Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol

Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol : 

Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol Presented by Misti M. Norby to the Department of Educational Leadership at Azusa Pacific University on January 20, 2012

Ranchero Middle School: 

Ranchero Middle School RMS Population runs around 1000 to 1100 students 2009-2010 school year the school API points went up by a gain of 5 points; however it missed its target by 5 points. 2010-2011 school years, RMS made a gain of 17 points, but still missing their target by 14 points. Ranchero Middle School is not in program improvement, but the district is. Special Education 2009 and 2010 there is no data for API scores because the special education population was smaller. 2010-2011 Special education sub group- the API scores increased 493 to 568 (California Department of Education). This increase is large; however, RMS still did not meet its target number. Ranchero Middle School has seen its special education population go from 56 to 81 an increase of 36 percent.

The Problem: 

The Problem Current strategies Specially Designed Academic Instruction for English learners (SDAIE) Sylvan Learning Seeing Stars Read Naturally LiPs Touch Math Zoo Phonics Special Education students are a sub group within school districts that continually suffer when it comes to testing and academic achievement.

Research Topic and Question : 

Research Topic and Question This research is a case study on the implementation of Sheltered Instructional Observation Protocol (SIOP), and how it will help improve student achievement in vocabulary for the 7th grade special education students at Ranchero Middle School. Does the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol improve student achievement in vocabulary for the 7th grade special education students at Ranchero Middle School?

SIOP: 

SIOP What is SIOP? In the article, The Critical Role of Vocabulary Development for English Language Learners, the authors, August, Carlo, Dressler, and Snow (2005), further substantiate the claim that students who have poor vocabulary development tend to score poorly on assessments by to 22-29 points and are sometimes missed diagnosed for special education services because of low performance on these tests. Components of SIOP Lesson Preparation Building Background for students will allow them to connect to their prior knowledge. Comprehensible Input Strategies designed specifically to assist in student’s comprehension. Interaction designed to assist students in thinking critically. Lesson Delivery Practice and Application Review and Assessment is deliberate

Beliefs : 

Beliefs Engagement level of the students increased significantly Time on task increased Social interaction with the academic language will increase When students are actively engaged in their learning and are connecting the brain, with speech, reading, and writing then they will more likely remember concepts that they normally might struggle in.

Assumptions: 

Assumptions For the purpose of this case study the following assumptions were made: Students in both groups will receive the same instruction on the vocabulary words. The two groups will each have an assignment that will use a different method for learning their vocabulary words. Both groups will take the same pre and post test on the vocabulary words. All data will be calculated using Excel. This case study was conducted inclusively for Ranchero Middle School 7th grade special education science class. These two groups that participated were the only groups on campus to participate in this study. Students who participated in this study were placed in the “C” level excel program because of one of the following reasons or more: They are on an IEP. Their test scores were Far Below Basic or Below Basic. Jr. High entrance test score was low. Teacher recommendation. Delimitations

Research Method and Procedures: 

Research Method and Procedures Methodology will include two different special education classes of 7th graders. Both groups will be taught using the same SIOP method the first week. The second week I will change one variable with the second group which will not use the SIOP model. Participants: Group 1 Boys- 14 Girls- 12 Total number of students on an IEP- 8 Number of students Far Below Basic or Below Basic- 26 Group 2 Boys- 15 Girls- 10 Total number of students on an IEP- 9 Number of students Far Below Basic or below basic- 25

Flip Book Example : 

Flip Book Example Dominant Definition Synonym Sentence Picture

Data Analysis : 

Data Analysis 1 st Week Group 1 with SIOP Mean 1.65 - 3.31 Difference of 1.66 2 nd Week Group 1without SIOP Mean 2.58 - 3.84 Difference of 1.26

Data Analysis : 

Data Analysis 1 st Week Group 2 with SIOP Mean 1.16 - 3.16 Difference of 2.00 2 nd Week Group 2 with SIOP Mean 2.36 - 3.76 Difference of 1.40

Group 1 using the SIOP Method: 

Group 1 using the SIOP Method Group 1 not using the SIOP Method

Group 2 using the SIOP Method: 

Group 2 using the SIOP Method

Conclusions: 

Conclusions After reviewing the data, it appears that both groups improved using both the SIOP model and writing the definition. However, more growth did occur for Group 1 using the SIOP model by .40 percent.

Insights and Recommendations: 

Insights and Recommendations Insight My attitude in presenting new material. Behavior Creativity In examining the data from the results, I make the recommendation that future studies include the following: Use more vocabulary words and compare the results. Teacher survey Comparisons should be made using different academic subjects such as reading, spelling, language, math, and history. Re-test students over a period time on previous learned words to see if they retain the vocabulary words taught using the SIOP model. Create a survey asking more specific questions regarding student learning and engagement.

Limitations: 

Limitations Some of the limitations may include: Student attendance Student engagement Reading levels Amount of students in each class Students not honest in their responses The flip schedule at RMS Possible threats to internal validity include: Ratio of genders, Absence of an instructional assistant Having a different instructional assistant for the two groups Student’s attitude towards science either positively or negatively Teacher attitude Interruptions from others Student absences Varying student disabilities. Possible threats to external validity include: Data inputting Tests created Questions for further studies would include the following: How would using the SIOP model for all students effect student achievement? How would using the SIOP model for all subject areas effect student achievement? How would using the SIOP model for all special education students effect student achievement? Would having all teachers trained in using the SIOP model effect student achievement? How would using the SIOP model for all students effect student achievement? What are the benefits of using the SIOP model in the classroom? Could using more than one component of the SIOP model gain greater results in student learning? Does the SIOP model only benefit English language learners? Questions

Summary: 

Summary By the end of this study, I noted the following: Teacher excitement and preparation were a key factor in student learning Student behavior effects student achievement Allowing students to be creative in their learning helped with their achievement. Although, the results of my study show some growth and were only taken from two classes over a two week period, the results do show growth in student learning. The surveys also show that the students enjoyed their learning process more using the SIOP model.

References: 

References August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The Critical Role of Vocabulary Development for English Language Learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice , 20(1), 50-57. Retrieved from EBSCO host California Department of Education. (2011). California Department of Education Analysis, Measurement & Accountability Reporting Division 2011.Retrieved November 25, 2011, http://api.cde.ca.gov/Acnt2011/2011GrowthSch.aspx?allcds=36750446109359 . Direct Instruction, DISTAR, and Language for Learning. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report. (2007). What Works Clearinghouse , Retrieved from EBSCO host . Donnelly, W., & Roe, C. J. (2010). Using Sentence Frames to Develop Academic Vocabulary for English Learner. Reading Teacher , 64(2), 131-136. Retrieved from EBSCO host . Douglas, O., Smith-Burton, K., & Reese-Durham, N. (2008). The Effects of the Multiple Intelligence Teaching Strategy on the Academic Achievement of Eighth Grade Math Students. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35(2) Je 2008. Retrieved from Wilson Web Complete database. Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2008). Making Content Comprehensible for English Language Learners the SIOP Model . Kousar, Rubina. (2010). The Effect Of Direct Instruction Model On Intermediate Class Achievement And Attitudes Toward English Grammar. Journal of College Teaching & Learning , 7(2), 99-103. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database. Monroe, B. W., & Troia, G. A. (2006). Teaching Writing Strategies to Middle School Students with Disabilities. Journal of Educational Research , 100(1), 21-23. Retrieved from EBSCO host . Timmons, R. (2005). Six Components of SDAIE. Riverside Co Office of ED/Swize 1999. Viel-Ruma, K., Houchins, D. E., Jolivette, K., Fredrick, L. D., & Gama, R. (2010). Direct Instruction in Written Expression: The Effects on English Speakers and English Language Learners with Disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 25(2), 97-108. Retrieved from EBSCO host . Reference list is not exhaustive