis of data from the current study AND presents the
findings with respect to exploring to what degree the use of SIOP instructional strategies in
classrooms have had an impact on student access to the core content as a consequence of profes-
sional development? This chapter presents the data gathered via the qualitative methodological
approach, highlighting the main findings that demonstrate the results of both qualitative in-
person initial and post observation interviews of 12 high school teachers, as well as the qualita-
tive data from 22 classroom observations.
The purpose of this study was to explore the degree to which the use of SIOP instructional
strategies in classrooms have had an impact on student access to the common core content as a
consequence of professional development. The following two research questions guided this
study:
1. To what degree does the use of SIOP instructional strategies in classrooms have an
impact on student access to the core content as a consequence of professional development?
2. What resources are required to provide teachers with effective implementation of
SIOP professional development to support the transition to the CCSS?
Description of Sample
All individuals participating in the study were teaching at MHS School, which had an
enrollment of 1,800 students at the time of the study. All had been providing instruction for
beginning to intermediate ELLs. Seven of the 12 teachers who were interviewed and observed
were males; they had an average of 8.42 teaching years at MHS and an average of 11 years in the
profession. The five female participants, on average, had taught 7 years at MHS and had 10.8
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 57
years in the profession. Thus, all participants had indicated a significant number of years in the
teaching profession and in providing some aspect of SI for ELLs.
Based on their responses to what led them to a career in teaching, a majority (nine of 12)
indicated that they were inspired to teach after having worked with children in some instructional
capacity. The remaining three participants either were homemakers or experienced a career
change from the private sector to service in the public sector. The data supports that a majority of
in the study planned to become teachers prior to coming into the teaching profession (see Table
2).
Table 2
Selected Participants’ Responses Regarding Why They Became Teachers (N = 12)
Participant # Response
1 “I served as a high school peer tutor, thus deciding to become a teacher during
my high school years.”
5 “I worked in the family business for several years after completing college. I
became a teacher after that.”
7 “At the age of 9 as a Boy Scout, I realized a knack for helping, teaching, and role
modeling for others. As a result, I obtained a degree in math as well as a teaching
credential.”
10 “I was a housewife for most of my life, having returned to work to accommodate
my schedule to support my children’s upbringing.”
11 “I wanted to teach since I was a junior in high school.”
12 “I became interested in teaching as I served as a volunteer in reading programs.”
The participants were selected from those teaching within the core subjects. Five teachers
taught ELA; three were in a math general education setting; two were in a social science setting;
one teacher taught geometry and chemistry in a special education setting; and one taught general
education chemistry (see Figure 1).
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 58
Figure 1. Subject areas taught by study participants. Sp Ed = special
education; ELA = English language arts.
The study relies on the intersection of data between pre and post interview responses. It
also included data gleaned from two observations after the participants attended a professional
development. Based on the previously stated methodology, the researcher attempts to determine
whether the participants employed the instructional strategies presented, thereby providing
access, breadth, and depth to the Common Core content.
Results for Research Questions
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, “To what degree does the use of SIOP instructional strategies
in classrooms have an impact on student access to the core content as a consequence of profes-
sional development?”
Research Question 1 focused on gaining information regarding the use of the eight SIOP
instructional strategies focusing on lesson preparation, building background knowledge, compre-
hensible input, strategies, interaction, practice and application, lesson delivery, and review-
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 59
assessment by the participants in the study. A thorough analysis of the data revealed the level of
importance placed on several of the components of the SIOP methodology. This information
helped to frame the probe of SIOP and three of six emerging themes based on the initial and post
observation interviews:
1. The participants readily identified lesson preparation, building background knowl-
edge, and the use of strategies as the most frequently utilized components of SIOP;
2. Lesson preparation and building background knowledge were felt to foster increased
student achievement, by far; and
3. Group projects, written assignments, and class discussions were most frequently used
by participants to adjust their classroom instruction, thus improving access to the content.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, “What resources are required to provide teachers with effec-
tive implementation of SIOP professional development to support the transition to the CCSS?”
Research Question 2 focused on gaining data related to resources, such as time, fiscal
allocation, expertise, and goal setting. This information also assisted in the study and revealed
the following three additional themes based on the initial and post observation interviews:
1. Goal setting for both teachers and students was seen as having increased importance
as they transitioned into the CCSS;
2. Peer collaboration time, follow-up professional developments, and materials and
curriculum are essential; and
3. Frequent professional developments are necessary to implement SIOP with fidelity.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 60
Preobservation Interview Data
Questions 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 17 served as interview questions prior to the profes-
sional development and first observation. They focused on gaining answers to both Research
Questions 1 and 2. Some interview questions considered the use of SI strategies prior to transi-
tioning to the CCSS. The instructional strategies of focus were lesson preparation, building
background knowledge, comprehensible input, strategies, interaction, practice-application, lesson
delivery, and review-assessment. Other participants considered resources provided such as peer
collaboration time, coach mentoring time, materials-curriculum, goal setting, follow-up profes-
sional development, and fiscal support. One participant assessed methods used to provide
feedback, including performance-based assessments; hands-on projects; group projects; written
assignments and research projects; oral presentations; class discussions; exit tickets, wrap up,
closure; and review key vocabulary and content. Finally, the extent of SI knowledge was as-
sessed as well as the frequency of professional developments provided.
The data in Figure 2 reflect the results obtained for question #4, “What SI strategies have
you used before the implementation of CCSS?” during the initial interview. The data revealed
that of the eight SIOP areas, lesson preparation, building background knowledge, strategies, and
interaction were used by 11 of the 12 of the participants. Comprehensible input and practice and
application were utilized by nine of the 12 participants. Eight participants allowed for review and
assessment of the material being covered. Lesson delivery was the strategy least used, as re-
flected by seven of the 12 teachers using these strategies. As evidenced by the data, teachers
placed more emphasis on lesson planning, building background knowledge, using strategies, and
facilitating student interaction. Freeman and Freeman (2004) supported this emphasis, noting
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 61
Figure 2. Participants’ responses to interview question #4 (“What SI
instructional strategies have you used before the implementation of
CCSS?”) SI = sheltered instruction, LP = lesson preparation; BBK =
building background knowledge; CI = comprehensible input; S = strat-
egies; I = interaction; P/A = practice/application; LD = lesson delivery;
R/A = review/assessment.
that key characteristics of effective instruction consist of lesson planning, relating new content to
prior knowledge, and scaffolding.
The data in Figure 3 reflect the results obtained from question #5, “Which SI strategies
resulted in increased student achievement?” during the initial interview process. The data
indicated that 10 of the 12 participants felt that the use of strategies resulted in increased student
achievement. Building background knowledge was the second most successful strategy, as noted
by seven of 12. Six participants felt that lesson planning resulted in increased student achieve-
ment, while five indicated that comprehensible input was effective in doing so. Four of the 12
felt that facilitating student interaction, lesson delivery, opportunities for practice and application,
and review and assessment resulted in increased student achievement.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 62
Figure 3. Participants’ responses to interview question #5 (“Which SI
strategies resulted in increased student achievement?”) SI = sheltered
instruction, LP = lesson preparation; BBK = building background
knowledge; CI = comprehensible input; S = strategies; I = interaction;
P/A = practice/application; LD = lesson delivery; R/A = review/assess-
ment.
The data in Figure 4 reflect the results obtained from question #8, “What were the essen-
tial resources provided to you to support SI strategies prior to teaching the CCSS?" during the
initial interview. The data indicated that 9 of the 12 participants felt that materials and curricu-
lum were the essential resources provided to support SI strategies prior to teaching the CCSS.
Eight of the 12 felt that peer collaboration time was essential. Six or less of the teachers felt that
coach mentoring time, goal setting, and fiscal supports were provided. Only two participants felt
that professional development was provided as a resource.
The data in Figure 5 reflect the results obtained from question #10, “What assessment
methods have been used to provide you feedback to adjust your classroom instruction pre-
CCSS?” during the initial interview. The data revealed that 10 of the 12 participants used
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 63
Figure 4. Participants’ responses to interview question #8 (“What were the
essential resources provided to you to support SI instruction?”) PCT = peer
collaboration time; CMT = coach mentoring time; M/C = materials/curriculum;
GS = goal setting; FPD = follow-up professional development; FS = fiscal
support.
Figure 5. Participants’ responses to interview question #10 (“What assessment
methods have been used to provide you with feedback to adjust your classroom
instruction pre CCSS?”) PBA = performance- based assessments; HP = hands-
on projects; GP = group projects; WA/RP = written assignments/ research pro-
jects; OP = oral presentations; CD = class discussions; ET/WC = exit tickets/
wrap-up/closure; RKV/C = review key vocabulary/content; O = other.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 64
Figure 6. Participants’ responses to interview question #12 (“What
is the extent of your SI knowledge prior to CCSS that enabled you
to successfully teach the content?”). CCSS = Common Core State
Standards.
performance-based assessments and reviewing key vocabulary or content to adjust their instruc-
tion prior to the CCSS. Eight of the 12 used oral presentations and class discussions to do so.
Written assignments and research projects were used by seven participants; six used group
projects or exit tickets-closure to adjust their instruction. Hands-on projects and other assess-
ments were the least frequently utilized assessment methods.
The data in Figure 6 reflect the results obtained from question #12, “What is the extent of
your SI knowledge prior to the CCSS that enabled you to successfully teach the content?” during
the initial interview. A mere two of 12 teachers indicated that the extent of their SI knowledge
was excellent—a level that would have allowed them to successfully teach the content. Five
teachers felt that their knowledge of SI was satisfactory, and another five felt that their knowl-
edge of SI was unsatisfactory to teach the content successfully.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 65
The following data reflect the results obtained from question #13, “What level of fre-
quency were professional development experiences provided regarding SI prior to the transition
to the CCSS?” during the initial interview. Only five of the 12 teachers felt that professional
developments regarding SI were provided on a frequent basis prior to transitioning to the CCSS;
seven felt that professional development in this area was provided on an infrequent basis.
Darling-Hammond (1999) asserted that quality professional developments correlate to higher
student achievement; hence, one would expect to see more frequent experiences with respect to
professional development opportunities.
Question #15 asked participants to describe their professional development experiences in
regard to ELL instructional strategies before the CCSS. Table 3 delineates the responses. The
statement by Participant #6 reinforced the assertion by Joyce and Showers (2002) that studies
have shown it takes, on average, 20 separate instances of practice before a teacher has mastered a
new skill, with the number increasing along with the complexity of the skill. The participants
had similar views in that they felt that strategies had been presented but not necessarily in an in-
depth manner or geared to meet the specific needs of the subjects they were teaching.
The teachers in Table 4 offered different responses in that they felt that their professional
development experiences had been very limited or nonexistent. The overarching theme of
responses to question #15 indicates that teachers need more professional development to effec-
tively deliver content to ELLs.
Rueda (2011) noted that while all types of knowledge are important in learning, some
types are more critical to the kinds of goals that schools ideally would try to promote, such as
being able to acquire meaningful learning, applying knowledge to solve problems, and transfer-
ring that knowledge to other settings and types of problems.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 66
Table 3
Selected Participants’ Responses About Their Professional Development Experiences in Regard
to Instructional Strategies for English Language Learners (ELLs) Before the Common Core State
Standards (N = 12)
Participant # Response
1 “Peers shared effective strategies with some not being applicable to the subject
taught.”
3 “I received adequate training. High-yield strategies were good. However, struc-
ture of the professional development could have been better—for example,
observing peers instead of being lectured on how to do it.”
4 “I have been a part of various strategy discussions and participated in follow-up
conversations. Language objectives and specific students have been a focus.”
6 “There have been a significant amount of professional developments provided,
more in the past than in recent years, yet I haven’t used many of the instructional
strategies.”
9 “I have been a part of a professional learning community school which allotted
for common planning time. Outside consultants also provided PD, but the most
effective have been teacher leaders.”
12 “I have participated in ELL professional developments since 2008 in the form of
weekly or mini conferences.”
Note. PD = professional development.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 67
Table 4
Selected Participants’ Responses About Their Limited Professional Development Experiences in
Regard to Instructional Strategies for English Language Learners (ELLs) Before the Common
Core State Standards (N = 12)
Participant # Response
2 “I learned content in my credential classes, but nothing other than that.”
5 “I have participated in infrequent ELL professional developments, but would like
to see more.”
7 “I was given a list of strategies or a tool without a model on how to implement
them.”
10 “Extremely limited as it pertains to ELLs. First 5 years equaled none; second 5
years equaled none. Other than putting a SDAIE label on a class hasn’t
amounted to much.”
Note. SDAIE = specially designed academic instruction in English.
Question #17 asked participants to describe how they had established teacher and student
goals prior to transitioning to the CCSS. The responses indicated in Table 5 revealed that
overall, teachers had set very broad goals for themselves prior to the CCSS that were based on
covering content in the pacing guides and adjusting instruction based on results from formative or
summative data, such as benchmarks or the CAHSEE. Very few focused on utilizing individual
results such as CELDT scores to move students from their current level to the next in quarterly
increments. Student goals are based on very broad goals as well as focusing on results garnered
from showing growth or knowing the content. Very few have based it on students knowing the
content presented in the learning objective or basing it on progress from their current CELDT
levels. Resnick and Hall (2003) noted that self-management of learning is about students taking
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 68
responsibility for their own learning by monitoring and regulating their own cognitive processes
with increasing spontaneity and sophistication.
Table 5
Selected Participants’ Responses About How They Had Established Teacher and Student Goals
Prior to Transitioning to the Common Core State Standards (N = 12)
Participant # Response
1 “I want them to be prepared, but it is a struggle because the Common Core asks
students to read and write and they aren’t prepared to do so. Student goals are
based on me giving them opportunities to read and write in preparation for the
Common Core.”
2 “My overall goals are to adhere to the pacing guide and adjust instruction based
on student mastery. Student goals are based on the learning objectives, and they
must be able to articulate what the have learned.”
3 “I establish individual unit goals, and I want students to pass with a C or better.
However, I have never set individual student goals realizing they can be benefi-
cial.”
4 “I establish my goals based on quantitative data such as benchmarks or CAHSEE
results. Student goals are based on quantitative data such as benchmarks,
CAHSEE, CELDT scores, and grades.”
5 “My number one goal is to cover the standards, seeing student growth while
trying to keep them interested. Student goals are based on them showing growth
and knowing the content.”
7 “I want to implement the ideas from the professional developments and continue
to research and have meaningful peer discussions to support students. I am
working on how I can have students establish their own goals.”
12 “I have not set true teacher goals nor student goals.”
Note. CAHSEE = California High School Exit Exam; CELDT = California English Language
Development Test.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 69
Postobservation Interview Data
Questions 6, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16 and 18 served as interview questions post the professional
development and the two observations. They focused on gaining results for both Research
Questions 1 and 2. Some questions considered the use of sheltered instructional strategies after
having transitioned to the CCSS. The instructional strategies of focus were lesson preparation,
building background knowledge, comprehensible input, strategies, interaction, practice and
application, lesson delivery, and review and assessment. Others considered resources provided
such as peer collaboration time, coach mentoring time, materials and curriculum, goal setting,
follow-up professional development, and fiscal support. One question assessed methods used to
provide feedback, including performance-based assessments; hands-on projects; group projects;
written assignments and research projects; oral presentations; class discussions; exit tickets,
wrap-up, closure, and reviewing key vocabulary and content. Finally, the level of frequency
believed to implement SI was assessed, as well as the goals teachers established for themselves
and students post transitioning to the CCSS.
The data in Figure 7 reflect the results obtained from question #6, “Which SIOP instruc-
tional strategies have you used transitioning to the CCSS?” during the postobservation interview.
Figure 7 shows that eight of the 12 teachers focused on lesson preparation and building
background knowledge for transitioning to the CCSS. Seven teachers utilized lesson delivery,
and half focused on using various strategies in transitioning to the CCSS. Less than four of the
12 teachers had used comprehensible input, student interaction, practice-application, or review-
assessment.
The data in Figure 8 reflect the results obtained from question #7, “Which ones have
garnered results in increased student achievement?” during the postobservation interview. Eight
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 70
Figure 7. Participants’ responses to interview question #6 (“Which
SIOP instructional strategies have you used transitioning to the
CCSS?”). LP = lesson preparation; BBK = building background
knowledge; CI = comprehensible input; S = strategies; I = interaction;
P/A = practice/application; LD = lesson delivery; R/A = review/
assessment; SIOP = Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol; CCSS
= Common Core State Standards.
Figure 8. Participants’ responses to interview question #7 (“Which
ones have garnered results in increased student achievement?”). LP
= lesson preparation; BBK = building background knowledge; CI =
comprehensible input; S = strategies; I = interaction; P/A = practice/
application; LD = lesson delivery; R/A = review/assessment.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 71
Figure 9. Participants’ responses to interview question #9 (“What
do you perceive are the essential resources to support SI instruc-
tional strategies post the implementation of the CCSS?”). PCT =
peer collaboration time; CMT = coach mentoring time; M/C =
materials/curriculum; GS = goal setting; FPD = follow-up/profes-
sional development; FS = fiscal support; SI = sheltered instruction;
CCSS = Common Core State Standards.
of the 12 teachers felt that building background knowledge garnered results in increased student
achievement. Seven had used lesson preparation to do so, and four or less felt that all other
aspects of the SIOP model had yielded increased student achievement.
The data in Figure 9 reflects the results obtained from question #9, “What do you perceive
are the essential resources to support SI instructional strategies post the implementation of the
CCSS?” during the postobservation interview. All 12 participants felt that peer collaboration
time is an essential resource to support SI implementation post the transition to CCSS. Seven
indicated that follow-up professional development is essential. At least half felt that goal setting
and materials and curriculum are needed to support the transition. Less than four indicated that
coach mentoring time or fiscal support were essential.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 72
Figure 10. Participants’ responses to interview question #11 (“What
assessment methods have been used to provide feedback to adjust your
classroom instruction post the transition to the CCSS?”). PBA =
performance-based assessments; HP = hands-on projects; GP = group
projects; WA/RP = written assignments/research projects; OP = oral
presentations; CD = class discussions; ET/WC = exit tickets/wrap-up/
closure; RKV/C = review key vocabulary/content; O = other; CCSS =
Common Core State Standards.
The data in Figure 10 reflect the results obtained from question #11, “What assessment
methods have been used to provide feedback to adjust your classroom instruction post the transi-
tion to the CCSS?” during the postobservation interview. Seven of the 12 teachers had used
group projects, written assignments and research projects, and class discussions to adjust their
instruction post the transition to the CCSS. Half had used exit tickets or closure to do so. Four
or less of the 12 used performance-based assessments, reviewing key vocabulary and content,
hands-on projects, or oral presentations to adjust their instruction.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 73
The following data reflect the results obtained from question #14, “What level of fre-
quency do you believe is needed to implement SI with fidelity post the transition to the CCSS?”
during the postobservation interview. The teachers in the study overwhelmingly felt that frequent
implementation of SI is needed to implement the standards with fidelity post the transition to the
CCSS. In essence, all of the teachers substantiated this statement.
Question #16 asked the participants to describe their professional development experi-
ences in regard to ELL instructional strategies after the implementation of the CCSS. Based on
the statements shown in Table 6, there have been increased opportunities to provide professional
developments that have strategically focused on ELLs. Learning from peers has been very bene-
ficial. There is an interest in being presented with subject-specific strategies to meet student
needs.
Question #18 asked participants to describe how they had established teacher and student
goals post the transitioning to the CCSS. Based on the statements made by participants during
the postobservation interviews (see Tables 7 and 8), none mentioned goal setting in relationship
to implementation of instructional strategies post professional developments. A few had yet to
establish personal goals for themselves; however, many had begun to establish personal goals and
to use a variety of data points to accomplish them. They mentioned focusing on more rigorous
writing; using the components of SIOP more strategically; and ensuring covering the four
domains of reading, writing, listening, and speaking to develop literacy. The participants noted
using data from various areas such as written work samples, summative assessments provided by
the state or the California State University system as well as daily feedback and quarterly bench-
marks. In addition, many had begun to create goals for their students. Teachers were facilitating
this effort as students used data walls to self-monitor their progress. Based on the data walls,
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 74
Table 6
Selected Participants’ Responses About How They Had Established Teacher and Student Goals
Post the Transitioning to the Common Core State Standards (N = 12)
Participant # Response
1 “The main focus has been on piloting curriculum and how to support ELLs.”
3 “We have monthly meetings as well as time allotted for peer collaboration.”
4 “I have recently attended an in-depth SIOP training presented by one of the
creators of the method.”
5 “I have attended general PDs versus subject specific, but I feel that the strategies
being presented pre or post the Common Core are simply good strategies—
although I would like to see more subject-specific strategies.”
6 “I have attended PDs, but I would like to attend ones that you can practice a
strategy for at least 10 minutes prior to the end of the session.”
7 “I have attended a PD in October that was more focused on ELLs, although I
believe SIOP is just good instruction.”
9 I attended a SIOP PD where we met for about an hour, but meeting in subject
matter-alike groups was more beneficial as we were able to discuss the individual
needs of students.”
10 “The focus has been more on pacing based on the various students in the class,
but SIOP is ultimately good instruction for all students.”
11 “I have attended Wildcat seminars in which peers share instructional strategies
that have worked in their classrooms for ELLs.”
Note. SIOP = Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol; PD = professional development.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 75
Table 7
Selected Participants’ Responses About Their Professional Development Experiences in Regard
to English Language Learner (ELL) Instructional Strategies After the Implementation of the
Common Core State Standards (N = 12)
Participant # Response
4 “I will focus on implementing the different components of SIOP (i.e., lesson
delivery and review/assessments). Students will focus on their individual prog-
ress, specifically moving from their current CELDT level to the next year over
year.”
8 “I will continue to use the language objective with a focus on the four domains of
reading, writing, listening. and speaking. . . . Students will establish goals cen-
tered around the four domains.”
9 “I use qualitative results, looking at them anecdotally on how to improve student
writing. Students set goals based on improving critical thinking and writing
abilities.”
10 “I have attended a CCSS training at Los Angeles County of Education, setting a
personal goal to focus more on writing versus literature, but I’m not sure my col-
leagues agree with the focus. Students engage in the process of setting goals,
beginning to do the work of reading and writing with the aspiration of articulat-
ing thoughts at higher levels.”
11 “I create goals based on student accomplishments… . I use data walls to assist
students in monitoring mastery of various concepts.”
12 “I have focused more on rigorous writing using the data results from the Early
Assessment Program provided by the Cal State University system to guide my
instruction in writing improvement… . I have utilized student data walls to
ensure students know what they are doing and can monitor their own progress.
. . . Students set a minimum goal to achieve 75% or higher on various assign-
ments.”
Note. SIOP = Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol; CCSS = Common Core State Stan-
dards; CELDT = California English Language Development Test.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 76
Table 8
Two Participants’ Negative Responses About Setting Goals After Implementation of the Common
Core State Standards (N = 12)
Participant # Response
1 “I have not created personal goals. This is something that is sought to do. . . . I
also have no specific student goals.”
3 “I have not created specific teacher goals. I also know I need to work on estab-
lishing student goals.”
they created personal goals based on their progress. Teachers were also prompting students to
establish goals consistent with teachers’ goals in the four domain areas. As evidenced by the
statements shown in Table 7, there were only a few who had yet to establish student goals.
Fostering the establishment of individual student goals is supported by the assertion that self-
management of learning is about students taking responsibility for their own learning by monitor-
ing and regulating their own cognitive processes with increasing spontaneity and sophistication
(Resnick & Hall, 2003).
The SIOP observation template was used to assess the implementation of instructional
strategies post the professional development provided to teachers. Having participated in the
professional development, teachers were observed two times over the course of a 6-week period.
The observations focused on gaining results for both Research Questions 1 and 2. Specific to
Question #18 asked participants to describe how they had established teacher and student
goals post the transitioning to the CCSS. Based on the statements made by participants during
the postobservation interviews (see Tables 7 and 8), none mentioned goal setting in relationship
to implementation of instructional strategies post professional developments. A few had yet to
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 77
establish personal goals for themselves; however, many had begun to establish personal goals and
to use a variety of data points to accomplish them. They mentioned focusing on more rigorous
writing; using the components of SIOP more strategically; and ensuring covering the four
domains of reading, writing, listening, and speaking to develop literacy. The participants noted
using data from various areas such as written work samples, summative assessments provided by
the state or the California State University system as well as daily feedback and quarterly
benchmarks. In addition, many had begun to create goals for their students. Teachers were
facilitating this effort as students used data walls to self-monitor their progress. Based on the
data walls, they created personal goals based on their progress. Teachers were also prompting
students to establish goals consistent with teachers’ goals in the four domain areas. As evidenced
by the statements shown in Table 7, there were only a few who had yet to establish student goals.
Fostering the establishment of individual student goals is supported by the assertion that self-
management of learning is about students taking responsibility for their own learning by monitor-
ing and regulating their own cognitive processes with increasing spontaneity and sophistication
(Resnick & Hall, 2003).
The SIOP observation template was used to assess the implementation of instructional
strategies post the professional development provided to teachers. Having participated in the
professional development, teachers were observed two times over the course of a 6-week period.
The observations focused on gaining results for both Research Questions 1 and 2. Specific to
Research Question 1, the observation template considered the use of SI strategies having transi-
tioned to the CCSS. Based on the professional development attended in October 2014, the
instructional strategies of focus were lesson preparation and building background knowledge.
The researcher made notations when he observed the other SIOP instructional strategies where
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 78
possible, as teachers had indicated during the interview process that they had received some type
of professional development in regard to SI strategies. They demonstrated the following instruc-
tional strategies: comprehensible input, strategies, interaction, practice and application, lesson
delivery, and review and assessment.
Specific to Research Question 2, a pilot group was created to assess the impact that goal
setting would have on implementing the instructional strategies presented at the October 2014
professional development. Joyce and Showers (2002) asserted that studies have shown that it
takes, on average, 20 separate instances of practice before a teacher has mastered a new skill,
with that number increasing along with the complexity of the skill. The teachers in the pilot
group set a goal to do so, while the control group attended the professional development without
specific targeted outcomes.
The data in Figure 11 reflect the combined results obtained from the initial and final
observations of the instructional strategies presented for the control and pilot groups. The data
revealed that the control group fared slightly better with the implementation of the instructional
strategies presented at the professional development. Eleven of the 12 participants in the control
group implemented the use of building background knowledge and lesson delivery, compared to
10 of the 12 teachers assigned to the pilot group, which had established a goal prior to imple-
menting the strategies.
In regard to the other SIOP instructional components, all six participants in the control
group were observed implementing comprehensive input, strategies, and lesson preparation with
fidelity. Eleven of the 12 participants implemented practice-application and review and assess-
ment with fidelity. Ten of the 12 participants utilized interaction as an instructional strategy.
However, 11 of the 12 participants in the pilot group utilized strategies and practice-application
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 79
Figure 11. Results obtained from initial and final observations of the
instructional strategies presented for control and pilot groups. BBK =
building background knowledge; LD = lesson delivery; CI = comprehensi-
ble input; S = strategies; I = interaction; P/A = practice/application; R/A =
review/assessment; LP = lesson preparation.
with fidelity. Comprehensive input and lesson preparation were the next most frequently used
strategies, with 10 of 12 participants incorporating them into their lesson design. Nine of the 12
participants in the pilot group fostered student interaction or utilized review and assessment
throughout their lessons. The data supported the fact that 11 of 12 of both control and pilot group
participants used practice and application to support content delivery. Finally, the data did not
support the assertion that setting goals after the professional development creates a significant
difference in implementing instructional strategies. Nine participants in both groups (not a dis-
heartening number) implemented the strategies presented in the professional development.
Hence, the focus is more on repetition in using the instructional strategies.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 80
Chapter Summary
The study focused on determining to what extent the use of SIOP instructional strategies
in classrooms had an impact on student access to the core content as a consequence of profes-
sional development. It also sought to determine what resources, such as time, fiscal allocation,
expertise, and goal setting, are required to provide teachers with effective implementation of
SIOP professional development to support the transition to the CCSS. Almost all participants
indicated that lesson preparation and building background knowledge were the most widely used
SIOP strategies to provide access to the content. Accordingly, lesson preparation and building
background knowledge had the most impact on increasing student achievement. Although many
participants used performance-based assessments and reviewing key vocabulary prior to the
CCSS, most had used group projects, written assessments, and class discussion to assess student
mastery after having transitioned into the CCSS. Peer collaboration time, materials and
curriculum, and follow-up professional developments were seen as the most essential resources
to support teachers’ transition to the CCSS. Finally, establishing personal goals for both teachers
and students encompassing writing had become increasingly important as they transitioned to the
CCSS. There was no significant evidence that indicated setting a goal for the implementation of
instructional strategies after the professional development had any more impact than not setting
goals, as most participants indicated the SIOP methodology contains simply good instructional
strategies for all students.
The results were consistent with the various studies presented in the literature review.
Freeman and Freeman (2004) asserted that lesson preparation; building background knowledge;
and strategies such as scaffolding, sentence frames, and graphic organizers are characteristics of
effective instruction that helped students achieve success. Professional developments are key to
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 81
helping teachers build capacity to use curriculum well (Desimone et al., 2002). This assertion
was substantiated by participant responses during the interview process.
Goals must be established for both teachers and students. According to Frey and Fisher
(2005), teachers must incorporate into their lesson plans what students should know and do with
the material learned, and students must take responsibility for what they know, can learn, and
apply. Teachers agreed that they must focus on increasing rigorous writing opportunities for
ELLs. According to Harper and Jong (2004), ELLs must be challenged with processing com-
plicated language. They must be required to write across all curricula and speak with a wide
variety of abilities. The research presented confirmed that these strategies are what afford ELLs
equitable instructional opportunities.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 82
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Over the past 50 years, the government has increasingly emphasized the use of English by
non-native speakers. During this time frame there has been controversy as to the best means to
develop the literacy skills of ELLs. There have been a multitude of legislative policies and
reforms reinforcing the focus on English development. President Lyndon Johnson’s Civil Rights
Act of 1964, along with the case of Lau v. Nichols (1974), served as the foundation for future
legislation for ELLs. In Lau v. Nichols the court ruled that students should be provided with
bilingual education or some other form of education. In 1998 in California, Proposition 227 was
passed, requiring ELLs be taught primarily in English” (Parrish et al., 2006). This law allowed 1
year of transition from sheltered English immersion instruction to English-only classrooms
(Parrish et al., 2006).
Legislative reform focused on fostering an assessment movement with an emphasis on
accountability. The NCLB Act of 2002 intended to reform schools by improving academic
opportunities for those groups who were otherwise left out of the educational process. ELLs
were one such group that was perceived to have been absent from the process. This legislation
increased schools’ academic expectations for all students and sought to close the achievement
gap between struggling students and those subgroups that were meeting proficiency. The legisla-
tion required all states to report assessment results of all students and the progress of all signifi-
cant subgroups, including ELLs.
The present study focused on professional development and the use of SIOP instructional
strategies to determine strategies that provide students access, breadth, and depth to the CCSS.
Professional development experiences are keys to helping teachers build capacity to use curricu-
lum well (Desimone et al., 2002). According to Kane and Staiger (2012), the Common Core
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 83
requires students to participate in meaning making and reasoning, investigation and problem-
based approaches, questioning strategies, and student generation of ideas and questions. They
articulated rigorous, grade-level expectations in the areas of speaking, listening, reading, and
writing to prepare all students to be college and career ready, including ELLs (Application of,
n.d.). As previously asserted by Freeman and Freeman (2002) bilingual students needed to
experience the four components of English proficiency: reading, writing, listening, and speaking:
“The different components are all dependent upon one another to achieve proficiency” (p. 3).
The above assertion reenforces the research that learning the four components in students’ first
language would help to increase the rate at which they acquire their second language—in this
case, English. Research found that students who were proficient in their first language could
transfer knowledge from that language to their second language. All of these components are
imperative for meeting the needs of ELLs. Thus, SIOP is an observation instrument that provides
concrete examples that can enhance and expand teachers' instructional practice (Echevarria et al.,
2004). The lessons incorporate the skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing, all of which
make content accessible to ELLs. Short (2000) asserted that SIOP identifies the critical features
of SI and can guide teachers to improve their practice, ultimately assisting ELLs in developing
access, breadth, and depth to the CCSS.
Restatement of the Problem
Providing ELL teachers with professional development to allow beginning- to
intermediate-level CELDT students successful access to content so as to create products with a
higher level of mastery appears to be a challenging task. Darling-Hammond (2002) noted that no
matter what content area they are teaching, teachers must understand language learning and liter-
acy development, which are at the heart of the learning process for all students, especially ELLs.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 84
In turn, ELLs must learn how to communicate in English while they are simultaneously learning
content. The most recent California data published for 2012 on the CDE (2012b) website indi-
cated that non-ELLs at MHS achieved 67% proficiency in comparison to ELLs, who achieved
7% proficiency on the ELA assessment of the CAHSEE. Currently, there exists a 60% profi-
ciency gap between non-ELL students and ELLs on the CST’s ELA.
Discussion of Findings
Description of Sample
Twelve participants were selected who could provide relevant information to the research
questions. These respondents (a) had to be teaching in a high school setting that was transition-
ing to the CCSS, (b) had to be serving in an instructional capacity via the use of SIOP, and (c)
had to be demonstrating the ability to prepare lessons and establish a learning environment with
high expectations. In addition, a pilot and control group were established for this study to ascer-
tain whether this procedure had any impact on implementing instructional strategies with fidelity.
Six participants self-selected to participate as pilot members, and six others self-selected as the
control group for the study.
All individuals participating in the study were teaching at MHS School, which had an
enrollment of 1,800 students at the time of the study. All had been providing instruction for
beginning to intermediate ELLs. Seven of the 12 teachers who were interviewed and observed
were males; they had an average of 8.42 teaching years at MHS and an average of 11 years in the
profession. The five female participants, on average, had taught 7 years at MHS and had 10.8
years in the profession. Thus, all participants had indicated a significant number of years in the
teaching profession and in providing some aspect of SI for ELLs.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 85
The participants were selected from those teaching within the core subjects. Five teachers
taught ELA; three were in a math general education setting; two were in a social science setting;
one teacher taught geometry and chemistry in a special education setting; and one taught general
education chemistry.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, “To what degree does the use of SIOP instructional strategies
in classrooms have an impact on student access to the core content as a consequence of profes-
sional development?”
The review of literature found that full participation in society for ELLs and a lack of
upward mobility was due in part to a lack of access to a meaningful education. Freeman and
Freeman (2004) noted that effective instruction encompasses organizing the curriculum; relating
concepts to prior knowledge; and using strategies such as scaffolding, graphic organizers, and
sentence frames. An additional point was that students should be involved in “authentic reading
and writing” (Freeman & Freeman, 2000, p. 3). Focusing on the areas of reading, writing, lis-
tening, and speaking assist with the development of literacy skills for second-language learners.
All are dependent upon one another to develop these skills. Hence, SIOP was seen as a
methodology to teaching content to ELLs in strategic ways that make the subject matter concepts
comprehensible while promoting students’ English language development. Echevarria (2005)
indicated SIOP is an instructional framework that incorporates best practices for teaching aca-
demic English and provides teachers with a coherent, usable approach for improving the achieve-
ment of their students. This is seen as the goal for ELLs as they transition to the CCSS with an
emphasis on being successful long-term learners and contributing members of society.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 86
The responses from this study helped reinforced findings from previous research studies.
The 12 participants provided responses during the initial and postobservation interviews indicat-
ing that lesson preparation and building background knowledge were the primary instructional
strategies utilized to provide student access to the content. The participants also indicated that
lesson preparation and building background knowledge were the two instructional strategies that
provided the most significant degree of access to the content as they resulted in the best outcome
regarding student achievement. Group projects, written assignments, and class discussions were
most used by participants to adjust their classroom instruction in improving access to the content,
as well. In addition, the data from the two observations indicated at least 11 of 12 of both control
and pilot group participants used the strategies of building background knowledge and lesson
preparation—a finding that helps to bolster results from the broader literature.
The results from the interviews substantiated the fact that participants supported the need
for quality professional developments to provide student access to the content. Darling-
Hammond (1999) stated that research indicates that quality professional development correlates
with higher student achievement, a goal to which teachers continue to aspire as they transition to
the CCSS. Participants indicated that an increased focus on strategies for ELLs, peers sharing
effective lessons, instructional strategies, and being presented with subject-specific strategies to
meet student needs is essential to providing access to content. The literature was in alignment
with these perceptions. For example, Desimone et al. (2002) asserted that professional develop-
ments are key to helping teachers build capacity to use curriculum well. All 12 participants
indicated that professional developments must be provided frequently with consistent follow-up
to implement SI with fidelity. Thus, participants’ statements supported the findings from the
literature.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 87
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, “What resources are required to provide teachers with effec-
tive implementation of SIOP professional development to support the transition to the CCSS?”
In reviewing the literature, Del Valle (2003) noted that one of the key requirements of the
1981 Castaneda v. Pickard ruling was to ensure sufficient resources and personnel to implement
programs to assist ELLs in overcoming language barriers. The 1984 ESEA reauthorization
required professional developments to ensure adequate qualified teachers to meet the needs of
these students (Bunch, 2011). Another key finding of the literature was that the real challenges
that schools face is how to create opportunities for teachers to grow and develop in their practice
so that they, in turn, can help students grow and develop their knowledge and ability to think
critically (Gulamhussein, 2013). Finally, for change to occur in teaching practice that leads to
improved academic performance by students, teachers cannot simply select their favorite tech-
niques; rather, implementation of high-quality instruction must be systematic and steered by
research (Echevarria et al. 2006).
The responses from this study reinforced the findings from previous research studies. The
12 participants provided responses during the initial and postobservation interviews indicating
that peer collaboration time and materials and curriculum are the most essential resources to
support implementation of SI instructional strategies both pre and post the transition to the
CCSS, although peer collaboration time was seen as the most important resource in both inter-
views; more than two thirds of the participants indicated this need. During the initial interview,
the majority of participants (9 of 12) indicated that curriculum and materials were essential. Also
of importance, compared to responses from the first interview (2 of 12), participant responses
during the second interview reflected viewing professional development as essential (9 of 12 ).
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 88
Participants indicated that peers sharing effective lessons constituted valuable tools in providing
student access to the content. Participant #5 commented:
The main focus of recent professional developments has been on piloting curriculum and
how to support ELLs. . . . I have attended general PDs versus subject specific, but I feel
that the strategies being presented pre or post the Common Core are simply goods strate-
gies—although I would like to see more subject-specific strategies.
The final key finding from the post interviews was reflective of time. All 12 participants
indicated that in order to implement the SI strategies with fidelity, professional developments
must occur on a frequent basis. Participant #3 commented that “we have monthly meetings as
well as time allotted for peer collaboration.” This statement supported the perception that teach-
ers value more frequent time for professional developments and peer collaboration. It should be
noted that establishing teacher and student goals was not rated as a major priority. Less than half
of the participants during the initial and postobservation interviews indicated having established
teacher or student goals. This finding was important because a pilot group and a control group
were established to ascertain if implementing teacher or student goals had any impact on the
implementation of instructional strategies with fidelity.
Figure 12 represents the process that the researcher followed throughout the study.
Twelve participants self-selected themselves into either the control or pilot group. The six par-
ticipants in the control group initially were interviewed and answered 11 questions in regard to
the research questions that guided this study. At the conclusion of the initial interview, the
control group participants attended a SIOP professional development. Following this, the
researcher scheduled two observations with a minimum 2-week span between the initial observa-
tion and the second one. The control group did not establish personal goals to implement the
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 89
Figure 12. Flowchart of dissertation study. SIOP = Sheltered Instruction Observa-
tion Protocol.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 90
the instructional strategies presented at the professional development. At the conclusion of the
second observation, the final interview was conducted based on seven questions related to the
research questions. The pilot group followed the same process as the control group. However,
the sole distinguishing factor was that the pilot group participants established a goal to implement
the instructional strategies presented at the professional development by utilizing them at least
15–20 times. Joyce and Showers (2002) noted that studies have shown that it takes, on average,
20 separate instances of practice before a teacher has mastered a new skill, with that number
increasing with the complexity of the skill.
Implications
The results of the study combined with the limitations apparent in the research high-
lighted that there are specific implications for the practice of instructional strategies within the
field of education. These implications focus on the frequency of professional developments
offered and who is providing them. Providing opportunities for significant writing and discourse
is essential for ELLs to develop their literacy skills. Establishing teacher and student self-
directed goals based on formative and summative results will assist in increasing student achieve-
ment. It is important to focus on the eight elements of SIOP and, more specifically, the fact that
lesson preparation and building background knowledge are essential as cornerstones to providing
access to the content.
It is important to discuss the implications for practice by providing frequent professional
developments and strategic presenters for these experiences. The participants noted that these
professional developments allow opportunities to refine their teaching practices. Many partici-
pants (9 of 12) expressed the need for professional developments focusing on SI strategies. All
12 participants indicated an interest in learning from their peers who were experts in the field.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 91
These opportunities allow them to have frequent access to peers on campus instead of bringing
consultants from the outside who create limited and irregular contact. There is also the consider-
ation of the fiscal impact of consultants versus peer sharing of effective instructional strategies.
The CCSS require an increased focus on writing and discourse across the curricula.
Teachers indicated a lack of focus in this area prior to the implementation of the CCSS. ELL
students will benefit from such a focus. The research supported the assertion that providing
multiple opportunities for writing and discourse correlates to literacy development as well as
increased student achievement. Incorporating student interaction throughout the lesson serves to
benefit students in working with the language to develop literacy skills.
Very few teachers during the initial interview process indicated establishing teacher and
student goals. However, during the postobservation interview, half (6 of 12) teachers stated a
need to establish goals. Personal goals would be established based on quantitative data such as
CELDT, CAHSEE, benchmarks, and daily checking for understanding. Student self-directed
goals would be established based on daily progress, with an emphasis on mastering concepts
presented. Students would utilize the data walls created by teachers or personal journals to
monitor their progress.
The participants indicated that lesson preparation and building background knowledge
were the two SIOP strategies having the most impact on access to the content and garnering
increased student achievement. Through lesson preparation, teachers ensure that the other com-
ponents of SIOP are incorporated into the lesson. Learning and language objectives are clearly
defined, indicating what teachers want students to know and do with the content presented.
Teachers ensure that they provide ample opportunities for scaffolding, differentiated instruction,
vocabulary development, and the use of graphic organizers as effective elements of instruction.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 92
Utilizing the concept of building background knowledge allows for teachers to draw on students’
experiences. Developing their primary language as well as their second language is essential to
developing their literacy skills. Explicitly linking concepts to prior knowledge provides ELLs
with ample opportunities to access the content. No matter what content area they are teaching,
teachers must understand language learning and literacy development, which are at the heart of
the learning process for all students, especially ELLs, who must learn how to communicate in
English while they are simultaneously learning content (Darling-Hammond, 2002).
Limitations of Study and Recommendations
A number of limitations were outlined earlier for this research study. The limitations
were in regard to the degree to which SIOP instructional strategies in classrooms have an impact
on student access to the core content as a consequence of teachers’ participation in professional
development. The study also focused on whether assessing resources, such as time, fiscal
allocation, expertise, and goal setting are required to provide teachers with effective implementa-
tion of SIOP professional development to support the transition to the CCSS.
The sample size of the participant population served as a limitation, as they were from
one specific high school. The time frame to conduct the interviews and observations served as a
limitation because they occurred over a short span, thus allowing for only a brief assessment of
the participants. A pilot group was asked to establish goals in regard to implementing instruc-
tional strategies compared to a control group that did not establish goals. Establishing such goals
does not necessarily correlate with implementing the SIOP instructional strategies with fidelity.
Finally, the open-ended questions did not assess for quantitative student data results to support
participants’ responses.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 93
Focusing on a small participant population from a single high school serves as a limita-
tion, as the findings may not be representative of the broader population in the teaching profes-
sion. It should be acknowledged that having a small population to study does not limit the
effectiveness of the validity of the results.
The time frame to observe the participants may have served as a limiting factor. Partici-
pants attended a professional development, followed by two observations to assess the implemen-
tation of instructional strategies. As the research indicated, it takes between 15 and 20 repetitions
to effectively implement a particular strategy with fidelity. To address this concern, ample time
was provided between the interviews conducted after the professional development and the obse-
rvations to ensure that participants had ample opportunities to utilize the strategies.
Conducting a study with a control and pilot group to determine whether goal setting had
an impact on implementing SI strategies served as a limitation. The findings indicated that goal
setting did not have an impact on implementing SI strategies; the data revealed that both groups
implemented the strategies with a high success rate. The goals established by the pilot group
teachers may have been too broad. If the pilot group had established goals that were strategic,
measurable, achievable, time bound and results oriented, they may have served as a variable to
increase the implementation of instructional strategies with fidelity in comparison to the control
group. As previously indicated, time may have been a limiting factor. Utilizing a half- to full-
year time frame may have proven to be more effective for implementing the instructional strate-
gies. Finally, the researcher, as the former principal of MHS and current Assistant Superinten-
dent within the same district, may have impacted the outcome of the study. Each participant’s
performance during the observations could have been biased by the presence of the researcher
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 94
during observations. An outside researcher’s observation may have garnered increased results
from the pilot group.
The open-ended questions were not correlated with quantitative student data to support
participants’ responses to the research questions. It would have been beneficial for the teachers
to be prompted to present student data that substantiated their assertions as to which instructional
strategies yielded the greatest student achievement. Asking an additional question in regard to
this area would be beneficial should additional future research be conducted on this subject.
It should be noted that the above perceived limitations did not necessarily impact the
findings of the study. The results from the initial and post observation interviews as well as the
two observations highlighted the following findings:
1. The participants readily identified lesson preparation, building background knowl-
edge, and the use of strategies as the most used components of SIOP.
2. Lesson preparation and building background knowledge were believed to foster
increased student achievement, by far.
3. Group projects, written assignments, and class discussions were most used by the
participants to adjust their classroom instruction to improve access to the content.
4. Goal setting for both teachers and students was seen as having increased importance
as they transitioned into the CCSS.
5. Peer collaboration time, follow-up professional developments and materials and cur-
riculum are essential.
6. Frequent professional developments are needed to implement SIOP with fidelity.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 95
References
Application of Common Core State Standards for English language learners. (n.d.). Retrieved
from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/application-for-english-learners.pdf
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. K. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Aubrey, C., David, T., Godfrey, R., & Thompson, L. (2000). Early childhood educational re-
search: Issues in methodology and ethics. London, UK: Routledge.
August, D., Shanahan, L., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language
learners: Lessons from the Report of the National Literacy Panel on language minority
children and youth. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84, 191–215.
Barab, S. A., & Luehmann, A. L. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum: Acknowledg-
ing and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education, 87, 454–467.
Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing
House, 83(2), 39–43.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
research and methods. Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn and Bacon.
Brinton, D. M., & Master, P. (1997). New ways in content-based instruction (New Ways Series
II, Innovative Classroom Techniques). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Budde, T. T. (2011). Iowa teacher quality development funding, professional development
strategies, and student achievement. Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/34/57/
3457015.html
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 96
Bunch, M. (2011). Testing English language learners under No Child Left Behind. Language
Testing, 28, 323–341.
Burnett Act of 1917 (Pub.L. 301). H.R. 10384, 39 Stat. 874, 64th Congress. (1917).
California Department of Education. (2012a). Data quest. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/
ds/
California Department of Education. (2012b). Overview of the California English Language
Development Standards and proficiency level descriptors. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
California Department of Education. (2013). Common Core State Standards. Available from
http://cde.ca.gov
California Department of Education. (2014). California Common Core State Standard: English
language arts/English language development framework (electronic edition). Available from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352), 78 Stat. 241.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. Abingdon, UK:
Routledge.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2015). About the standards. Retrieved from http://
www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/
Crane, E. W., Huang, C., Huang, M., & Derby, K. (2008). Characteristics of California school
districts in program improvement: 2008 update (REL Technical Brief No. 012). San Fran-
cisco, CA: Regional Educational Laboratory West
Crawford, J. (1989). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory, and practice. Los Angeles,
CA: Bilingual Educational Services.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 97
Crawford, J. (2001, November). Bilingual education in the United States: Politics vs. pedagogy.
Paper presented at I Jornadas Internacionales de Educación Plurilingüe, Ayuntamiento
Victoria-Gasteiz, Pais Vasco, Spain. Retrieved from http://www.elladvocates.org/
documents/RCN/vitoria.htm
Crawford, J. (2004a). Educating English learners: language diversity in the classroom. Los
Angeles, CA: Bilingual Educational Services.
Crawford, J. (2004b). No Child Left Behind: Misguided approach to school accountability for
English language learners. Retrieved from http://users.rcn.com/crawj/langpol/
Crawford_NCLB_Misguided_Approach_for_ELLs.pdf
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire.
Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Dana, N. F., Burns, J. B., & Wolkenhauer, R. (2013). Inquiring into the Common Core. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy
evidence. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and
Policy.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). Research and rhetoric on teacher certification. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 10(36), 1–55.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). No Child Left Behind and high school reform. Harvard Educa-
tional Review, 7, 642–667.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 98
Del Valle, S. (2003). Language rights and the law in the United States: Finding our voices.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of
professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal
study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81–112. doi:10.2307/3594138
Ed-Data. (2011). Similar schools report. Available at http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/Pages/Home
.aspx
Eschevarria, J. (2005). Using SIOP in science: Response to Settlage, Madsen, and Rustad. Issues
in Teacher Education, 14(1), 59–62.
Eschevarria, J., & Graves, A.W. (2007). Sheltered content instruction: Teaching English lan-
guage learners with diverse abilities. Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn and Bacon.
Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: A
model for English-language learners. Journal of Educational Research, 99, 195-210. Re-
trieved from http://edfs200ell.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/54561001/
EchevarriaShort-SchRefSBEELLs.pdf
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2004). Making content comprehensible for English
language learners: The SIOP model (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Ernst, A. (2003). Comparison of qualitative and quantitative research. Munich, Germany: GRIN
Verlag.
Evans, B. A., & Hornberger, N. H. (2005). No Child Left Behind: Repealing and unpeeling
federal language education policy in the United States. Language Policy, 4(1), 87–106.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 99
Fleischman, H. L., Hopstock, P. J., Pelczar, M. P., & Shelley, B. E. (2010). Highlights from PISA
2009: Performance of U.S. 15-year-old students in reading, mathematics, and science
literacy in an international context (NCES 2011-004). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics.
Freeman, D., & Freeman Y. (2000). Meeting the needs of English language learners. Talking
Points, 12(1), 2–7.
Freeman D., & Freeman, Y. (2004, July). Three types of English language learners. School Talk:
National Council of Teachers of English, 9(4), 1–6.
Frey, N., & Fisher, D. B. (2005). Language arts workshop: Purposeful reading and writing
instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gándara, P. (2005). Learning English in California: Guideposts for the nation. In M. Suarez-
Orozco, C. Suarez-Orozco, & D. B. Qin (Eds.), The new immigration: An interdisciplinary
reader (pp. 219–232). New York, NY: Routledge.
Garcia, P. (2004). Pragmatic comprehension of high and low level language learners. Teaching
English as a Second or Foreign Language, 8(2), 1–15.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F. & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American
Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.
Gersten, R., Woodward, J., & Darch, C. (1986). Direct instruction: A research-based approach to
curriculum design and teaching. Exceptional Children, 53(1), 17–31.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 100
Gulamhussein, A. (2013). Teaching the teachers effective professional development in an era of
high stakes testing accountability. Retrieved from http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/
Main-Menu/Staffingstudents/Teaching-the-Teachers-Effective-Professional-Development-in
-an-Era-of-High-Stakes-Accountability/Teaching-the-Teachers-Full-Report.pdf
Guskey, T. R. (2003). Professional development that works: What makes professional develop-
ment effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 748–750.
Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development. Phi Delta
Kappan, 90, 495–500.
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take for English learners to attain
proficiency? Santa Barbara, CA: Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
Harper, C., & Jong, E. (2004). Misconceptions about teaching English-language learners. Journal
of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48, 152–162. Retrieved from http://www.allentownsd.org/
cms/lib01/PA01001524/Centricity/Domain/39/misconceptions.pdf
Hatch, J. (2010). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press.
Hemelt, S. W. (2011). Performance effects of failure to make adequate yearly progress (AYP):
Evidence from a regression discontinuity framework. Economics of Education Review, 30,
702–723.
Johanningmeier, E. V. (2010). “A nation at risk” and “Sputnik” compared and reconsidered.
American Educational History Journal, 37, 347–365,
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 101
Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high-quality
observations with student surveys and achievement gains. Research paper prepared for the
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA.
Kendall, J. (2011). Understanding Common Core state standards. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Krashen, S. (1996). Under attack: The case against bilingual education. Burlingame, CA:
Language Education Associates.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York, NY:
Elsevier.
Krashen, S. (2004, May). The case for narrow reading. Language Magazine, 3(5), 17–19.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
Linn, R. L. (2003). Accountability: Responsibility and reasonable expectations. Educational
Researcher, 32(7), 3–13.
Lyons, J. J. (1990). The past and future directions of federal bilingual-education policy. Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 508(1), 66–80.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design. An interactive approach. Los Angeles, CA:
Sage.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research. A guide to design and implementation. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983a). A nation at risk. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 102
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983b). A nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform. Elementary School Journal, 84, 113–130.
Nieto, D. (2000, Spring). A brief history of bilingual education in the United States. Perspectives
on Urban Education, n.v., 61–72. Retrieved from http://www.urbanedjournal.org/sites/
urbanedjournal.org/files/pdf_archive/61-72--Nieto.pdf
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
No Child Left Behind—Successes and challenges of implementation in urban and suburban
schools: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Education Reform of the Committee on Edu-
cation and the Workforce, House of Representatives, 109th Cong., 2 (2006).
Nystrand, M. (1997). Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English
classroom (Language and Literacy Series). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
O’Sullivan, C. Y., Reese, C. M., & Mazzeo, J. (1997). NAEP 1996 science report card for the
nation and the states: Findings from the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(Publication No. NCES 97-499). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Parrish, T., Merickel, A., Perz, M., Linquanti, R., Socias, M., Spain, A., . . . Delancey, D. (2006).
Effects of the implementation of Proposition 227 on the education of English learners, K-12:
Findings from a five-year evaluation. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Perez, B. (2004). Becoming biliterate: A study of two-way bilingual immersion education.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Peterson, P. L. (1979). Direct instruction: Effective for what and for whom. Educational Leader-
ship, 37(1), 46–48.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 103
Resnick, L., & Hall, M. W. (2003). The principles of learning: Study tools for educators [CD-
ROM, version 3.1]. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Devel-
opment Center.
Ricento, T. (1998). The courts, the legislature, and society: the shaping of federal language policy
in the United States. In D. A. Kibbee (Ed.), Language Legislation and Linguistic Rights:
Selected Proceedings of the Language Legislation and Linguistic Rights Conference, Uni-
versity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, March 1996 (Vol. 16). Philadelphia, PA: John
Benjamins.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). The analysis of qualitative data in LIS research projects: A possible ap-
proach. Education for Information, 22(3–4), 143–162.
Short, D. J. (2000). What principals should know about sheltered instruction for English lan-
guage learners. NASSP Bulletin, 84(619), 17–27.
Solórzano, R. W. (2008). High stakes testing: Issues, implications, and remedies for English
language learners. Review of Educational Research, 78, 260–329.
Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1988). A theory of teaching as assisted performance: Learning
relationships in the classroom. London, UK: Open University.
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students (NCBE
Resource Collection Series). Retrieved from http://www.ncela.us/files/rcd/ BE020890/
School_effectiveness_for_langu.pdf
Tinteren, C. M. (2009). The bilingual education debate in the United States. Available from
http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/34392
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 104
Title I: Improving basic programs operated by local education agencies. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.eduplace.com/grants/pdf/title_I.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the Ele-
mentary and Secondary Education Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.
Walker, R. J. (2008). Twelve characteristics of an effective teacher: A longitudinal, qualitative,
quasi-research study of in-service and pre-service teachers’ opinions. Educational Horizons,
87(1), 61–68.
Walker, R. J. (2010). 12 characteristics of an effective teacher. Morrisville, NC: Lulu.
Wright, W. E., & Choi, D. (2006). The impact of language and high-stakes testing policies on
elementary school English language learners in Arizona. Education Policy Analysis Ar-
chives, 14(13), 1–75.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 105
Appendix A
Interview Protocol
Time of Interview:
Date:
Place:
Interviewer:
Position/District of Interviewee: Teacher

INTRODUCTION
I am a graduate student at the University of Southern California working on a dissertation that
explores the degree to which the use of Sheltered Instruction Instructional Strategies in classrooms has an
impact on student access to the core content as a consequence of professional development.
As someone who is a school teacher, you are in a unique position to describe how those essential
components of professional development can affect student achievement in a school district. And that’s
what the interview is about: your experiences in professional developments and what instructional
strategies you find valuable.
The answers from all the people I interview/observe, and I am interviewing/observing about 20
school teachers, will be combined for my report. Nothing you say will ever be identified with you per-
sonally. As we go through the interview/observation, if you have any questions about why I’m asking/
making notes about something, please feel free to ask. Or if there’s anything you don’t want to answer or
share, just say so. The purpose of the interview/observation is to explore the degree to which the use of
Sheltered Instruction instructional strategies in classrooms have an impact on student access to the
Common Core content as a consequence of professional development.
Any questions before we begin?
[Turn on recorder and test it.]
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 106
Lesson Preparation
Building Background Knowledge
Comprehensible Input
Strategies
Interaction
Practice/Application
Lesson Delivery
Review/Assessment
Lesson Preparation
Building Background Knowledge
Comprehensible Input
Strategies
Interaction
Practice/Application
Lesson Delivery
Review/Assessment
1. What subject do you teach? (pre/post)
2. Where do you teach? How long have you taught? (pre/post)
3. Please describe your career path that led you to become a teacher. (pre/post)
4. What SI instructional strategies have you used before the implementation of CCSS? (pre)
5. Which SI strategies resulted in increased student achievement?
6. Which SIOP instructional strategies have you used transitioning to the CCSS?
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 107
Lesson Preparation
Building Background Knowledge
Comprehensible Input
Strategies
Interaction
Practice/Application
Lesson Delivery
Review/Assessment
Lesson Preparation
Building Background Knowledge
Comprehensible Input
Strategies
Interaction
Practice/Application
Lesson Delivery
Review/Assessment
(post)
7. Which ones have garnered results in increased student achievement?
8. What were the essential resources provided to you to support SI instruction?
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 108
Peer Collaboration Time
Coach Mentoring Time
Materials/Curriculum
Goal Setting
Follow-up Professional Development
Fiscal Support (subs)
Peer Collaboration Time
Coach Mentoring Time
Materials/Curriculum
Goal Setting
Follow-up Professional Development
Fiscal Support (subs)
Peer Collaboration Time
Coach Mentoring Time
Materials/Curriculum
Goal Setting
Follow-up Professional Development
Fiscal Support (subs)
Peer Collaboration Time
Coach Mentoring Time
Materials/Curriculum
Goal Setting
Follow-up Professional Development
Fiscal Support (subs)
(pre/post)
9. What do you perceive are the essential resources to support SI instructional strategies post
the implementation of the CCSS?
10. What assessment methods have been used to provide you feedback to adjust your classroom
instruction pre CCSS?
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 109
Performance-Based Assessments
Hands-on Projects
Group Projects
Written Assignments/Research Projects
Oral Presentations
Class Discussions
Exit Tickets/Wrap-up/Closure
Review Key Vocabulary/Content
Other
(pre)
Performance-Based Assessments
Hands-on Projects
Group Projects
Written Assignments/Research Projects
Oral Presentations
Class Discussions
Exit Tickets/Wrap-up/Closure
Review Key Vocabulary/Content
Other
(post)
11. What assessment methods have been used to provide feedback to adjust your classroom
instruction post the implementation transition of the CCSS?
12. What is the extent of your SI knowledge prior to CCSS that enabled you to successfully
teach the content? Provide some examples.
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 110
Excellent
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Examples:
(pre)
Frequent
Infrequent
Frequent
Infrequent
13. What level of frequency were professional development experiences provided regarding SI
prior to the transition to the CCSS?
14. What level of frequency do you believe is needed to implement SI with fidelity post the
transition to the CCSS:
15. Describe your professional development experiences in regard to ELL instructional strate-
gies before the CCSS.
16. Describe your professional development experiences in regard to ELL instructional strate-
gies after the implementation of CCSS.
17. Describe how you have established teacher and student goals prior to transitioning to the
CCSS.
18. Describe how you have established teacher and student goals post the transition to the
CCSS.
CLOSING
Thank you for participating in this interview. Please be assured that I will hold all responses
confidential. Should I have any further questions regarding your interview responses or experi-
ences, may I contact you for a follow-up phone interview?
IMPACT OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 111
Appendix B
Observation Protocol

Abstract (if available)

Abstract English language learners (ELLs) will be faced with the challenges of demonstrating proficiency on the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in the future. The purpose of this study was to explore the degree to which the use of Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) instructional strategies in classrooms have an impact on student access to the Common Core content as a consequence of professional development. Two research questions were posed regarding (a) to what degree the use of SIOP instructional strategies in classrooms impacts student access to the core content as a consequence of professional development

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Teacher perceptions of English learners and the instructional strategies they choose to support academic achievement

PDF

Impact of inquiry‐based learning professional development on implementation of Common Core State Standards

PDF

Instructional proficiency strategies for middle school English language learners

PDF

Building academic vocabulary for English language learners through professional development: a gap analysis

PDF

Instructional leadership: the practices employed by elementary school principals to lead the Common Core State Standards and 21st century learning skills

PDF

Effective coaching of teachers to support learning for English language learners

PDF

Teachers’ perceptions and implementation of instructional strategies for the gifted from differentiation professional development

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

The role of superintendents as instructional leaders: facilitating student achievement among ESL/EL learners through school-site professional development

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Developing mathematical reasoning: a comparative study using student and teacher-centered pedagogies

PDF

An examination of the impact of professional development on teachers' knowledge and skills in the use of text complexity

PDF

Professional development opportunities for non-core teachers

PDF

Meaningful access to the Common Core for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities

PDF

The effects of open enrollment, curriculum alignment, and data-driven instruction on the test performance of English language learners (ELLS) and re-designated fluent English proficient students ...

PDF

The use of differentiation in English medium instruction in Middle Eastern primary schools: a gap analysis

PDF

Examining the relationship between knowledge, perception and principal leadership for standard English learners (SELs): a case study

PDF

Learning the language of math: supporting students who are learning English in acquiring math proficiency through language development

PDF

Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Jackson, Darvin (author)

Core Title The degree to which the use of sheltered instructional strategies in classrooms impact student access to common core content as a consequence of professional development

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/24/2015

Defense Date 02/25/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag English language learners,instructional strategies,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kaplan, Sandra (committee chair), Gallagher, Richard (committee member), Green, Alan Gilford (committee member)

Creator Email darvinja@usc.edu,jacksonentinc@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-560349

Unique identifier UC11300624

Identifier etd-JacksonDar-3399.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-560349 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-JacksonDar-3399.pdf

Dmrecord 560349

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Jackson, Darvin

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA