SETTING OBJECTIVES AND PROVIDING FEEDBACK
Setting objectives in the classroom helps focus the direction for learning and establish the path for teaching. For ELLs, setting objectives is especially important: Imagine the incredible amount of incoming stimuli bombarding these students as they try to learn both a new language and content knowledge. This sense of being over-whelmed can subside when students are told exactly what they are going to learn each day upon entering the classroom. Aware of the intended outcomes, they now know what to focus on and what to screen out as they process new information.
The educational environment also becomes a friendlier place for ELLs when they have a clearly stated target for learning. When you set objectives correctly, students work toward clearly defined goals and are able to explain what they are learning and why they are learning it.
It is critical to set both content objectives and language objectives for ELLs. Just as language learning cannot occur if we only focus on subject matter, content knowledge cannot grow if we only focus on learning the English language.
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires evidence of progress in both academic achievement and English language proficiency for ELLs. Researchers and educators have strongly supported the integration of content and language objectives (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994; Crandall, Spanos, Christian, Simich-Dudgeon, & Willetts, 1987; Dong, 2004/2005; Genesee, 1994; Mohan, 1990; Short, 1991; Simich-Dudgeon, McCreedy, & Schleppegrell, 1988). Systematic language development has to take place for students to eventually have the academic literacy skills they need to survive in the classroom. A firm foundation in academic English skills is necessary in order to meet content standards and pass challenging state assessments. Yet the question remains: How can we, as teachers, develop the language proficiency of ELLs while at the same time delivering content instruction?
Brinton, Snow, and Wesche (1989) offer four reasons for combining language objectives with content objectives:
1. Language forms and vocabulary will develop as students study areas of interest. Correct grammatical form and necessary vocabulary are best learned in the context of content areas (e.g., modeling the past tense when talking about history).
2. Motivation plays a role in learning complex language structures. Low motivation can hinder language acquisition because, as with low self-esteem and anxiety, it blocks language stimulation from reaching the brain. This block is also known as an “affective filter” (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). High motivation, on the other hand, results in an increased ability to learn and use a new language.
3. Teachers can activate and build on students’ prior knowledge in the content area. ELLs may not have studied the American Revolution in their native country, but they may have studied another revolution or even experienced a modern conflict in their homeland. By accessing and activating such knowledge, you can prepare students to learn about analogous events in U.S. history.
4. Language structure and form should be learned in authentic contexts rather than through contrived drills in language workbooks. For example, when studying the American Revolution, students may learn about the type of clothing relevant to the 18th century. You can initiate the use of if-then statements by asking the class, “If you had to wear a uniform, how would you show your individuality?” While English-dominant students can write their ideas, ELLs can verbalize their thoughts using the sentence starter: “If I had to wear a uniform, then I would ....”
Educators started using such content-based ESL instruction—also called sheltered instruction—in the 1980s. The use of the phrases “content-based ESL” and “sheltered instruction” varies based on geography (Ovando, Collier, & Combs, 2003). In the eastern half of the United States, the labels “ESL content” and “content ESL” are used, whereas those on the West Coast tend to use “sheltered instruction.” In California, the phrase used is “specially designed academic instruction in English,” or SDAIE. We will use “sheltered instruction” later.
Sheltered instruction has long been the medium for delivering content knowledge in a way that allows both concepts and academic English proficiency to be nourished. In sheltered instruction, academic content is taught to ELLs in English by using techniques such as speaking slowly, using visual aids and manipulatives, and avoiding the use of idioms. Devices and procedures for sheltering instruction include the following:
• Manipulatives, miniature objects, realia
• Visuals (photos, pictures, drawings)
• Body movement and pantomime
• Facial expressions and gestures
• Clear expression and articulation
• Short, simple sentences
• Eye contact with students
• High-frequency vocabulary
• Reduction of idiomatic expressions
• Personalized language and nouns favored over pronouns
• More description through synonyms
• Prior content introduction (preview)
The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP), developed by Echevarria, Vogt, and Short (2000), is a research-based model that many mainstream teachers use to better instruct ELLs. This model meets the NCLB requirement that a school’s method of language instruction be research-based. The SIOP was first used as a research instrument; its effectiveness was tested over six years by the National Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence before it was modified into a system for lesson planning and instruction. It emphasizes both content and language objectives in grade level curriculum, helping teachers and schools teach English to ELLs while also helping students meet challenging state standards.
The SIOP model makes academic content comprehensible and encourages language learning by highlighting key features of the English language. To do this effectively, teachers must set content objectives while also reviewing which linguistic functions and structures in the lesson students will need in order to effectively participate.
