Print Сite this

The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol

The Purpose of the Theory

The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) offers actual examples of the characteristics of SI that can improve and develop teachers’ instructional patterns. The procedure comprises 30 points classified into three major parts: Preparation, Instruction, and review/Assessment. The six points under Preparation analyze the lesson planning method, including the language and content objectives, the use of additional materials, and the quality of having great value or significance of the activities, while, instruction handles building backgrounds (Tharp, & Waxman, 2004, p. 32).

We will write a
custom essay
specifically for you

for only $16.05 $11/page
308 certified writers online
Learn More

The SIOP theory was formulated to create cohesiveness in the training of sheltering instruction and examine to determine accuracy or quality of ELLS’ success in educational achievement when properly carried out. It comprises eight components: (1) lesson preparation, (2) building background, (3) Comprehensible input (4) strategies (5) interaction, (6) practice/application, (7) lesson delivery and (8) review/assessment (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2008).

SIOP presents teachers the chance to plan and express instruction clearly or formally in words for ELLs that are grade-appropriate.

Development of the SIOP Model

To offer teachers an organizational underlying structure for planning and delivering efficient sheltered content lessons for students (English learners), the SIOP Model was developed and considered in detail. The acronym SIOP stands for the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol, a study instrument planned for teachers, administrators, supervisors, and coaches to rate the degree to which the eight parts and thirty characteristics of the Model are carried out in sheltered content lessons. The prospect is that the instruction express clearly or formally in words to language minority students are in English (or the individual language of instruction), with language that a person has spoken from earliest childhood support, especially for beginning speakers, as needed and available (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2008).

SIOP is a research-based model for sheltered instruction. It has been shown through empirical observation that teachers who are appropriately trained in this model can make an important difference in the academic success of ELLs.

Sheltered instruction is also said to be the most significant instruction new device or process resulting from study and experimentation since the 1970s, mainly because it covers the needs of secondary students.

The plan was first introduced in the early 1980s by Stephen Krashen as a method to use second language skills and strategies while teaching content area instruction. The technique trains academic topics and their related vocabulary, concepts, and skills by using language and context to make the Knowledge acquired through study, experience, or instruction understandable (Echevarria and Graves, 2003, p.53).

Get your
100% original paper
on any topic

done in as little as
3 hours
Learn More

Siop Lesson Plan

Subject: Life Science

Unit Focus: Genetic Manipulation

Lesson 1 Length of Lesson 90-120 Minutes

Objectives: Are Written Down

Language: Students will

  • Identify and teach the use of new minimal unit (as a word or stem) in the lexicon of a language visually as well as in writing.
  • Students will read about Genetic Manipulation

Content: Students will

  • Get fundamental idea of the notion of the Genetic Manipulation
  • Give details of how technology allows scientists to manipulate genes.
  • Identify pros and cons of genetic manipulation for human beings.
  • Debate the moral repercussions of the genetic treatment.

Key Vocabulrary: Gene, genetic disorder, genetic manipulation, genetic testing, in vitro fertilization, pre-natal testing.

Materials: Elements of biology: genetics, DVD by Discovery School (2006), posters.

We will write a custom
essays
specifically
for you!
Get your first paper with
15% OFF
Learn More

Preparation: 1) bring the DVD (Elements of biology: genetics) to class, for viewing.

Procedures

  1. Pre-assessment: Ask students to write down what they would do if they discovered that someone they know is expecting a child who has a genetic imperfection. What actions would they take? What moral distress they would face during the action?
  2. Split students into two different groups. Provide them with the following discussion questions and let them know that they will talk about them after they watch the DVD on genetic manipulation. Have students watch the “Part 2: Making Babies Genetically Correct” part of the DVD. After, the program, ask the students their reaction to the parent’s choice to have another baby to assist in correcting the genetic deficiency of their offspring. What moral concerns would the couple and scientist encounter? What actions, if any, would you take to stop the baby from having any birth faults? What are the advantages and disadvantages of genetic manipulation? If the moral issues concerning genetic manipulation were determined, where else could it be advantageous and well-thought-out?
  3. Have students talk about the issues provided, and any other problems they may have, within their groups. Inform them that they will get to share their responses and views on the issue in a debate. By keeping the students in their novel groups, form two teams for the debate; one will argue for the genetic manipulation and the other will be against it. Give students enough time to arrange and provide links to help prepare for the debate. Also, ask each group to prepare printed opening and closing speeches.
  4. Before the debate, inform the students that each group will be allowed to voice its view and that they should not disrupt each other’s argument. Allow teams to support their positions for 30 to 45 minutes. At the end of the debate, talk about the outcomes of the debate: Did one group make a better case than the other? Which argument was the strongest? Did any of the students change their views on the issue after the debate?
  5. Post-Assessment: Ask students to assess their answers to the question they were given at the start of the lesson. Tell them to write a short paragraph about whether or not their idea would be singular, derived from what they have learned. Why or why not?

Comparing and Contrasting Language Acquisition Theory

Krashen’s hypotheses and interactionist perspective are the most commonly accepted and widely implemented second language theories in second language acquisition. Just like any other theory, these two theories have similarities and areas where they disagree.

Krashen’s five hypotheses theory consists of five theories that determine a student’s ability to attain any second language. Many people prefer this theory and it’s very common. In his theory, Krashen affirmed that there is a discrete difference between learning a second language and acquiring a second language. However, he further elaborated and explained that the acquisition of a second language is a natural process just like acquiring the first language. The natural order hypothesis states that grammar is learned in a predictable, natural, order, whereas the monitor hypothesis calls for a formal study during the acquisition of a second language.

Consequently, in the input hypothesis, Krashen showed how the ELL acquires a second language through appreciation of natural communication and comprehensible input. And finally, Krashen’s affective filter hypothesis recognized the task that provision of incentive, assurance, as well as a relatively permanent state of worry and nervousness, have on second language acquisition (Peregoy & Boyle, 2008).

The interactionist view on the acquisition of a second language exerted immense weight on comprehensible input, although interactionists credit with veracity the fact that the natural communication between native and non-native speakers is the key element in second language acquisition. The learner will participate in interactive activities as well as be focused on communication with teachers and peers. As a result of this, the ELL will acquire vocabulary and basic grammar structures. According to Interactionists, ELLs should not be compelled or coerced into speaking, and accordingly, communication should occur in natural settings, at a time when the learner is ready to do so. As comprehension and vocabulary enhance, mistakes in output will be naturally corrected as language builds up. (Peregoy & Boyle, 2008)

Influence of Mentor Teachers

During lesson preparation, when SIOP-trained teachers prepare to deliver sheltered instruction, they must formulate both language and content objectives for each lesson to support ELL’s language development. These objectives need to be clearly defined and aligned with adopted state standards for both content and language.

High implementing SIOP teachers incorporate the following components and features into content lessons. It is important to note that we define ‘lesson’ somewhat loosely. A first-grade teacher (children’s ages of 6-7) may teach lessons that last 15-20 minutes or less. We would expect to see the thirty SIOP features incorporated throughout the day in an elementary classroom, in varying degrees in different content subjects: phonics, spelling, reading comprehension, writing, social studies, science, and mathematics. In the intermediate grades (ages 8-12), content lessons may last 30-40 minutes or more, and within each lesson, we would expect to see most of the SIOP features as appropriate and relevant. In the secondary grades (13-18), a lesson may be planned for two or three fifty-minute periods. When the SIOP model is implemented in a school, it is of critical importance that fidelity to the Model’s components and features is of the highest priority (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2008). What follows are the eight components and thirty features of the SIOP models as they are worded on the SIOP protocol. A brief explanation follows each component.

Reference List

Echevarria, J. & Graves, A. (2003). Sheltered content instruction: Teaching English language learners with diverse abilities (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

Need a
100% original paper
written from scratch

by professional
specifically for you?
308 certified writers online
Learn More

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2008). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

Peregoy, S. F., & Boyle, O. F. (2008). Reading, writing, and learning in ESL: A resource book for teaching k-12 English learners. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Tharp, R. G., & Waxman, H. C. (2004). Observational research in U.S. classrooms: new approaches for understanding cultural and linguistic diversity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Cite this paper

Select style

Reference

StudyCorgi. (2021, December 18). The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol. Retrieved from https://studycorgi.com/the-sheltered-instruction-observation-protocol/

Reference

StudyCorgi. (2021, December 18). The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol. https://studycorgi.com/the-sheltered-instruction-observation-protocol/

Work Cited

"The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol." StudyCorgi, 18 Dec. 2021, studycorgi.com/the-sheltered-instruction-observation-protocol/.

1. StudyCorgi. "The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol." December 18, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/the-sheltered-instruction-observation-protocol/.


Bibliography


StudyCorgi. "The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol." December 18, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/the-sheltered-instruction-observation-protocol/.

References

StudyCorgi. 2021. "The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol." December 18, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/the-sheltered-instruction-observation-protocol/.

References

StudyCorgi. (2021) 'The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol'. 18 December.

This paper was written and submitted to our database by a student to assist your with your own studies. You are free to use it to write your own assignment, however you must reference it properly.

If you are the original creator of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal.