In this study, the school district’s needed professional development in content-based instructional practices (CBI). Specifically, two schools had experienced rapid growth of ELL students and mainstream teachers were in need of modifying their instruction to facilitate learning of their content to their changing student demographic population. The researchers selected the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) Model as the CBI. SIOP is a research based model of instruction whose goal is to integrate the teaching of language while simultaneously teaching content standards. The primary focus of this model is the acquisition of the specialized academic language proficiency which will enable the students to achieve the course standards while acquiring English (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2008; Short & Echevarria, 2004). Although this model was originally designed to meet the needs of a growing population of English Language learners, it has been used successfully for all students. As No Child Left Behind (NCLB) creates an increased need for student achievement, other instructional strategies must be investigated. Many students come to school from homes of low socioeconomic status, have environments which are not rich in both standard and academic English and speak a marginalized dialect of English. Marzano (2004) asserts that this has profound effect on academic achievement and that these students will benefit greatly from a program of instruction that highlights the importance of academic language proficiency.

The SIOP Model is a model of sheltered instruction. This concept of sheltered instruction is easily understood if one thinks of language instruction not just as learning how to speak a second language, but learning specific content in a second language. For example, ESL programs had historically had texts that approached language learning from the perspective of learning grammar and basic functional words. There was no serious focused content to the lessons as was the case with our foreign language education programs where language was often “taught in a vacuum”. In ESL classrooms, most students were learning survival English which addressed only basic life skills. As time progressed, the field of English for Special Purposes and Academic Purposes evolved. These fields built on the findings and approaches from the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994). The classes were teaching English, but the texts, the vocabulary and the tasks the students were performing were related to a specific content area such as nursing, engineering, business or academic college preparation.

The K-12 sector has been slow to adopt an integrated approach to language instruction. The SIOP Model has done just that-it has taken the standard course of study that our students are required to learn and has made it the basis for language instruction. No longer is language being taught in a vacuum, but it is being taught using the language on which the students will be tested and the language with which the students need to become fluent for academic success.

Like many districts in rural, eastern North Carolina, the population of Latino students has increased rapidly during the past decade and now comprises 22% of the total student population in the district (NCDPI, 2007). Achievement scores for Latino ELLs in the district lag behind other student groups and the cohort graduation rate for Latino students is 51% as compared to 68% for the district (NCDPI). To improve ELL achievement and cohort graduation rates the district sought support from faculty in the College of Education to provide professional development focused specifically on reaching the needs of Latino ELLs and their teachers. The teachers in the district were accomplished, nearly a third hold advanced degrees, but meeting the need of this particular group of students required additional support from their university partners.

Faculty in the College of Education are often called upon to provide in-service training for teachers, but this model of professional development benefitted from the collaboration of many key stakeholders, including district level administrators willing to fund the program, school level administrators committed to supporting teachers as they implemented the SIOP model, teachers willing to take a chance on something new, and university faculty committed to providing sustained support and mentoring throughout the project. Through the combined support from the school, district, and university levels, the teachers were able to implement the SIOP model in their classes for the benefit of all their students and to sow the seeds of leadership development in their own profession.

Guskey’s (1986) framework for professional development proposes that teacher attitudes and beliefs toward a new strategy will only change once they are found to positively impact student learning. Strategies found to be ineffective are not adopted into the teacher’s practice. The professional development workshop offered in this study was followed by monthly meetings and classroom observations to assess implementation and offer support for teachers. Once implemented, teachers found that the new strategies yielded a positive impact on student achievement. More recently, Guskey (2000) outlined a five level framework for evaluating professional development: (1) participants’ reactions; (2) participants’ learning; (3) organization support and change; (4) participants’ use of new knowledge and skills; (5) student learning outcomes. Each successive level leads professional development planners and participants closer to the ultimate goal of impacting student learning. Each level also allows the evaluators to collect different pieces of evidence to support the value of the activity to the teacher participant, school community, and student.

The results from this study indicated that the initial SIOP workshop, conducted over multiple days, presented a clear and comprehensive picture of the SIOP model of instruction to both the control group and the experimental group. This initial presentation resulted in 100% of the teachers and principals indicating their intent to implement the model at their schools and in their classrooms. A list of teachers needs was generated to ensure implementation. Items included in the list were: time for planning; materials and supplies; ongoing feedback; clarification of expectation from principals in terms of lesson plans and requirements for evaluation.

Note: At this time the paper will skip level 3 to follow the teacher implementation path with a description of level 4 – participants’ use of the new knowledge. Level 3 will be discussed immediately after the implementation to describe how organizational support aided with implementation.

In order to evaluate the level of use of the SIOP in the classroom this study triangulated three sources of data, teachers’ self-assessment of use, researchers’ classroom observations, and principals’ observations. Initial self assessments on the SIOP were collected prior to the initial training and again at the end of the ten months of professional development. Both groups of SIOP workshop participants, those who received the follow-up support (experimental group) and those who only received the initial summer training (control group). Teachers who participated in the experimental group improved their current teaching practices significantly by implementing the SIOP model, t(9) = 3.01, p = 0.02, g = 0.37, whereas the teachers in the control group did not increase the frequency of their practice, t(12) = 1.71, p = 0.11, g = 0.39 (see Figure 1).

The results of the SIOP self-assessment between the experimental group and the control group indicate that the teachers from the experimental group benefitted from follow up activities that resulted in full implementation of the SIOP model. These results are consistent with the research on effective professional development that indicates that full implementation of new learning into classroom practices occurs with ongoing coaching and feedback (Hord, Rutherford, Huling-Austin, & Hall, 1998; Joyce & Showers, 1998; Loucks-Horsley, 1995). The rest of the data triangulation will encompass the work with the experimental group since no additional data was collected from the control group.

Figure 1. Comparison of SIOP implementation: Treatment v. control group.

In addition to teachers’ self-assessments of their use of the SIOP, the researchers conducted classroom observations in the experimental group on a monthly basis. Researchers utilized observation instruments validated by the SIOP model. Both researchers conducted a sampling of observations and compared results in order to minimize inter rater reliability limitations. The observations targeted individual components of the SIOP month by month. By focusing on parts of the SIOP the researchers were able to gather specific data on the use of the SIOP component as well as provide detailed feedback to teachers and principals on the level of implementation. Based on year long observations researchers concluded that the SIOP was implemented with fidelity by 95% of the teachers in the study. One teacher accounted for the 5% difference. Researchers documented evidence that the teacher was emerging in her implementation of the SIOP and needed to incorporate more student to student interactions in order to be rated as using the SIOP on a daily basis.

The final data collection point on the level of implementation was generated by principals’ observations of the use of the SIOP using observation instruments validated by the SIOP model. Principals were asked to observe classrooms at the end of the school year to determine their perceptions of the SIOP implementation in the classroom. Results of the SIOP observation instruments indicated that both principals perceived 100% of the teachers implementing the SIOP on a daily basis.

In order to evaluate the level of use of the SIOP in the classroom this study triangulated three sources of data, teachers’ self-assessment of use, researchers’ classroom observations, and principals’ observations. All three sources of data indicated that teachers in this professional development reach full implementation of the SIOP in the classroom.

Organizational support yielded significant insight into teachers’ perceptions. A synthesis of the data indicated that active engagement and facilitation of teachers needs by the principal resulted in full implementation of the model in the classrooms. Both teachers and principals responded to organizational support questions and then comparisons were made between the two sets of responses. Researchers found similar responses of activities and evidences that contributed to the success of the professional development. Both principals and teachers agreed that monetary funding and materials to support implementation was necessary and adequate. More importantly, both teachers and administrators commented on the importance of observations by peers and administrators and the usefulness of the specific feedback on the SIOP. In addition, all participants mentioned the importance of principals’ engagement in monthly meetings which helped clarify expectations for teachers and clarified their own administrative role in support of teachers. The active participation helped principals coordinate meeting times, manage challenges, celebrate successes, and encourage peer observations for collaborative learning.

In analyzing teachers and principals perceptions, researchers identified that teachers and principals having the common goal of implementing the SIOP caused an “engaged partnership” where principals were involved and ready to take action to support this professional development. To the researchers the “engaged partnership” was the most important indicator to the successful implementation of the SIOP. Teachers and principals in this professional development “partnered” while learning together. To do so, they allowed themselves a year to try, practice, and learn a new model of instruction and not be formally evaluated in the process. The evaluations to meet contract requirements were still in place, however, did not include the SIOP this year. This freedom to try and learn from practice leveled the expectations and opened communication lines between the teachers and their principal. As the communication lines opened both parties “engaged” in a process of support and feedback to improve instruction devoid of demands from a superior. Many times teachers commented that this process was not “done to them” but instead the process was “done with them”. Teachers felt they had influence over their learning and therefore engaged with principals in instructional conversations centered on classroom implementation of the SIOP. As a result of this study, the researchers witnessed the emergence of a new group of teacher leaders with an increased sense of professionalism and responsibility for educating all learners. They have also exhibited a clearer understanding of their roles as teachers of both academic language and content.

In addition to the above findings, the school/university partnership has resulted in the creation of a network of educators dedicated to the development of academic language proficiency for their ELLs. This motivated group of teachers has continued their own professional growth by acting as teacher leaders in their schools for improved instruction of academic language.

As the professional development progressed, a re-occurring discussion ensued among teachers, principals, and the researchers on the measurement of student learning resulting from the implementation of the SIOP. Time and time the conversation ended with the impossibility to directly connect student learning exclusively to the SIOP due to the fact that in addition to the SIOP, teachers were also implementing two other instructional initiatives concurrently. For this reason, questions asked, based on Guskey’s model, elicited teachers’ perceptions of cognitive and affective student learning outcomes due to the SIOP implementation. Overall, all teachers indicated that their students grades had generally improved from low C’s to high B’s or low A’s. In addition, all teachers commented on the increased engagement of students in their own learning. Students saw learning as fun but more importantly teachers unanimously reported that the retention of learning was noticeably increased. Affectively, students actively engaged in grouping and interactive activities. Teachers commented on the increased motivation to learn in their classrooms.

While this study was initially centered on evaluating a year-long professional development model of instruction to improve instruction for linguistically diverse students, the unintended findings highlight the true success of this project. Classroom observations, interviews, and informal dialogue yielded insight into the process by which teachers adopt new instructional strategies. These unintended findings add to the field of professional development, but more importantly, yield significant implications for school leadership officials to consider in developing school-university partnerships to implement innovations at the school level. These findings and implications will be discussed next.