Effectiveness of Direct Strategy Instruction through SIOP

Effectiveness of Direct Strategy Instruction through SIOP

What s the problem? SINI school for 2 subgroups: Students with disabilities (SWD) and English Language Learners (ELL) Strategies that work with one or the other group didn t work as well for dually identified students School-wide Analysis of Need: Test/evaluation results: difficulty with inferences questions (multiple choice) Observation during instruction: missing critical details, reading just to supply an answer, not self-monitoring for understanding Teacher survey: need for professional development on language interventions for SWD/ELL students; teachers had strategies (visuals, vocabulary instruction) but did not use them consistently and within a clear structure; teachers were focusing on content goals but not language goals My Class 12 students, identified for reading decoding, fluency, & comprehension intervention 6 SWD students; 2 ELL students; 1 SWD/ELL student

What s the solution? Current Research on ELL/SWDs Very limited General findings (meta-analyses from the National Literacy Panel and the Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence) Teaching students to read in 1 st language promotes higher reading achievement in English Good instruction and curriculum for struggling students is generally good instruction of ELLs Instruction needs to be modified to take into account English language limitations

Good Instruction for SWDs is generally good instruction for ELLs Explicit instruction: Predictable routines Clear goals and learning objectives Mastery learning precise behavior objectives that need to be reached before moving on Direct structured teaching Builds and/or activates prior knowledge Rich content Strategies Guided and independent practice Corrective feedback Frequent progress monitoring Re-teaching Cooperative learning

Instruction needs to be modified to take into account English language needs Visual representation of concepts (i.e. graphic organizers) Explicit teaching of words from text, highlighting & clarifying difficult words Multiple exposures to, and use of, words taught Additional time, extra practice Teacher, students, peers summarize and paraphrase Teacher adjusts pace and complexity of verbal instruction Lesson targets both content and English language objectives

Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) Predictable routines Clear goals and learning objectives--both content and English language objectives Builds and/or activates prior knowledge Explicit teaching of words from text, with visual representation of concepts Direct structured teaching with engagement and participation strategies Guided and independent practice with corrective feedback Frequent progress monitoring and re-teaching Teacher adjusts pace and complexity of verbal instruction

160 General Impact: Aimsweb ORF 140 128 136 131 130 128 129 120 Mean September: 89.5 100 80 104 102 99 96 90 88 80 98 95 Mean April 23 123.3 60 60 48 40 20 0 September June to

What did I do? Reviewed SIOP Protocol to define what elements of SIOP have the most impact Developed an observation checklist based on the SIOP Protocol

Self-Rating of Explicit SIOP Literacy Instruction for Students with Disabilities What did I do? Self-Rating Evidence is: Notes High Partial None Element 1. Both Content (what, why) and Language (how, when) Objectives are posted and stated clearly to students. 2. Critical vocabulary is explicitly taught to students prior to teaching the content. 3. A student strategy for achieving the objective is explicitly taught to students step by step. 4. Guided practice is provided in which teacher and students complete the strategy or learn the content together step by step. 5 At the end of guided practice, a Check-In activity is completed with students to ensure that at least 80% of students have master at least 80% of the content. Reteaching is provided on the basis of Check-In results. 6. Students are given time for independent practice (e.g., class work, homework) and feedback is given to all students on accuracy of work. 7. At end of lesson, a final assessment shows all students at 95% accuracy.

What did I do? Developed a specific strategy that could potentially accelerate growth Identified reading passages with 7 to 8 multiple choice responses to assess student growth while using the reading comprehension strategy Utilized AIMSWEB curriculum based measurements (CBM) to progress monitor student reading growth

Strategy Triple A Strategy Analyze the questions Read & Highlight (Set a purpose for reading) Actively read Read & Highlight (Think about your purpose for reading) Answer the questions Refer to the text to prove your answer Review if the question is a there or dig question

Self-Rating of Explicit SIOP Literacy Instruction for Students with Disabilities Element 1. Both Content (what, why) and Language (how, when) Objectives are posted and stated clearly to students. Self-Rating Evidence is: High Partial None Notes Observer self 2. Critical vocabulary is explicitly taught to students prior to teaching the content. 3. A student strategy for achieving the objective is explicitly taught to students step by step. 4. Guided practice is provided in which teacher and students complete the strategy or learn the content together step by step. 5 At the end of guided practice, a Check-In activity is completed with students to ensure that at least 80% of students have master at least 80% of the content. Reteaching is provided on the basis of Check-In results. 6. Students are given time for independent practice (e.g., class work, homework) and feedback is given to all students on accuracy of work. 7. At end of lesson, a final assessment shows all students at 95% accuracy.

What did we find? 100% Students with Disabilities 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Abs 1 2 3 4 5 SWD/ESL SWD SWD SWD SWD Pre Mid Post Abs

Next Steps How can pre-, mid, and post assessment be revised? Why do some students benefit and others not? Are there defining characteristics of these students (eg. academic, self-esteem, motivation)? What are the characteristics of the non-responding students and what else do they need? Is there a correlation between behavior characteristics such as attendance and rate of progress? Can this study be expanded to other classrooms?