Reflections on Teaching Multilingual Learners

Oral language is the foundation of literacy and academic success. Before students can become strong readers and writers, they must first develop the ability to understand and use language orally. We all learn language through listening, speaking, interaction, and meaningful communication with others. Reading and writing are built upon this oral language base because students can’t effectively write what they can’t yet express verbally. Oral language provides the vocabulary, syntax, comprehension, and confidence necessary for literacy development. For multilingual learners especially, opportunities to speak, listen, discuss, and interact are essential for academic growth across all grade levels and content areas.

In every classroom students are required to use speaking, listening, reading, and writing skills. Whether students are learning science, mathematics, social studies, or language arts, they must understand complex vocabulary and communicate ideas clearly. Consider the example of vocabulary encountered in science instruction: prokaryotic, archaeal, eukaryotic, and archaea. Students can’t fully comprehend these concepts unless teachers intentionally develop both language and content knowledge simultaneously. Academic success depends not only on learning facts but also on learning the language needed to discuss, explain, analyze, and apply those facts. Language instruction isn’t separate from content instruction. All teachers are language teachers.

A useful resource for focusing on language learning is a framework known as the Four Strands created by researcher Paul Nation. Together, these strands ensure that teachers offer balance in language instruction.

The first strand, Meaning-Focused Input, emphasizes listening and reading experiences that are understandable, engaging, and meaningful. The goal is to understand meaning rather than explicitly focusing on grammar details. Teachers might use TED Talks, engaging videos or podcasts such as Math! Science! History! to develop listening skills. Through interactive read-alouds, students build academic knowledge and oral language comprehension simultaneously.

The second strand, Meaning-Focused Output, focuses on speaking and writing. Students develop language when they are encouraged to express ideas authentically in meaningful contexts. The emphasis is on expressing ideas, understandings, and opinions rather than perfect accuracy. Activities include debates, collaborative discussions, and speaking activities. Speaking and writing activities are especially effective when topics are of high interest such as, What would you say if cell phones were prohibited from campus even for after school events?  Should we use robots and AI in schools? If a robot could help you learn, would you want one? Why or why not? Learners are encouraged to engage in personal reflection, storytelling, and writing connected to their own lives and aspirations.

The third strand, Language-Focused Learning, involves explicit attention to grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, spelling, and language structure. Direct instruction remains important because students benefit from focused opportunities to practice accurate language use. Teachers can make grammar and vocabulary learning fun and interactive through gamified quizzes, puzzles, and challenges. One popular activity is Escape Rooms for learning content and using language while collaborating — and having fun.

The fourth strand, Fluency Development, helps learners build automaticity and confidence. Fluency develops through repeated practice in speaking, listening, reading, and writing. Learners become more comfortable thinking in the target language and expressing ideas spontaneously. Activities such as speed conversations, quick writes, storytelling, and interview practice encourage students to use language naturally. The focus is on speed and flow, rather than grammatical accuracy. As fluency increases, learners become more confident communicators capable of participating fully in academic tasks.

Also important is the role of affect and classroom climate in language learning. Students learn best in environments where they feel safe, valued, and supported. Positive relationships reduce anxiety and encourage students to take the risks necessary for language growth. When teachers intentionally create caring classrooms, students are more willing to participate, communicate, and persist through challenges.

When teachers infuse a balance of the Four Pillars of language learning into their daily lessons, they create powerful opportunities for multilingual learners to develop strong language skills while also building confidence and motivation to do well in school. 

A teacher recently asked the following question, one that resonates in many schools serving multilingual learners.

How much is too much L1 use? I have had administrators express that using the first language alienates other students and reduces rigor. It is frowned upon to support struggling students in their native language. How can I explain the benefits of L1 use in line with SIOP’s Feature 19? Thank you!!

It should go without saying (but obviously needs to be said time and again) that learning English is an instructional priority for multilingual learners, even in dual language programs. However, the issues reflected in this teacher’s question reveal significant misconceptions about learning and language. Maybe because for the past 40+ years I’ve worked to help educators understand and teach multilingual learners effectively, I’m somewhat dismayed that these misunderstandings persist. 

For clarity, let me begin by explaining what is meant by “SIOP’s Feature 19,” then I’ll unpack the rest of the question. The SIOP Model is a framework for lesson planning and delivery. It is comprised of 8 components and 30 features of instruction that when implemented consistently has been shown to improve English learners’ English language development and academic performance. Specifically, Feature 19 addresses use of L1, or the student’s first language. 

Okay, on to the rest of the question.

“How much is too much L1?” This is not about choosing between English and students’ home languages, but about using every resource available to make learning both accessible and meaningful. When students use a combination of languages to communicate, called translanguaging, they are tapping into their linguistic resources. In English-medium classes, multilingual learners clarify and discuss key concepts in their home language as needed. It is a matter of effective instruction.

Translanguaging serves as a bridge that allows students to access complex concepts in their L1, helping them build background knowledge, connect new information to prior learning, and participate more fully in rigorous content. It’s a scaffold that accelerates learning and prevents the frustration or misunderstanding that may occur while they are learning English.

“Using the first language alienates other students and reduces rigor.” It is important to note that all students, including monolingual English speakers, receive scaffolds such as graphic organizers, sentence frames, peer interaction, visuals, and the like. Similarly, multilingual learners may use their L1 to bridge understanding. It is the teacher’s responsibility to help the other students understand that translanguaging is another type of scaffold. In this way, the teacher models respect for students’ backgrounds  and creates a classroom environment where students learn to appreciate linguistic diversity. 

How might this look in practice? Let’s say that the class is asked to report on a topic. Students might gather information in their own language or use a combination of English and L1 resources. Then, in a group of four (two English-only students and two speakers of the same home language) students share with one another in English the information they’ve learned. Next, working in pairs, they take the information they’ve discussed and write a paper. The two bilingual students may work together to write a first draft using a combination of English and their L1 while the English speakers collaborate on their papers. The foursome comes back together to read their draft papers, clarify information, offer suggestions, rework the content, and produce a final paper in English. 

Rather than being alienating, these practices ensure all students have equitable access to grade-level content and in the process foster linguistic, cognitive, academic, and social development.

Clarifying and discussing key concepts in L1 ensures that instruction remains rigorous for multilingual learners. It means they don’t fall behind in content while developing English proficiency. It’s not lowering the bar; it’s making sure everyone has the tools to reach it.

Remember, multilingual learners are not just learning English. They are learning rigorous academic content in a new language. When we honor their home languages, we acknowledge and build upon the cognitive and linguistic strengths they bring. Allowing strategic use of the first language should not alienate peers, and it doesn’t water down instruction. On the contrary, it affirms students’ identities, strengthens comprehension, and leads to higher levels of academic engagement and rigor.

What does “too much” look like? If students from the same language group use their L1 in place of English most of the time, with little opportunity to practice and develop academic English, then we are not meeting our responsibility to foster English proficiency. English proficiency is the strongest predictor of academic success, so we need to make sure students have lots of opportunities to use and practice English. However, when L1 is used judiciously—to clarify, to support, to include, and to scaffold— we create a more effective classroom.

How can we explain this to administrators? One might summarize the information above by saying something like:

“We provide instruction in English, but we use students’ first languages to ensure access to rigorous content and to support language development for all. Home language use is not a sign of lower expectations. It is a research-based strategy for accelerating both language and content learning for multilingual learners. As educators, our goal is for all students to thrive—not only to acquire English, but to achieve academically and feel a sense of belonging.”

The theme of our annual SIOP Virtual Conference (July 8-10) was Energize, Inspire, Lead. As we embark on a new school year, I thought that posting my closing remarks here might provide some inspiration for you as you prepare to begin a new academic year. 

*********

As we bring this remarkable SIOP conference to a close, I invite you to pause and reflect on the journey we have traveled together these past few days. We have shared research, strategies, and yes, even some of our challenges. We have been reminded of the vital role each of you plays in the lives of multilingual learners. Through the wonderful interactions, presentations and networking during the conference, I have been reminded of the vital role each of you plays in the lives of multilingual learners.

It is you who truly give meaning to the words, energize, inspire, lead. In the face of uncertainty, shifting policies, and unprecedented challenges, you remain committed. 

To energize is to bring hope and renewal into your classroom. Every time you greet a child with a smile, celebrate a small victory, or adapt a lesson to meet diverse needs, you are breathing life into your classroom community. You show your students that school is a place where they belong—where their languages, cultures, and dreams matter.

To inspire is to ignite curiosity. You model resilience, not because teaching is easy, but because you know how much your students can achieve. You arouse their curiosity about topics and inspire them not only to learn a new language but to find their voices and to tell their stories, 

To lead is to be dedicated to educating our students even in times of uncertainty. Leadership doesn’t necessarily mean having a loud voice; sometimes it means quietly advocating for a child, mentoring a colleague, or holding firm to your convictions about what multilingual learners deserve.

The work you do is nothing short of heroic. And while the road ahead may have challenges, remember this: you are not walking it alone. We are a SIOP community, bound together by our belief in equity, and in the limitless potential of every student.

Let’s leave here not only with new ideas and strategies, but with renewed energy. 

Thank you for all that you do. Thank you for your passion, your perseverance, and your unwavering commitment to our multilingual learners. See you next year!

A while ago (September 2023), I posted the blog below entitled, How The Reading Wars Affect Teachers. Since that time there have been innumerable blogs, webinars, podcasts, and articles about what continues to be called the science of reading, or SOR. Generally — I thought — most educators have come to understand that teaching foundational skills is essential for students to become proficient readers. In addition to the many empirical studies demonstrating their importance, there have been some impressive results from schools using an evidenced-based approach to reading. The improvement in reading in Mississippi, for example, has received a lot of attention.

That’s why I was surprised, and a bit dismayed, by a recent incident. After my co-presented session on dual language instruction at CABE (California Association for Bilingual Education), an attendee approached me and graciously complimented the presentation and said that it was one of the best she had attended. Then she stunned me by saying that she had attended a “terrible” Featured Session earlier and her take-away was that adults don’t want to learn new information. I asked her if adult learning was the topic and she said no, that that was what she concluded from the session.

As I tried to get clarity about the situation, she said that the main message of the session was that SOR is bad for multilingual learners, SOR is all about phonics and it is a disservice to students to do phonics all day. She added that she thought it was unethical to provide such misinformation and that a few audience members did challenge the speakers. Her impression was that some “influencers” simply don’t want to learn and grow, even when provided evidence.

This woman was quite concerned that so many educators had heard the message. She said that the speakers criticized SOR but offered no alternative. When asked about an alternative, one speaker replied that there needs to be policy changes. According to the attendee, no instructional alternative was provided, only the message that SOR (i.e. phonics) is terrible.

Disclaimer: I did not attend the session myself so I cannot attest to the veracity of this individual’s report. However, she is a bilingual educator, is an advocate for multilingual learners and seemed to be an intelligent, caring educator.

It is concerning that a conference would feature a session that perpetuates misinformation about evidenced-based instruction, if indeed that is what occurred. It appears much work remains to be done in terms of providing educators with an understanding of what SOR really is and what it looks like in classrooms. (Hint: not phonics all day! )

If you are interested in being part of a community that seeks to build consensus, please join our monthly zoom meetings to discuss literacy and multilingual learners. The group is eager to have respectful conversations with speakers representing diverse points of view with the goal of coming to a common understanding of what is best for multilingual kids.

Please register here to receive a zoom link and to access a wealth of resources including articles and recordings of past presentations.

The aforementioned conference experience is a perfect example of how the reading wars affect teachers. It’s unfortunate indeed when educators feel like they need to choose a “side.” Doesn’t it serve everyone better to build consensus?

How The Reading Wars Affect Teachers

The “Reading Wars” have been around for decades – the debate about how best to teach kids to read. If you’re not quite sure what all the current fuss is about, essentially the two sides are: 1) those who say we should focus on foundational reading skills (we’ll call them the Science of Reading or SOR folks) and 2) those who subscribe to the whole language or balanced literacy approach. Unfortunately, some take the “you’re either with us or against us” stance which doesn’t do teachers any favors.Balanced literacy is about understanding the meaning of what you’re reading right from the start. Balanced literacy folks are not opposed to phonics teaching, but sounding out written words is considered only one way to recognize words. Students can also use pictures and other clues to guess at what the word is or what the sentence means. 

On the flip side, the SOR folks emphasize teaching the basics, like phonics and decoding. But they also believe that kids should hear stories read aloud, especially ones they can’t read on their own yet, to get rich language exposure. It’s not all about decoding; it’s about building comprehension and important literacy skills such as fluency, vocabulary, and oral language.

SOR, which might simply be called research on reading, refers to studies conducted and published over several decades in the U.S. and around the world in multiple languages. These studies conclude, among other findings, that phonics is essential for becoming a skilled reader. Even those students with robust vocabularies and background knowledge need to be taught how to read the words on the page. 

Sure, some people on both sides seem to act like they’re worlds apart when it comes to teaching reading. But let’s take a step back, as Jim Cummins reminds us, “There is a huge amount of agreement when we get away from the political dimensions of how to teach reading effectively….Everybody agrees that students need phonemic awareness, they need to have a strong foundational basis in understanding sound symbol relationships, phonics.” (2022).

Amanda Goodwin, who worked with both camps while co-editing a series on literacy for Reading Research Quarterly, summed it up well: “Overall, I’d say that the experts agreed … not to insist that there’s a single, ‘one best’ way to teach reading” (Heller, 2022).

Teachers often get caught between policies, personal preferences, and extreme philosophies. Both sides have their points. Phonics is crucial, no doubt about that. But reading isn’t just cracking the code; it’s also about making sense of what you read. It’s like putting together a jigsaw puzzle. You need both pieces—the code (letters and sounds) and the meaning (what it all adds up to). An excellent resource for teachers – and parents, administrators, and policymakers — called 10 Maxims, illustrates that integration of these processes is the key. The focus of our attention should be on finding common ground as we move forward and continue working on deepening and expanding our knowledge literacy issues. 

Let’s face it, teachers are swamped. Who has time to dive into all that literacy research? In a nutshell, teaching phonics is essential but it shouldn’t be the first and only skill to be taught. It should be part of a language-rich program with read alouds, discussions, vocabulary development and the like. Some specific points for teachers to keep in mind include:

• Decoding is essential but other context clues can help students confirm the meaning of the words students sound out. 
• Although phonics isn’t the only aspect of reading that makes a skilled reader, it is the bedrock of reading and literacy more generally.
• Detailed discussions of segments of text help students develop vocabulary and better understand the full text. 
• Predictions related to a text’s meaning help students engage in and comprehend what they read, particularly when the teacher revisits predictions and confirms or refutes them based on evidence in the text.
• Explicitly teaching key vocabulary prior to reading and pointing out the words when they are encountered in the text help build vocabulary and comprehension. 
• Reading a variety of texts is important: fiction, poetry, nonfiction (e.g., biographies) and informational from social studies and science. 
• The practice of integrating discussion with reading and writing is beneficial for skill building. Talk about the text (predictions), read about it, talk about what was read, write about it (e.g., a summary, a graphic organizer, or an opinion piece), then talk about what was written. 

Multilingual learners also need to learn decoding and foundational skills. Teachers need to provide English oral language instruction so that students understand the words being used to teach foundational skills. Teachers should also provide kids with plenty of chances to use the language with their peers. For example, explicitly teach vocabulary terms or a language form, then have students practice using the language with peers. Since students are learning these new skills and information in a new language, teachers also need to make adjustments to instruction and provide scaffolds to help multilingual learners make sense of what they are reading and hearing. Link here for an excellent discussion of reading and multilingual learners.

In the end, regardless of your personal philosophy or mandate of your school, all kids need both decoding skills and rich language experiences. Explicit skill building activities are essential for becoming fully literate, but alone they won’t achieve the important goal that we all share – to make every student a confident, skilled reader and writer. That’s the real win.

Heller, R. (2022). Taking stock of the science of reading: A conversation with Amanda Goodwin. Phi Delta Kappan, 103(8), 32-36.

On of my pet peeves is – literally – the misuse of the word “literally.”  People often say things like, “My head literally exploded when I heard the news.” No, it didn’t. Or “The cat literally scared me to death when it jumped on the couch.” The speaker was alive to tell the story. 

The title of this post is literally what I will write about: International settings and research on SIOP. It’s interesting to discover the many places in the world where SIOP has been adopted as a teaching approach. 

English is currently the most popular language for people around the world to learn which isn’t surprising given how rapidly our world is becoming interconnected. Globalization and economic growth have transformed the way we work and interact, creating a growing demand for advanced language and literacy skills. 

But what exactly does that mean for learners?

Today’s learners need much more than just basic English proficiency. They require the ability to communicate effectively in various contexts and with diverse audiences. This goes beyond simply speaking and writing. Students must be able to interpret and make meaningful use of written texts for different purposes, whether it’s following instructions, analyzing reports, engaging with colleagues via email, text, and social media, or reading complex literature.

Further, collaboration and creativity have become essential skills in our interconnected world. Students need to learn how to work productively with others, sharing ideas and creating innovative solutions to real-world problems. This means developing critical thinking and problem-solving abilities, as well as cultural awareness and competence to effectively navigate different social and professional contexts.

Here’s where the SIOP Model serves as a resource. SIOP isn’t just a buzzword—it’s a research-validated approach proven to effectively build both academic English and content-area knowledge. SIOP integrates language development with subject matter teaching, making content comprehensible and accessible for multilingual learners. Teachers who use SIOP carefully plan and deliver lessons that not only convey content clearly but also actively support students in developing the language and literacy skills necessary to thrive in our globalized world. 

In international settings, content is taught to non-native speakers of English so that they develop proficiency in English, or English as an additional language. There are many similarities between U.S. and international contexts. In both, students are learning content material through English, but English is not their first language and is likely not spoken in their homes. The differences in the two settings include that fact that in the U.S., English is the medium of instruction for most multilingual learners while students outside the U.S. are educated in their first (or home) language and are learning English as an additional language. Instead of, for example, studying English as a separate subject area, increasingly English is used as the medium of instruction to teach content. This approach has dual benefits: learning subject matter such as science, literature or history while also developing students’ English proficiency. 

At the 2025 International TESOL conference, Dr. Deborah Short and I presented the topic, Applications of International Research on Integrated Language and Content Instruction. We focused on three areas of international SIOP research: Teacher attitude, teacher 
self-efficacy and fidelity of implementation, and student achievement and language development. Here is a summary of selected studies.

International SIOP Research on Teacher Attitude

The following studies were conducted in Saudi Arabia, Spain, Morrocco and Turkey, respectively. We’ll highlight below the study from Turkey.

• Aldakhil, A. & Alfadda, H. (2021). The implementation of Sheltered Instructional Observation Protocol (SIOP) Model in Saudi schools: A study of EFL teachers’ perspectives English language teaching. English Language Teaching Vol. 14, No. 9.
• Bárcena-Toyos, P. (2023). CLIL and SIOP: An Effective Partnership? International Multilingual Research Journal 17 (1), 1–14. 
• Boughoulid, M. (2020). The SIOP Model as an empowering teaching method for English language learners: A study case. European Journal of English Language Teaching, 6 (2), 39-53.
• Inceli, O. (2015). The perceptions of English teachers to the SIOP Model and its impact on limited English proficiency. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 2 (1), 15-28.

 This qualitative study by was conducted by Inceli in Turkey to explore English teachers’ perceptions of the SIOP Model and its impact on university students with limited English proficiency. 

Methodology:

• Participants: 10 experienced teachers (3 male, 7 female) in an English Preparation Program for university LEP students who had not started their majors yet.
• Data Collection: Semi-structured interviews to gather in-depth insights into the teachers’ experiences and perceptions regarding the SIOP Model​.
• Data Analysis: Thematic analysis to identify recurring themes and patterns in the teachers’ responses​.

This approach allowed for a comprehensive understanding of how the SIOP Model influences teaching practices and addresses challenges associated with limited English proficiency.​ Key findings of the study included:

1. Teacher Perceptions: Teachers viewed the SIOP Model positively, recognizing its structured approach as beneficial for enhancing students’ language performance.​
2.  Identified Themes: Three main themes emerged from the interviews:​
   • Interest: Engaging students’ interest was considered critical for effective language learning. Content topics sparked interest.
   • Understandable Content: Providing content that is comprehensible to students was highlighted as essential. Chunking and level appropriate texts help.
   • Supporting Language Production: Encouraging and facilitating students’ active use of the language was considered vital. 
3.  Implementation Challenges: Teachers noted challenges in implementing the SIOP Model, such as time constraints and the need for adequate training.​

The implementation challenges cited by participants in this study are consistent with other studies in the U.S. and internationally. Teachers require sufficient time to learn and implement the features of SIOP for its application to become second nature. Coaching and peer support have also been mentioned as important supports for effective implementation. 

International SIOP Research on Teacher Self-Efficacy and Fidelity of Implementation

The following studies were conducted in South Korea, Egypt, Indonesia, and South Korea, respectively.

• Kang, A. (2005). How to promote comprehension and participation in CBI courses: The SIOP Model. English Teaching, 12, 159-196.
• Koura, A. & Zahan, F. (2017). The impact of the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol Model on student teachers’ teaching skills and self-efficacy. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8 (4), 704-714. 
• Mayuni, I., Leiliyanti, E., Mustikaning Palupi, T., Lusiana Sitorus, M., & Chen, Y. (2022). Designing literacy E-coaching model for English language teachers of junior high schools In Indonesia. TEFLIN Journal, 33 (2), 310-329.
• Song, K. (2016). Applying an SIOP-based instructional framework for professional development in Korea. TESL-EJ, 20 (1). 

The study by Koura & Zahan was quasi-experimental study conducted in an Egyptian teacher training university to examine self-efficacy and teaching performance of EFL teacher candidates.

Methodology:

• Participants: 22 EFL student teachers, divided into two groups: an experimental group that received training using the SIOP Model and a control group that followed the regular teaching curriculum.
• Duration: 12-week training program.
• Data Collection: Pre/post-observations in classrooms using teaching performance observation checklist (SIOP protocol) and pre/post ratings on self-efficacy scales.
• Data Analysis: Statistical tests on observation group mean scores and self-efficacy ratings, comparing the two groups.

Key findings included:

1.  Enhanced Teaching Skills: The experimental group demonstrated significant improvement in teaching performance compared to the control group.​
2.  Increased Self-Efficacy: Participants trained with the SIOP Model reported higher levels of teaching self-efficacy, indicating greater confidence in their instructional abilities.​
3.  Motivation and Creativity: The SIOP Model was found to be motivating for student teachers, providing opportunities for decision-making and creativity in lesson planning and delivery.

Findings from the study suggest that incorporating the SIOP Model into teacher education programs can effectively develop teaching skills and boost self-efficacy among EFL student teachers. 

International SIOP Research on Student Achievement and Language Development

The following studies were conducted in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Northern Macedonia, and Indonesia, respectively. 

• Ali, H., Afzal, H., & Basri, R. (2019). Effect of Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol [SIOP] Model on eighth-grade students’ academic achievement in English. Review of Applied Management and Social Sciences, 4 (4), 909 – 919. 
• Alnusayan, I. S., & Al-Salouli, M.S. (2020). The effectiveness of Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) Model of developing mathematical achievement in preparatory year female students at Al-Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University. Journal of Educational and Psychological Sciences, 4(25), 93-113.
• Bassiri, M. A. (2012). Relative impact of sheltered instruction on academic literacy and language development in Iranian ESP classroom context. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 9, 11, 49-58.
• Ebedy, H.G.M. (2019). Developing reading comprehension skills using Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) among EFL students. Journal of Research in Curriculum, Instruction and Educational Technology, 5 (2), 197-220.
• Kareva, V. & Echevarria, J. (2013). Using the SIOP Model for effective content teaching with second and foreign language learners. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 1 (2), 239-248. 
• Suweken, G., Waluyo, D., & Okassandiari, N. L. (2017). The improvement of students’ conceptual understanding and students’ academic language of mathematics through the implementation of SIOP Model. International Research Journal of Management, IT & Social Sciences, 4 (4), 51-60. 

Ali, Afzal & Basri conducted a quasi-experimental, pre/post design study to measure the impact of SIOP instruction on the English achievement of 8^th grade students in Pakistan.

Methodology:

• Participants: 8^th grade students in two government schools (experimental n=32, control, n=40)
• Intervention: 40 SIOP lessons developed and delivered based on national English curriculum for experimental group; traditional lessons for control group
• Data Collection: Pre/post Grade 8 English Achievement Test
• Data Analysis: Inferential statistical to compare pre-test scores and post-test scores between groups, and pre-post growth within experimental group

The key findings of this study included:

1. There were no significant difference between groups on pre-test scores
2. Statistically significant difference were found between groups on post-test scores
3. Statistically significant difference we found within the experimental group comparing pre-test to post-test scores
4. Teaching English through the SIOP Model significantly improved the academic level of 8^th grade students.

This study recommends that teacher education programs and teacher training institutes include SIOP in their curriculum to enhance teacher knowledge and competency which may lead to improved outcomes for students. 

Summary

Integrated language and content instruction is growing in implementation globally to prepare students to be successful in our interconnected world. According to studies conducted internationally (and in the U.S.), SIOP has been shown to help students access subject-area content while simultaneously developing academic English. There are literally more than 60 published studies on SIOP to date and SIOP research continues to take place around the world.

The studies presented here show that teachers’ self-efficacy in working with multilingual learners increases when they learn and practice using the SIOP Model. Teachers can become high implementers of SIOP with 1) sustained PD and coaching/peer support; 2) more awareness of language demands in content areas; and 3) sufficient time to practice using the model. When teachers implement SIOP with fidelity, student academic achievement and language development improves significantly.