Category: Uncategorized

Now that a new school year is upon us and we are generally able to gather together again safely, it seems timely to repost about family-school partnerships. First posted in August 2020, the pandemic delayed in-person meetings which meant that readers couldn’t begin taking steps to start a similar literacy program. The program featured here has benefits for students, families, and schools. I hope you’ll garner something useful that might be implemented in your school. 

The advantages of parent involvement in their child’s school life are well documented. Students’ academic achievement is positively impacted when their parents are involved in their education. What constitutes “involvement?” A meta-analysis of studies found that the relationship between parent involvement and student achievement was strongest if parental involvement was defined as parents’ expectations for the academic achievement of their children. This means that parents, especially those of multilingual learners, need to know the academic expectations of school in order to support their children in meeting those expectations. 

There are myriad ways to create family-school partnerships with multilingual learner families. A family-school program at a middle school in Texas created a path for parent literacy called, English for All. The program was unique in 3 ways and went beyond the typical adult ESL programs offered to communities as an outreach method. First, a goal of the program was to create a student-centered school, one in which families become an integral part. Secondly, classes were geared to the needs of the parents rather than simply being an English language class. Finally, the program offered an avenue for speaking to parents about their student’s performance in the classroom. 

One of the most significant outcomes of the English for All program was that student achievement improved for those students whose parents were in the program. Based on practice standardized tests, growth in reading, writing, speaking, and listening for participating students exceeded that of students whose parents did not participate in the program. This trend is promising, although the Covid-19 pandemic interrupted standardized testing, making official data unavailable. However, the trend is consistent with research on parent involvement and its positive impact on student achievement. 

How did English for All get started?

In order to recruit participants for the program, a letter was sent home to the families of all mutlilingual students at the school describing the benefits of the program and the nature of the classes. The letter was written in both English and Spanish. Parents were asked to return a form indicating their interest. Once the number of parent participants was known, then the following 5-step process was initiated.

English for All: Five Steps 

1. Identify a team. One team member was an administrator so that the team had someone with authority to open the building, be a liaison to the superintendent and/or site principal, acquire funds as needed and so forth. The superintendent approved funds for teacher pay and for necessary supplies. Teachers on the team volunteered to participate and were paid for their time. In other programs similar to this one, teachers might give their time as a service to the community since finds aren’t always available to support teachers after regular hours. However, it is highly recommended that funds are provided to teachers, especially since most teachers already go the extra mile.

2. Assess the needs of the adult students. There were two aspects to the assessment. At the initial meeting, each parent was given a questionnaire asking about their perception of the school, what they expected to learn in the course, and specific needs they may have. The assessment revealed that, for example, some parents wanted GED preparation while others wanted to learn and practice interview skills. In addition, parents were given an entry quiz to determine their home language and their level of English proficiency. 

3. Devise a plan based on assessment results. All parents were Spanish speakers so the only consideration for planning for class groups was level of English proficiency.  Admittedly, the program couldn’t accommodate each of the requests that parents wrote on the questionnaire, but the course content was centered on what the majority wanted and set out to make it “a great place to learn” for all. 

Teachers were assigned to classes based on their strengths. One teacher had an affinity for newcomer students, so she was assigned to beginning speakers while an English teacher was assigned to the advanced group. Knowing teachers’ strengths and using them appropriately was important for the program’s success. 

It was decided that sessions would take place on Tuesday and Thursday evenings from 5:30 – 7:30. 

The team elected to include students in the program to serve as a support to their parents in the adult classes. Students could also receive tutoring in math, history, and science if they needed extra support in those subjects.

 4. Implement the plan. When parents arrived, they went to their assigned classroom where there was a sign-in sheet. Light refreshments were provided which was appreciated since many parents came straight from work. 

5. Conduct follow-up and feedback. Using feedback to inform the program was a priority and was one of the most important aspects of the five steps. For example, the original 5:30 meeting time didn’t work for some parents, so the time was changed to 6:00. This adjustment based on feedback illustrated its value. If not for the feedback, some parents may have quit coming without the teacher ever knowing why. 

Teachers also were provided feedback by the administrator who observed classes. For instance, he suggested ways to make content and language objectives more student-centered and made suggestions for changing some content. Teachers also shared with their school colleagues about what they did in their evening classes and colleagues provided feedback. Follow up and feedback were done in a spirit of collaboration. Parents appreciated the responsiveness of the team and teachers felt supported by the administrator and fellow teachers. 

Structure of English For All Classes

Classes were designed to give parents a window into their child’s school day, so each class was set up to resemble the usual classroom. Since Aldine ISD uses the SIOP Model for lesson planning and teaching, evening lessons also reflected SIOP’s components. Parents were able to experience a teaching and learning process that was similar to that of their students. 

Teachers posted content and language objectives for the lessons each evening. The team thought it was important for parents to see that lessons were well thought out and were not pulled together on the spur of the moment. Each lesson provided opportunities for parents to speak, listen, read, and write. 

The most important components of SIOP for adult learners in Aldine’s program were Lesson Preparation, Building Background, Comprehensible Input, Strategies, Interaction, and Practice & Application. (Lesson Delivery and Review & Assessment weren’t as critical in this context). Some of the specific SIOP features the teachers utilized included:

• Define clear content and language objectives.
• Plan meaningful activities that incorporate language.
• Provide opportunities to engage in academic conversations. 
• Teach specific academic vocabulary. For example, vocabulary terms were taught before practicing interview skills.
• Plan with all proficiency levels in mind. 
• Use wait time appropriately.
• Clarify concepts as needed.
• Ask higher order questions.
• Provide hands-on activities such as vocabulary cards for beginners and computer programs for the advanced group. 
• Differentiate instruction based on parents’ needs and strengths.
• Use a variety of grouping configurations, allowing parents to move around.

Parents were involved in a variety of activities such as role playing, mock interviews, matching pictures with English words and saying words aloud, and friendly competitions where each table of parents tried to be the first to complete an activity and win a door prize. Also, homework was given, and completed homework assignments were presented in class. 

The teachers created a safe classroom environment where parents felt free to actively participate. Parents were grouped in ways that ensured that each would be successful. They clapped for one another and were very supportive. Parents were from various regions of Latin America and through the activities they learned about other cultures and shared their differences. For example, during the holidays, classes made snow globes to represent their cultures. Each parent, usually along with their child, did a presentation of their snow globe in English. 

There were numerous benefits of the program. The primary purpose of this program was to increase parents’ English proficiency. In the process, it created a bridge between the school and families. Relationships that developed through the program carried over to the school environment. As mentioned, students’ academic performance improved, and there were social-emotional benefits as well. For example, a girl was having difficulty getting along with others in her class. The girl and her parent had been participating in the English for All program and during one of the evening classes, the student’s teacher and the administrator had the opportunity to discuss the issue with her. The student confided that there were a group of girls who did not like her because she was different. The next school day her teacher and the administrator met with the students and had a conversation about the issue and about how they were going to find a solution. The students apologized to the girl, and they then became friends. Subsequently, the girl began flourishing in the classroom and growing academically. 

A special thanks to Dr. Frank Cisneros, Assistant Principal in Aldine ISD, who had the vision to start the English for All program and was the administrator behind its implementation. 

Admittedly, I’ve been somewhat surprised by the pushback expressed on various social media platforms about multilingual learners and what is currently called the science of reading (SOR). First, as I discussed previously, SOR refers to the body of multi-disciplinary research evidence about how individuals learn to read. Many of these empirical studies have been around for decades and have been supported by subsequent research. The term, science of reading, has more recently become popular since an APM podcast went viral prompting the topic to become a prominent discussion in educational circles and in the media. 

It’s possible that the concerns expressed are rooted in past practices where the needs of multilingual learners were not met – or even addressed. Those of us who have been advocates for multilingual learners for decades have worked to raise teacher expectations, provide access to grade-level curricula, promote an asset orientation, and ensure that teachers make content comprehensible for multilingual learners.  

However, some of the comments reflect misconceptions about what SOR is. The most common include:

Phonics. Explicitly teaching sound-symbol correspondence is essential for students to be able to decode words automatically and accurately. But it’s not the whole enchilada. The National Reading Panel Report and the subsequent National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth, as well as the What Works Clearinghouse Practice Guide promote the full complement of literacy skills, including development of oral language, academic vocabulary, and comprehension. 

Perhaps it seems like there is an overemphasis on phonics but that may be because many teachers have not been adequately prepared to teach students how to unlock the code. In our work with multilingual learners, we focus on ways to increase English proficiency, to scaffold instruction and to help students access grade-level text. Teachers may have lots of good ideas for building vocabulary or engaging students in partner talk to develop oral language but teachers themselves report that they typically don’t explicitly teach phonics. In a 2019 Education Week Research Center survey:

86 percent of teachers who train teachers said they teach phonics. But surveyed elementary school teachers often use strategies that contradict a phonics-first approach: Seventy-five percent said they use a technique called three cuing. This method teaches children to guess words they don’t know by using context and picture clues, and has been criticized for getting in the way of learning to decode. More than half of the teachers said they thought students could understand written passages that contained unfamiliar words, even without a good grasp of phonics.

Phonics instruction is only one piece of the complex process of literacy development, but it is critical piece and apparently underemphasized in classrooms. 

A curriculum. There seems to be a perception that SOR is a “thing.” One of my favorite stories in this regard came from a colleague who taught a language and literacy course. Toward the end of the semester a well-meaning student asked, “Do you know of an article that will help me learn what the science of reading is and how to do it?”  The professor took a deep breath and tactfully explained that what they had studied all semester is the science of reading. 

Certainly, reading instruction is most effective when teachers are provided with the necessary guidance and student materials to implement research-based literacy instruction well. The science of reading should be reflected in the materials and resources used, but a curriculum is not SOR, per se. 

“Drill and kill” is a pejorative term referring to decontextualized, repetitive skill practice that takes the fun out of learning. Research confirms that explicit teaching followed by practice is effective for multilingual learners, but practicing a skill seems to have a negative connotation. I’m a tennis player and I continue to take lessons — explicit instruction on a specific skill with lots of practice. I would be a better player if I had more time to practice! Practice builds competence.

Literacy skill practice need not be drudgery. Practice can be made meaningful in a number of ways. For example, by talking about the skill (e.g., decoding short e), reading a text and pointing out words with the sound, asking students to repeat the words, and having students write a sentence with the words and read it to a partner. There is also a vast array of digital resources that offer fun, engaging practice of literacy skills.

One-size-fits-all. This idea is an artifact of the past. Differentiation has become part of the fabric of lesson planning. Teachers have become much more aware that multilingual learners are learning to read in a language they are simultaneously learning to speak and understand so literacy instruction is not the same for every student. 

A “disservice” for multilingual learners. This misconception is unfortunate. In the past several years, I’ve observed in over 200 classrooms and have witnessed firsthand what I would consider a disservice. Too often multilingual learners are languishing as they sit for extended periods of time with a book they cannot read, and they only meet with the teacher for instruction once or twice a week. There has been lots of unproductive, lost instructional time which is a disservice to the very students who can least afford it. 

These many, many students cannot comprehend stories because they cannot decode the words in the story. There is no joy or love of reading unless students are taught to read well. 

Hopefully, with more knowledge and understanding – and with more students learning to read well by using resources that reflect the research — these misconceptions will fade away. After all, we all want the same thing: students who are confident, proficient readers and writers, preferably in more than one language. 

An elaborated podcast on this topic can be found at Leading Literacy https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/leading-literacy/id1566671003?i=1000574657928

When was the last time you were in a situation where colleagues were using an acronym or educational term that everyone seemed to know…except you?  

We use a lot of specific terminology and acronyms in education, and new ones seem to crop up regularly. When it comes to multilingual learners, terms vary by geographic region, and certain terms are preferred over others by some groups or organizations. A version of this topic was posted in 2016 and since its first posting, there have been additional changes which warrant an update. Consider the information here as a resource for those of you who find yourselves perplexed by the wide variety of terms used for students who are not yet fully proficient in academic English and qualify for language support services. (Notice how I had to work hard not to use one of the terms below?!) 

English learners (EL), or English language learners (ELL).  These terms have been commonly used and are straightforward descriptors of students who are learning the English language used in schools. The terms imply that another language is spoken at home and that these students are in the process of becoming English-proficient. 

Multilingual learner (ML). Becoming widely used to acknowledge the home language assets these students possess in addition to acquiring English. For some students, English is their second, third (or more) language making the term more accurate in capturing their linguistic competencies. “Multilingual learner” is used by WIDA, appears in some U.S. Department of Education documents and academic publications. 

Emergent bilingual (EB). Another term for students who are not yet proficient in English but are moving toward becoming fully bilingual. They continue to develop their home language while learning English. The term demonstrates the value of both the home language and English. Emergent bilingual is the official term adopted by, for example, Texas and Illinois. 

Limited English proficient (LEP). No longer used because of its deficit connotation. An artifact of the past, it appears in federal law so it is used for reporting/accountability purposes. 

English for speakers of other languages (ESOL), and English as a second language (ESL). These terms refer to programs but are sometimes applied to students, as in “She is ESOL” or “We have 37 ESL students in fourth grade.”

Second language learner (L2). Used widely internationally and in the literature to indicate a student who is learning the official language used in a country’s schools in addition to the home language.

Dual language learner (DLL). Used specifically for children under the age of five who have at least one parent or guardian who speaks a language other than English at home. These children are developing their native language proficiency while learning English simultaneously. 

Linguistically diverse. A broader term that includes students who are not yet proficient in academic English, and those students who speak a non-standard form of English such as speakers of African American vernacular English (AAVE), Creole or Hawaiian Pidgin English.

English learner student with a disability (ELSWD) or dually identified student. These terms are used for students who have been formally identified as having a disability and have an IEP. Their dual status means that they are entitled to full English learner services including daily English language development (ELD) in addition to special education services.

Long-term English Learners (LTEL). These students have been enrolled in U.S. schools and designated as English learners for six or more years and have not yet met exit criteria. Definitions and exit criteria vary by state and district. Some specify fewer years as EL or differ on criteria needed to exit English learner services. 

Students with interrupted formal education (SIFE) and students with limited or interrupted formal education (SLIFE). These terms are used specifically with Newcomer students who have had interruptions in their educational backgrounds of more than two years or, in the case of SLIFE, may have had limited formal education before enrolling in U.S. schools. The distinction these terms offer is important for providing appropriate programs and services.

Ever-ELL. This term is used typically for research purposes. It is assigned to a student who has been designated as an English learner at some point in his or her school career. The category accounts for students who become English proficient but at some point were English learners. They are distinct from native English-speaking students. 

Never-ELL, English only (EO), or native English speaker. These terms all refer to students whose home language is English and English is the student’s first or native language. Some concern about English Only as a designation is that it connotes monolingualism when that may not be accurate. 

Non-English Language Background (NELB). A school designated term for students in homes in which a language other than or in addition to English is used. That is, any home other than a monolingual English-speaking home. 

Speakers of languages other than English (LOTE) or primary home language other than English (PHLOTE).  These terms describe students who have the asset of one or more languages in their repertoire. Used in dual language programs. 

As you can see, some terms depict the unique needs of subgroups of learners, e.g., LTELs, ELSWD, and SIFE, and are critical for ensuring that schools provide appropriate programs and services for them. However, when referring to other students learning the language of school, it would be helpful to educators, researchers, policy makers, students, and their parents if there were a single agreed-upon term. Uniformity is unlikely though since educational terminology and related acronyms are ever evolving. 

It seems like everywhere you look there are more books, articles, and blogs written about what works with multilingual learners (MLLs), but these resources don’t always reflect research-validated approaches and interventions. Empirical studies provide guidance for achieving desired outcomes that go beyond what intuitively seems like a good idea for teaching students in this population. The following areas of research are of particular importance in informing practice, especially for MLL students. 

1. Academic language. Cummins (1979) introduced the distinction between conversational language and academic language, and others more recently have discussed specific ways that academic language is challenging (Scheppegrell, 2020), particularly for multilingual learners. Academic language is more formal and abstract than conversational language and uses complex sentence structure (e.g., embedded clauses and conjunctions), highly sophisticated, abstract vocabulary (e.g., representational democracy in social studies), and rhetorical forms (e.g., figurative language), and it is encountered almost exclusively in school. 

Research has identified the critical relationship of academic language to reading comprehension, a cognitive and linguistic process needed to acquire and use knowledge in every academic content area. As MLL students become more proficient in English, they become more efficient readers and more similar to their English-speaking peers in their reading ability. Conversely, if EL students don’t become sufficiently proficient in English, they expend more cognitive effort, and their reading remains inefficient which negatively affects achievement and motivation. 

The importance of advancing academic language development is clear. Findings verify that MLLs don’t “pick up” academic language nor will the achievement gap close without explicit instruction in English language development (ELD). A separate ELD time each day focusing on English language instruction is critical but may not be sufficient for expediting English language growth. In every content lesson, teaching key content vocabulary and exploiting teachable academic language-learning opportunities likely will enhance English proficiency. 

2. Student assets. The idea that students come to school as empty vessels in need of filling has been dispelled. Indeed, students begin school with a minimum of 5 years of lived experiences, accumulated knowledge and language development in their home language (L1), and these continue to grow with each subsequent year. This treasure trove should be acknowledged and built upon as students learn academic content in school. 

For multilingual learners, some lived experiences are culturally influenced, such as attending quinceañeras or receiving red envelopes as gifts, and others are common to their age group such as popular social media sites, video games, and sports. Linguistic knowledge in their L1 can be used to bootstrap learning in English. Studies suggest that instructional routines that draw on students’ L1, their knowledge and cultural assets support literacy development in English. Some examples of practices used in studies include previewing and reviewing materials in children’s L1, providing opportunities for students to engage in conversations around text with peers using their L1 when needed, giving definitions for key vocabulary terms in both English and their L1, and introducing key concepts by connecting them to students’ knowledge or experience in the home and community. Teachers who don’t speak the language of their students shouldn’t be apprehensive about using these types of practices. Many technologies assist in translating words and definitions, and peers can be used as supports by grouping students with a common L1 together for discussions, then asking each group to summarize their discussion in English. Further, as teachers practice a dynamic interaction style with students, they will learn about students’ lived experiences which, in turn, can be used to connect lesson content to what students know and have experienced. 

Capitalizing on students’ linguistic and experiential assets by linking them to content, materials, and activities have motivational and engagement benefits, and contributes to MLL students’ sense of belonging and well-being.

3. Reading foundations.  Much has been written recently about the science of reading,

a discussion that spans decades. However, little research specifically addresses multilingual learners and how teaching reading may or may not differ for this population. Goldenberg (2020) conducted a review of research on reading and multilingual learners. He summarizes the findings and draws several conclusions. First, learning to read is similar for multilingual learners and English-speaking students. MLL students must learn the same foundational skills as English-proficient students. As Goldenberg says, “Full-fledged literacy certainly requires more, but there is a reason this group of skills is called foundational: It is required for the literacy edifice under construction. As with any building, if all you have is a foundation, you do not have much. Yet, a solid foundation is still essential” (p.133)

Secondly, along with foundational skills, additional supports are required for MLL students so that instruction in English is made comprehensible to them. They need additional instruction in the vocabulary found in text, especially for beginning speakers who are learning to recognize new words as they are read. Also beneficial is additional repetition and rehearsal as well as opportunities to practice. Specifically, beginning readers need practice in developing oral language, primarily in the form of effective ELD instruction to boost English proficiency.

Lastly, as MLL students advance through the grades, the academic language required to navigate grade-level texts and the disciplinary knowledge students need to comprehend texts becomes increasingly complex and demanding. Oral English language instruction and support needs to match the level of challenge for these students, particularly in language-intensive subjects. 

Future research

Developing English proficiency arguably has the greatest impact on success in school. Understanding and responding to the specific ways that academic language is most efficiently developed might offer ways for teaching ELD most effectively and result in accelerated English acquisition. Current studies show the importance of oral language for MLLs to improve early literacy, but which components of the interventions were most impactful remains unknown. 

Secondly, the effects of different instructional arrangements on multilingual students’ achievement should be explored. Debate continues around issues such as whether pull-out or push-in services are more effective, the optimal amount of time devoted to ELD instruction, and whether to group MLLs together or with English-speaking peers. These are areas of practice that warrant investigation.

(A version of this post appeared in Larry Ferlazzo’s Education Week blog)

Jana Echevarria, Ph.D. is Professor Emerita at CSULB where she was selected as Outstanding Professor. She is co-developer of the SIOP Model of instruction for English learners and co-author of Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners: The SIOP Model and 99 Ideas and Activities for Teaching English Learners among other publications. 

While there are a variety of definitions for social-emotional learning (SEL), essentially SEL is the process of learning and applying skills for recognizing and managing emotions, for developing and maintaining positive relationships, learning to set and achieve goals, making responsible decisions, and accepting responsibility for behavioral outcomes – the competencies individuals need to be successful in life. Addressing the social-emotional needs of students has never been more critical, particularly for multilingual learners who have been disproportionately affected by lost instructional time during the pandemic.

In a survey by Education Week, more than 50% of teachers surveyed cited SEL needs as a challenge to grade-level performance. Sometimes educators mistakenly believe that focusing on SEL competencies adds “one more thing” to their already overburdened schedules. However, SEL skills arguably are more effectively developed during content teaching. A recent report suggests specific practices that integrate social and emotional learning with academic learning rather than treating academic content and SEL as separate subject areas. These practices align with our work that makes content comprehensible for multilingual learners while simultaneously fostering language development. Rigorous academic lessons planned through an SEL lens provide opportunities to enhance students’ social and emotional wellbeing while simultaneously advancing learning.

I suppose it goes without saying that SEL first requires teachers to get to know their students. Learning is enhanced in a classroom environment where students’ linguistic and cultural assets are valued, one that provides a safe community of learning, and encourages students to interact together and build relationships. Further, students are encouraged to take ownership of their learning. When an appropriate learning environment is established, the following specific instructional recommendation may be implemented.

1. Plan intentionally. Incorporating SEL into lessons takes some thought but it is worth the effort since well-planned, focused teaching is effective in promoting learning. First, design and display both content objectives and language objectives for lessons so that learning is transparent and students buy-in to the lesson’s purpose. For example, a language objective may be to practice asking clarifying questions, a skill that helps students take ownership of their learning. The objective is reviewed with students and the importance of asking for clarification inside and outside of school is discussed. Working in pairs, students read their partner’s essay about a significant day in their lives. Partner A ask questions of the author (Partner B) to clarify parts that are unclear or seem to have missing information. This process allows the writer to take ownership of their work and accepting their partner’s feedback offers an opportunity to manage their emotions. Then Partner B listens to Partner A’s essay and provides feedback. The process ensures that their essays are focused and coherent, while at the same time provides practice with collaboration and getting clarification. Setting grade-level objectives, with appropriate scaffolding for success, communicates high expectations to students and engages them in rigorous curriculum. It’s useful to point out to students that setting objectives for a lesson is similar to setting goals for themselves, i.e., what they intend to accomplish in a day, a week, and so forth. 
2. Structure productive group work. The process of working together productively with peers contributes to a caring community of learning. By interacting and working together, mutual respect among students from different cultures and ethnicities develops. Interaction fosters many important SEL competencies such as establishing and maintaining relationships, improving social interaction skills, finding one’s own voice, and respecting others’ perspectives. Sometimes language frames are provided to assist such as, I understand her point but__________ or I respectfully disagree with _________ because __________. Having students talk in pairs or in small groups minimizes the risk that many students feel in whole group discussions and allows ideas to flow more easily. Structured opportunities for discussion also provide important language practice for multilingual learners. Further, during group discussions teachers can circulate and listen in which allows them to get to know their students better – their ideas, perspectives, personal and cultural assets and lived experiences. Positive interactions between teachers and students foster a supportive environment. Studies have shown improvements on practically every measure schools care about: higher student academic engagement, attendance, grades, fewer disruptive behaviors and suspensions, and lower school dropout rates. Feeling connected to school results in positive outcomes. 
3. Create conditions for success. Strong academic skills and content knowledge empower individuals to be more self-assured, to advocate for themselves and others, and to pursue their dreams. Research confirms that well-planned, focused teaching is effective in promoting learning. With multilingual learners, teachers adjust instruction based on language proficiency and educational experience so that each student is successful. All students learn the same grade-level content, but through differentiated texts and tasks. That is, students receive the scaffolds they need to be successful in completing work. Although multilingual learners may not be fully proficient in English, they can still think critically and respond to higher-order questions, such as evaluating and making judgements, comparing/contrasting, and categorizing. Group work is particularly effective when the teacher poses a question or topic for discussion that requires higher-order thinking. Asking simple recall questions conveys low expectations for multilingual students and isn’t intellectually stimulating. Further, there is an emphasis on self-reflection and self-assessment using rubrics, providing opportunities to revise and improve upon their work (see example above), and considering how their learning matched up to the lesson’s content and language objectives. Through the introduction of content and language objectives at the beginning of lessons and reflecting on them at the end, students become aware of their daily, incremental learning — both content and language development – which results in gains over time. 
4. Provide a balance of explicit instruction and practice. Teachers balance direct teaching with opportunities for students to practice new learning, thus deepening their understanding. When students learn the material through clear, explicit instruction, they are better equipped to practice using the language and content independently, with partners or in small groups. Practice and application activities often provide choice in activities that reflect students’ own identities. For example, they may create a presentation, design a game, dramatize the topic, write and perform a song, or generate solutions to real-life problems that represent diverse perspectives. Students have an opportunity to express their knowledge and understanding in a way that is of interest to them. 

The following lesson plan template offers questions to consider in lesson planning, delivery, and reflection. The SIOP Model’s lesson plan ensures that the linguistic and academic needs of multilingual learners are addressed in every lesson. The example here highlights SEL competencies. Other templates can be found here.

SIOP Lesson Plan Template

CONTENT STANDARD: State or District Standard

LESSON TOPIC: Any content area topic including English language development.

OBJECTIVES:

Content – What will students learn or be able to do related to the topic?

Language – What language will students need to advance their English proficiency? Which language forms and/or functions will students encounter in the lessons?

LEARNING STRATEGIES: What higher order questions will you plan to have students ponder? How will you communicate high expectations for your students?

KEY VOCABULARY:  Which terms need to be explicitly taught and practiced so that students can participate successfully in the lesson and complete academic tasks?

MATERIALS: Are the materials culturally relevant to students?

MOTIVATION:

(Building Background)

How will you connect the lesson to students’ lived experiences and background knowledge? What funds of knowledge might be tapped?

PRESENTATION:

(Content and language objectives, comprehensible input, modeling, interaction, feedback)

What aspects of the lesson require explicit instruction for student learning, and which allow for student inquiry, creativity, exploration? 

How will students be grouped for discussion and/or practice?

How will you ensure high levels of student engagement?

PRACTICE & APPLICATION:

(Meaningful activities, interaction, feedback)

What opportunities will students have to practice and apply content information? Which choice of learning experiences will students be offered?

REVIEW & ASSESSMENT:

(Review objectives and vocabulary, assess learning)

Will students conduct self-assessments or self-reflection?