The SIOP Model has been developed and refined through 25+ years of sustained research and development studies. The discussion below highlights the first three major investigations. More details on these research projects can be found in Short, Echevarria, and Richards-Tutor (2011) as well as the articles cited in each description.¹

■ Large-Scale Studies

CREDE Research: Initial Development of the SIOP^® Model, Protocol, and Professional Development Program

The first version of the SIOP began in the early 1990s as an observation tool to determine if observed teachers incorporated key sheltered techniques consis- tently in their lessons.
The protocol evolved into a lesson planning and delivery approach, known as the SIOP Model (Echevarría, Vogt, & Short, 2000), through a seven-year, quasi- experimental research study, The Effects of Sheltered Instruction on the Achieve- ment of Limited English Proficient Students that was sponsored by the Center for Research on Education, Diversity, & Excellence (CREDE) and funded by the S. Department of Education. It began in 1996.

◆ The goals of the research project were to (1) develop an explicit model of sheltered instruction; (2) use that model to train teachers in effective shel- tered strategies; and (3) conduct field experiments and collect data to evalu- ate teacher change and the effects of sheltered instruction on LEP students’ English language development and content knowledge.

◆ This original SIOP study involved collaborating middle school teachers in four large metropolitan school districts—two on the East Coast and two on the West Coast—who worked with researchers to identify key practices for sheltered instruction and develop a professional development model that would enable more teachers to use sheltered instruction effectively in their classrooms. Dr. Jana Echevarría of California State University, Long Beach, CA, and Dr. Deborah Short of the Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington, DC, were co-project investigators.

◆ Together, we reviewed the professional literature on best practices for English learners in the areas of ESL, bilingual education, reading, second language acquisition, discourse studies, special education, and classroom management and found many techniques that showed promise but hadn’t been empirically investigated. We decided to test combinations of these techniques and thus built our initial model.

During four years of field testing, we analyzed teacher implementation and student effects as teachers tried out variations in their classrooms.

◆ In 2000, we finalized the format—30 features of instruction grouped into eight components essential for making content comprehensible for English learners—Lesson Preparation, Building Background, Comprehensible Input, Strategies, Interaction, Practice & Application, Lesson Delivery, and Review & Assessment (Echevarría, Vogt, & Short, 2000). These components empha- size the instructional practices that are critical for second language learners as well as high-quality practices that benefit all students. The eight compo- nents are:

The six features under Lesson Preparation initiate the lesson planning pro- cess, so teachers include content and language objectives, use supplemen- tary materials, create meaningful activities, and more.
Building Background focuses on making connections with students’ back- ground experiences and prior learning, and developing their academic vocabulary.
Comprehensible Input considers how teachers should adjust their speech, model academic tasks, and use multimodal techniques to enhance comprehension.
The Strategies component emphasizes teaching learning strategies to stu- dents, scaffolding instruction, and promoting higher-order thinking skills.
Interaction prompts teachers to encourage students to elaborate their speech and to group students appropriately for language and content development.
Practice & Application provides activities to practice and extend language and content learning.
Lesson Delivery ensures that teachers present a lesson that meets the planned objectives and promotes student engagement.
The Review & Assessment component reminds teachers to review the key language and content concepts, assess student learning, and provide spe- cific academic feedback to students on their output.

◆ We created a 5-point scale for each feature on the observation protocol so we could measure the level of implementation in any lesson (4—closest to rec- ommended practice, 0—no evidence of the use of the practice). A separate study confirmed the SIOP protocol as a valid and highly reliable measure of sheltered instruction (Guarino et al., 2001). Experienced observers of class- room instruction (e.g., teacher education faculty who supervise student teach- ers) who were not specifically trained in the SIOP Model were able to use the protocol to distinguish between high and low implementers of the model.

A statistical analysis revealed an inter-rater correlation of 0.90 or higher.

◆ Most of the English learners in the research districts were exempted from the standardized testing process because this CREDE study predated the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which mandated assessments. Therefore, to investigate whether the model yielded positive results in terms of student performance, we used pre- and post-measures of the Illinois Measurement of Annual Growth in English (IMAGE) writing test as an outcome measure of academic literacy. The IMAGE was the standardized assessment of reading and writing used by the state of Illinois to measure annual growth of these skills in their English learners in Grades 3–12. It was correlated to and a pre- dictor of scores on the IGAP (the state standardized test of achievement) that was given to all students in Illinois, except those exempted for linguistic devel- opment reasons or learning disabilities. The IMAGE Writing Test provided separate scores for five features of writing: Language Production, Focus, Sup- port/Elaboration, Organization, and Mechanics, as well as an overall score.

◆ Two distinct, but similar, cohorts of English learners in sheltered classes par- ticipated: students whose teachers were trained in implementing the SIOP Model (the treatment group), and students whose teachers had no exposure to the SIOP Model (the comparison group). The students in both groups were in Grades 6–8 in the same districts and represented mixed proficiency levels. We found that students who participated in classes taught by teachers trained in the SIOP Model improved their writing skills significantly more than students in classes with non–SIOP-trained teachers. They also made greater gains from the fall to spring administrations of the test. These findings were statistically significant (Echevarría, Short, & Powers, 2006).

◆ We found that this model can be applied in ESL classes as well as all content area classes because it offers a framework for instruction that incorporates best practices for teaching both language and content.

◆ From 1999 to 2002, we field-tested and refined the SIOP Model’s professional development program that incorporates key features of effective teacher development as recommended then by Darling-Hammond (1998) and still recommended (Darling-Hammond, Hyler, & Gardner, 2017). The program includes professional development institutes and online courses, videotapes of exemplary SIOP teachers, facilitator’s guides, and other training materials. See www.siop.savvas.com for more information.

¹Please note that in discussing the research in this appendix we refer to terms that were used during the studies, such as limited English proficient and English learner, to adhere to the published reports.

NJ SIOP^® Research: Improvement in English Language Proficiency

From 2004–2007 we replicated and scaled up the SIOP research in a quasi- experimental study. Academic Literacy through Sheltered Instruction for Second- ary English Language Learners was conducted by researchers at the Center for Applied Linguistics in two districts in New Jersey and funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Rockefeller Foundation from 2004–2007. The treatment and comparison districts each had one high school and two middle schools with ESL programs and had multilingual student populations.

◆ In the treatment site, math, science, social studies, language arts, ESL, and technology teachers participated in ongoing SIOP Model training: approxi- mately 35 teachers for two years (Cohort 1) and an additional 25 for one year (Cohort 2). The professional development program included summer insti- tutes, follow-up workshops, and on-site coaching. The teachers in the compar- ison site did not receive any SIOP Model training.

◆ We collected teacher implementation data (two classroom observations each year, one in the fall, the other in the spring) using the SIOP protocol at both sites. We found that 56% of the treatment teachers in Cohort 1 became high implementers of the SIOP Model after one year and 71% were high imple- menters after two. Seventy-four percent of the Cohort 2 teachers who joined the Cohort 1 teachers at their schools reached the high implementation level in just one year. At the comparison site, fewer teachers implemented the SIOP features to a high level: 5% of the teachers in the first year; 17% by the second year (Short, Fidelman, & Louguit, 2012).

◆ We also collected student data from the state English language proficiency assessment at that time, the IPT (Idea Proficiency Tests), for all English learners in Grades 6–12 in both districts. Students with SIOP-trained teach- ers made statistically significant gains in their average mean scores for oral language, writing, and total proficiency on the state assessment of English language proficiency, compared to the comparison group of English learners (Short, Fidelman, & Louguit, 2012).

CREATE Research: Fidelity Matters and All Students Benefit—English Learners and English Speakers Alike

From 2005–2011, researchers from California State University, Long Beach, and the Center for Applied Linguistics participated in the program of studies at the National Center for Research on the Educational Achievement and Teaching of English Language Learners (CREATE), funded by the U.S. Department of Education. The study, The Impact of the SIOP^®Model on Middle School Science and Language Learning, first examined the SIOP Model in middle school science classrooms (Himmel, Short, Richards, & Echevarría, 2009) and later applied the SIOP Model as the professional development framework for a school-wide intervention (Echevarría & Short, 2011). In this set of studies, we used an exper- imental design and English learners, former English learners, and native English speakers were part of the treatment and control student populations.

◆ A pilot study was conducted to develop SIOP science curriculum units, where local standards and curricula were enhanced with SIOP features, and to design and field-test science language assessments that would measure student scientific vocabulary, reading comprehension, and writing skills.

◆ In 2006–2007, an experimental study was conducted in eight middle schools for one semester. Five received the treatment, which was SIOP professional devel- opment, classroom-based coaching, and four SIOP science units developed by researchers and teacher consultants. Three schools were control sites where teachers taught in their regular fashion with their own lessons. Treatment and control teachers were observed and their lessons were rated using the SIOP protocol.

◆ Results showed that students in the treatment classes outperformed control students (Echevarría, Richards-Tutor, Canges, & Francis, 2011) and the higher the level of SIOP implementation, the better the students performed on assess- ments (Echevarría, Richards-Tutor, Chinn, & Ratleff, 2011). This result held true for English learners, former English learners, and native English speakers.

◆ During the 2009–2010 school year, another experimental study took place. A two-year intervention focused schoolwide on Grade 7 and the SIOP Model was the overarching professional development framework (Echevarría & Short, 2011). Other content-specific curriculum interventions tested through earlier years of the CREATE program were implemented as well. Eight schools were randomly assigned to treatment or control. The four treatment schools had SIOP professional development and classroom-based coaching for SIOP implementation, and where applicable, for the content-specific curriculum intervention. The teachers in the four control schools delivered regular instruction without curriculum units or SIOP training. Their instruction was observed for research purposes, but they did not receive feedback.

◆ In the 2010–2011 school year, teachers in three of the prior year’s control schools became treatment teachers and received the SIOP professional development and curriculum interventions as well. A new treatment school joined the study that year, bringing the number of schools to four.

◆ Researchers collected data in the treatment and control sites during both years. Teacher implementation levels were measured with the SIOP protocol and other tools. Student performance was measured with standardized tests and curriculum-based assessments. Analyses showed that this school-wide intervention improved outcomes in content knowledge and academic English for both English learners and native English speakers in the treatment classes. Specifically, students in SIOP curriculum groups outperformed control stu- dents to a significant degree on criterion-referenced vocabulary, science, and social studies measures (Short & Himmel, 2013).

Focused SIOP Studies

Since the initial SIOP Model studies were published in the early 2000s, other researchers have investigated the SIOP Model in a number of ways, ranging from experimental research designs to case studies. At the time of this writing we know of more than 50 studies and dissertations that have been published.^[1] Furthermore, in recent years, more and more researchers have looked at the SIOP Model in a non-US context, such as English as a foreign language (EFL), English as a medium of instruction (EMI), and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classes, in primary, secondary, and university settings.

SIOP Model and the Impact on Student Achievement

A number of studies examined the effectiveness of the SIOP Model in terms of student outcomes. These studies sought to discover whether students taught using the SIOP Model would experience greater growth in English proficiency or higher achievement on standardized test scores than students who were not taught using SIOP. Most found that the SIOP Model had a positive effect on the achievement of English learners. Several mentioned that fidelity to the model was important to improve student performance. (See, for example, Alnusayan & Al-Salouli, 2020; Ebedy, 2019; Friend, Most, & McCrary, 2009; Guzman, 2015; Hayden, 2019; Ingram, 2018; McIntyre et al., 2010; Merritt et. al., 2016; Rivera, 2019; Vidot, 2011; Watkins & Lindahl, 2010; Whittier & Robinson, 2007; and Wong, Meadows, & Ober, 2021).

SIOP Model Professional Development and Classroom Instruction

Other researchers have used the SIOP Model as a basis for professional development (PD). They have found SIOP to be effective in promoting teacher learning. Many of these studies used the SIOP protocol to measure transfer and implementation of the SIOP instructional practices. Some also explored changes in teachers’ attitudes and expectations of their multilingual students, or increases in teacher knowledge about language instruction, or the ability to embed linguistically and culturally responsive practices in lessons. One consistent recommendation is to give teachers time and sup- port to implement the SIOP well. Several studies made suggestions for modifying the PD to suit specific programmatic needs, such as by adding a coaching component.

(See, for example, Aldakhil & Alfadda, 2021; Bárcena-Toyos, 2022; Batt, 2010; Chen,Kyle, & McIntyre, 2008; Coppersmith, Slapac, & Song, 2019; Daniel & Pray, 2017; Gonzalez, 2016; Gruver & Bowers, 2020; Hanson-Thomas, Langman, & Farias, 2018;Honigsfeld & Cohan, 2008; Kim, Song, & Coppersmith, 2018; Koura & Zahan, 2017; O’Neal, Ringler, & Lys, 2009; Piazza et al., 2020; Shi, Zaier, & Maina, 2019; Short, Cloud, Morris, & Motta, 2012; Song, 2016a, 2016b; Song & Samimy, 2015; Üzüm, Petrón, & Berg, 2014; Welsh & Newman, 2010; and Ye He & Faircloth, 2018).

SIOP and Program Evaluation

School districts have conducted a number of program evaluations on their implemen- tation of the SIOP Model that can be reviewed in Implementing the SIOP^®Model Through Effective Professional Development and Coaching (Echevarría, Short, & Vogt, 2008). Some other studies that evaluated school or district programs that have imple- mented the SIOP Model include Calderon & Zamora (2014), Chandler (2020), and Li et al. (2016).

■ Conclusion: SIOP^® Research to Date

By looking at these research studies as a whole, we see that SIOP instruction is making a positive learning difference for multilingual learners and other students who are in the classrooms. Teachers can learn to implement the model to a high degree with ongoing PD and support. No one is disadvantaged by SIOP instruction; rather, the focus on academic literacy and scaffolded instruction helps all students learn academic English and grade-level, content curricula better.

■ SIOP Research Studies

Al-Aloom, L.B. (2019). Effective sheltered instruction observation protocol (SIOP) model strategies among Arab ELLs. Capella University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 27544311.

Aldakhil, A., & Alfadda, H. (2021). The implementation of Sheltered Instructional Observation Protocol (SIOP) Model in Saudi schools: A study of EFL teacher

Al Fadda, H. A. (2020). Implementation of the Sheltered Instructional Observation Protocol (SIOP) Model in the Saudi classroom: EFL teachers’ perspectives. Arab World English Journal, 11(2) 339–360. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/ vol11no2.24

Alfaro, Y. (2020). The effect of elementary teachers trained in the SIOP Model on the achievement of English language learners in the English reading domain. University of St. Francis, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 28149422.

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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26389/AJSRP.E180220

Bárcena-Toyos, P. (2022). CLIL and SIOP: An effective partnership? International Multilingual Research Journal.

Batt, E. (2010). Cognitive coaching: A critical phase in professional development to implement sheltered instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education 26, 997–1005.

Bertram, R. L. (2011). Sheltered instruction: A case study of three high school English teachers’ experiences with the SIOP Model (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3486471)

Bose, D. (2012). Effects of just-in-time online training on knowledge and application of the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) model among in-service teachers. Available from Idaho State University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 3536205.

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.

Calderon, C. T., & Zamora, E. (2014). Factors affecting the implementation of sheltered instruction observation protocols for English language learners. National Forum of Educational Administration & Supervision Journal, 31(3), 20–32.

Chandler, P. T. (2020). Implementing the SIOP Model to support English language learners. All Theses And Dissertations. 315. https://dune.une.edu/theses/315

Chen, C-T, Kyle, D., & McIntyre, E. (2008). Helping teachers work effectively with English language learners and their families. The School Community Journal, 18(1), 7–20.

Chen, G., Ling, W., Li, L., & Shi, Y. (2020). A research of digital integrated circuit design curriculum’s bilingual education based on methodology of SIOP. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 412, 484–488.

Choi, W., Kim, W.H., Wright, W., & Morita-Mullaney, T. (2022). Improving English language arts instruction in Indiana dual language bilingual education classrooms. Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2022.2032731

Daniel, S., & Pray, L. (2017). Learning to teach English language learners: A study of elementary school teachers’ sense-making in an ELL endorsement program. TESOL Quarterly, 51(4), 787– 819.

de Jager, T. (2019). Are principles of the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol Model promoting ESL teaching and learning? The International Journal of Pedagogy and Curriculum, 26(1), 43–58. DOI:10.18848/2327-7963/CGP/v26i01/43-58

Dodici, A. (2011). The relationship between teachers’ multicultural attitudes and their instructional practice with English language learners: A mixed method study. (Doctoral dissertation). DOI 10.15760/etd.141

Ebedy, H.G. (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.

Echevarria, J., Richards-Tutor, C., Canges, R., & Francis, D. (2011). Using the SIOP Model to promote the acquisition of language and science concepts with English learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(3), 334–351.

Echevarria, J., Richards-Tutor, C., Chinn, V., & Ratleff, P. (2011). Did they get it?The role of fidelity in teaching English learners. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 54(6), 425–434.

Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: An instructional model for English language learners. Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 195–210.

Eggington, K., Eggington, W., & Zeichner, K. (2010). Teacher research used to evaluate sheltered instruction in a science classroom setting. Electronic Journal of Literacy Through Science, 9.

Friend, J., Most, R., & McCrary, K. (2009). The impact of a professional development program to improve urban middle-level English language learner achievement. Middle Grades Research Journal, 4(1), 53–75.

González, M. (2016). Preparing teacher candidates for the instruction of English language learners. Networks, 18(2). DOI: 10.4148/2470-6353.1005

Gruver, J., & Bowers, J. (2020). Evolution of inquiry questions in a cyclic professional development program. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 20(3), 3–18.

Guarino, A.J., Echevarria, J., Short, D., Schick, J.E., Forbes, S., & Rueda, R. (2001). The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol. Journal of Research in Education, 11(1), 138–140.

Guzman, R. (2015). A study of the impact of English language learners: Literacy development through the SIOP Model. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 3701484.

Hayden, R. (2019). English proficiency in classes using Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) compared to classes not using SIOP. Capella University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 22616011.

Hanson-Thomas, H., Langman, J., & Farias, T. (2018). The role of language objectives: Strengthening math and science teachers’ language awareness with emergent bilinguals in secondary classrooms. LACLIL, 11(2), 193–214. doi: 10.5294/laclil.2018.11.2.2

Himmel, J., Short, D.J., Richards, C., & Echevarria, J. (2009). Using the SIOP Model to improve middle school science instruction. Washington, DC: Center for Research on the Educational Achievement and Teaching of English Language Learners. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/create/publications/briefs/using-the- siop-model-to-improve-middle-school-science-instruction.html

Honigsfeld, A., & Cohan, A. (2008). The power of two: Lesson study and SIOP help teachers instruct ELLs. Journal of Staff Development, 29(1), 24–28.

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.

Ingram, S. (2018). An analysis of the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol Model on academic performance of English language learners. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 0355555247.

Li, J., Steele, J., Slater, R., Bacon, M., & Miller, T. (2016). Teaching practices and language use in two-way dual language immersion programs in a large public school district. International Multilingual Research Journal, 10(1). 31–43. DOI: 10.1080/19313152.2016.1118669

Kang, A. (2005). How to promote comprehension and participation in CBI courses: The SIOP Model. English Teaching, 12, 159–196.

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.

Kim, S., Song, K., & Coppersmith, S. (2018). Creating an interactive virtual community of linguistically and culturally responsive content teacher-learners to serve English learners. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 18(2), 442–466.

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. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/ jltr.0804.09

Merritt, E.G., Palacios, N., Banse, H., Rimm-Kaufman, S.E., & Leis, M. (2016). Teaching practices in Grade 5 mathematics classrooms with high-achieving English learner students. The Journal of Educational Research. DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2015.1034352

McIntyre, E., Kyle, D., Chen, C., Muñoz, M., & Beldon, S. (2010). Teacher learning and ELL reading achievement in sheltered instruction classrooms: Linking professional development to student development, Literacy Research and Instruction, 49(4), 334–351.

Nakagawa, H. (2017). The Teacher Perception and Receptiveness of Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) Model within a Japanese University Context. Northcentral University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 10608145.

O’Neal, D., Ringler, M.C., & Lys, D.B. (2009). Skeptics to partners: University teams with district to improve ELL instruction. Journal of Staff Development, 30(4), 52–55.

Owen, S. (2018). The effect of emphasizing key vocabulary on Student achievement with English learners. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https:// scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/5021

Piazza, S., Williams, C., Protacio, M.S., David, V., Tigchelaar, M., & Kuo, H-C. (2020). Improving instruction for English learners: A professional development study using SIOP. Journal of Teacher Education and Educators, 9(3), 283–405.

Polat, N., & Cepik, S. (2015). An exploratory factor analysis of the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol as an evaluation tool to measure teacher effectiveness. TESOL Quarterly, 50(4), 817–843. DOI 10.1002/tesq.248

Portillo, C. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions on the use of Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol as a districtwide professional development reform. (Doctoral Dissertation) Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3723058)

Reyes, J., & Gentry, J. (2019). Pre-service administrators’ experiences with effective researchbased learning strategies for English language learners. In K. Young, C. Brown & S. Harris (Eds.). Educational Research Review, 20, 23–38.

Rivera, E. (2019). The impact of the sheltered instruction observation (SIOP) on the achievement of English language learners (Order No. 27736339). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection. (2377940533).

Rodriguez Moux, S. (2010). Teacher’s perceptions of sheltered instruction observation protocol for teaching young English language learners: A qualitative case study. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 3398868.

Shi, Y., Zaier, A., & Maina, F. (2019). Preservice teacher perspectives and practices working with multilingual learners. Paper presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/ 1434337

Short, D., Cloud, N., Morris, P., & Motta, J. (2012). Cross-district collaboration: Curriculum and professional development. TESOL Journal, 3(3), 402–424.

Short, D., Echevarria, J., & Richards-Tutor, C. (2011). Research on academic literacy development in sheltered instruction classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 363– 380.

Short, D., Fidelman, C., & Louguit, M. (2012). Developing academic language in English language learners through sheltered instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 333–360.

Short, D., & Himmel, J. (2013). Moving research on sheltered instruction into curriculum and professional development practice. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, April 2013.

Song, K. (2016, February). Systematic professional development training and its impact on teachers’ attitudes toward ELLs: SIOP and guided coaching. TESOL Journal. Retrieved fromhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tesj.240/full doi: 10.1002/tesj.240

Song, K. (2016). Applying an SIOP-based instructional framework for professional development in Korea. TESL-EJ, 20(1).

Song, S. Y. & Samimy, K. (2015). The beliefs of secondary content teachers of English language learners regarding language learning and teaching. International Journal of TESOL and Learning, 4(1), 3–19.

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. DOI: 10.21744/irjmis. v4i4.519

Torres, N. (2006). Administrative support for English language learners: How the SIOP Model empowers teachers, administrators, and English language learners. (Doctoral Dissertation) Available from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (No. 3231250).

Üzüm, B., & Petrón, M. (2018). Glocal experiences in your own backyard: Teacher candidates developing understanding of equity, diversity, and social justice. In A. F. Selvi and N. Rudolph (Eds.), Conceptual shifts and contextualized practices in education for glocal interaction, intercultural communication and language education. Singapore: Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-98110-6421-0_6

Üzüm, B., Petrón, M., & Berg, H. (2014). Pre-service teachers’ first foray into the ESL classroom: Reflective practice in a service learning project. TESL-EJ, 18(3), 1–15.

Vidot, J. L. (2011). The efficacy of sheltered instruction observation protocol (SIOP) in mathematics instruction on English language learners. (Doctoral dissertation) Available from http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/943/

Watkins, N. M., & Lindahl, K. M. (2010). Targeting content area literacy instruction to meet the needs of adolescent English language learners. Middle School Journal, 41(3), 23–32.

Welsh, L., & Newman, K. (2010). Becoming a content-ESL teacher: A dialogic journey of a science teacher and teacher educator. Theory Into Practice, 49, 137–144.

Whittier, L. E., & Robinson, M. (2007). Teaching evolution to non-English proficient students by using Lego Robotics. American Secondary Education, 35(3), 19–28.

Wong, C.Y., Meadows, B., & Ober, G. (2020). Using the SIOP instruction model for narrative writing: A case study of a teacher’s experience of using the model in a high school setting. TESL Reporter 53(1–2), 37–58.

Ye He, W.J. & Faircloth, J. (2018). Preparing teachers for English learners: Integrating academic language and community service projects, The Social Studies, 109(1), 13–26, DOI:10.1080/00377996.2017.1403874

Zito-Nash, J. (2017). Impact of Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) Strategies on reading achievement of English language learners in the primary grades. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 0355139677.

■ Research Application Of SIOP

Balconi, A., & Spitzman, E. Content area teachers’ challenges writing language objectives: A document analysis. TESOL J. 2020; 00:e530. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/tesj.530

Colburn, A., & Echevarria, J. (1999). Meaningful lessons. The Science Teacher, 66(2) 36–39.

Coppersmith, S., Slapac, A., & Song, K. (2019). Infusing linguistically and culturally responsive practices for English learners in social studies methods. Social Studies Education Review, 8(1) 45– 66.

Dumas-Landisi, M. & Honigsfeld, A. (2010). ELL instruction that works for all. Educator’s Voice, 3, 74– 81.

Echevarria, J. (2006). Helping English language learners succeed. Principal Leadership, 6(5), 16–21. National Association for Secondary School Principals.

Echevarría, J., & Colburn, A. (2006). Designing lessons: Inquiry approach to science using the SIOP^®Model. In A. Fathman & D. Crowther, (Eds.), Science for English language learners (pp. 95–108). National Science Teachers Association Press.

Echevarria, J., Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2015). What it takes for English learners to succeed. Educational Leadership, 72(6), 22–26.

Echevarria, J., Powers, K., & Elliott, J. (2004). Promising practices for curbing disproportionate representation of minority students in special education. Issues in Teacher Education, 13(1), 19–34.

Echevarria, J., & Short, D. (2010). Programs and practices for effective sheltered content instruction. In California Department of Education (Ed.), Improving education for English learners: Research-based approaches (pp. 251–303). Dept. of Education.

Echevarria, J., & Short, D. (2004). Using multiple perspectives in observations of diverse classrooms: The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol. In H. Waxman, R. Tharp, & R. Hilberg (Eds.), Observational Research in U.S. Classrooms (pp. 21–47). Cambridge Univ. Press.

Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2008). Making content comprehensible for non-native speakers of English: The SIOP Model. The International Journal of Learning, Volume 14, Issue 11, pp. 41–50. Article: Print (Spiral Bound). Article: Electronic (PDF File; 639.531KB).

Echevarria, J., & Vogt, M. (2010). Using the SIOP Model to improve literacy for English learners. New England Reading Association Journal (NERAJ), 46(1) 8–15.

Hansen-Thomas, H. (2008). Sheltered Instruction: Best practices for ELLs in the mainstream, Kappa Delta Pi Record, 44(4), 165–169. DOI: 10.1080/00228958.2008.10516517

Lomashvili, L. (2022). How to incorporate language form, function, and structure in the SIOP Model lessons. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 9(2), 8–18.

Murillo, R., & Alejandro, H. (2013). Adapting features from the SIOP component: Lesson delivery to English lessons in a Colombian public school. Profile Issues in Teachers Professional Development, 15(1), 171–193.

Nora, J., & Echevarria, J. (2016). No more low expectations for ELLs (N. Duke & E. Keene, Eds.), Not This But That series. Heinemann.

Prabjandee, D. (2016). Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP): Overview, misconceptions, and considerations for implementation. Journal of Education, 27(3), 1–17.

Qabaja, Z.M.M., Nafi, J.S., & Abu-Nimah, M.I. (2016). The effect of using the “SQP2RS via WTL” strategy through science context to 10th graders’ reading comprehension in English in Palestine. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(26), 137–151.

Shanahan, T., & Echevarria, J. (2019). Policies the support improving the literacy levels of English learners. State Education Standard. National Association of State Boards of Education.

Short, D. (2017). How to integrate language and content learning effectively for English language learners. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(7b), 4237– 4260. DOI: 10.12973/eurasia.2017. 00806a

Short, D. (2000). What principals should know about sheltered instruction for English language learners. NASSP Bulletin, 84(619), 17–27. DOI:10.1177/019263650008461902

Short, D. (2013). Training and sustaining effective teachers of sheltered instruction. Theory Into Practice, 52(2), 118–127.

Short, D., & Echevarria, J. (December 2004/January 2005). Promoting academic literacy for English language learners. Educational Leadership, 62(4) 8–13.

Short, D., & Echevarria, J. (1999). The sheltered observation protocol: A tool for researcherteacher collaboration and professional development. (Educational Practice Report No. 3). Center for Research on Education, Diversity, & Excellence.

Vogt, M.E. (2012). English learners: Developing their literate lives. In R.M. Bean & A.S. Dagen (Eds.), Best practice of literacy leaders: Keys to school improvement (pp. 248–260). The Guilford Press.

Vogt, M.E. (In press). Reaching linguistically diverse students through exemplary language, literacy, and content teaching. In S. B. Wepner, D. S. Strickland, & Quatroche (Eds.), The administration and supervision of reading programs, 6th ed. Teachers College Press.

Vogt, M.E. (2020). Academic Language and literacy development for English learners. In R.M. Bean, & A.S. Dagen (Eds.), Best practice of literacy leaders: Keys to school improvement (2^nded.). The Guilford Press.

Vogt, M., & Echevarria J. (2015). Reaching English learners: Aligning the ELA/ELD framework with SIOP. The California Reader, 49(1), 33.

[1] We appreciate the assistance of Susan Hurt in identifying and reviewing some of these studies.