Content and language learning in primary schools: Instructional strategies and students' progress in aural/ oral proficiency

UNIVERSIDAD DE SEVILLA FACULTAD DE FILOLOGÍA DEPARTAMENTO DE FILOLOGÍA INGLESA: LENGUA INGLESA Content and Language Learning in Primary Schools: Instructional Strategies and Students’ Progress in Aural/Oral Proficiency Lynda Franco Sevilla, 2017 i TESIS DOCTORAL: Content and Language Learning in Primary Schools: Instructional Strategies and Students’ Progress in Aural/Oral Proficiency Doctorando: Lynda Franco Directores de tesis: Dr. Manuel Padilla Cruz (Universidad de Sevilla) Dra. Ma Carmen Fonseca Mora (Universidad de Huelva) ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In recognition of their hard work and persistence, I sincerely thank my thesis advisors, Dr. Ma Carmen Fonseca Mora and Dr. Manuel Padilla Cruz and my previous advisor Dr. Jane Arnold Morgan. I appreciate their diligent reading and suggesting; encouragement and feedback; and their guidance through the paperwork and processes. Thank you most genuinely. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY ............................. 6 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Bilingual Education in Europe and Andalusia, Spain ................................................................... 8 1.2.1 The Need for Research on CLIL in Andalusia, Spain .............................................................................. 10 1.3 Purpose and Rationale for this Study .............................................................................................. 15 1.4 Structure of this Dissertation ............................................................................................................. 16 1.5 Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 19 CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR BILILNGUAL EDUCATION MODELS AND INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES ............................. 21 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 21 2.2 Options for Bilingual Program Design Models............................................................................. 23 2.2.1 Transitional Bilingual Education .............................................................................................................. 27 2.2.2 Maintenance Bilingual Education ............................................................................................................ 28 2.2.3 Enrichment, Two-Way, Dual Language or Developmental Bilingual .................................................. 28 2.2.4 Immersion (Canadian Model) ................................................................................................................... 30 2.2.5 Outgrowths of the Canadian Immersion Model ..................................................................................... 31 2.2.6 An Additional Option: CLIL ...................................................................................................................... 32 2.3 The Development of CLIL Programs in Andalusia, Spain ........................................................ 37 2.4 Research Supporting the Effectiveness of Bilingual Education Programs .......................... 41 2.4.1 CLIL Studies Called into Question ............................................................................................................ 41 2.4.2 Research on CLIL and Other Bilingual Education Models Around the World .................................. 46 2.5 Expectations for Bilingual Program Outcomes: Research Findings ..................................... 49 2.5.1 Second Language Acquisition in Bilingual Programs: Expectations and Research Findings ........... 51 2.5.2 Expectations for Rate of Second Language Acquisition in Bilingual Programs: Research Findings ................................................................................................................................................................................. 54 2.5.3 Expectations for First Language Acquisition in Bilingual Programs: Research Findings ................ 57 2.5.4 Expectations for the Development of Subject Content Knowledge in Both the First and Second Languages in Bilingual Programs: Research Findings .................................................................................... 63 2.6 Bilingual Education Curriculum ....................................................................................................... 66 iv 2.7 Required Components for Effective Bilingual Programs .......................................................... 68 2.7.1 Language instruction components ............................................................................................................ 69 2.7.2 Clear Expectations for Defining Language “Proficiency” as a Program Outcome ............................. 71 2.7.2.1 CEFR Proficiency Levels ..................................................................................................................... 72 2.7.2.2 Proficiency Level Guidelines for the Young Learner ...................................................................... 72 2.7.2.3 The ELLOPA: Early Language Listening and Oral Proficiency Assessment ......................... 74 2.7.2.4 The SOLOM: Student Oral Language Observation Matrix ............................................................ 77 2.7.3 Purposeful Development of Academic Language Proficiency in Both First and Second Languages ................................................................................................................................................................................. 78 2.7.4 Interaction and Language Learning ......................................................................................................... 84 2.8 Theoretical Framework Supporting Effective Teaching Strategies to Promote Bilingual Language Acquisition .................................................................................................................................. 89 2.8.1 High-Quality Instructional Strategies in Bilingual Programs ............................................................... 90 2.8.2 Explicit Language and Content Objectives.............................................................................................. 92 2.8.3 Standards and Basic Principles for High-Quality Instruction in Second Language Learning ......... 94 2.8.3.1 Three basic principles ......................................................................................................................... 96 2.8.3.2 The SIOP: Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol ............................................................... 101 2.8.4 Effective Teaching Behaviors in CLIL Programs .................................................................................. 104 2.9 Chapter Summary................................................................................................................................ 108 CHAPTER 3: QUALITY ANALYSIS OF CLIL LESSONS: AIMS, METHOD AND RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... 110 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 110 3.2 Participants and Programs Studied ............................................................................................... 112 3.2.1 Subjects of the Study ............................................................................................................................. 113 3.2.2 Schools, Classroom Materials, and Resources ...................................................................................... 116 3.2.3 School #1 Alpha School ............................................................................................................................ 120 3.2.4 School #2 Beta School .............................................................................................................................. 122 3.2.5 School #3 Gamma School ........................................................................................................................ 123 3.2.6 School #4 Delta School ............................................................................................................................ 124 3.2.7 School #5 Epsilon School ......................................................................................................................... 125 3.3 The programs in the study ................................................................................................................ 126 3.4 The Assessment Tools Used in This Study ................................................................................... 127 3.4.1 ELLOPA ...................................................................................................................................................... 127 3.4.2 SIOP ............................................................................................................................................................ 129 3.4.3 The SOLOM ............................................................................................................................................... 129 3.5 SIOP and SOLOM Data ...................................................................................................................... 130 3.5.1 Overall Mean SIOP Scores ....................................................................................................................... 131 3.5.2 Years of Program Implementation and SIOP Scores ........................................................................... 156 v 3.5.3 SIOP and SOLOM Scores of Individual Teachers................................................................................. 162 3.5.4 SIOP Scores by Subject Area ................................................................................................................... 163 3.5.5 Reliability and Validity of SIOP Data ..................................................................................................... 171 3.5.6 Summary analysis of SIOP and SOLOM DATA: Making Connections ............................................ 171 3.6 ELLOPA Data......................................................................................................................................... 178 3.6.1 ELLOPA Scores.......................................................................................................................................... 178 3.6.2 Overall ELLOPA Rating Scores ............................................................................................................... 181 3.6.3 ELLOPA Rating Scores by Proficiency Areas ........................................................................................ 187 3.6.4 Preand Post-Test ELLOPA Rating Scores ........................................................................................... 189 3.6.5 ELLOPA Scores and Number of Years in the Program ........................................................................ 191 3.6.6 Reliability and Validity of ELLOPA Rating Scores ............................................................................... 196 3.6.7 Teacher SIOP Scores and Student ELLOPA Rating Scores: Making connections .......................... 197 3.7 Results of SIOP and ELLOPA Findings as Related to Research Questions ........................ 198 3.8 Additional Research Findings and Summary ............................................................................. 200 CHAPTER 4: INTERPRETATION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF PROJECT DATA ................................................................................................................................................................ 205 4.1 Interpretation of the SIOP and ELLOPA Data ............................................................................. 205 4.2 Discussion of the Key Findings ....................................................................................................... 206 4.3 Significance of the Findings ............................................................................................................. 225 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 228 5.1 Need for High Quality Training........................................................................................................ 228 5.2 Suggestions for follow-up studies ................................................................................................... 235 5.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 237 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................... 242 APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................................... 277 6 CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY 1.1 Introduction Defined broadly, bilingual education can mean any use of two languages in school – by teachers or students or both – for a variety of social and pedagogical purposes (National Association of Bilingual Education, 2014). When bilingual programs are designed to promote learners’ cognitive growth and bilingual abilities, historically, the results have been positive, as shown in a number of large-scale research projects designed to test the theories underlying bilingual education (Admiraal, Westhoff & de Bot, 2006; Corallo & McDonald, 2002; Dutcher, 1995; Gale, McClay, Christie & Harris, 1981; Hüttner, 2010; Lasagabaster, 2008; Malherbe, 1978; Oller, Pearson & CoboLewis, 2012; Ramirez, 1991; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2008, 2010; San Isidro, 2010; SkutnabbKangas, 1979; Thomas & Collier, 2002, 2009; Várkuti, 2010). It has, therefore, been shown that bilingual education is a viable and highly desirable form of instructional delivery with a variety of program models. Students gain a great many benefits from these types of programs, from developing the ability to express themselves in two languages in both social and academic settings to increasing tolerance and openness to people with other languages and cultures. Indeed, researchers in the field have come to the conclusion that, when implemented based on solid foundations supported by research, bilingual education is so thoroughly proven to be a sound structure for education that further research no longer needs to be undertaken to show the program’s effectiveness, but rather studies should focus on identifying foundational features that make the program an effective option for stakeholders (educators, parents, students) (August & Hakuta, 1997). 7 Regardless of the program model being implemented, effective bilingual education programs share three foundational components: second language instruction, sheltered subject matter teaching, and instruction in the first language. They also have two goals: developing proficiency in a second language and culture and fostering academic achievement. High-quality bilingual education instructional strategies are based on multiple factors, including program model, program goals, program design, curriculum design, teacher preparation, community support, and classroom teaching (National Association of Bilingual Education, 2014). Building on this solid foundation for this model of education, research into various elements of bilingual programs as well as the number of bilingual education programs being implemented continue to grow in response to present-day social, economic, and political environments in which citizens benefit greatly from being able to communicate through more than one language. Since 2006, the Council of Europe has been encouraging governments and education authorities on the continent to design new programs and curriculum there for the teaching and learning of languages. They encourage program designers to include specific instruction in the target language to enhance communication targets, expanding beyond descriptive knowledge (describing things, events, processes and their attributes and their relationships to each other) or knowledge of basic language forms (grammars) and into successful communicative tasks. The Council of Europe put special emphasis on the promotion of language diversity, intercultural values and democratic citizenship (Council of Europe, 2011; Eurydice Report, 2006). 8 1.2 Bilingual Education in Europe and Andalusia, Spain In a European report which studied the progress of students at the end of their secondary education, (Ministerio De Educación, Cultura, y Deporte, 2012), Spain was ranked ninth out of fourteen countries in the percentage of students reaching second language proficiency levels as outlined by the Common European Framework of Reference (Council of Europe, 2011). The report stated that over 80 percent of those Spanish students were only able to understand simple, common daily expressions in English when stated orally. Related to this finding, efforts have been made to make changes in the bilingual education programs in Andalusia, Spain. In 2004, the Andalusian Plan for the Promotion of Pluralingualism (APPP) (Junta de Andalucia, Consejería de Educación, 2004) was introduced. The plan was created for the Andalusian territory based on the European language policies regarding the teaching and learning of languages and became the cornerstone of new language policies there (Lorenzo 2010). The APPP demonstrated an awareness of the need to adapt to new language teaching programs in Andalusia. The document also pinpointed language diversity as a source of richness and a valuable heritage belonging to all humankind. The major goal of the APPP was to design a new language policy for Andalusia, based on the principles of the European Council (Junta de Andalucia Consejería de Educación, 2004), and it aimed to lead educators in the development of plurilingual and multicultural competence for its citizens in order to respond to the economic, technological, and social challenges, based on an integrated curriculum with key stages for all languages and using Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) (Junta de Andalucia Consejeria de Educación, 2004). CLIL is a model of bilingual education which intends to 15 1.3 Purpose and Rationale for this Study Following the recommendations for research projects as stated above, the main purpose of this study is to quantify and measure the quality of instruction provided in English to second grade students (ages 8 and 9) in bilingual programs in Seville (Andalusia, Spain) and then to correlate the quality of instruction to students’ progress in English oral/aural proficiency. To carry out the study, this project targeted the second grade classrooms in five schools in Seville where CLIL programs were being implemented. The researcher used the Early Language Listening and Oral Proficiency Assessment (ELLOPA) (Thompson, Boyson & Rhodes, 2006) as a pre-test (and later as a post-test) to measure the oral/aural language proficiency levels of a group of second grade students (n=149) participating in bilingual education programs in seven different classes taught at five different public schools. Then, on a regular, scheduled basis over a 14-week period, the researcher used the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) (Echevarria, Short, & Powers, 2003), a research-based, validated and reliable instrument, to measure the quantity of strategies to increase second language development that teachers (n=11) used in those classes. As an additional data point, the level of English proficiency of the group of teachers was also evaluated using the Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM) and this data was correlated to SIOP results and student proficiency gains. Finally, the level of increases in oral/aural English language development that the student sample made during the time this project was conducted was correlated to the quantity of strategies used by the teachers to increase second language development. Research questions to be investigated and answered are 16  Is best practice for instructional strategies in bilingual programs being employed in participating bilingual classrooms?  What CLIL instructional best-practices are being employed in the bilingual classrooms studied?  What are the language acquisition outcomes for students in the bilingual classrooms studied? The results of this research can be used to 1. direct future professional development initiatives for bilingual programs in Seville, 2. inform teacher preparation programs and policies (pre-service and inservice), 3. recommend improvements to present bilingual programs. 1.4 Structure of this Dissertation Chapter 2 provides the theoretical framework for bilingual education models used on a worldwide basis and the instructional strategies that underpin them. The chapter begins with a historical overview of the global research which supports the effectiveness of bilingual education as an approach, since the term ‘bilingual education’ is used as a broad umbrella term for a number of different program designs. CLIL is defined and introduced and research on CLIL programs is reviewed, including that performed in Andalusia. The research-based findings for four expected measurable outcomes that effective bilingual programs produce are introduced: (1) second language acquisition (2) the rate of second language acquisition (3) first language development, and (4) the development of subject content knowledge in both the first and second 17 languages. Bilingual education curriculum is then discussed, followed by an overview of the research which defines four components that are required for a bilingual program to be effective: (1) language instruction components (2) clear expectations for defining language “proficiency” (3) attention to academic language, and (4) interaction among students. Study results are then presented that define effective teaching strategies to promote bilingual language acquisition, including the need for teachers to be explicit in creating language and content objectives in a bilingual classroom. Research indicating the need for and benefit of standards and basic principles to drive high-quality instruction in second language learning environments and the research bases for three assessment tools precede the final section of Chapter 2 which presents the body of research which points to the types of effective teaching behaviors that are necessary to make instruction in bilingual programs, including CLIL programs, successful. Chapter 3 presents the methodology that was used in the research project presented in this dissertation. As previously discussed, the study analyzes the quantity of research-based, effective instructional strategies that were employed by a group of teachers in CLIL classrooms in Seville and makes correlations between the level of their use and the language development of the students in those classes. The study model is supported specifically by the results of research for the SIOP and the ELLOPA. As detailed earlier in this chapter, a group of teachers were observed over 14 weeks during the 16-week study while they provided CLIL instruction to groups of second grade students, and the SIOP was used to identify effective teacher behaviors the teachers used while providing instruction. The ELLOPA was used as a preand post-test to measure gains in student language proficiency during the study period. An additional informal language measure, the Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM), 18 was used to evaluate the level of English proficiency the classroom teachers possessed. In this chapter, the measurement tools are described and the base of research which supports them is explored. The sample groups are presented, including their defining attributes and a complete description of the steps followed to complete the study are given. The data collected in this study is shared in Chapter 3, and a discussion of the validity of this study is included. Variables which may impact the results of the study are also considered. The results are described and presented in the form of tables and graphs, with specific data and calculation details appearing in the Appendix. Categories are divided by data collected on teachers (SIOP and SOLOM) and students (ELLOPA). SIOP data is then examined overall by years of program implementation, by subject area, by individual teacher, by individual teacher by subject area, and in correlation to SOLOM scores. Overall ELLOPA data is examined next and then disaggregated by proficiency area and number of years a school’s program existed. Preand post-test ELLOPA data is correlated by school and takes into account variables such as whether a child attends English classes outside of school and whether a child speaks a language other than Spanish at home. Chapter 4 presents a discussion of the results of the study conducted for this dissertation, based on the data collected and presented in Chapter 3. The importance of the main findings are discussed and a comparison between the results of the observations conducted for this project and desired outcomes for CLIL programs is made in this chapter. Specific attention is given to the results found regarding the level of appropriate strategies teachers in the study used while teaching in CLIL classrooms, providing examples in practical terms. Key findings are summarized, and needs are identified, particularly in light of training goals established for Andalusia 19 Chapter 5 explores the significance of the results of this study and makes connections to the base of research in this field. In support of needs identified in the results of this study, the chapter presents a model of complex change and discusses the elements required to promote systematic change in relation to observations made in at bilingual centers in Seville. Suggestions for future studies to build on the one presented here are outlined, and conclusions are drawn regarding further steps needed to ensure success in CLIL programs in Andalusia, with connections and recommendations made regarding professional development goals which have been set by educational authorities for that region of Spain. 1.5 Summary The Horizon 2020 plan, an amplification to the Andalusian Plan for the Promotion of Pluralingualism (APPP) introduced in 2004, has been presented to the community and extends the scope of the APPP by calling for increased numbers of student participants, increased language proficiency of teachers, and professional development initiatives for teachers. The original APPP encouraged education authorities throughout the region to design new language learning programs based on European language policies as outlined by the Council of Europe and had as a goal the development of plurilingual and multicultural competence in Andalusian citizens. A bilingual education model known as Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) was introduced there as a vehicle to meet this challenge, and underwent rapid development in Andalusian schools following its introduction (Ruíz de Zarobe & Lasagabaster, 2010) although program implementation in Andalusia evolved at a faster rate than research to support it did. Since many models to implement CLIL exist 20 throughout the 17 autonomous regions of Andalusia because no single blueprint for the design of those programs exists, a call for empirically based research was made during the early years of the APPP to promote program effectiveness (Fernández Fontecha, 2009; Perez-Cañado, 2011; Pérez-Vidal, et al. 2008). Two areas of research acknowledged as necessary included observing CLIL teachers and investigating the methodology used in CLIL classes (Admiraal, et al., 2006; Lasagabaster, 2008; Pérez-Cañado, 2011). Pérez-Cañado (2016) responded to this call for research by conducting a study specifically using teacher observation to investigate what techniques were being used in CLIL classrooms in 3 regions of Spain and identified a need for further research there centering on how programs are created (their components) and how they are implemented, using research methods that meet the highest empirical definitions. In response to the recognized need for investigation topics that seek to determine the quality of programs in Andalusia, the research study presented here aims to look at the level of implementation of best practice strategies in the instruction being provided in English to second grade students attending CLIL programs in Seville. Those results will be correlated to the students’ progress in English oral/ aural proficiency. 21 CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR BILILNGUAL EDUCATION MODELS AND INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 2.1 Introduction A variety of bilingual program designs exist worldwide. High-quality bilingual education instruction is based on multiple factors, including program design, curriculum design, and classroom teaching. It is up to the educational community to choose and design an effective program based on research that best meets their intended educational goals for their students. These decisions should be based on the makeup of their target population, human and material resources available, and desired outcomes. Upon implementation, the adult stakeholders in the process (administration, teachers, parents, and community members) need to actively support and promote the bilingual education program. Support is given through facilitating curriculum development, providing resources (material and personnel), adequately training personnel, providing forums for open communications among stakeholders, allowing teachers adequate planning time, and providing program oversight which includes regular review and revisions of program implementation (Grossman, 2006). In an effort to support and establish quality assurance and further educational development worldwide, the body of research that exists on bilingual education has become expansive. A review of research on a variety of models of bilingual program evaluations made by the Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington, D.C. (August & Hakuta, 1997; Rossell & Baker, 1996) concluded that research has found no differences between the English language and academic development of students in bilingual programs compared to students who received instruction in only one language. Other reviews of bilingual programs point to a positive effect of these programs (Collier & 22 Thomas, 1989, 1992, 1997, 2004, 2009b; Thomas & Collier, 1997, 2002, 2012), citing that students in bilingual programs outperform their peers in monolingual programs in language acquisition. Similar research conducted in Europe support these findings (Bergroth, 2006; Jäppinen, 2005; Merisuo-Storm, 2003). Indeed, in a review of studies about bilingual education, May (in Cummins & Hornberger, p. 15; 2008) sums it up: “There is currently no doubt that, under certain conditions, the effects of bilingual education can be clearly beneficial.” In Andalusia, Spain, a purposeful effort to increase the number of bilingual education programs following a Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) model is under way. Supported by encouragement at the European level (Council of Europe) as well as at the regional level (Junta de Andalucia), bilingual programs are raidly being implemented across Andalusia. These initiatives face challenges, however, including standardizing quality of instruction and language proficiency of teachers (Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter, 2014; Juan-Garau and Salazar-Noguera, 2015; Ruíz de Zarobe & Lasagabaster 2010; Salaberri Ramiro 2010). Researchers and leaders in the education field have indicated that scientifically based research to document the condition of these programs is also a need to ensure their proper implementation. In addition, as discussed in Chapter 1, a call for empirically based research following rigorous design protocols has been made to determine the quality of bilingual education programs being imparted throughout Andalusia, with a focus on program design, methodologies employed, and research design (Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter, 2014; JuanGarau and Salazar-Noguera, 2015). 23 This call for research into the effective components of bilingual programs being implemented there connects with the research agenda outlined by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States. Based in part on the findings from their two-year review of the existing body of research about bilingual education, the NRC made the recommendation in 1997 that future research should focus on pinpointing features of effective bilingual programs, rather than debate the effectiveness of these programs as a whole (August & Hakuta, 1997). For this reason, beginning in Section 2.4, the bulk of this chapter is devoted to reviewing studies identifying components of bilingual programs necessary to create the most effective outcomes for learners. Before that is presented, however, the variety of bilingual programs that exist is discussed in the next section. 2.2 Options for Bilingual Program Design Models Forty years of research and literature on bilingual education has produced a broad array of program descriptions, analyses and models. These programs do not exist in pure forms, as schools mix and blend aspects of various programs (May, 2008). Various largeand small-scale studies have examined the effectiveness of these programs and will be reported here in upcoming sections. Research examining the success or failure of various program models has not completely addressed the central question of how best to educate second language learners (Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2010); nevertheless, the body of research has reported detailed studies of what has worked in actual classrooms. Rather than focus on the efficacy of a single program model, this research has concentrated on the characteristics of schools and classrooms that contribute to successful educational practice for second language learners (Collier, 24 1989; Krashen, Scarcella, & Long, 1982; Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2010; Rennie, 1995). May (2008) has synthesized bilingual education programs into meaningful categories that highlight broad agreements among researchers. These categories are summarized in Table 1 below. Unless otherwise noted, the models are described within a context of students’ learning English as their second language. 31 language students routinely use and develop the majority language, the disuse of their own home language (the minority one) over time causes them to experience a loss of fluency in that language, even to the point of forgetting it almost entirely, and it may become replaced by the new language. This process has come to be known as subtractive bilingualism (Cummins, 1999). A variety of immersion models are used with majority English speakers in Canada, from early to late total immersion and from partial to full immersion, and differences in outcomes between these models seem to be relatively minor (Swain, 1978). Again, due to confusion in the usage of the terms, it is especially important to differentiate between submersion for minority students in English-speaking classrooms and French immersion for minority students in French-speaking classrooms: the difference relates to first or second language oriented pedagogy. That is, minority language students in an English-medium class with mother tongue speakers of English experience pedagogy intended for first language speakers; hence, English is not presented as an second language, neither is pedagogy necessarily appropriate for second language learners (May, 2008). In a first language classroom, on the other hand, minority and majority children alike are not expected to speak French as a first language; therefore, the program is entirely geared to second language learning and the pedagogy is geared to second language learners. 2.2.5 Outgrowths of the Canadian Immersion Model The first immersion programs in Finland were broadly based on the original early total French immersion program in Canada (Swain & Lapkin, 1982). Children who enrolled in the optional preschool program at the age of 6 (one year before they started primary school) and who had no knowledge of Swedish were immersed into a total Swedish speaking environment. The teachers were native or near-native 32 Swedish speakers who used the immersion language for 100 percent of instructional time. In 1987, a pioneer Swedish immersion program in the city of Vaasa/Vasa was initiated, with differences. The program varied from the Canadian model in two respects: (1) teaching in the students’ first language was used in grade one in primary school and (2) the program had a multilingual orientation. The students in this program were introduced to a third language in primary school and to an optional fourth language in secondary school. The third and fourth languages were taught through language arts by using the principles of immersion pedagogy. In years following the initiation of the Finnish Immersion Program, research has clearly shown that bilingualism favors the acquisition of additional languages concerning both the rate of acquisition and students’ linguistic competence in the additional languages (Bergroth, 2006; Björklund & Suni, 2000). Immersion programs in Finland are now generally based on the Vaasa/Vasa Swedish immersion model. English in these programs is often a third or fourth language (Tedick, Christian, & Fortune, 2011). 2.2.6 An Additional Option: CLIL The acronym CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) was coined in Europe in the nineties (Coyle, 1999) to describe any dual-focused type of program design in which a second language, foreign or a regional language, is used for the teaching and learning of a non-language subject matter, with language and content having a joint and mutually beneficial role (Marsh, 2002). CLIL is a one-way model of bilingual education primarily implemented in Europe and is an outgrowth and extension of the Canadian and Swedish immersion models, described above. It is intended to be an additive model, promoting the learning of a second language (often English or a heritage language) for community-language speakers and is based on 33 the premise that second language instruction which is integrated with content matter has proven to be more effective than second language instruction in isolation (Genesee, 1994). CLIL is considered to be distinct from other models of bilingual education in that it integrates language and content along a continuum, in a flexible and dynamic way, without an implied preference for either language, which reflects a very European attitude about language itself (Coyle, 2006). Language is taught directly and through subject content in CLIL. A program goal is to achieve a functional as opposed to a native-like competence in the second language through subject content learning without altering national curricula. Other important differences between CLIL and immersion education rest on allowing a lesser command of the language of instruction by CLIL teachers (Harrop 2011; Ruíz de Zarobe & Lasagabaster, 2010). A minimum of a CEFR B2 level is recommended for programs in Spain; however, teachers at the B1 level were allowed to teach until 2014, when a B2 level became the requirement. The Horizon 2020 Plan aims to increase the number of teachers at advanced levels (CEFR C1) over time. Other examples of differences include starting with lower amounts of exposure to the target language at older ages, in the use of abridged rather than authentic materials, in providing language education through the teaching of academic subjects rather than from everyday life or the target language culture, and in the greater absence of immigrant students in the program (Dalton-Puffer, Nikula, & Smit, 2010; Lasagabaster & Sierrra, 2010). CLIL is a way of teaching that intends to encompass the most effective instructional elements of English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI), Language Across the Curriculum (LAC), Content-based Instruction (CBI) and Content-based Language Teaching (CBLT) – all of which guide teaching subject 34 matter through the medium of a foreign language, or language teaching bringing content into the English lesson (Nikula, Dalton-Puffer, & Llinares, 2013). CLIL instruction has a dual focus: teaching promotes the learning of content knowledge and the simultaneous acquisition of a foreign language. By using CLIL strategies, the learner does not necessarily need to have the English proficiency level expected to cope with the subject before beginning its study (Graddol, 2006). Teachers are expected to adjust their methodology to ensure that the students comprehend the content of the lesson as well as the language (Coyle, 1999). Teachers do not simply present the content and assume that their students understand it. They must employ other means which increase the comprehensibility of the subject matter (such as group work, task-based learning, concrete examples, increased use of visuals); and educational materials, including textbooks, need to reflect the CLIL approach. CLIL is more than just presenting the native-language curriculum in a foreign language. Just because a school presents content instruction in a foreign language does not mean it is employing CLIL. The students cannot simply be instructed as if they were native speakers using the types of lesson delivery and strategies appropriate for native-speaking students. Lesson materials must be adapted for CLIL (textbooks, worksheets, assignments) to reflect a language-rich environment of instruction and the role that language plays in the students’ comprehension of the subject matter). Assignments and classroom expectations (reading/writing/speaking tasks) must be adjusted to students’ language proficiency levels and reflect the variety of students’ learning styles. CLIL is applicable to students at all achievement levels and is intended to fit well into mixed-ability classrooms (Graddol, 2006). 35 A report of how CLIL is being implemented throughout Europe (Eurydice Report, 2006) made it clear that CLIL is still far from being a consolidated and fully articulated educational model in any of the European countries surveyed and that a great deal more needs to be done in order to consolidate the theoretical underpinnings of CLIL and create a conceptual framework that is both coherent and appropriate to different local conditions. The Eurydice report contains national descriptions of CLIL programs from the 30 Eurydice Network member countries and illustrates the similarities and differences in CLIL programming and execution with the European Community. Although the implementation of CLIL is quite varied throughout Europe, given the very different circumstances surrounding language teaching across the continent, certain common characteristics can be identified in European CLIL application (Fortanet-Gómez & Ruiz-Garrido, 2009; Marsh, 2002). European CLIL programs aim to systematically increase the presence of the target language in the curriculum by incorporating a number of subjects taught through it for at least four years. Nevertheless, as discussed in section 1.2.1, it is this variety in design that has added to the complications of conducting empirical research into the effectiveness of CLIL, and the rapid growth of program implementation throughout Spain has also encouraged research into these programs, although at present there continues to be a need for empirical studies, especially those that will focus on program design and methodologies. Furthermore, since no specific implementation policy exists nationally, and few do regionally, programs there are without guidance to assist them in becoming more effective. Indeed, the fact that Spain is decentralized for some issues such as education contributes to a high degree of variability in CLIL implementation there. 36 The creation and implementation of programs is left to individual school teachers and administrators. For example, although researchers in the regions of Catalonia and the Basque Country have a history of producing CLIL studies as an extension of their established tradition of bilingual education, Catalonia lacks a solid CLIL policy for its programs there (Navés & Victori, 2010). In particular, research which monitors performance and investigates possible language and content gains is nowhere near the quality of that which has been done in the Basque country (Lasagabaster & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010). Andalusia has been a region without a solid tradition in foreign language teaching, and with a fast pace of new bilingual program creation there, Andalusia stands out in the CLIL scene as being in need of additional CLIL research applying rigorous research methods (Pérez-Cañado, 2011). CLIL implementation in monolingual communities of Spain is much more recent and thus not as firmly ingrained as in bilingual ones (Fernández Fontecha, 2009; Fortanet-Gómez & RuizGarrido, 2009), and further research continues to be called for in order to provide comprehensive and empirically valid information about where CLIL stands in Andalusian bilingual programs (Pérez-Cañado, 2011, 2016). Since CLIL is the format of teaching which the Andalusian government recommends be used in bilingual programs there, research projects measuring the quality of CLIL instruction and the effects that instruction has on student achievement are needed. In accordance with these recommendations, the research study documented in this dissertation focuses on the quality of CLIL instruction provided by teachers in programs in Seville, Spain, and student outcomes there. 37 2.3 The Development of CLIL Programs in Andalusia, Spain A major government plan, called “Strategies for the Second Modernization of Andalusia,” was designed in 2003, demonstrating an awareness of the need for the Andalusian people to adapt to the new language teaching programs (Salaberri Ramiro & Sánchez Pérez, 2011). The document also pinpointed language diversity as a source of richness and a valuable heritage belonging to all humankind. In 2004, the Consejería de Educación in Andalusia introduced the Andalusian Pluralingualism Promotion Plan (APPP) for the region based on the European language policies regarding the teaching and learning of languages in response to encouragement by The Council of Europe who advocated for the design of new language learning programs and curriculum. Since the introduction of the plan by the autonomous government in Andalusia, dramatic changes have taken place in the bilingual education programs there (Lorenzo, 2010), and a special emphasis has been called for to promote language diversity, intercultural values and democratic citizenship (Eurydice Report, 2006). The APPP gained a great deal of information from the first experimental bilingual sections set up in some schools by the Andalusian government in 1998, when, following the content-based approach, French and German were used to partly teach other subjects (Lorenzo 2010). Overall, the major goal identified for the APPP was to design a new language policy for Andalusia, based on the principles of the European Council (Junta de Andalucia Consejería de Educación, 2005). An amplification of the plan was released in January 2017, as discussed earlier in Chapter 1, Section 1.2. The Horizon 2020 strategically outlines the continuation of the Andalusian language policy and sets goals regarding the creation of even more bilingual centers, the addition of programs targeting a wider variety of second 38 languages, and the development of professional development opportunities for teachers. As with the initial 2004 plan, the Horizon 2020 plan places an emphasis on promoting intercultural understanding and providing instruction that will lead to greater student proficiency levels in a second language. Regarding the implementation of CLIL programs in Andalusia, in 2010 Fortanet-Gomez identified two immediate challenges: (1) a lack of language proficiency of the teachers and (2) the absence of CLIL-related training for teachers. She then referred to the CLIL courses currently being taught at the higher education level as needing improvement. Salaberri Ramiro (2010) outlined initiatives being enacted throughout Andalusia to address these two challenges. She related that the Autonomous Community of Andalusia adopted the recommendations made at the Conference of the Modern Language Project in 1997 regarding foreign language instruction in the education system. Following a model from the United Kingdom and Norway, 32 teacher training centers were created in Andalusia as permanent training institutions. Each of the training centers in Andalusia has an expert in bilingual education appointed who is in charge of designing an annual teacher training plan for the center. Between 1989 and 1993, these centers offered a variety of different types of teacher training, including (1) courses to develop scientific, technological, cultural and/or pedagogic knowledge; (2) seminars related to the study of a variety of educational issues; and (3) group work to design teaching materials. At a meeting of the Council of Europe held in Barcelona in 2002, improving the quality of teaching training programs was declared a priority. Andalusia is said to have taken this charge seriously and initiated sessions through their training centers, some employing the use of distance learning, aimed at improving the teaching practice of those participating in the APPP. 39 The newly released Horizon 2020 plan reflects Andalusia’s ongoing attention to expanding teacher training opportunities. Salaberri Ramiro (in 2010) described the involvement of the teacher training centers as developing teacher training courses in early language learning, teacher training courses to improve teaching practice, especially related to communicative language teaching, and a training program for teachers in the “non-linguistic” areas of bilingual programs. They also provided for in-school training programs, work groups, intensive foreign language courses for all teachers, but especially targeting those in bilingual schools. Training through distance learning also became an initiative. Actions not involving the training centers included awarding licenses for specific language training abroad, establishing a catalogue of good practices for language teaching; and creating a language skills profile for teachers of non-linguistic areas. Additionally, a series of annual regional meetings have taken place since 1997 to address teacher training issues in Andalusia. Their main goals have been to provide information and training, to promote effective teaching strategies, and to allow for an exchange of experiences. At a provincial level, the training centers have designed additional teacher training meetings aimed at providing resources and strategies for teachers in bilingual programs in collaboration with their institutes of higher education. Each year’s meeting focused on different issues such as intercultural communication, attention to immigrant students, online training, methodologies, the development of teachermade materials, the development of an integrated language curriculum, and training trainers. Another group in Andalusia charged with providing training for teachers is the Official Language Schools. These schools have been charged with providing language courses for teachers of infant and primary education and for those of non-linguistic 40 subjects in bilingual centers. These courses are intended to help teachers reach fluency in the language they are teaching, especially in oral skills. In a further attempt to assist teachers in reaching fluency in the languages they are teaching, the Regional Ministry of Education has engaged in collaborations with universities and teacher training centers in a variety of European countries. These agreements facilitated the participation of over 600 teachers in immersion courses in those countries between 2009 and 2010. Participants in the program included teachers with language proficiency levels from the very low (CEFR A1/A2), intermediate (B1/B2) to higher levels (C1/C2). The newly released Horizon 2020 plan gives specific direction regarding the continuation of professional development efforts for teachers in CLIL programs in Andalusia. It provides for continued increases in the numbers of teachers in CLIL programs as well as an increase in their levels of target-language proficiency through their participation in courses offered at the Official Language Schools, Erasmus programs, and online formats, including blended formats (a combination of online and face-to-face trainings). To assist teachers with pedagogical matters, the plan will support the creation of a connected web among bilingual centers, promoting the exchange and sharing of ideas and even job shadowing to model and observe best practices in action. An online resource center where teachers can deposit lesson ideas for others to review, use, and expand is also planned. Teachers will be encouraged and supported in their development of what the plan considers to be innovative language teaching techniques, such as cooperative learning and project-based learning. CLIL programs are encouraged to foster teamwork among the language teachers and their counterparts instructing classes considered to be non-linguistic as 47 Research throughout the United States also supports the effectiveness of bilingual education programs. In a bilingual program in the state of Washington, McConnell and Kendall’s 1987 study found that by Grade 5, immigrant students were scoring at or above the 50th percentile in English on norm referenced tests of mathematics, vocabulary, and English reading. Medina and Valenzuela de la Garza reported in a 1987 study that at the end of the third grade in four bilingual programs in state of Arizona, that Mexican American students were scoring above national norms in all subject-area tests (Collier & Thomas, 1997). In further research in the United States in a French-English bilingual program in the state of Minnesota, Troike (1978) reported that students were at or above national norms in all content areas by the end of 5 years of schooling in both languages. In a study of Navajo students participating in bilingual programs in the state of Arizona, Vorih and Rosier (1978) found that those in a bilingual program reached national norms by sixth grade. These results were compared to students in the same school who were schooled only in their second language (English) and performed substantially below the experimental group. In a bilingual program in the state of Connecticut, Plante studied the achievement of Hispanic students from low income backgrounds in 1976 (Plante in Cheung & Slavin, 2012). These students were at or above national norms in English and mathematics by the end of Grade 3, whereas a comparison group receiving instruction only in English performed significantly less well than the students in the bilingual program (Collier & Thomas, 1997). The Australian experience with bilingual education has included programs in Chinese, German, French, and numerous indigenous languages. Eckstein (1986) found that in partial immersion programs in primary schools in Mellbourne, nativeEnglish-speaking children who studied science in German were able to successfully 48 transfer concepts learned through their second language to their first and demonstrated increased cognitive flexibility and more divergent thinking than students who had learned the same content only through their first language. Students learning German as their new language spent time in that language only during the content class. In a longitudinal study in that country, conducted by Gale, McClay, Christie, and Harris in 1981, it was reported that Aboriginal students taught in their native language and in English for all grades performed significantly better on 10 different oral and written measures of English after 7 years of schooling than did aboriginal students schooled only in English (Yucesan Durgunoglu & Goldenberg, 2011). Notwithstanding the positive reports of second language attainment in the studies conducted throughout the world and cited above, numerous studies have also shown that students in bilingual programs often gain more proficiency in the receptive skills (listening, reading) than they do in the productive skills (writing and speaking) (Bialystok & Hakuta, 1995). Swain (1988: 69) pointed out that “not all content teaching is necessarily good language teaching”. She elaborates by saying that in an attempt to make themselves more comprehensible to students, teachers in a second-language-through-content setting may not model a wide variety of linguistic functions. This lack of higher-function, higher-complexity language examples may explain the low linguistic gains some learners in content-based language settings show. Muñoz (in DeKeyser 2007, pp. 229) suggests incorporating some focus on form (referring to “how focal attentional resources are allocated”) into CLIL because many pieces of research from Canadian immersion programs indicate that students who have been in the second-language learning environment for long periods of time 49 show problems in producing accurate language (Blasco, 2011; Genesse, 1994; Lyster, 2008). Blasco proposes that one of the possible explanations for this may be the lack of focus on form within immersion programs. As a consequence, many researchers in the field of second language acquisition defend the use of an approach which integrates both focus on form and meaning in order to obtain higher acquisition levels of the target language in the classroom (Lyster, 2008; Muñoz, 2007; PérezVidal, et al., 2008). Research conducted by Grim (2008), for instance, shows positive effects on the learning of grammar, vocabulary and culture when a planned focus on form is contained in content-based classrooms taught in a second language. Doughty and Williams (p. 18, 1998) suggest that an approach based on form may be needed to move from a “communicatively effective language toward target-like second language ability”. 2.5 Expectations for Bilingual Program Outcomes: Research Findings While research regarding the overall effectiveness of bilingual programs has been conducted worldwide, as outlined in the previous section, studies focusing on outcomes for specific components of bilingual education, including studies concerning levels of second language achievement, first language development, and content attainment, have also been produced. While the education field anticipates the publication of research aiming to measure these areas for the plentiful CLIL programs recently being implemented throughout Spain, in the meantime, they can look to the results of experts such as August and Hakuta (1997) who provide a comprehensive review of optimal learning conditions that serve second language learning student populations and that lead to high academic performance. Their review of 33 studies of bilingual education programs indicates that there is a set of generally agreed upon practices that foster academic success and that those practices 50 can exist across program types. August and Hakuta (1997; 171) found that the following school and classroom characteristics were likely to lead to academic success: “A supportive school-wide climate, school leadership, a customized learning environment, articulation and coordination within and between schools, use of native language and culture in instruction, a balanced curriculum that includes both basic and higher-order skills, explicit skill instruction, opportunities for student-direct instruction, use of instructional strategies that enhance under-standing, opportunities for practice, systematic student assessment, staff development and home and parent involvement.” These findings have been confirmed in other studies, such as those of Corallo and McDonald (2002) and Marzano, Marzano and Pickering (2003). Thus, it can be concluded that students learning a second language benefit greatly from cognitively challenging and student-centered instruction that employs students’ cultural and linguistic resources (Banks & Banks, 2010). In addition, as discussed in Section 1.2.1, Pérez-Cañado (2016) has worked to create a protocol outlining teacher behaviors in effective CLIL programs in Spain which is being suggested as a beginning of an identification process for best practice for CLIL programs there. From the results of their longitudinal research, Collier and Thomas (2009b) describe six major characteristics of effective bilingual education programs. (1) They are long term; student participation in six or more continual years of bilingual education is necessary to bring their second language to grade-level proficiency. (2) Instruction in academic work through the first language is presented. When learners are allowed to develop cognitively in their first language, longitudinally they become more successful in their second language. (3) Academic work and targeted language development instruction through the second language is provided. One of these areas alone is not enough to develop grade-level proficiency in the second language. Both are necessary. (4) Sociocultural support is present. Linguistic diversity is highly 51 valued and supported within the school and community environments. (5) Interactive, cognitively challenging, and discovery learning is present. Learning must include critical thinking and be interactive, with hands-on problem solving. Applications and development of technology, multiple intelligences, learning strategies and global perspectives must be integrated into the curriculum. (6) Integration into the mainstream is achieved by well-trained staff. Program models which integrate students into grade-level, mainstream classes need to be carefully designed, delivered, and led by staff who possess and strategically employ appropriate skills and strategies to promote language development and who understand the second language learning process. Important studies of effective bilingual education programs investigate the level of acquisition of both the first and second languages, the rate of acquisition of the second language, and the development of subject content knowledge attained in both first and second languages. These four areas of research are detailed in the following subsections. 2.5.1 Second Language Acquisition in Bilingual Programs: Expectations and Research Findings Second language and literacy skills develop interdependently although their rate of acquisition varies in different settings (Araujo, 2002; Tabors; 2008). Many individual and environmental factors impact second language acquisition including age, exposure time to the target language, and educational backgrounds (Collier, 1987; Lightbrown & Spada, 2006). In addition, program type, curriculum design, and the number and quality of opportunities for learning the new language in and out of school shape a student’s acquisition of the second language. 52 The broad base of research in second language acquisition shows that in key aspects of language learning such as vocabulary and grammar attainment, length of utterance, and fluency, students develop in similar ways, or by following similar routes to proficiency, no matter what their age is, whether or not they are learning the second language in a classroom in a country where the language is spoken, no matter what their first language is, and no matter what they were actually taught (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Tabors, 2008; Tabors & Snow, 1994). These learners follow predictable stages, and acquire (use fluently in a meaningful context) predictable language structures in a predictable order, sometimes in spite of direct, grammatically based instruction. These stages generally proceed along a continuum of (1) silent processing (The student listens but does not speak. Demonstrations of comprehension are made by performing tasks in response to requests or commands. For example, the student hears “Put your book on the table,” but does not respond verbally. Comprehension is demonstrated physically because the student puts the book on the table, as requested.) (2) oneand two-word phrases, usually action verbs and concrete nouns (3) simple, highly functional statements and questions using simple tenses, often with variable syntax (4) simple sentences using more complex tenses (continuous, perfect) and more standard syntax (5) simple, mostly grammatical sentences with a greater complexity of embedded phrases and clauses for the purpose of description, but the student has command of less vocabulary than native-speaking peers (6) a variety of sentence and question structures including compound and complex (7) elaborated statements and questions. The route followed to second language attainment is fundamentally similar to that of the route followed by native speakers of English (Bialystok & Hakuta, 1995). Whereas these groups of learners may follow different paths (learning two languages 53 simultaneously; adding a second language before or after age 2 or in adulthood) both groups gain two languages, although acquiring the second language may require conscious effort on the part of the learner. One line of research into the variability of second language acquisition in bilingual education programs has focused on the role of learner socio-linguistic variables (Berry, 1998; Dörnyei ,2001; Sawyer & Ranta, 2001; Skehan, 1989, 1998). This research has shown that these variables play an important role in the rate of second language acquisition. For example, some of these studies show that students in these programs may be different from non-bilingual-program students because of the selection process. Students may be selected by committees on the basis of factors such as scholastic aptitude and motivation. They also may self-select or be put in the program by their parents, indicating a greater amount of parent support for education which may result in higher student motivation levels. Especially within schools that offer both a bilingual and a regular program, selection criteria may account for a large part of the differences in development of language proficiency between groups (Dörnyei, 2001). Cross-cultural studies in cognition point out the existence of different ways of thinking and learning which are generally overlooked by Western-style education. Research points out that cultural differences might also determine the way in which a new language is learned, particularly when the process of socialization is not as verbally marked or influenced as the one characteristic of Western-style middle class families (Lopez, 2000). For example, in some rural and indigenous South American communities, the role of silence may be fundamental in second language learning since the traditional mode of learning is one where careful observation and adult and peer imitation play an important role. Bialystok & Hakuta (1994) note that although 54 cultures may vary in their practices of language socialization of infants and toddlers, the outcome of first-language acquisition remains universal. The two researchers further point out that this cultural identification and absolute fluency, however, is not a guaranteed outcome in second-language learning. These ideas are in line with the work of Vygotsky (1962) and Bruner (1996) who reported that the relationship between language and thought is basically related to environments and cultures. They point out that language is not only something that the learner thinks about, but it is also part of the learner’s thinking process itself. 2.5.2 Expectations for Rate of Second Language Acquisition in Bilingual Programs: Research Findings Empirical studies focusing on the rate at which students attain their second language in CLIL programs are still to be presented. Meanwhile, other studies indicate that while the rate of English as a first language acquisition is highly predictable and essentially similar among speakers (Tabors & Snow, 1994; Tabors, 2008), the rate of English as a second language acquisition is varied and difficult to predict due to the high number of variables that can be present. These may include quality of the program model, time spent in first and second language environments, age of the learner and cognitive ability of the learner (Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2006; Collier, 1989; Cummins, 1999). A review of 71 peer-reviewed journal articles studying pre-Kindergarten through grade 12 second language learners who were participating in bilingual programs found that those students required 3 to 7 years to reach proficiency in that second language, with younger learners typically taking longer but more likely to achieve close-to-native results (August & Hakuta, 1997). This finding connects to work done by Collier (2009), who analyzed the length of time required for 1,548 55 immigrants to the U.S. to become proficient in English as a second language skills for all content areas when schooled only in English. Students who had received instruction, then were tested in the fourth, sixth, eighth, and eleventh grades on reading, language arts, social studies, science, and mathematics using standardized tests produced by Science Research Associates (SRA). The study included a range of students beginning with those who began exposure to English, their second language, at age 5 and continuing through those beginning at age 15. Length of residence ranged from two to five years. Over 75 first languages were represented in the sample. Only students who were at grade level in their home language when they entered the U.S. and who had no previous exposure to English were included in the study. Social class background of the sample was middle to upper class in the home country with relatively lower income in the U.S. but with strong middle-class aspirations. Collier found that students who were 8 to 12 years old on arrival were the first to reach norms for native speakers, which is considered to be the 50th percentile or normal curve equivalent (NCE) on all content-area tests, doing so within 4 to 5 years. Students who were 5 to 7 years old on arrival fell significantly behind the older children in academic achievement, requiring 5 to 8 years (4500 to 7200 hours) to reach the 50th percentile or NCE, assuming a continued rate of gain similar to the one at the time of the study. Arrivals at ages 12 to 15 experienced the greatest difficulty reaching age and grade norms, requiring 6 to 8 years at their same rate of gain. Very little longitudinal research has been conducted in dual language or CLIL environments that provides evidence indicating a rate for second language acquisition in those programs ; however, Collier’s analysis of existing research found that consistent, uninterrupted cognitive academic development in all subjects 56 throughout students’ schooling is more important than the number of hours of second language instruction for successful academic achievement in a second language, which is an important finding CLIL program creators might wish to consider. In three studies (Howard, Christian, & Genesee, 2003; Lindholm-Leary, 2005; Thomas & Collier, 2002) involving two-way, or dual-language immersion programs, researchers studied the oral second language development of both native-Spanish speakers learning English as a new language and native-English speaking children learning Spanish. In a review of studies Genesee (in Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders & Christian, 2006) reported that noteworthy trends emerge from comparing the data of these three studies. On oral proficiency assessments using a Likert scale of 1 to 5 (1 being no proficiency at all; 5 being native or native-like proficiency) students in the bilingual programs – both the English as a second language learner and the Spanish as a second language learners – took a minimum of 3 years of program participation to achieve a level of 4 or higher in their new language. The reviewers of the studies continued their comparison of studies, and found that even students in programs where they were assumed to be receiving the maximum level of input in the second language (immersion programs) did not achieve a level of 4 or higher until after they had participated in the program for a minimum of 3 years. The researchers furthermore noted in their comparison of studies that none of the students in the programs studied began to approach a level of 5 (native-like) until at least 5 years of program participation. The trends observed held regardless of whether students participated in bilingual or immersion programs. The reviewers also reported that the students in elementary bilingual programs tended to make more rapid progress from lower elementary to middle-elementary 63 specifically in the historically bilingual communities where languages such as Basque, Galician, and Catalan are spoken as a home language, since the positive effects of bilingual education on first language skills could prove to be a driving force in the further creation of educationally sound publications (textbooks, ancillary materials) in those languages to support not only the development of the home language, but also the second one. 2.5.4 Expectations for the Development of Subject Content Knowledge in Both the First and Second Languages in Bilingual Programs: Research Findings Much of the research conducted in the past concerning bilingual education programs has centered on the demands learners face when developing two linguistic systems. After an extensive review of the body of research into bilingual education programs worldwide reporting results in first and second language attainment and cognitive development, Collier (2009) generalized their findings by saying that when students are schooled in two languages, with solid cognitive academic instruction provided in both the first and second languages, in classrooms with both language minority and language majority students, both groups generally take from 4 to 7 years to reach national norms on standardized tests in reading, social studies, and science (on measures of thinking skills), whereas their performance may reach national norms in as little as 2 years in firstand second-language tests in mathematics and language arts (the latter testing spelling, punctuation, and simple grammar points). Social class background does not appear to make a significant difference in academic achievement in a dual-language program. In addition, the synthesis of research by Collier stated that immigrants arriving at ages 8 to 12, with at least 2 years of first language schooling in their home country, who are schooled exclusively in the second language after arrival in the host country, take 5 to 7 years 64 to reach the level of average performance by native speakers on second language standardized tests in reading, social studies, and science. Young arrivals with no schooling in their first language in either their home country or the host country may take even longer to reach the level of average performance by native speakers on second-language standardized tests: possibly as long as 7 to 10 years in reading, social studies, and science, or indeed, never. Since the focus has been given to language achievement, very little longitudinal research has been conducted in dual language or CLIL environments concerning levels of subject content attainment; however, Collier’s analysis of existing research found that consistent, uninterrupted cognitive academic development in all subjects throughout students’ schooling is more important than the number of hours of second language instruction for successful academic achievement in a second language. In addition, the body of research has shifted emphasis from investigating social language development to emphasizing more academic English, and the research on academic achievement for second language learners in bilingual programs strongly supports this shift (Cook, Boals & Lundberg, 2011). CLIL professionals are also now recognizing the important need to include investigations seeking to measure subject content knowledge attainment in their call for increased research initiatives (Ruíz de Zarobe & Lasagabaster, 2010). Nevertheless, previous studies centered on this area of learning do exist. In a Guatemalan Bilingual Education Project in 1983 which used a sample of 40 experimental schools and 40 control schools, after three years of schooling in their native indigenous language, Maya, and Spanish, children in the experimental schools with a bilingual curriculum obtained better grades in mathematics, social sciences and natural sciences than their peers who studied only in Spanish, the 65 native language (Stewart, 1983). Additionally, in a longitudinal study conducted in Bolivia between 1990 and 1995 with a sample of indigenous-speaking schools located in regions where Aymara, Guarani, and Quechua were spoken, after four years of bilingual education, students in the experimental schools outperformed their peers who had only education in Spanish in mathematical problem solving and in social sciences and natural sciences tasks (Lopez, 2000). These studies attributed the increases in student achievement to their participation in bilingual programs, citing the first language support they received and their additional opportunities to process content matter in their home language as well as contributing factors to their improvements. Additionally, a research study conducted between 2004 and 2007 in the Basque Country of Spain reported that learning content through a second language presented no impediments to content learning (Ruíz de Zarobe & Lasagabaster, 2010). In Europe, until 2010, the connections between cognitive development and content learning had been an almost unexplored area, since, as already mentioned, most studies there had focused on the learning process of the foreign language or the mother tongue (Walker & Tedick, 2000), and empirical studies are still awaited there. Amid this research void, two researchers emerged as leaders in this arena: Bergroth and Jäppinen. Bergroth (2006) reported that in programs implementing a CLIL program model, mother tongue development and content knowledge attainment were not decreased in bilingual (or multilingual) education. Bergroth found that students in multilingual instruction (Swedish, English, and Finnish, the home language) performed as well as their monolingually educated peers on the mandatory Finnish matriculation exam taken after completing secondary school. Again in a CLIL 66 environment, Jäppinen (2005) compared the learning of mathematics and science in the first language (Finnish) and the progress in learning it in a second language (English, French, or Swedish) for 669 students aged 7 to 15 in 12 Finnish schools. The aim of the study was to examine the cognitive development and content learning processes of both groups and compare them. This research pointed to positive results for the students’ learning of subject content. In most cases, the cognitive development of students in CLIL classrooms was similar to the development of students taught in their native language. In some cases, the cognitive development of the group taught in CLIL environments seemed to be even faster than in those taught in the home language. Jäppinen noted that students at the younger ages in CLIL classrooms particularly exhibited greater gains in cognition. She proposed that this could be due to the fact that the cognitive load and complexities of more abstract thinking are part of math and science in the upper grades, whereas the amount of time those subjects are taught in the first and second language remained the same as in the lower grades. 2.6 Bilingual Education Curriculum Curriculum development is a systematic design of what is to be taught. It is the process of setting up and establishing specific guidelines of instruction for the curriculum. The primary focus of a curriculum is on what is to be taught and when, leaving to the teaching profession decisions as to how this should be done. Program curriculum includes aims, learning methods and subject matter sequencing. It is a sophisticated blend of educational strategies, course content, learning outcomes, educational experiences, assessment, and the educational environment. Curriculum not only covers the formal teaching/learning but also the other aspects of human development associated with educational life. The curriculum indicates what 67 objectives must be achieved by the student and what tasks must be fulfilled in order to achieve these (Glossary of Education Reform, 2014). The design of the bilingual education curriculum should reflect an understanding of the route learners follow to language proficiency, and therefore have clear expectations of what learners can achieve at given points on the developmental continuum (Myles, 2002). Additionally, the curriculum needs to ensure that learners develop both formulaic expressions in English as well as rule-based competencies (Ellis, 2008). Bilingual education curriculum development requires a decision-making process, the ability to perceive student needs and community culture, and skills in the instructional aspect of curriculum development; it cannot simply be a decision to teach an existing curriculum in two languages, because such a decision lacks a strategic reflection of the route learners follow in developing language proficiency (Myles, 2002). With these concepts in mind and in response to the need to provide a measure of guidance to CLIL programs being formed in Andalusia, in 2008 the regional governing body (Junta de Andalucía) produced a curriculum document for CLIL programs there: Curriculum Integrado de Lenguas. Its initial goal was to encourage rethinking of the means, methods, and materials used to teach both first and second languages. It was also intended to create a common understanding among educators of the theoretical underpinnings of CLIL, and it included user-friendly answers to what its authors perceived would be the most commonly asked questions regarding teaching academic subjects through a second language (Lorenzo, 2010). The document contained sample lessons in German, French, English, and Spanish in an attempt to create a shared vision of the solid linguistic base upon which the CLIL model stands. Although language education in this region of Spain continues to be an 68 evolving initiative, the CLIL curriculum document represented a desire and commitment on the part of leaders in the education field there. The Horizon 2020 Plan has announced initiatives to foster curriculum support by promoting teacher participation in eTwinning, a technology based platform connecting European schools to form partnerships, share lesson plan ideas, and develop pedagogical skills together. Other actions encourage curriculum development activities through social networks and job shadowing opportunities between centers to facilitate shared learning. There is also a plan to create a resource bank of teacher-made CLIL lessons and materials. In addition a number of universities around Spain, including in Andalusia, have begun new programs on the masters and doctoral levels in teaching and learning a second language. Three universities stand out for these enterprises: Pablo de Olavide in Seville, Alcalá de Henare, and the Autonomous University in Barcelona. New courses are being delivered addressing skills in a bilingual classroom context including general teaching and learning concepts, the development of reading and writing, the delivery of content subject matter, cultural and intercultural notions, and assessment techniques. 2.7 Required Components for Effective Bilingual Programs Although the integration of language and content is not a new development in the field of English language teaching, what is striking is the extent and diversity of programs that have developed in over the years (Freeman & Freeman, 2006; Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007). In a broad description, bilingual education can mean any use of two languages in school – by teachers or students or both – for a variety of social and pedagogical purposes (National Association of Bilingual Education, 2014). Effective bilingual education programs seeking to add English as a second language include all of these characteristics: (1) English as a second language (ESL) or English as foreign 69 language instruction (EFL) instruction (2) sheltered subject matter teaching, and (3) instruction in the first language. Accordingly, they should also establish goals for (1) acquisition of English as a second-language (2) maintenance and further development of the first language (3) acquisition of subject knowledge (4) acquisition of intercultural skills (4) learning to learn; developing appropriate learning strategies, and (5) practical application of the acquired competencies and skills, namely subject content, language and intercultural skills (National Association of Bilingual Education, 2014). The National Association of Bilingual Education (2014), Rennie (1993), and Roberts (1995) assure in their research findings that although there is wide variety in the way effective bilingual education programs are designed, it is important to note that all properly designed bilingual programs have elements of purposeful language development in both the first and second languages. Since no specific outline for program design has as of yet been provided for Andalusian CLIL programs, educators there working to create these programs should look to guidance from research groups such as those presented in this section as they move forward with CLIL implementation. The Horizon 2020 plan does not include initiatives to consolidate or promote a set of best practices for CLIL program design; therefore, it is up to practitioners to collaborate and find information themselves to ensure the implementation of programs with components that are shown as essential, based on recommendations validated by empirical research. 2.7.1 Language instruction components In programs with English as the target language, whether English as a second language (ESL) or English as a foreign language (EFL), language instruction is a required component. Whereas instructional strategies for ESL and EFL teaching 70 have strong similarities, they also have important and significant differences in pedagogy and curricular objectives. ESL instruction is provided in a setting where English is the language of the community and classes are usually composed of mixed nationalities where students do not share a common native language nor culture. Students have a specific, practical need to use English outside the classroom in places where they live their daily lives, and they are continually exposed to English outside the classroom. EFL instruction takes place in a setting where English is not the language of the community outside the classroom. Students in the class usually share the same language and culture. In some cases, the teacher may be the only native English speaker or fluent speaker of the language the students have exposure to, and the classroom setting is often the only source of English language input that the students have access to. Many times English is being learned as an academic subject with no real or immediate practical application. Students’ exposure to the English-speaking culture may be limited and distorted by media. ESL pedagogy differs from EFL pedagogy in that in the ESL context, the teacher provides ample concrete, hands-on classroom activities targeting the daily needs of the students (school, work place, and community). Assignments can capitalize on settings outside the classroom as appropriate venues for language input. Instruction specifically integrates elements of the community culture and creates bridges to integration into the local Englishspeaking community. In an EFL setting, since the teacher is one of the primary sources of language input, the teacher needs to create abundant, motivating language practice opportunities, especially oral ones. The teacher needs to create real reasons for the students to learn English so that the language does not seem to them to be merely a set of arbitrary rules and theoretical manipulations of grammar structures. 71 2.7.2 Clear Expectations for Defining Language “Proficiency” as a Program Outcome Clear expectations, which define terms such as “fluency” and “proficiency” and describe behaviors and stages, should be a requirement of a well-designed language program. An essential question when looking at expected program outcomes and rate of language acquisition is: “What does ‘proficiency’ mean?” (Collier, 1992; Collier & Thomas, 1997). “Language ability” encompasses multiple aspects: listening, speaking, reading, writing, comprehension, pragmatics, semantics, phonology, morphology, and syntax, for example. The points of comparison among the 71 peer-reviewed journal articles, performed by August and Hakuta in 1997 and described in a previous section, contained varying goals for ‘proficiency’. Language learners at beginning levels of instruction are able to successfully use language to communicate an idea – sometimes with only a word or two or with “alternative” syntax forms. Educators, as well as researchers, have been seeking to refine descriptions of student ability as they develop their language skills. To better define “proficiency”, frameworks describing the language user’s behaviors or use of language have been established as guidelines. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment or CEFR, (Council of Europe, 2011), is one such guideline used to describe achievements of learners of foreign languages across Europe. Its use has spread to other countries as well. In the United States, frameworks such as the ones included in guidelines for young learners (Tabors & Snow, 1994), the Early Language Listening and Oral Proficiency Assessment (ELLOPA) scoring rubric (Thompson, et al., 2006) and the Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM) (California State Department of Education, 1981) are other examples, all described below. 72 2.7.2.1 CEFR Proficiency Levels To classify the proficiency of learners, CEFR divides them into three broad divisions that can be divided into six levels: A. Basic User (A1 breakthrough or beginner and A2 waystage or elementary). B. Independent User (B1 threshold or intermediate and B2 vantage or upper intermediate) and C. Proficient User (C1 effective operational proficiency or advanced and C2 mastery or proficiency. Furthermore, CEFR describes what a learner should be able to do at each level in the discrete language skills of reading, listening, speaking and writing. 2.7.2.2 Proficiency Level Guidelines for the Young Learner Regarding language proficiency scales created for the young learner, Tabors and Snow (1994) described a four-stage developmental sequence for second language acquisition in young children learning a new language after the age of three and before the age of eight. The first stage is an early period of language development (Home Language Period) when the child is just becoming aware of or is still learning that more than one language exists. In a social setting in which those around the child speak a different language, the child may continue to speak the home language. The second stage is an early/middle period (Observational/Listening Period). It is a non-verbal period when the child is gathering information about the new language. The child is not doing much talking. The child may rely on non-verbal communication, such as gestures and facial expressions, and may respond nonverbally when asked a question, such as by pointing or gesturing. In classroom where only a new language is used with no first language support, the child may even enter a phase in this period when s/he does not talk at all in either language but spends additional time listening only and responding non-verbally. In a bilingual classroom, the child may only attempt to talk with those who speak his or her home language. 79 Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) and Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) (Cummins, 1978, 1980, 1981a, 1981b). In the decades since, researchers have investigated the features of the language students need to succeed in school in an attempt to better define those skills. Continued research by Cummins and others has brought educators to the general agreement that all students, both first and second language learners, are learning to manage new sociocultural and language routines in classrooms and schools and that in each content area, students make use of specialized vocabulary, grammar, language functions and related discourse structures, and text types. All students learning English, as a first or a second language, must learn to use the language appropriately in multiple academic environments, make sense of complex content matter, and articulate their understanding of that content using academic language. English used in science classrooms draws on vocabulary, grammar, and discourse unique to science. Table 4 summarizes the features of academic language. The development of academic language occurs within sociocultural contexts for language use, which involve the interaction between the student and the language environment; for example, the language of an oral presentation in a classroom will be different from the language used in a written report. As another example, the academic language students use during small-group interactive activities may be different from the academic language used when called on by the teacher to answer in front of the class. Within academic disciplines there are distinct patterns of oral and written language (Bailey, Butler, Stevens, & Lord, 2007). Academic language also varies according to register (formal/informal), the type of task, the topic, the participants’ identities (individual/group presenter), and their social role (group leader/group member). 80 81 Table 4: Features of the Dimensions of Academic Language As outlined in previous sections, regardless of program model, research indicates that when students receive a minimum of 2 hours a day in the target language in bilingual classrooms, second language oral and aural language proficiency (speaking and listening skills) typically develop to grade level in 3 to 5 years (See Section 2.5.2). Academic English proficiency, however, can take 4 to 7 years (Hakuta, et al., 2000). Additionally, researchers have found that this proficiency attainment happens faster when students begin to learn the new language at a younger age (Collier & Thomas, 1989, 1992; Hakuta et al., 2000). Cook Dimension Criteria Features Discourse Linguistic Complexity  Amount of speech/written text  Structure of speech/written text  Density of speech/written text  Coherence and cohesion of ideas  Variety of sentence types to form organized text Sentence Language Forms and Conventions  Types and variety of grammatical constructions  Mechanics of sentence types  Fluency of expression  Match language forms to purposes/perspectives  Formulaic and idiomatic expressions Word/Phrase Vocabulary Usage  General, specific, and technical language  Multiple meanings of words and phrases  Nuances and shades of meaning  Collocations and idioms Adapted from WIDA: The Features of Academic Language in the WIDA Standards © 2014 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System on behalf of the WIDA Consortium www.wida.us 82 and Zhao (2011) examined the time needed for students to reach a score of proficient, as defined by local state regulations, in a paper investigating the growth of English proficiency and content knowledge attainment in bilingual classrooms in the United States where English was the target language and students were receiving a daily minimum of two hours in their new language. Over a 5-year instruction period, only 10 percent of students starting with the lowest level of English proficiency attained a score of ‘proficient’ in 5 years. For English language learners to succeed in a bilingual education context, they must master not only English vocabulary and grammar, but also the way English is used in core content classes (Short, 1998). Academic language includes semantic and syntactic knowledge along with functional language use. For example, when using English, students must be able to read and understand expository prose such as that found in textbooks; to write persuasively; to argue points of view; and to take notes from teachers’ lectures. They must also articulate their thinking skills in English, making hypotheses and predictions, express analyses, draw conclusions, and so forth. In content classes, English language learners must pull together their emerging knowledge of the English language with the content knowledge they are studying in order to complete the academic tasks associated with the content area. They must, however, also learn how to do these tasks — generate the format of an outline, negotiate roles in cooperative learning groups, interpret charts and maps, and such. The combination of these three knowledge bases — knowledge of English, knowledge of the content topic, and knowledge of how the tasks are to be accomplished — constitutes the major components of academic literacy (Echevarria et al., 1998). These points are also illustrated as features of academic language in Table 3. 83 Within a European context, Skutnabb-Kangas and Toukomaa (1976) initially brought attention to the fact that Finnish immigrant children in Sweden often appeared to educators to be fluent in both Finnish and Swedish but still showed levels of verbal academic performance in both languages considerably below grade and age expectations. The distinction between basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) introduced by Cummins (1979, 1981a) was intended to draw attention to the very different time periods typically required by immigrant children to acquire conversational fluency in their second language as compared to grade-appropriate academic proficiency in that language. As previously stated, Cummins reports that conversational fluency is often acquired to a functional level within about 2 years of initial exposure to the second language whereas at least 5 years is usually required to catch up to native speakers in academic aspects of the second language, and subsequent research has supported these findings (Collier, 1987, 1984; Cummins, 1981a; Hakuta, et al., 2000). The terms conversational fluency and academic language proficiency are used interchangeably with BICS and CALP (Cummins, 2000). Cummins in 2008 reported that the distinction between BICS and CALP was never intended as a complete theory about language proficiency. The distinction was meant to demonstrate the underlying reasons for the discrepancies in language performance of bilingual students, when these students are seemingly fluent in their second language (judged by oral interactions with peers) yet cannot cope in school with the language of textbooks and the classroom. When teachers heard children speaking orally to friends, the teachers may have come to consider the student to be “fluent” in the second language. Issues arose when the students’ academic work was analyzed, as the work did not reflect similar “fluent” language use. Cummins (2000) explains the 84 instructional implications of CALP in terms of three elements. (1) Cognitive: instruction should be cognitively challenging using higher-order thinking skills such as evaluating, inferring, generalizing, and classifying. (2) Academic: curriculum content should be integrated with language instruction so that students learn the language of specific academic areas. (3) Language: critical language awareness should be developed both linguistically (e.g., conventions of each language) and socioculturally (e.g., different language status and use). Cummins’ ideas are important to bilingual education because they relate directly to creating instructional and learning environments that maximize the language and literacy development for bilingual students (Cummins, 2000). 2.7.4 Interaction and Language Learning Regarding the importance that interaction plays in the language acquisition process, as a result of her research, Kuhl (2002) stated that babies cannot learn initial language skills appropriate to their age (e.g., phonemic awareness) from television or audio recordings, and it is necessary for babies to have abundant faceto-face interaction to learn how to talk. In her study, Kuhl’s team exposed 9-month old American babies to Mandarin in various formats, first providing face-to-face interactions with native Mandarin-speaking teachers and then comparing those results to groups of children who received the same instruction provided by audiovisual and audio recordings of the speakers. Kuhl then looked at the impact of this exposure on the babies’ ability to make Mandarin phonetic contrasts (not found in English) at 10 to 12 months of age. The process demonstrated that laboratory visits featuring face-to-face interactions with the native Mandarin-speaking teachers were sufficient for the American babies to distinguish the Mandarin sounds as well as Taiwanese babies of the same age whose home language was Mandarin. However, 85 the same number of laboratory visits featuring the audiovisual or audio recordings made no impact on the phonemic awareness abilities of the children studied. American babies exposed to Mandarin through these technologies performed the same as a control group of American babies exposed to interactions with native English speakers during their lab visits. This study speaks to the importance of meaningful interaction in language learning environments and indicates that without interaction with the speaker, the babies did not acquire the ability to distinguish between basic language sounds. Further research is necessary to determine the impact that interaction plays on learners at a wider range of ages. Language students need to practice and interact with others using the language, even if that means that the interaction is not always perfect. This language practice can be accomplished through structured and unstructured interaction times (Franco 2006). Students’ language development benefits from less teacher talk and more student talk (Kagan, 1994b). That is to say, more student interaction about the subject and topics being learned results in greater English proficiency faster, including more academic English proficiency, for the student (Echevarria et al., 2008; Franco 2006; Kagan 1994a). The opportunity to interact in the second language is central to developing second language proficiency. According to research, learners need opportunities to practice language at their level of English language competency (Gopnik, Meltzoff, & Kuhl, 1999; Krashen, 1982). This practice using English to communicate results in Comprehensible Output (Krashen, 1982) which consists of producing utterances made by the second language speaker which are understood by the receiver of the message. Engaging in cooperative learning activities is one strategy where learners of English receive comprehensible input and produce comprehensible output because 86 in a small group setting the teacher or classmates modify or adapt the message to the listener’s needs (Kagan, 1994b). As Kagan points out, when participating in cooperative groups, speakers can more easily check on the understanding of the listener. There is more opportunity for oral practice and for repetition of content information as peers help other learners of English negotiate meaning. Student talk in a small group is centered on what is actually happening at the moment as the task is completed, and feedback and correction are non-judgmental and immediate. That means if teachers always have students sitting in rows and expect to have quiet classrooms, language is not going to be easily developed. In situations where the bilingual classroom is made up only of students who all share the same home language (as is the case of the classrooms included in this study) teachers may find it more challenging to encourage children to keep student/peer interactions in the target language. After all, if the dominant language in the classroom is not the target one, and the primary concern of the learner is to communicate, students (especially young learners) may naturally resort to the communication system that is most readily available to them: their dominant one. In these situations, language practice is not what the children are thinking about. They just want to get their point across, and they will use whatever language system is most efficient to get the job done (Fillmore & Snow, 2000). Therefore, it is natural for a classroom of native Spanish speakers to speak to each other in Spanish, not English. In order to keep interaction in the target language, second language learners benefit from having to accomplish a task which requires them to communicate with each other in a cooperative, structured activity (Kagan, 1994b). Kagan also points out that it may require less effort for a teacher of older students to keep the language of 87 the classroom in the target language, because they are more metacognitively aware of learning another language. For younger students, the use of humor and making target language activities fun are good stimuli (Franco, 2006). Playing games that use the content, singing songs using target vocabulary and/or the topics studied, telling jokes, doing experiments, and doing easy craft activities that are step-by-step demonstrations students can see and follow are ideal types of interactive activities for second language content classrooms (Echevarria, et al., 2008). Providing students with a language partner they are required to use the new language with, even an imaginary partner such as a puppet, allows students to see and understand the need to use the target language (Krashen, 1994). Telling the class that the class pet/puppet only speaks the target language and creating activities designed to talk to the pet also is a creative way to increase interaction in English (Franco, 2006). Teachers are the language models in the classrooms and need to provide excellent examples of rich, interesting vocabulary for children at all times (Echevarria, et al., 2008). In addition, they need to know how to structure the classroom day to maximize student interactions (Grognet, Jameson, Franco, & Derrick, 2000). Students need to interact with each other about the topic and content being taught in order to develop not only language competencies but also thinking and academic language skills (Krashen 1994, Grognet et al., 2000). To accomplish this, teachers should plan cooperative rather than other group activities and arrange instruction so that students have to use the vocabulary and academic language of the lesson in their interactions with each other in meaningful ways. There are distinct and important differences between truly cooperative work and group work as is illustrated in Table 4. This is not to say that there is not a role for group work in the classroom. It is just to say that teachers should realize the differences and plan for 88 them. The two types of activities yield different interactions among students and different end results (Kagan, 1994b). 95 common context of experience within the school itself. In schools, there is ordinarily little joint activity from which common experiences emerge, and therefore results in no common context that allows students to develop shared systems of understanding with the teacher and with one another. The Andalusian Horizon 2020 plan speaks to this standard in its efforts to promote a move to project-based language learning in its CLIL programs there. CREDE’s second standard addresses the need to develop language and literacy in both languages across the curriculum. The standards encourage teachers to develop language within a wide variety of areas, such as informal, problem-solving, and academic, recommending that teachers foster language through purposeful, deliberate conversation between teacher and students, rather than through drills and decontextualized rules. CREDE’s guidance further recommends that reading and writing be taught both as specific curricula and be integrated into each content area. The third standard for effective pedagogy and learning recommended by CREDE concerns the contextualization of language. It gives teachers guidance to make meaning of language that connects to school and students’ lives and considers that “understanding” language means connecting new learning to previous knowledge. Assisting students in making these connections strengthens newly acquired knowledge and increases student engagement with learning activities. Schools typically teach rules, abstractions, and verbal descriptions, and they teach by means of those same rules, abstractions, and verbal descriptions. Effective instruction assists students by providing experiences that show abstract concepts are drawn from and applied to the everyday world. The fourth of CREDE’s standards recommends that teachers provide students with challenging activities that teach complex thinking. Complex thinking is 96 cognitively challenging; that is, instruction that requires thinking and analysis, rather than rote, repetitive, detail-level drills. This does not mean ignoring phonics rules, or not memorizing the multiplication tables, but it does mean going beyond that level of curriculum into the exploration of the deepest possible reaches of interesting and meaningful materials. Working with a cognitively challenging curriculum requires careful leveling of tasks, so that students are motivated to stretch their learning. It also requires a purposeful match between written materials and students’ language proficiency levels. In its fifth standard, CREDE highlights the importance of instructional conversation. In the Instructional Conversation (IC), the teacher listens carefully, makes guesses about intended meaning, and adjusts responses to assist students’ efforts. The teacher connects formal, school knowledge to the student's individual, family, and community knowledge. The IC provides opportunities for the development of the languages of instruction and subject matter. IC is a supportive and collaborative event that builds intersubjectivity and a sense of community. IC achieves individualization of instruction and is best practiced during joint productive activity. It is an ideal setting for language development and allows sensitive contextualization, and precise, stimulating cognitive challenge. 2.8.3.1 Three basic principles Based on CREDE’s five standards, three basic principles to enhance the learning of English as a second language in classrooms were established (Grognet, et al., 2000). Through collaborative training and research interactions performed at the Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington, D.C., these have been incorporated into the SIOP observation tool, which is one of the assessments used in the study reported here. 97 The first basic principle is to increase the comprehensibility of instruction. The learner must understand the message that is conveyed. Comprehensible input is a hypothesis first proposed by Krashen (1981). He purports that second language learners acquire language by hearing and understanding messages that are slightly above their current language level. Krashen considers comprehensible input to be the most important factor for language acquisition, and he regards incomprehensible input as a factor that hinders second language acquisition. He defines the good language teacher as someone who can make input comprehensible to a non-native speaker, and he believes that the best activities for the classroom are those that are natural, interesting and understandable. Similarly, Littlewood (1984) considers the ideal input for acquiring a second language to be similar to the input that young children receive in their first language; comprehensible, relevant to their immediate interests, not too complex, but not strictly graded. The creators of the SIOP model (Echevarria, et al., 2008) describe comprehensible input as instruction that includes appropriately leveled speech, gives clear explanations and modeling of academic tasks, and uses instructional techniques and strategies that provide clues and contexts for meaning. To make instruction comprehensible, teachers can start lessons by building on the student’s prior knowledge. They can begin activities with what students already know and use activities that move students from concrete ideas to abstract thought. By recycling concepts that have already been learned and by building on what the students already know or on what they have already been taught rather than continually presenting new concepts, students are able to make connections to meaning more readily. New vocabulary that is introduced within a meaningful context makes it more comprehensible. When new vocabulary is used repeatedly in 98 different activities and is recycled in a variety of contexts, its meaning becomes more evident to students. Teachers can work to be certain that the non-verbal clues are clear and straightforwardly unambiguous, representing the target culture associated with the target language, but free of cross-cultural confusions. Four kinds of visuals assist in making the meaning of language more clear: pictures/photographs, props, realia (the use of authentic objects as opposed to simple a picture of the item), and graphic organizers. Increasing and incorporating their use as much as needed to show meaning assists language learners in making sense of the language they are hearing. Demonstrations also show meaning, and hands-on activities allow students to use different learning modalities to interact with the language, providing more opportunities to clarify its meaning. When teachers show the meaning of what they are talking about and make an effort to talk about the content they are showing, students are able to make more connections and understand more. When teachers speak naturally and simplify, but not oversimplify, the language of instruction, speaking at a level of language equivalent to the students’ proficiency levels, students are able to comprehend more fully. Starting lessons with oral and aural activities first assists students not only in comprehending the language of instruction, especially when accompanied by visuals or demonstrations, but also supports literacy development. It allows students to learn to hear the sounds of English first and later attach them to writing in textbased activities later in the lesson. Written text that is carefully structured and uses graphic organizers and visual clues whenever possible also supports comprehensibility for students. Focusing on key concepts and key vocabulary necessary to learn core objectives of lessons, leaving out extemporaneous language that misdirects student’s attention, emphasizes the central information students are 99 expected to learn (Grognet et al., 2000). Franco (2006) affirms that the items described above by themselves do not increase comprehensibility since teaching is not only performance but requires the skills to appropriately combine strategies to make the meaning of instruction more evident to students. The second basic principle addresses the need for teachers to create activities that increase interaction and language use among students. This concept was discussed previously in Section 2.7.4, emphasizing the important role human interaction plays in developing language abilities. Connections between students’ language learning and using the language to complete meaningful activities in academic contexts also is developed through increased interaction. Basic principle number three points out that by increasing the use of higherorder thinking skills and by providing direct instruction in learning strategies, teachers assist students in acquiring not only content but also academic language. Students come to school with a need to develop thinking skills and with a need to learn how to learn (Jameson, 2002). It is the responsibility of the educators that teach them to help students develop to their full potential through practice in thinking skills that challenge them to prioritize, make choices, categorize, make inferences, justify their opinions, synthesize ideas, process their thinking, express themselves convincingly, develop organizational skills, and develop study skills that are appropriate to the individual’s cognitive ability, age, and learning styles. (CREDE, 2014; Grognet et al., 2000; Jameson, 2002). These skills develop when teachers ask students the right kinds of questions (Grognet et al., 2000). Table 6 provides an illustration of the kinds of questions teachers can ask students learning English as a second language, taking into consideration their limited English skills and using strategies to increase comprehensibility, from lowerto higher-level 100 thinking order. The table follows Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956). Teachers should remember to make their questions comprehensible by applying the concepts of increasing comprehensibility (Basic Principle #1) when posing questions (Grognet et al., 2000). Table 6: Asking English Learners Questions for Thinking Lower Level Thinking Remembering: Identification and recall of information Who, what, when, where, how __________________? Describe _______________________________. Understanding: Organization and selection of facts and ideas Retell ___________________ in your own words. What is the main idea of ____________________? Higher Level Thinking Applying: Use of facts, rules, principles How is ____________ an example of ___________? How is ______________ related to _____________? Why is ______________ significant? Analyzing: Separation of a whole into component parts What are the parts or features of _________________? Classify __________according to _____________. Outline/diagram/web __________________. How does ____________ compare/contrast with ____? What evidence can you list for_________________? Evaluating: Development of opinions, judgments, or decisions Do you agree? What do you think about _____? What is the most important __________? Prioritize ____________. How would you decide about _______? What criteria would you use to assess______________? Creating: Combination of ideas to form a new whole What would you predict/infer from _______________? What ideas can you add to________________? How would you create/design a new ___________? What might happen if you combined ______ with ____? What solutions would you suggest for ___________? (Adapted from Maryland State Dept. of Education, 1991) 101 2.8.3.2 The SIOP: Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP), is a model of teaching and a research-based observation instrument that has been shown to be a valid and reliable measure of instruction provided to students learning English as a new language in content classes (Guarino, et al., 2001). It was created to identify the features of instruction for English language learners that can enhance and expand teachers' instructional practice (Echevarria, et al., 2008). The SIOP is the assessment tool used to identify and quantify effective teaching behaviors being employed in the participating CLIL classrooms in the study detailed in this study. Short and Echevarria (1999) developed the SIOP as a research tool for describing effective practice for teachers of second language learners in content classes. By rating teachers using the protocol, Short and Echevarria found that teachers who scored higher on the SIOP scale had a positive effect on students’ narrative and expository writing skills (Echevarria et al., 2008; Short, 1991; Short, 1998; Short & Echevarria, 1999). The first version of SIOP was drafted in the early 1990s. It was used exclusively as a research and supervisory tool to determine if observed teachers incorporated key techniques to facilitate language and subject content learning consistently in their lessons. This early draft, like subsequent ones, pulled together findings and recommendations from the research literature with the professional experiences of the collaborating teachers on effective classroom-based practices (Echevarria et al., 2008). The protocol evolved into a lesson planning and delivery approach, known as the SIOP Model and has become an instructional approach for teachers to integrate content and language instruction to students learning through a new language. A seven-year research study, “The Effects of Sheltered Instruction on the Achievement of Limited 102 English Proficient Students,” was sponsored by the Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence (CREDE) and funded by the U.S. Department of Education and was conducted beginning in 1996. It involved collaborating with middle school teachers who worked with the researchers to refine the features of the original protocol: distinguishing between effective strategies for beginner, intermediate, and advanced English learners; determining “critical” versus “unique” sheltered teaching strategies; and making the SIOP more user friendly. A substudy confirmed the SIOP to be a valid and reliable measure of sheltered instruction (Guarino et al., 2001). During four years of field testing, teacher implementation and student effects were analyzed. This CREDE research showed that English learners whose teachers implemented criteria included in the SIOP performed statistically significantly better on an academic writing assessment than a comparison group of English learners whose teachers did not implement those strategies (Echevarria, et al., 2006). From 1999 to 2002, the SIOP Model’s professional development program was field-tested and refined to include professional development institutes, videotapes of exemplary SIOP teachers (Hudec & Short, 2002a, 2002b), facilitator’s guides (Echevarria et al., 2008; Short, Hudec, & Echevarria, 2002a), and other training materials. Researchers continued to test and refine the SIOP Model in several later studies. From 2004 to 2007, the SIOP research was replicated and scaled up in a quasiexperimental study in two U.S. school districts at the middle and high school levels (Short, Fidelman, & Louguit, 2012). The treatment teachers participated in the professional development program with summer institutes, follow-up workshops, and on-site coaching. Students with SIOP-trained teachers made statistically significant gains in their average mean scores for oral language, writing, and total proficiency on 103 the state assessment of English language proficiency, compared to the comparison group of English learners. From 2005 to 2011 SIOP researchers conducted a study for the Center for Research on the Educational Achievement and Teaching of English Language Learners (CREATE), looking first at the SIOP Model in middle school science classrooms (Himmel, Short, Richards, & Echevarria, 2009) and later at the SIOP Model as the professional development framework for a school-wide intervention (Echevarria & Short, 2011). The results from the experimental investigation showed that students who had teachers who implemented the SIOP with greater fidelity performed better than those who did not implement SIOP to a high degree (Echevarria, Richards-Tutor, Chinn, & Ratleff, 2011). The direct correlation between a greater score by teachers on the SIOP and higher achievement for students learning English as a second language is a clear indication that teachers who use more of the strategies included on the SIOP also more positively affect student language attainment. The protocol is composed of 30 items grouped into 8 sections with some being subdivided into more categories. The first section of the SIOP focuses on preparation and evaluates content objectives, language objectives, appropriateness of content concepts, supplementary materials, level of content and material adaptations, and meaningful activities. Section 2 focuses on instruction and looks first at how the lesson builds background knowledge for students, evaluating how lesson concepts are explicitly linked to students’ prior learning experiences and how key vocabulary concepts are introduced. Section 3 concerns comprehensible input and measures how teachers make themselves more understood to the students by their rate of speech, their clarity of language use, and their use of modeling, visuals, hands-on activities, gestures, graphic organizers, anticipation guides, chunking of written texts and the like. In Section 4, 104 criteria look at how learning strategies are explicitly taught and practiced, how student comprehension is supported and scaffolded, and how teachers use a variety of questioning strategies, including higher-order-thinking questions. Interaction in the classroom is the focus of Section 5, measuring how frequently teachers foster interaction among students, how teachers encourage elaboration of student responses, grouping configurations, appropriateness of wait time, and opportunities for students to receive clarification in their first language. Attention is given in Section 6 to opportunities provided to students to practice and apply their learning using activity-based lessons, hands-on materials, and an integration of language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing). Section 7 looks at how the lesson is delivered overall and measures how the content and language objectives of the lesson were supported, the appropriateness of the pacing of the lesson, and how engaged the students were. Section 8 of the SIOP addresses lesson review and assessment and measures how the teacher included a comprehensive review of vocabulary and content concepts as well as an overall assessment check of student comprehension and learning. Items are scored by the observer using a Likert scale with scores ranging from 0 to 4 (see sample SIOP in Appendix V). A lesson planning tool detailing the elements contained in the SIOP appears in Appendix VI. 2.8.4 Effective Teaching Behaviors in CLIL Programs Guidance recommending effective instructional delivery in CLIL classrooms directly connects to the standards, principles, and expectations described above in this section. In a number of ways, direction presented by deGraaff, Koopman, and Westhoff (2007) for the implementation of appropriate CLIL lessons relates to the discussion of 111 Spain, and then looking for connections between those levels of strategy implementation and student English language proficiency gains. The foundations of the study are based centrally on the research of Echevarria (2010) and Echevarria and Short (2011), in which they developed the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) and identified basic successful features of instruction for English as a second language through content. These basic features are shown to enhance and expand instruction provided by teachers. The hypothesis for this investigation is the following: Instructional techniques applied in CLIL programs have an effect on students’ listening and speaking skills. As presented in Section 1.3, research questions to be investigated and answered are  Is best practice for instructional strategies in bilingual programs being employed in participating bilingual classrooms?  What CLIL instructional best-practices are being employed in the bilingual classrooms studied?  What are the language acquisition outcomes for students in the bilingual classrooms studied? The study was conducted from January to May 2013, after a three-month planning phase was completed beginning in October 2012. A timeline and summary of the procedures followed to complete it appear below in Table 7, and details are described in this chapter. 112 Table 7: Summary Outline of Project Procedures Planning Period 3 months 1. Design study 2. Submit an outline of the plan of study and solicit permission from the Delegación Territorial de Educación to conduct study in public schools 3. Select schools to participate with the help of the Delegación 4. Conduct initial meetings with school directors and/or chief of studies 5. Select students to participate 6. Send letter to parents at Epsilon School and obtain signed permission for students’ participation Pre-test phase 1 week 1. Administer ELLOPA to all participating students at all centers Classroom Observation Phase 14 weeks 1. Observe each participating teacher bi-weekly in each class taught in English by that teacher 2. Complete a SIOP for each observation 3. Complete a SOLOM for each teacher 4. Conduct Interviews with all teachers and instructional assistants Post-test phase 1 week 1. Re-administer the ELLOPA to all participating students at all centers 3.2 Participants and Programs Studied Throughout this section details describing both teacher and student subjects of the study are provided, along with details about the schools and programs which were examined. Information regarding how subjects were identified and selected, the locations of the schools, how long each program has been operating, how many hours of English instruction students receive, and which content area subjects are included in the bilingual program provides context for comparisons to other groups in future studies which could focus on the amount of effective strategies being applied in bilingual 113 programs in Andalusia. Similarities among subjects, schools, and programs included in this study are pointed out and differences are also shown in this section of the chapter. 3.2.1 Subjects of the Study During the planning period, the project was conceived, schools to participate were identified, and permissions from the Delegación Territorial de Educación, Cultura y Deporte de Sevilla were solicited and received. A copy of the letter from the Delegación giving approval to observe classes in bilingual centers in Seville appears in Appendix VIII. Five Bilingual Centers in Seville were selected (out of 19 possibilities) based on their locations in the city of Seville (middle-class neighborhoods) in order to provide a representative sample of the city’s bilingual programs for the study. Initially seven schools were identified and invited to participate. Five accepted, and were included in the study. For the purposes of discussion, the five schools will be referred to as Alpha School, Beta School, Gamma School, Delta School, and Epsilon School. At participating schools, all teachers who provided instruction in English to second grade students were included in the study: a total of 11 teachers. The classes taught in English by those teachers included English (language development – AKA language arts), art, music, science, and physical education (PE), although the same selection of classes was not taught at each school. The specific classes taught at each school varied depending on how individual schools had chosen to set up their CLIL program. In addition, the number of hours of English instruction received by students at each school varied although all 149 of the students in the study were in the second grade in the bilingual program studied at the schools. The names of the schools, number of 114 students participating at each school, number of teachers participating at each school, and classes taught in English at each school appear below in Table 8. 115 Table 8: Data on Participating Schools As shown in the table, a total of 7 second grade classes in 5 different schools participated in the study, with the number of students in each class ranging from 21 to Name of School Number of Students Participating Number of Teachers Classes Taught in English Additional Information Alpha School 43 (2 class sections) Group 1 = 22 Group 2 = 21 2 English Language Science Art 2 teachers teach English to 2 entirely different groups of students; teachers do not share students Beta School 20 3 English Language Science Physical Education 3 teachers teach different content subjects to the same group of students; teachers share students Gamma School 20 2 English Language Science Art 2 teachers teach different content subjects to the same group of students; teachers share students Delta School 21 1 English Language Science Art One teacher teaches all subjects to all students in the group Epsilon School 45 (2 class sections) Group 1 = 22 Group 2 = 23 3 English Language Science Art Music 3 teachers teach different content subjects to two different groups of students; teachers share students TOTALS 149 total students 7 total classes 11 116 23. At some schools, different teachers provided instruction to a single group of students or to two groups at the same school. At other schools, a single teacher provided all the instruction to a group of students. All second grade classrooms at each participating school were included in the study, with the exception of Beta School, where the entire group in a second class in the target grade was composed of students identified as being in need of special education services for cognitive, learning or behavioral issues. The director there requested to have that classroom excluded, and, therefore, only one of the second grade classes at Beta School was included in the study, so all students in that category were excluded at all schools. Three schools had only one classroom of students in the second grade, and the remaining two schools had two each. Students who live in a home where a language other than Spanish is spoken were identified and participated in the study (n=12). One student who receives a one-hour per week intervention for Spanish as a second language assistance (ATAL: Aulas temporales de adaptación linguistica) was also identified and included in the study. Another group of students was identified and also included in the study: children who attended additional English classes at private language academies (n=20). These three variables were accounted for through data disaggregations when analyzing the study information collected. 3.2.2 Schools, Classroom Materials, and Resources The five participating schools in this project had many commonalities and many differences, the characteristics of which are explained throughout this chapter. All schools included in this study were designated as Bilingual Centers and were located in middle-class neighborhoods in the city of Seville, Spain. Total school populations ranged from 315 students to 566. Two of the five schools made electronic whiteboards available 117 in the classrooms; however, on the occasions when they were used, the purpose was for other than increasing comprehensibility of content or language. Pages of the textbook or handouts were projected, or music was playing while an image was shown. These electronic boards have a much greater potential in supporting language development, since they can readily show what the teacher is talking about, using visuals and picturebased vocabulary items and their relationships. They can also provide manipulative activities since they have touch screen capabilities. All the teachers who had access to an electronic board reported through an interview session (see Appendix IX) that they had received little or no training in how to use them. They also reported that they had spent no time on their own researching or trying to figure out their use or application in the classroom. All five schools had a native-speaking instructional aide (IA) assisting teachers in classrooms twice a week. These IAs came to the schools through the British Council. When interviewed (See the list of interview questions in Appendix X), all IAs reported that they had no previous teaching experience and that they had received a one-day presentation of activities to use at their assigned locations before being placed. They said their only knowledge about what to do in a classroom in their support positions came from being directed by a classroom teacher. All 11 teachers reported in summary interviews that they had never had any training in how a native speaker in the classroom can be used to enhance their instruction. Consequently, this observer saw that in classrooms, IAs were underutilized, and numerous opportunities to take advantage of having a model of a native English speaker assist during lessons were overlooked. For example, it was observed that over 50% of the IAs’ time was spent doing nothing more in classes than observing teachers, waiting to be directed to interact in some way with 118 the students. The remainder of their time was spent circulating in the classroom while students were completing written seat work. IAs then spoke in English to read to the students and assist them in completing their tasks. Occasions were rare when an IA presented to the class or led them in an activity. Both teachers and IAs reported in their interviews with this observer that they had no scheduled common planning time, and IAs provided assistance in 5 to 6 different grades a day. Consequently, IAs entered classrooms on a daily basis with no concrete assignments given to them ahead of time. For instance, it was observed that IAs performed random tasks in the classrooms rather than being scheduled in classes at times when regular tasks were being presented which they would be prepared to routinely lead, an underutilization of their native speaking abilities and an indication that no concrete plan for how to use these IAs had been planned out. All schools and classes based instruction on a state-approved curriculum and used books adopted on a city-wide basis. The textbooks in English presented written language without modifications to support second language comprehension. Materials, content, and instruction were directed at only one level of knowledge and language proficiency. Supplemental materials were seldom used and then consisted of only paper, scissors, glue, flashcards, CD players, and crayons. It was rare to see teacher-made materials being used in these classrooms. In music class, the textbook was in Spanish, and the teacher provided no supplemental materials in English, yet lessons were given by the teacher in English. All schools had a written bilingual program plan available. According to the director at one school, no norms or requirements were made available that would provide them with guidance in creating the school’s bilingual program. That director 119 reported that he felt that the plan they had submitted had been reviewed only with an eye to ensuring that the school had sufficient resources to implement a program (e.g., number of English-speaking teachers). A teacher shared during the interview step of the study that in order for their plan to be approved by Delegación Territorial de Educación, it had to first receive teacher and parent approval, and after 2014 all participating teachers had to demonstrate a minimum of a (CEFR) B2 level of English. The schools’ plans all included a required professional development component for teachers, stipulating that every 6 years teachers must receive a minimum of 60 hours of professional development in education, but the plans did not require a specific topic for that training nor stipulated that it needed to be CLIL-oriented. Any topic of study met this requirement. At all schools the bilingual program had been initiated without any group training or meetings where the participating teachers could discuss pedagogy, develop strategies, establish a common understanding or vision for the program, or review curriculum. Additionally, at no school were regular or on-going meetings scheduled or required among the teachers in the bilingual programs in order to discuss pedagogy, student achievement, teaching strategies or program development. Teachers reported they were provided with a curriculum for the subjects they were teaching and books in English and told to teach the grade-level content in English. Only one of the 11 participating teachers reported ever having had any training in how to teach content in English. In face-to-face interviews providing more open-ended study information, all teachers stated that they were unaware of any training being offered to teachers in bilingual programs other than English classes. They did not know of any initiatives to support them in developing teaching strategies for their bilingual classes. 120 One difference identified among schools was the design of their bilingual programs, which varied widely. The least number of hours of instruction provided in the second grade in English classes was 4.5 hours a week; the greatest number was over twice that: 10 hours. One of the reasons for this wide variability in program hours is due to the fact that schools are not provided by the overseeing agency, Delegación Territorial de Educación, with norms nor requirements that call for a consistent number of hours of English instruction to create programs across schools. Schools that wish to implement a program prepare a plan based on their capacities to provide English instruction and submit it to the Delegación office, which reviews the plan for approval based on its feasibility. Despite the differences of the programs, schools, and resources available to teachers, student performance in English showed no statistically significant differences (see Section 3.6.1 below). 3.2.3 School #1 Alpha School The bilingual program at Alpha School was in its fourth year of implementation at the time this study was conducted and included students up to the second grade, although they had a plan in place for the program to grow in the coming years to include up to grade 8. Both participating teachers at this school had 4 years of experience teaching in a CLIL program. The students who participated at this school in this study had received some English instruction for 4 years: two years of pre-bilingual (anticipación bilingüe) during their pre-kindergarten years and then bilingual classes in first and second grades. Two second grade classes and two teachers from this school participated in the study, each providing all the English instruction to one of the two different groups of second graders. 127 hours students spent studying in English during a week had no impact on students’ English language performance: they were all performing at the lowest level of proficiency on the CEFR and ELLOPA scales. Since the number of years teachers had in teaching in a bilingual program equaled the number of years a program existed at a school, that variable also had no effect on student performance levels in English. Data, details, and further discussion supporting these findings are presented in Section 3.6.5. 3.4 The Assessment Tools Used in This Study Three assessment tools, all previously discussed in Chapter 2, were employed in this research study: the ELLOPA, the SIOP, and the SOLOM. Descriptions of the implementation procedures used to gather data for this study are included in the subsections below. Data collected and a reporting of the results of the administration of these measures are discussed in upcoming Sections 3.5 and 3.6. Explanations of how the results connect and relate to each other are included in section 3.7. 3.4.1 ELLOPA The research-based Early Language Listening and Oral Proficiency Assessment (ELLOPA) was used as a pre-test and a post-test to measure the aural/oral language proficiency levels of all second grade students (8 and 9 year olds) who participated in this study. During a one-week period at the beginning of the study, in order to establish a baseline of student language proficiency levels, the ELLOPA was administered and students were rated in four skill areas: oral fluency, grammar, vocabulary, and listening comprehension. The scores students achieved in the four individual skills areas were averaged into one final score. Upon completion of all classroom/teacher SIOP observations, administration of the ELLOPA was repeated as a post-test with the same 128 groups of second grade students who participated in the assessment process at the beginning of the project. This provided a set of data to compare with the initial data achieved, showing levels of language acquisition growth. Details of the ELLOPA scoring rubric, ratings levels, and equivalents to CEFR levels were described in Chapter 2 Section 2.7.2.3 and copies of ELLOPA documents are included in Appendices I and II. Students receiving a rating of 1 (the lowest rating on a scale of 1 to 4) in oral fluency were those who could produce only isolated words and/or high frequency expressions (such as “good morning” and “thank you”) and tended to attempt to communicate exclusively in the native language. Students rated at the highest level of oral fluency on the ELLOPA scale (a rating of 4) can participate in simple conversations by creating statements in English at a sentence level, although in a limited manner. These students can interact orally about social and academic topics. In the category of listening comprehension, students rated at the lowest level (a rating of 1) recognize only isolated words and high-frequency expressions (e.g., Hello? How are you?), and at the next level can understand predictable questions, statements and commands in familiar topic areas, but need strong contextual support (e.g., gestures, visuals) to successfully comprehend. At the highest rated level of listening comprehension tasks (a rating of 4), students demonstrate comprehension of familiar and new questions and commands at a sentence level within content topics they have studied. They can follow a conversation at a fairly normal rate. The validity testing of the ELLOPA took place in 2001–2002 (Thompson et al., 2006). Overall, results from the data analyzed provided support for the validity of the ELLOPA's claim to assess listening comprehension and speaking proficiency in a second language for young learners across languages. During validity sampling, in general, 129 teachers tended to rate their students slightly higher for all skills than the outside trained evaluators who administered the ELLOPA. Correlations were reported as moderately significant, ranging from 0.48 to 0.61 between the ELLOPA ratings and the teacher ratings. 3.4.2 SIOP After several years of field-testing the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP), a study was conducted to establish the validity and reliability of the instrument (Guarino, et al., 2001). Findings indicated that the SIOP is a highly reliable and valid measure of sheltered instruction. Additional information describing the SIOP was included in Section 2.8.3.2. In order to gather data on the quantity of effective teaching strategies teachers employed during a continuous 14-week period, instruction was observed by the author of this study during 108 school visits to the 5 participating schools using the SIOP. In total, 160 hours of classroom instruction was observed during bi-weekly 20-minute classroom observations of the 11 participating teachers. These included a minimum of one observation every other week for each participating teacher in each class taught in English by that teacher. A complete schedule of observations conducted for this study is included in Appendix XI. 3.4.3 The SOLOM Also during the phase of SIOP data collection, participating teachers’ levels of English language proficiency were rated using the Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM). Casual interactions between the teacher and the author of this study, along with a brief interview of the teachers (see Appendix IX), allowed the author to 130 collect this information. Details regarding the SOLOM were presented and discussed in Section 2.7.2.4., and a copy can see seen in Appendix IV. No reliability or validity information about this tool is available. 3.5 SIOP and SOLOM Data SIOP data for this project were collected and analyzed in four areas: 1. Overall mean SIOP scores by schools 2. Years of bilingual education program implementation and SIOP scores i. correlated to mean school SIOP scores 3. SIOP and SOLOM scores by teacher 4. SIOP scores by subject area i. Mean SIOP scores in each subject area ii. SIOP scores of individual teachers by subject area For this study, correlated data are analyzed by applying quantitative research methods (i.e., Pearson Product Moment Correlation, coefficient r or “Pearson r”) to make bivariate associations to measure how strong the relationships are between these variables. The Pearson r is used to confirm a hypothesis that when one action, event, or behavior occurs, we are likely to see a consistent response where  A perfect correlation 1.0  High correlation .5 to 1.0 or -0.5 to 1.0  Medium correlation .3 to .5 or -0.3 to .5  Low correlation 1.0 to .3 or -0.1 to -0.3  No correlation at all exists = 0 131 These correlation coefficients help to determine how strong the linear association is between the different variables. 3.5.1 Overall Mean SIOP Scores SIOP data was gathered through 160 hours of classroom observation. Each of the 30 criteria observed on the SIOP is scored on a scale of 0 through 4; thus the highest mean score possible is 4 (highly evident) and the lowest possible score is 0 (not evident). The descriptor for a score of 2 is “somewhat evident”. A score of 1 falls halfway between “somewhat evident” and “not evident”. (See sample SIOP, Appendix V). As the mean SIOP scores by school show in Table 14 below, only one school achieved a mean score above 1: Delta School at 1.09. All other mean scores for all other schools fall between o.5 and 0.87. The average of all schools was 0.75. Table 14: Overall Mean SIOP Scores by School SCHOOL NAME MEAN SIOP SCORE Alpha School 0.87 Beta School 0.50 Gamma School 0.69 Delta School 1.09 Epsilon School 0.60 AVERAGE OF ALL SCHOOLS 0.75 Tables showing the mean scores by subject area for each of the 30 SIOP criterion for all 5 schools are displayed in Appendix XII. Tables showing criterion mean scores by teacher in the content areas they taught appear in Appendix XIII. These were the data used to achieve the mean SIOP scores shown in Table 14, above. 132 The mean SIOP scores for each school are consistently low on a scale of 0 to 4 as all are less than 1.1. This data leads to this question: Because all mean scores fall between 0.5 and 1.09 on a scale of 0 to 4, does any single school in the study employ strategies to promote subject content and language learning in a second language at a level that has a statistically significant difference from the other schools? To test the significance of the difference between these low scores, a null hypothesis was used: There is no statistically significant relationship when comparing these SIOP scores for all schools on a scale of 0 to 4. Next, an exact contingency table test was performed (see Appendix XV), which showed that there is a probability of 4.8E-92 (p < .001), indicating a very low probability that the differences between the low scores were statistically significant. The null hypothesis was proven. This indicates that the results found were consistent and applied to all teachers in all schools: all teachers were routinely observed to be at a level described as halfway between “somewhat evident” and “not evident” in employing strategies to simultaneously promote language development and content area knowledge, a qualification that would be considered in need of significant improvement. Table 15 below illustrates mean scores achieved in the 30 SIOP criteria by all 11 teachers observed as part of this study. The table also shows the standard deviations for the scores by individual criteria. 133 Table 15: SIOP Mean Criterion Scores and Their Standard Deviations SIOP CRITERIA # MEAN SCORE OF ALL TEACHERS STANDARD DEVIATION 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 2.7 0.43 4 1 1.10 5 0.31 0.57 6 1.13 0.77 7 0.16 0.31 8 0.24 0.68 9 1.12 0.73 10 1.74 0.56 11 1.12 0.55 12 1 1.05 13 0.26 0.35 14 0.18 0.30 15 0 0 16 0 0 17 0 0 18 1.62 0.57 19 2.68 0.68 20 0.65 0.64 21 0.70 0.66 22 0.70 0.85 23 0.32 0.77 24 0.22 0.63 25 1.44 0.95 26 1.30 0.80 27 0.06 0.30 28 0.06 0.30 29 1 1.02 30 0.22 0.71 As the data shows, the greatest standard deviation was 1.10 for criterion #4, which had a mean score of 1. This indicates that some teachers may have achieved as much as a 2.1 (somewhat evident) mean score (but no higher) for this criterion in a particular subject area, and others may have achieved as little as 0 (not evident). Only 3 criteria have a standard deviation of greater than 1. They are 134  #4 (discussed in the paragraph above) with a mean of 1 and a standard deviation of 1.10  #12 with a mean of 1 and a standard deviation of 1.05  #29 with a mean of 1 and a standard deviation of 1.02 The remaining 27 criteria have a standard deviation of less than 1. Since 5 of the criteria have means of 0, then 22 criteria have a standard deviation between 0.1 and 1. This finding is consistent with the findings supporting the null hypothesis tested above, indicating that on all 160 observations made, for all criteria, SIOP scores were consistently low with a low probability of statistically significant deviations. There were not any lessons taught by teachers on days where scores were significantly higher. Upon examining the two highest mean scores, both above 2.0, #3 had a mean of 2.70 and a standard deviation of 0.43; and #19 had a mean of 2.68 and a standard deviation of 0.68. This indicates that some teachers did perform at a level between “somewhat evident” (SIOP score of 2) and “highly evident” (SIOP score of 4) in these criterion on some occasions in a given subject area. However, the examination of all standard deviations of mean scores indicates that teacher performance of SIOP criteria was consistent and deviated very little from lesson to lesson, meaning that even the highest mean scores had no statistical significance. Teachers were routinely scoring low on all items measured by the SIOP with no differences that were statistically significant. Following CLIL tenets, teachers were expected to modify their teaching strategies to accommodate the needs of second language learners in content classes, including simplifying written text. Lesson presentations and educational materials, including textbooks, should have reflected the CLIL approach which is more than simply presenting the native-language curriculum in a foreign language (Graddol, 2006). 135 However, the instruction, curriculum, and materials used in the classes observed for this study consistently did not reflect a CLIL approach: they were designed as instruction would be presented to native English speakers with no differentiation evident. This is reflected through the resulting scores from direct observations of the 30 SIOP criteria, which were shown in Table 15. Teacher behavior descriptions for each criterion targeted, what a score of 4 (highly evident) looks like in the classroom, and a description of what was actually observed in classrooms appear below. Scores listed reflect the overall mean from all teachers in each criterion, as reported in Table 15. Again, a score of 4 means “highly evident”; 2 means “somewhat evident”; and a score of 0 means “not evident”. SIOP Section 1: Lesson Preparation. Effective lesson preparation ensures instructional rigor and relevance. It thoughtfully identifies instructional goals and objectives for both language learning and content learning, taking into account the level of language proficiency that the students have. Content and language objectives are given equal importance and reflect content concepts, use of supplementary materials, adaptation of content, and application of meaningful classroom activities. #1 Criterion: Content objectives are clearly defined, displayed, and reviewed with students. What does a score of 4 (highly evident) look like? Content objectives should be presented to students in comprehensible ways at the beginning of a lesson. The content objectives should be presented orally and in writing and should be tied to a specific grade-level content standard. They are for the students so they have a picture of what they will be expected to know and be able to do at the end of the lesson. Mean score achieved by teachers in this study: 0.0 136 What was observed: Content objectives were neither stated nor emphasized by teachers in any lesson observed. Since the participating teachers had little or no training in how to teach their respective content areas through English as a second language, it is logical that the content objectives would not be given specific attention, which reflects that the teachers were not aware of the benefits of doing this comprehensibly, which would simultaneously develop lesson vocabulary, activate background knowledge, create interest for the lesson, etc. #2 Criterion: Language Objectives are clearly defined, displayed, and reviewed with students. What does a score of 4 (highly evident) look like? Language objectives should be presented to students in comprehensible ways at the beginning of the lesson. They should be presented orally and in writing and should be tied to a specific grade-level content standard. They are for the students so they have a picture of what they will be expected to do in the target language in listening, speaking, reading and writing. The language objectives should reflect the students’ varying levels of language proficiency. Mean score achieved by teachers in this study: 0.0 What was observed: Language objectives were not addressed by any teacher in any way in any lesson observed. Since the participating teachers had little or no training in how to teach their respective content areas through English as a second language, it is logical that they were unaware of the benefits of pointing out to 143 #12 Criterion: A variety of techniques are used to make content concepts clear (e.g., modeling, visuals, hands-on activities, demonstrations, gestures, body language). What does a score of 4 (highly evident) look like? The teacher ensures that all students know what they are expected to know and be able to do in a content area using a variety of techniques including demonstrations, modeling, translation to the first language, and student’s paraphrasing the task. Mean score achieved by teachers in this study: 1.0 What was observed: With little variation, the most prevalent teaching techniques employed in the classes observed were lecture and translation. Instruction in English seldom contained modeling, hands-on activities, demonstrations, or visuals connected to the meaning of the English used in class. Some gestures were used on occasion by teachers to increase comprehension, and students were occasionally allowed to use a limited array of manipulatives though teachers rarely led activities connecting the manipulatives to any language or content in English. SIOP Section 4: Strategies. Teachers and students need to use specific language and content learning strategies in lessons. Teachers must scaffold instruction, beginning at a level that encourages student success and providing support to move the students to a higher level of understanding and accomplishment. Teachers highlight study skills and learning strategies for students and create tasks and ask higher-order questions that require students to use the strategies and talk about them. 144 #13 Criterion: Ample opportunities are provided for students to use learning strategies. What does a score of 4 (highly evident) look like? Tasks throughout the lesson frequently require students to use thinking skills beyond simple knowledge and comprehension. The tasks also require students to apply, analyze, synthesize, evaluate, and make judgments about the material presented. Mean score achieved by teachers in this study: 0.26 What was observed: Students were encouraged to learn through memorization of vocabulary items or language chunks rather than through applying, analyzing, or creating with the language. They completed worksheet after worksheet of basic knowledge and comprehension tasks. They were not given opportunities to create utterances on their own in English. No instruction leading students in their development of learning strategies were present. #14 Criterion: Scaffolding techniques are consistently used, assisting and supporting student understanding. What does a score of 4 (highly evident) look like? Instruction includes frequent presentation, teaching, and reuse of learning strategies that support student comprehension. Students are overtly taught to learn how to learn through use of strategies such as think-alouds, graphic organizers, highlighting key concepts and ideas, note taking skills, etc. Mean score achieved by teachers in this study: 0.18 What was observed: 145 Supports for comprehension of meaning were not evident. Language meaning was consistently achieved through translations rather than through scaffolded presentations. Some use of visuals was occasionally observed. #15 Criterion: A variety of questions or tasks that promote higher-order thinking skills (e.g., literal, analytical, and interpretive questions) are provided. What does a score of 4 (highly evident) look like? Tasks throughout the lesson require students to use thinking skills beyond simple knowledge and comprehension. The tasks also require students to apply, analyze, synthesize, evaluate, and make judgments about the material presented. Mean score achieved by teachers in this study: 0.0 What was observed: Question types and tasks wholly lacked variation. Questions and tasks required students to use basic knowledge through memorization. In content classes, such as science, lower-thinking-level comprehension questions were most often asked (e.g., Is a snake a vertebrate or an invertebrate?), but not higher-order thinking questions or tasks were assigned which would require students to apply English practiced, analyze content in English, express opinions about what they learned, or create with the language in any way. SIOP Section 5 Interaction. High quality language learning classes provide frequent opportunities for interaction and discussion between teacher and students, and among students. It is through discussion with classmates and with the teacher that ELLs practice important skills like elaborating, negotiating meaning, clarifying and confirming information, persuading, disagreeing, and evaluating. 146 #16 Criterion: Frequent opportunities are allowed for interaction and discussion between teacher and student and among students, encouraging elaborated responses about the lesson concepts. What does a score of 4 (highly evident) look like? Students are allowed structured and unstructured interaction times to practice the content they are learning in the new language. There is less teacher talk and more student talk, that is, more student interaction about the subject and topics being learned. Students are strategically provided with opportunities to practice language at their level of language competency. Mean score achieved by teachers in this study: 0.0 What was observed: The teacher voice was the one most present in the class. Interaction among students was specifically discouraged as opposed to organizing interaction – structured or unstructured – as a learning strategy during instruction. Opportunities for student-to-student or small-group practice was absent. When students did interact with each other, they did so in Spanish and as an off-task behavior. #17 Criterion: Grouping configurations support language and content objectives of the lesson. What does a score of 4 (highly evident) look like? The classroom is set up in a way that facilitates easy communication among students. Mean score achieved by teachers in this study: 0 What was observed: 147 There was no strategic or purposeful placement of student desks to facilitate student interaction. Desks were separated and placed in rows. Some students were even set apart from the rest of the group all together prompted by discipline issues. #18 Criterion: Sufficient wait time for student responses are consistently provided. What does a score of 4 (highly evident) look like? After students are prompted to respond by the teacher, there is time allowed for students to think, formulate an answer, and produce the language. Mean score achieved by teachers in this study: 1.62 What was observed: In general, teachers allowed sufficient time for students to think and answer questions posed to them, but not in amounts to encourage or support second language processing and production. There were numerous occasions when students were expected to produce language on demand, without processing time. #19 Criterion: Ample opportunities are provided for students to clarify key concepts in their first language as needed with aide, peer or first language text. What does a score of 4 (highly evident) look like? Students are allowed time and occasions as needed to ask clarifying questions of each other, a language assistant, or the teacher in the home language. Mean score achieved by teachers in this study: 2.68 What was observed: This criteria was the one which achieved the highest mean score, at a level between “somewhat evident” and “highly evident”. Key concepts, indeed all 148 concepts, were clarified with the teacher through translation into the mother tongue. SIOP Section 6 Practice and Application. Effective language learning lessons include activities that encourage students to practice and apply the content they are learning and practice and apply the language skills they are learning, too. These activities are most beneficial when they include visual, hands-on, and other kinesthetic tasks. #20 Criterion: Hands-on materials and/or manipulatives are provided for students to practice using new content knowledge. What does a score of 4 (highly evident) look like? Students are allowed to explore meaning and content using tactile, kinesthetic, and/or authentic materials. Opportunities are provided to students to become familiar with, analyze and/or experiment with content and language topics. Mean score achieved by teachers in this study: 0.65 What was observed: Manipulatives used consisted exclusively of paper, scissors, glue, crayons, and flashcards. No actual touching opportunities (e.g., Frogs have damp skin. What does ‘damp’ feel like? This sponge is damp. Touch this damp sponge.) or looking opportunities (e.g., How is the skin of a reptile different from the skin of an amphibian? Look at this picture and tell me.) or manipulatives were used (e.g., Here are pictures of many animals. Separate them into categories according to reptiles, amphibians, and mammals.) #21 Criterion: Activities are provided for students to apply content and language knowledge in the classroom. What does a score of 4 (highly evident) look like? 149 Students are provided opportunities to apply what they have learned in different contexts or situations. Mean score achieved by teachers in this study: 0.70 What was observed: In general, questions were limited to basic knowledge and comprehension. Application activities were limited to letter writing. #22 Criterion: Activities integrate all language skills (i.e., reading, writing, listening, and speaking). What does a score of 4 (highly evident) look like? Students are required to participate in appropriate reading, writing, listening, and speaking tasks. Students produce original meaningful oral utterances to communicate a message (speaking), interpret aural language and appropriately respond or perform a task (listening), produce the language in written form to communicate a message (writing), or attach a meaning to written text and then respond orally or in writing. Mean score achieved by teachers in this study: 0.78 What was observed: Language use in English was primarily limited to listening to lectures without responding in any way (no oral responses; no simultaneous written task to show comprehension) repeating what was said, copying words or short sentences, identifying written words by translating them into Spanish, writing a single word in a blank to complete a sentence, or drawing a line from a written sentence to a picture that corresponded to it. Students were not asked 150 to create with the target language nor listen or read with an accompanying task that would attach meaning to that language. SIOP Section 7 Lesson Delivery. Successful delivery of a language learning lesson means that and the students had a high level of engagement throughout the class period. All students must have opportunities to practice their language skills within the context of the academic tasks. #23 Criterion: Content objectives are clearly supported by lesson delivery. What does a score of 4 (highly evident) look like? Strategies, activities, and tasks used in the lesson are designed to reinforce the teaching and learning of content in the lesson. Mean score achieved by teachers in this study: 0.32 What was observed: Since content objectives were not presented as part of the lesson content, the degree to which they were supported was sometimes a challenge to identify and affected the score of this criterion item. Nevertheless, the content objectives of the lesson were often made evident to the observer through the instruction provided, though they remained obscure to the students. #24 Criterion: Language objectives are clearly supported by lesson delivery. What does a score of 4 (highly evident) look like? Strategies, activities, and tasks used in the lesson are designed to reinforce language acquisition. Mean score achieved by teachers in this study: 0.22 What was observed: 151 Since language objectives were not defined nor clarified at the start of the lesson content, how well they were supported was left to the experience of the observer to evaluate and affected the score of this criterion item. While language objectives of the lesson were sometimes made evident to the observer through the instruction provided, students were not given guidance to know what they were expected to do with the language. #25 Criterion: Students are engaged in instructional activities approximately 90% to 100% of the period. What does a score of 4 (highly evident) look like? Students participate in learning activities and stay on task without teacher intervention. Students concentrate on tasks and show effort to understand and complete the task. Students are actively involved in learning. Mean score achieved by teachers in this study: 1.44 What was observed: Percentage of student engagement varied by lesson and teacher. Particularly during the frequent class lectures given, engagement was observed to be very low (less than 20%). Students remained more engaged and on task when completing worksheets, but upon finishing those assignments, a good deal of off-task behaviors occurred during the excessive wait time before a new activity began. Students spent long amounts of time waiting in line at the teacher’s desk while all work was reviewed by the teacher. On these frequent occasions, very little academic engagement was going in in the class. #26 Criterion: Pacing of the lesson is appropriate to students’ ability level. What does a score of 4 (highly evident) look like? 152 The teacher deliberately slows or hastens the speed that teaching happens to accommodate student’s ability levels. Lesson pacing occurs as part of a planned strategy to teach certain material or students in the best way, or as a response to how well students are receiving instruction. Pacing is adjusted in the moment as well as while planning each lesson. Mean score achieved by teachers in this study: 1.3 What was observed: Lessons were generally presented at a pace accessible to students given their age and English level, with the exception of the frequent lectures. SIOP Section 8 Review/Assessment. Students learning English a second language need to review key vocabulary and concepts, and teachers need to assess how well students retain the information—through frequent feedback to students and informal assessments throughout the lesson. Language teachers should offer multiple pathways for students to demonstrate their understanding of the content. #27 Criterion: A comprehensive review of key vocabulary is provided. What does a score of 4 (highly evident) look like? A planned activity is provided that presents a review of terminology essential to the lesson. The activity is more than a simple list of vocabulary: it requires students to use or apply the vocabulary in meaningful ways. Mean score achieved by teachers in this study: 0.06 What was observed: A comprehensive review of lesson vocabulary was very rarely observed. When they were, they consisted of the children reading or repeating a list of vocabulary. No activities were observed to wrap up a lesson that would 255 Gajo, L. and Serra, C. (2002). Bilingual teaching: Connecting language and concepts in mathematics. In D. So and G. Jones (Eds) , 75-95. Education and Society in Plurilingual Contexts. Brussels: VUB Brussels University Press. Gale, K., McClay, D., Christie, M., & Harris, S. (1981). Academic achievement in the milingimbi and bilingual education program. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 297-314. Retrieved from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2307/3586755/full Gallaway, C. & B. Richards. (Eds.). (1994). Input and Interaction in Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences. The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books. Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. NJ: Erlbaum. Gass, S. & E. Varonis. (1994). Input, Interaction and Second Language Production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16, 283-302. Genesee, F. (1987). Is there an optimal age for starting second language instruction? McGill Journal of Education, 13, 145-154. Genesee, F. (1994). Integrating language and content: Lessons from immersion. Educational Practice Reports, 11. National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from: http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/ncrcdsll/epr11.htm. Genesee, F. (2004). What do we know about bilingual education for majority language students? In T.K. Bhatia and W. Ritchie. Handbook of Bilingualism and Multiculuralism, 547-576. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Retrieved from: http://www.psych.mcgill.ca/perpg/fac/genesee/HDBK%20BILINGUAL%20EDUCATI ON.pdf Genesee, F. (2017). The Home Language: An English Language Learner’s Most Valuable Resource. Colorin Colorado. Retrieved from: http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/home-language-english-language-learnersmost-valuable-resource Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W. & Christian, D. (2006). Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. NY: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from: http://medicine.kaums.ac.ir/uploadedfiles/files/educating_english_language_learners. pdf 256 Gersten, R., Chard, D., & Baker, S. (2000). Factors enhancing sustained use of researchbased instructional practices. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33 (5), 445–457. Retrieved from: http://journals.sagepub.com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/0022219400033005 05 Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1985). A case for structured immersion. Educational Leadership, 43, 75-79. Retrieved from: http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=d4886ca f-e0b5-4887-a56a-9941447a0c76@sessionmgr103&vid=3&hid=127 Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does — and does not — say. American Educator, 32, 8-23, 42-44. Retrieved from: http://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/goldenberg.pdf Goldenberg, C. & Coleman, R. (2010). Promoting academic achievement among English learners: A guide to the research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Retrieved from: http://sk.sagepub.com/books/promoting-academic-achievement-among-englishlearners Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A. & Kuhl. P. (1999). The scientist in the crib: What early learning tells us about the mind. NY: Harper Collins Pub. Graddol, D. (2006). English Next. British Council Publications. Retrieved from: http://englishagenda.britishcouncil.org/sites/ec/files/books-english-next.pdf Grim, F. (2008). Integrating focus on form in L2 content-enriched instruction lessons. Foreign Language Annals, 41 (2), 321-346. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2008.tb03295.x/full Grinder, R., Otomo, A. & Toyota, W. (1962). Comparisons between second, third, and fourth grade children in the audio-lingual learning of Japanese as a second language. Journal of Educational Research, 56, 463-469. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/stable/pdf/27531236.pdf Grognet, A., Jameson, J., Franco, L. & Derrick, M. (2000). Ehancing English language learning in elementary classrooms. A CAL publication distributed by Delta Systems, Inc., Chicago. Grossman, H. (2006). Necessary conversations about English language learners. Chicago: Delta Publishing. Guarino, A. J., Echevarria, J., Short, D., Schick, J. E., Forbes, S., & Rueda, R. (2001). The sheltered instruction observation protocol: Reliability and validity assessment. Journal of Research in Education, 11 (1), 138–140. 257 Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism. New York: Basic Books. Retrieved from: http://faculty.ucmerced.edu/khakuta/research/publications/(1986)%20-%20MIRROR %20OF%20LANGUAGE%20THE%20DEBATE%20ON%20BILINGUALISM.pdf Hakuta, K. & Snow, C. (1986). The role of research in policy decisions about bilingual Education. NABE News, 9 (3), 18-21. Retrieved from: http://web.stanford.edu/~hakuta/Publications/(1986)%20-%20THE%20ROLE% 20OF%20RESEARCH%20IN%20POLICY%20DECISIONS%20ABOUT%20BILI.pdf Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G. & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? Santa Barbara: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute. Retrieved from: https://web.stanford.edu/~hakuta/Publications/%282000%29%20-%20HOW%20 LONG%20DOES%20IT%20TAKE%20ENGLISH%20LEARNERS%20TO%20ATTAIN% 20PR.pdf Halliday, M.A.K, & Hasan, R., (1985). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press. Retrieved from: https://web.uam.es/departamentos/filoyletras/filoinglesa/Courses/LFC11/LFCHallidayHasanReading.pdf Harley, B. (1998). The role of focus-on-form tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition. In C. W. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), 156-174. Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press. Harrop, E. (2011). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Limitations and possibilities. Encuentro, 21. Retrieved from: http://w.encuentrojournal.org/textos/7.%20Harrop.pdf Hatch, E. M. (1978). Second language acquisition: A book of readings. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Hawkins, R. (2001a). Second Language Syntax: A Generative Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Hawkins, R. (2001b). The Theoretical Significance of Universal Grammar in Second Language Acquisition. Second Language Research, 17, 345-67. Retrieved from: http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=a7e31c0 8-955b-4b4d-a035-7d659d49d075%40sessionmgr4008&vid=3&hid=127 Heath, S. B. (1986). Sociocultural contexts of language development. Beyond language: Social and cultural factors in schooling language minority students. Los Angeles: California State University, National Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center. 258 Herschensohn, J. (2000). The second time around: Minimalism and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. High, J. (1993). Second language learning through cooperative learning. California, Kagan Cooperative Learning. Himmel, J. (2012). Language objectives: The key to effective content instruction for English language learners. LD Online. Retrieved from: http://www.ldonline.org/article/49646/ 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/resources/pubs/siopscience.htm Hoover, W. (1982). Language and literacy learning in bilingual education: Preliminary report. Cantonese site analytic study. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Hornberger, N.H. (1988). Bilingual education and language maintenance: A southern Peruvian Quechua case. Berlin: Mouton. Howard, E. R., Christian, D., & Genesee, F. (2003). The development of bilingualism and biliteracy from grades 3 to 5: A summary of findings from the CAL/CREDE study of two-way immersion education. Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. Retrieved from: http://www.cal.org/ndlf/pdfs/publications/development-of-bilingualism-andbiliteracy-from-grade-3-to-5.pdf Hudec, J. & Short, D. (2002a). Helping English learners succeed: The SIOP model. Video. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Hudec, J. & Short, D. (2002b). The SIOP model: Sheltered instruction for academic achievement. Video. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Hüttner, J. (2010). Children’s development of competence in the genre ‘oral narrative’ in English as a foreign language: the influence of CLIL instruction. In C. DaltonPuffer & U. Smit (Eds.), 61-79. Language use in CLIL. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Jameson, J. (2002). Enriching Content Classes for Secondary ESOL Students. Chicago: Delta Publishing. 259 Jäppinen, A. (2005). Thinking and content learning of mathematics and science as cognitional development in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Teaching through a foreign language in Finland. Language and Education, 19, 148– 169. Retrieved from: http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/doi/abs/10.1080/0950078050866867 1 Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. & Smith, K.A. (1991). Cooperative learning: increasing college faculty instructional productivity. Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED343465.pdf Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1994). Learning together. In S. Sharan (1994). Handbook of cooperative learning methods. Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 51-65. Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone. Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Johnson, D.W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson D. & Skon, A. (1981). Effects of cooperative and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis, Psychological Bulletin, 89 (1), 47-62. Retrieved from: http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid= 9aa9aeca-1a81-4fc8-82bc-1f3c227b6ffd%40sessionmgr4006&hid=4111 Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved from: http://skat.ihmc.us/rid=1P0729X06-20SDKMY-2Q0H/randd-engaged-joyce.pdf Juan-Garau, M., & Salazar-Noguera, J. (2015). Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments. New York: Springer. Junta de Andalucia Consejería de Educación. (2004). Plan de Fomento del Plurilingüismo Retrieved from: http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/averroes/impe/web/portadaEntidad?pag=/contenido s/B/InnovacionEInvestigacion/ ProyectosInnovadores/Plurilinguismo Kagan, S. (1989). The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 47, 12-15. Kagan, S. (Ed.). (1994a). Cooperative Learning. California: Kagan Cooperative Learning). Kagan, S. (1994b). The structural approach: six keys to cooperative Learning. In S. Sharan (Ed.). Handbook of cooperative learning methods. Connecticut: Greenwood Press. 260 Kasper, L. F. (1997). The impact of content-based instructional programs on the academia progress of ESL students. English for Specific Purposes, 16 (4), 309-320. Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/science/article/pii/S088949069700 0355?via%3Dihub Kessler, C. (Ed.). (1992). Cooperative Language Learning. A Teacher's Resource Book. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Kinsella, K. (1997). Moving from comprehensible input to “learning to learn” in CBI. In M. A. Snow & D. Brinton (Eds.), 46-57. The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content. Longman. Korosidou, E. & Griva, E. (2014). CLIL Approach in Primary Education: Learning about Byzantine Art and Culture through a Foreign Language. Study in English Language Teaching. 2(2). Retrieved from http://clil.web.auth.gr/links/CLIL_in_florina_culture.pdf Krashen, S. (1980). The Input Hypothesis. In J. Alatis (Ed.), 145-157. Current Issues in Bilingual Education. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Harlow: Longman. Krashen, S. & Biber, D. (1988). On course: Bilingual education’s success in California. Sacramento: California Association for Bilingual Education. Krashen, S., Long, M. & Scarcella, R. (1979). Age, Rate, and Eventual Attainment in Second Language Acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 13 (4), 573-582. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/stable/pdf/3586451.pdf Krashen, S, Scarcella, R, C., & Long, M. H., (1982). Child-adult differences in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Kuhl, P.K. (2004). Early language acquisition: Cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5 (11), 831-843. Retrieved from: http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=1 6162def-9e11-43d6-9990-52edcb239972@sessionmgr4010&hid=4211 261 Lambert, W. E. (1984). An overview of issues in immersion education. In Studies on immersion education: A collection for United States educators. Sacramento California State Department of Education, 8-30. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED239509.pdf Lambert, W.E. (1975). Culture and Language as Factors in Learning and Education. In A. Wolfgang (Ed.) Education of Immigrant Students. Toronto: O.I.S.E. Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from: http://old.fltrp.com/download/07041802.pdf Lapkin, S., Swain, M., Kamin, J. & Hanna, G. (1980). Report on the 1979 evaluation of the Peel County late French immersion program, grades 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Retrieved from: www.umass.edu/aae/LLBC_Biblio.pdf Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long. H. (1999). An introduction to second language acquisition research. Longman Press. Retrieved from: http://pub-eschol-prd-lb-2076919909.us-west-2.elb.amazonaws. com/uc/item/ 3165s95t Larson-Hall, J. (2008). Weighing the benefits of studying a foreign language at a younger age in a minimal input situation. Second Language Research, 24 (1), 35-63. Retrieved from: http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=6 26f3410-9c9b-492e-b0bf-2ec0099b01d6@sessionmgr4007&hid=4211 Larter, S. & Cheng, M. (1984). Bilingual education and bilingualism: A review of research literature. Toronto: Board of Education, Research Department. Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1, 31-42. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/journal/1874-9135_The_Open_Applied_Linguistics_ Journal/2 Lasagabaster, D. & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (Eds.). (2010). CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Immersion and CLIL in English: more differences than similarities. ELT Journal., 64 (4), 367-375. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/64/4/367/388192/Immersion-andCLIL-in-English-more-differences 262 Laurisdan, K. (2007). Languages at Work in Europe: Festschrift in Honour of Professor Wolfgang Mackiewicz. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. Retrieved from: http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/ps/i.do?ty=as&v=2.1&u=tamp44898&it= DIourl&s=RELEVANCE&p=AONE&qt=SP~111~~IU~1~~SN~17576822~~VO~2&lm=DA~120100000&sw=w&authCount=1 Lightbown, P. (2000). Classroom SLA Research and Second Language Teaching. Applied Linguistics 21 (4), 431-62. Lightbrown, P. & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lightfoot, C., Cole, M., & Cole, S.R. (2004). The Development of Children. Macmillan. Retrieved from: https://www.amazon.com/Development-Children-Cynthia-Lightfoot-ebook/dp/B00 HQO0TWM Lindholm-Leary, K. (2005). Review of research and best practices on effective features of dual language education programs. San Jose University, NM. Retrieved from: http://www.lindholm-leary.com/resources/review_research.pdf Lindholm, K., & Aclan, Z. (1991). Bilingual proficiency as a bridge to academic achievement: Results from bilingual/immersion programs. Journal of Education, 173, 99-113. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/stable/42742218?seq=1#page_scan_tab_cont ents Lindholm-Leary, K. & Genesee, F. (2010). Improving education for English learners: Research-based approaches. California Department of Education. Retrieved from: http://www.mdusd.org/Departments/sass/Documents/elp/english-researchapproaches-ch-6-excerpt.pdf Lippitt, M. (1987). The Managing Complex Change Model. Enterprise Management. Retrieved from: https://www.the-registry.org/Portals/0/Documents/Credentials/Administrator/ Documents/managing%20complex%20change.pdf Littlewood, W. (1984). Foreign and second language learning. Cambridge University Press. Llinares, A., Morton, T. & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press. Long, M. H. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359-382. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/stable/pdf/3586253.pdf 263 Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (Eds.). Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 413-468. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Long, M., S. Inagaki and L. Ortega (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 357-71. Retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/329961?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Long, M.H. (1977). Group work in the teaching and learning of English as a foreign language. Problems and potential. ELT Journal, 31 (4), 285-292. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ166076 Longcope, P. (2009). Differences between the EFL and the ESL Language Learning Contexts. Linguistic Culture Theory, 30 (2), 303-320. Retrieved from: http://ir.nul.nagoya-u.ac.jp/jspui/bitstream/2237/ 11827/1/longcope.pdf Lorenzo, F. (2007). The sociolinguistics of CLIL: Language planning and language change in 21st century Europe. TESLA. Extra 1, 27-38. Retrieved from: http://www.unifg.it/sites/default/files/allegatiparagrafo/20-012014/lorenzo_francisco_sociolinguistics_of_clil_language_planning.pdf Lorenzo, F., Casal, S. & Moore, P. Moore. (2010). The effects of Content and Language Integrated Learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian Bilingual Sections Evaluation Project. Applied Linguistics, 31 (3), 418-442. Retrieved from: http://www.unifg.it/sites/default/files/allegatiparagrafo/20-01-2014/lorenzo_et_al_ effects_of_clil_on_european_education.pdf Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., Moore, P. & Alfonso, Y. M. (2009) Bilingüismo y Educación. Situación de la red de centros bilingües en Andalucía. Seville: Fundación Centro de Estudios Andaluces. López, L.E. (1995). La eficacia y validez de lo obvio: lecciones aprendidas desde la evaluación de procesos educativos bilingües. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación. No. 17. Retrieved from: http://rieoei.org/oeivirt/rie17a03.htm Lopez, L.E. (2000). Languages of Instruction. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Retrieved from: http://www.schwartzman.org.br/simon/delphi/pdf/lopes_comp2.pdf Lyster, R. (2008). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. TESL-EJ, 12(3), 337-339. Retrieved from: http://www.teslej.org/wordpress/issues/volume12/ej47/ej47r7/ 264 Malherbe, E. G. (1978). Bilingual education in the Republic of South Africa. In B. Spolsky & R. Cooper (Eds.), 167-202. Case studies in bilingual education. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Maljers A., Marsh D., Coyle D., Hartiala A.K., Marsland B., Pérez-Vidal C. & Wolff D. (2002). The CLIL Compendium. Retrieved from: http://www.clilcompendium.com Marsden, E. & David, A. (2008). Vocabulary use during conversation: a cross-sectional study of development from year 9 to year 13 among learners of Spanish and French. The Language Learning Journal, 36 (2), 181-198. Retrieved from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09571730802390031 Marsh, D. (2002). Content and language integrated learning: The European dimension - Actions, trends and foresight potential. Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Córdoba. Campus de Rabanales. Retrieved from: http://www.goethe.de/ges/spa/dos/ifs/en2747558.htm Martínez Baztán, A. (2008). La evaluación oral: una equivalencia entre las guidelines de ACTFL y algunas escalas del MCER. Universidad de Granada. Retrieved from: https://hera.ugr.es/tesisugr/17457853.pdf Maryland State Department of Education Division of Instruction. (1991). Better Thinking and Learning: Building Effective Teaching through Educational Research. Eric. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?q=building+- gap&ff1=subCritical+Thinking&ff2=subEducational +Research&id=ED353561 Marzano, R., Marzano, S., Pickering, D. (2003). Classroom management that works: research-based strategies for every teacher. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). May, S. (2008). Bilingual/Immersion education: What the research tells us. In J. Cummins and N.H. Hornberger (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Language and Education. 2nd edition, Vol. 5. Berlin/New York: Springer Science & Business Media, LLC. Retrieved from: http://www.springer.com/us/book/9780387328751 McCafferty, S G., Jacobs, G.M. and DaSilva, A.C. (2006). Cooperative learning and second language teaching. Cambridge University Press. McLaughlin, B. (1984). Second language acquisition in childhood. Preschool children (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. McLaughlin, B., Blanchard, A., & Osanai, Y. (1995). Assessing language development in bilingual preschool children. NCELA Program Information Guide Series, 22. Retrieved from: http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/pigs/pig2.htm. 271 Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (2002). Designing training and peer coaching: Our Needs for Learning. ASCD. Virginia. Short, D. (1991). How to integrate language and content instruction: A training manual. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Short, D. (1998). Social studies and assessment: Meeting the needs of students learning English. In S. Fradd & O. Lee (Eds.), 1-12. Creating Florida's multilingual global work force. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. Short, D. (2000). What principals should know about sheltered instruction for English language learners. NASSP Bulletin, 84 (619), 17-27. Retrieved from: http://www.nclack.k12.or.us/cms/lib6/OR01000992/Centricity/ModuleInstance/1009 5/Sheltered_Instruction_-_What_Principals_should_know.pdf Short, D. (2013). Training and sustaining effective teachers of sheltered instruction. Theory Into Practice, 52 (2), 118-127. Retrieved from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00405841.2013.770329?scroll=top&nee dAccess=true Short, D., Cloud, N., Morris, P., & Motta, J. (2012). Cross-district collaboration: Curriculum and professional development. TESOL Journal, 3 (3), 402-424. Retrieved from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/tesj.27/full Short, D., & Echevarria, J. (1999). The sheltered observation protocol: A tool for researcher-teacher collaboration and professional development. (Educational Practice Report No. 3). Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. Retrieved from: http://crede.berkeley.edu/pdf/epr03.pdf Short, D., & Echevarria, J. (2004). Teacher skills to support English language learners. Educational Leadership, 62 (4), 9-13. Retrieved from: https://people.ucsc.edu/~ktellez/teacherskills.pdf Short, D. & Echevarria, J. (2004/2005). Promoting academic literacy for English language learners. Educational Leadership, 62 (4), 8-13. Retrieved from: http://www.redorbit.com/news/education/400404/helping_english_language_learner s_succeed/#DbMm68Zc1xB1e1Tl.99 Short, D., Echevarria, J., & Richards-Tutor, C. (2011). Research on academic literacy development in sheltered instruction classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 15 (3), 363-380. Retrieved from: http://www.cal.org/create/conferences/2012/pdfs/research-on-academic-literacydevelopment-in-sheltered-instruction-classrooms.pdf 272 Short, D., Fidelman, C., & Louguit, M. (2012). Developing academic language in English language learners through sheltered instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 46 (2), 333-360. Retrieved from: http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/tesolc/downloads/TQ_vol462_shortfidelmanlouguit.pdf Short, D., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners. A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved from https://www.carnegie.org/media/filer_public/bd/d8/bdd80ac7-fb48-4b97-b082df8c49320acb/ccny_report_2007_double.pdf Short, D., Himmel, J., Echevarria, J., & Richards-Tutor, C. (2016). Research Years 1-4: The impact of the SIOP model on middle school science and language learning. CREATE. Retrieved from: http://www.cal.org/create/index.html Short, D., Hudec, J., & Echevarria, J. (2002). Using the SIOP model: Professional development manual for sheltered instruction. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Singleton, D. & Lengyel, Z. (Eds). (1995). The age factor in second language acquisition. London: Multilingual Matters. Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in foreign language learning. London: Arnold. Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3s25j29j#page-4 Skutnabb-Kangas, T. & Toukomaa, P. (1976). Teaching migrant children’s mother tongue and learning the language of the host country in the context of the sociocultural situation of the migrant family. Helsinki: The Finnish National Commission for UNESCO. Retrieved from: http://www.worldcat.org/title/teachingmigrant-childrens-mother-tongue-andlearning-the-language-of-the-host-country-on-the-context-of-the-socio-culturalsituation-of-the-migrant-family/oclc/123182309?referer=di&ht=edition Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1979). Language in the process of cultural assimilation and structural incorporation of linguistic minorities. Rosslyn, VA: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Retrieved from: http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/5377324 Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1981). Bilingualism or not: The education of minorities. Multilingual Matters. 273 Slavin, R.E. (1994). Student teams-achievement divisions. In S. Sharan (Ed.), 3-19. Handbook of co-operative learning methods. Connecticut: Greenwood Press. Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative learning: theory, research, and practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Smith, J. & Paterson, F. (1998). Positively bilingual: Classroom strategies to promote the achievement of bilingual learners. Nottingham Education Authority. Snow, C. (1990). Rationales for native language instruction. Evidence from research. In A.M. Padilla, H.H. Fairchild & C. Valdez, 60-74. Bilingual Education. Issues and Strategies. Newbury Park, California: Corwin Press, Inc. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED329635.pdf Snow, C., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Snow, C., & Hoefnagel-Höhle, M. (1978). The critical period for language acquisition: Evidence from second language learning. Child Development, 49, 1114-1128. Retrieved from: http://www.kennethreeds.com/uploads/2/3/3/0/2330615/article.pdf Snow, M., Met, M. & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 23 (2), 201-217. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/stable/pdf/3587333.pdf Sokolik, M. & Smith, M. (1992). Assignment of Gender to French Nouns in Primary and Secondary Language: A Connectionist Model. Second Language Research, 8 (1), 3958. Retrieved from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/026765839200800103?legid=spslr%3B8 %2F1%2F39&patientinform-links=yes& Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (1997). A new vision for staff development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Sparks, G. M. (1983). Synthesis of research on staff development for effective teaching. Educational Leadership, 41 (3), 65–72. Retrieved from: http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198311_sparks.pdf Stevens, R.J., Madden, R., Slavin, R.E. & Farnish, A.M. (1987). Cooperative integrated reading and composition: two field experiments. Reading Research Quarterly, 22 (4), 433-454. Retrieved from: http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.8 274 Stewart, S. (1983). La educación indígena en América Latina. The Guatemala Bilingual Education Project. Guatemala Agency for International development. Swain, M. (1978). Bilingual education for the English-speaking Canadian. In J.E. Alatis (Ed.), 369-378. International Dimensions of Bilingual Education. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED219967 Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden, (Eds.), 235252. Input and Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Swain, M. (1988). Manipulating and contemplating content teaching to maximize language learning. Perspectives. TESL Canada Journal. 6 (1), 68-83. Retrieved from: http://teslcanadajournal.ca/index.php/tesl/article/view/542/373 Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.). Principles and practice in the study of language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1981). Bilingual education in Ontario: A decade of research. Toronto: Ministry of Education. Tabors, P. (2008). One child, two languages: A guide for early childhood educators of children learning English as a second language. 2d ed. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Tabors, P.O. & Snow, C.E. (1994). English as a second language in preschool programs. In F. Genesee, (Ed.), 103-125. Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole community. Cambridge University Press. Tahta, S., Wood, M. & Loewenthal, K. (1981). Foreign accents: Factors relating to transfer of accent from the first language to a second language. Language and Speech, 24, 265-272. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258165633_Foreign_Accents_Factors_Rela ting_to_Transfer_of_Accent_from_the_First_Language_to_a_Second_Language Taylor, S. (1992). Victor: A case study of a Cantonese child in early French immersion. Canadian Modern Language Review, 48 (4), 736-759. Tedick, D., Christian, D., & Fortune, T. (2011). Immersion education practices, policies, possibilities. Multilingual Matters. Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. NCBE Resource Collection Series. George Mason University. Retrieved from: http://www.ncela.us/files/rcd/BE020890/School_effectiveness_for_langu.pdf Thomas, W.P. & Collier, V.P. (1998). Two languages are better than one. Educational Leadership, 55 (4), 23-26. 275 Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence (CREDE), University of California-Santa Cruz. Retrieved from: http//www.crede.ucsc.edu. Thomas, W.P. & Collier, V.P. (2012). Dual language education for a transformed world. Fuente Press. New Mexico. Thompson, L., Boyson, B., & Rhodes, N. (2006). Early Language Listening and Oral Proficiency Assessment (ELLOPA). Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, DC. Troike, R. (1978). Research evidence for the effectiveness of bilingual education. NABE Journal, 3 (1), 13-24. Várkuti, A. (2010). Linguistic benefits of the CLIL approach: Measuring linguistic competences. International CLIL Research Journal, 7 (3), 67-79. Retrieved from: http://www.icrj.eu/13/article7.html Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. New York. Longman Group. Verhoeven, L. (1991). Acquisition of literacy. Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquee (AILA) Review, 8, 61-74. Vorih, L. & Rosier, P. (1978). Rock Point Community School: An example of a NavajoEnglish bilingual elementary school program. TESOL Quarterly, 12, 263-269. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language. (Edited by A. Kozulin, 1986). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. (Edited by M. Cole, V. Jonh-Steiner & E. Soubeman). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walker, C. L. & Tedick, D. J. (2000). The complexity of immersion education: Teachers address the issues. Modern Language Journal, 84 (1), 5-27. Welle, J. (2014). The effects of Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol on student content knowledge and teacher performance in the art classroom. Action research report. St. Catherine University, St. Paul, MN. Retrieved from: http://sophia.stkate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=maed 276 White, L. (1996). Universal grammar and second language acquisition: Current trends and new directions. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), 85-118. Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press. Retrieved from: http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/networks/NW09/white.pdf White, L. (2000). Second language acquisition: From initial to final state. In J. Archibald, Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Retrieved from: http://blogs.umass.edu/moiry/files/2015/09/white2000.pdf WIDA: The Features of Academic Language in the WIDA Standards. (2014). Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. Retrieved from: www.wida.us Wolff, D. (2007). What is CLIL? Goethe Institute. Retrieved from: http://www.goethe.de/ges/spa/dos/ifs/en2747558.htm Yucesan Durgunoglu, A. & Goldenberg, C. (Eds.). (2011). Language and Literacy Development in Bilingual Settings. Guildford Press, NY. 277 APPENDIX 278 Warm-Up Goal: salutations and set phrases  Greet the student warmly in English: Hello. How are you? Sit here please. What’s your name? How old are you? Game 1: School Tools Goal: TPR with schools tools (paper, pencil, scissors, etc.) Put students at ease with simple listening comprehension first, followed by speaking.  Put a variety of common school tools out on the table: pencil, pen, paper, book, stapler, scissors, tape.  Use TPR: for different items on the table, tell students to give it to you, touch it, point to it, move it somewhere else, etc.  Point to different items and ask, “What is this?” (note: complete sentence? If not, model the complete sentence and prompt for it on the next question.) Game 2: Colors Goal: Give students an opportunity to answer in one word or in short phrases or sentences.  Place colored pencils on the table. Have students to name the color by asking, “What color is this?”  Ask: What is your favorite color? Game 3: The Family Goal: Answer questions – Give students opportunities to express ideas on familiar topics  Using a visual depicting a family, ask students questions: Who is this? What does (he/she) look like? Do you have a (big/little, older/younger) (sister/brother)? Does your grandmother live in your house? Tell me about your family. Do you have a pet? (note: complete sentence? If not, model the complete sentence and prompt for it on the next question.) Game 4: Talking with Puppets Goal: Answer questions - Give students opportunities to express ideas on familiar topics. Describe - Give students opportunities to use academic language and to create language at sentence level.  The teacher and the student each have a puppet and hold a conversation. Teacher’s puppet asks: What is your favorite class? What do you like about (science, art, PE: focus on classes in the bilingual program)? What don’t you like about that class? Tell what you learn about in (content class) Look at this picture (show picture). What do you see? Game 5: Story Retelling Goal: Describe, narrate - Give students opportunities to speak about things that have happened in the past at paragraph level and beyond.  Using a set of felt manipulatives of the story The Three Little Pigs, show students all the felt representations. Choose the first or second and begin retelling the story, placing and using the felt pieces appropriately. Ask the student continue telling the story. APPENDIX I ELLOPA Assessment Adapted from Thompson et al., 2006 279 APPENDIX II Four ELLOPA Proficiency Levels 280 APPENDIX III ELLOPA Rating Profile 287 APPENDIX VII SIOP Adapted for CLIL (page 3) 288 APPENDIX VIII Delegation Letter 289 TEACHER INTERVIEW 1. Tell me about your bilingual program and how it was initiated at your school. Explain the steps that were followed to get the program approved and started. What is included in your approved education plan for this program? 2. How long have you been teaching in a bilingual program? How long at this school? 3. When/how did you learn English? 4. How comfortable do you feel teaching content in English? 5. What training is available to support your teaching of English? 6. What training is available to support your teaching in the content areas? 7. What training have you received to help you effectively simultaneously develop the English language and content knowledge for your students? 8. Do you have the availability of an electronic board in your classroom? Have you had training in how to use it? How much time have you spent working to figure out how to use it? 9. What are your teaching schedule and assignments? 10. When is your common planning time scheduled with other teachers in the bilingual program? 11. When is your common planning time scheduled with the instructional assistant? 12. What training have you had to help you know how to use the instructional assistant in your classes? 13. When do you meet with the other teachers in the bilingual program to discuss the progress of the program and students? 14. How do you decide what to teach in your content classes? 15. What materials do you use for instruction? APPENDIX IX Teacher Interview Questions 290 INSTRUCTIONAL ASSITANT (IA) INTERVIEW 1. How did you become an IA? 2. Where are you from? 3. Did you study a foreign language before you came to Spain? How long have you studied it? 4. How long have you been teaching in a bilingual program? How long at this school? 5. What teaching experience did you have before you came to work as an IA? 6. What training have you received to prepare you as an IA? 7. What are your schedule and typical assignments? 8. How comfortable do you feel teaching content in English? 9. When is your common planning time scheduled with other teachers in the bilingual program? 10. When do you meet with the other teachers in the bilingual program to discuss the progress of the program and students? 11. What materials do you use for instruction? APPENDIX X Instructional Assistant Interview Questions 291 Alpha School: Observations made of both 2A and 2B classes Wednesday, January 23: Conduct student interviews 9 to 11:30 Weeks When Classroom Observations Occurred  January 28 to February 1  February 11-15  February 25 to March 1  March 11-15  April 1-5  April 22-26 Classes Observed  Mondays o 9:50 -10:40 2B English o 12:00 -13:00 2B Science o 13:00 –14:00 2A Science  Fridays o 9:50 – 10:40 2A English o 10:40 – 11:30 2A Arts Wednesday, May 8: Conduct student interviews 9 to 11:30 Delta School: Observations were made of both 2A and 2B classes. Observations were made on TUESDAYS and FRIDAYS in alternating weeks. Thursday, January 24: Conducted student interviews 9 to 11:30 Weeks When TUESDAY Classroom Observations Occurred  January 28 to February 1  February 11-15  February 25 to March 1  March 11-15  April 1-5  April 22-26 Classes Observed on TUESDAYS  10:00 – 11:00 2A Music  11:00 – 11:45 2A Science  12:15 – 13:15 2A English  13:15 – 14:00 2B Science APPENDIX IX Observation Schedule (page 1) 292 Weeks when FRIDAY Classroom Observations Occurred  February 4 – 8  February 18 – 22  March 4 – 8  March 18 – 22  April 8 – 12  April 29 – May 3 Classes Observed on FRIDAYS  10:00 – 11:00 2B English  13:15 – 14:00 2B Arts Thursday, May 9: Conducted student interviews 9 to 11:30 Gamma School Tuesday, January 22: Conducted student interviews 9 to 11:30 Weeks When Classroom Observations Occurred  January 28 to February 1  February 11-15  February 25 to March 1  March 11-15  April 1-5  April 22-26 Classes Observed  Thursdays o 11:00 – 11:45 Science o 13:15 – 14:00 English  Fridays o 13:15 – 14:00 Arts Tuesday, May 7: Conduct student interviews 9 to 11:30 Epsilon School Days when Classroom Observations Occurred  January 21  February 4 APPENDIX IX Observation Schedule (page 2) 293  February 18  March 4  March 18  April 8  April 29 Classes Observed  Mondays o 10:00 – 11:00 Science o 12:00 – 12:30 English o 12:30 – 13:15 Physical Education Monday, May 6: Conducted student final interviews 9 to 11:30 Beta School Friday, January 25: Conducted student interviews 9 to 11:30 Weeks when Classroom Observations Occurred  February 4 – 8  February 18 – 22  March 4 – 8  March 18 – 22  April 8 – 12  April 29 – May 3 Classes Observed  Tuesdays o 10:00 – 11:00 2B Arts o 13:15 – 14:00 2B Science  Thursdays o 11:00 – 12:00 2B English Friday, May 10: Conducted student interviews 9 to 11:30 APPENDIX IX Observation Schedule (page 3) 294 Delta School Gamma School Epsilon School Beta School Schedule A (#visit) MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY 910 9:50-10:40 2B Eng 9:50-10:40 2A Eng 1011 2A Music 10:40-11:30 2A Arts 1112 11-11:45 2A cono 11-11:45 Science 121 2B cono 12:15-1:15 2A Eng 1-2 2A cono 1:15-2 2B cono 1:15-2 Eng 1:15-2 Arts 2-3 Schedule B (#visit) MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY 910 1011 Cono 2B Arts 2B Eng 1112 12-30 Eng 2B Eng 121 12:30-1:15 PE 1-2 1:15-2 2B Science 1:15-2 2B Arts 2-3 School Sections / # Students # Teachers Alpha School 2A and 2B 23 2 Delta School 2A and 2B 25 3 Gamma School One group 21 1 Epsilon School One group 20 3 Beta School The 2B group 20 2 TOTALS 109 11 Alpha School School 9:50-10:40 2B Eng 2B science 2A science 9:50-10:40 2A Eng 10:40-11:30 2A Arts Delta School 2A Music 11-11:45 2A science 12:15-1:15 2A Eng 1:15-2 2B science 2B Eng 1:15-2 2B Arts Epsilon School Science 12-30 Eng 12:30-1:15 PE Beta School 2B Arts 1:15-2 2B Science 2B Eng APPENDIX IX Observation Schedule (page 4) 295 Schedule C1 (Assessments) (Week of January 21) MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY 9-10 10-11 11-12 Schedule C2 (Assessments) (Week of May 6) MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY 9-10 10-11 11-12 JAN 2013 SUN MON TUES WEDS THURS FRI SA 16 17 18 19 C1 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A1 27 28 29 30 31 FEB SUN MON TUES WEDS THURS FRI SA (A1) 1 2 B1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 B2 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 A3 24 25 26 27 28 APPENDIX IX Observation Schedule (page 5) 296 MAR SUN MON TUES WEDS THURS FRI SA (A3) 1 2 B3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 B4 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 HOLY 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 A5 31 APR SUN MON TUES WEDS THURS FRI SA (A5) 1 2 3 4 5 6 B5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 FAIR 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 A6 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 B6 28 29 30 MAY SUN MON TUES WEDS THURS FRI SA (B6) 1 2 3 4 C2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 APPENDIX IX Observation Schedule (page 6) 303 DELTA SCHOOL SIOP CRITERION NUMBER MUSIC (1 section) ARTS (1 section) SCIENCE (2 sections) ENGLISH (2 sections) AVERAGE SIOP SCORE FOR THIS SCHOOL PROJECT AVERAGE (AGGREGATE SCORES OF ALL SCHOOLS) SIOP CRITERION NUMBER 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.7 3 4 2.5 3 1 3 2.40 1 4 5 1.50 1 0 0 0.63 0.31 5 6 2.50 1 0 0 0.88 1.13 6 7 1 0 0.80 0 0.45 0.16 7 8 1.50 0 0.80 0 0.58 0.24 8 9 1 1.80 2.50 2 1.83 1.12 9 10 2.50 2 2.50 2 2.25 1.74 10 11 2 1 2 1 1.50 1.12 11 12 2.50 1.80 1 3 2.08 1 12 13 0.80 0.80 0 0 0.40 0.26 13 14 0 0.80 0 0 0.20 0.18 14 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 APPENDIX XII MEAN SIOP SCORES IN SUBJECT AREAS (page 7) 304 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 18 2 3 3 1.80 2.45 1.62 18 19 3 3 3 3 3 2.68 19 20 2 2.50 0 0 1.13 0.65 20 21 2 1 1 1.50 1.38 0.70 21 22 1 0 2 2.50 1.38 0.70 22 23 2 0 0 0 0.50 0.32 23 24 1 0 0 0 0.25 0.22 24 25 1.80 2.50 3 2.50 2.45 1.44 25 26 2 1.80 2 1.50 1.83 1.30 26 27 0 0 0 0 0 0.06 27 28 0 0 0 0 0 0.06 28 29 2 2 1.80 1 1.70 1 29 30 0 1 0 1 0.50 0.22 30 AVERAGE AGGREGATE SIOP SCORES FOR THIS SCHOOL 1.09 0.67 APPENDIX XII MEAN SIOP SCORES IN SUBJECT AREAS (page 8) 305 EPSILON SCHOOL SIOP CRITERION NUMBER SCIENCE LANGUAGE PHYSICAL EDUCATION AVERAGE SIOP SCORE FOR THIS SCHOOL PROJECT AVERAGE (AGGREGATE SCORES OF ALL SCHOOLS) SIOP CRITERION NUMBER 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 2 3 2.33 2.7 3 4 0 0 0.80 0.27 1 4 5 0 0 0 0 0.31 5 6 0 0 3 1 1.13 6 7 0 0 0 0 0.16 7 8 0 0 0 0 0.24 8 9 0 1 1 0.67 1.12 9 10 1 2 2 1.67 1.74 10 11 0 1 2 1 1.12 11 12 0 0 1 .33 1 12 13 0 0 0 0 0.26 13 14 0 0 0 0 0.18 14 15 0 0 0 0 0 15 16 0 0 0 0 0 16 APPENDIX XII MEAN SIOP SCORES IN SUBJECT AREAS (page 9) 306 17 0 0 0 0 0 17 18 1 2 2 1.67 1.62 18 19 1 2 2 1.67 2.68 19 20 0 1 1 0.67 0.65 20 21 0.80 0 1 0.60 0.70 21 22 1.20 2 0 1.07 0.70 22 23 0 0 0 0 0.32 23 24 0 0 0 0 0.22 24 25 1 0 2 1 1.44 25 26 2 0 2 1.33 1.30 26 27 0 0 0 0 0.06 27 28 0 0 0 0 0.06 28 29 2 2 2 2 1 29 30 0.80 0 0 0.27 0.22 30 AVERAGE AGGREGATE SIOP SCORE FOR THIS SCHOOL 0.58 0.67 APPENDIX XII MEAN SIOP SCORES IN SUBJECT AREAS (page 10) 307 ALPHA SCHOOL SIOP CRITERION NUMBER TEACHER #1 ENGLISH, SCIENCE AND ARTS TEACHER #2 ENGLISH, SCIENCE AND ARTS SCHOOL AVERAGE PROJECT AVERAGE (AGGREGATE SCORES OF ALL SCHOOLS) SIOP CRITERION NUMBER 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 1.5 2.1 2.7 3 4 2.50 0 1 1 4 5 1.50 0 0.60 0.31 5 6 1 0 0.40 1.13 6 7 0.50 0 0.20 0.16 7 8 1 0 0.40 0.24 8 9 2 0.26 0.96 1.12 9 10 2.50 0.33 1.20 1.74 10 11 1.50 0.33 0.80 1.12 11 12 2 0 0.80 1 12 13 1 0 0.40 0.26 13 14 1 0 0.40 0.18 14 15 0 0 0 0 15 16 0 0 0 0 16 APPENDIX XIII MEAN SIOP SCORES BY TEACHER (page 1) 308 17 0 0 0 0 17 18 2 0.67 1.20 1.62 18 19 3 3 3 2.68 19 20 0.80 0 0.32 0.65 20 21 0 0 0 0.70 21 22 3 0 1.20 0.70 22 23 2 0 0.80 0.32 23 24 2 0 0.80 0.22 24 25 2.80 1 1.72 1.44 25 26 2.80 0.67 1.52 1.30 26 27 1 0 0.40 0.06 27 28 1 0 0.40 0.06 28 29 3.50 0 1.40 1 29 30 2.50 0 1 0.22 30 TOTALS 1.53 0.26 0.77 0.67 Teacher’s SOLOM Score 4 3 APPENDIX XIII MEAN SIOP SCORES BY TEACHER (page 2) 309 BETA SCHOOL SIOP CRITERION NUMBER TEACHER #1 MUSIC TEACHER #2 ENGLISHAND SCIENCE SCHOOL AVERAGE PROJECT AVERAGE (AGGREGATE SCORES OF ALL SCHOOLS) SIOP CRITERION NUMBER 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 3 3 2.7 3 4 1 0 0.33 1 4 5 0 0 0 0.31 5 6 1.50 0 0.50 1.13 6 7 0 0 0 0.16 7 8 0 0 0 0.24 8 9 2 0.50 1 1.12 9 10 1.50 1 1.17 1.74 10 11 1.50 0.50 0.83 1.12 11 12 1.50 0 0.50 1 12 13 0 0 0 0.26 13 14 0 0 0 0.18 14 15 0 0 0 0 15 16 0 0 0 0 16 APPENDIX XIII MEAN SIOP SCORES BY TEACHER (page 3) 310 17 0 0 0 0 17 18 2 1 1.44 1.62 18 19 3 3 3 2.68 19 20 0 0 0 0.65 20 21 1 0 0.33 0.70 21 22 1 0 0.33 0.70 22 23 0 0 0 0.32 23 24 0 0 0 0.22 24 25 1 0 0.33 1.44 25 26 1 0 0.33 1.30 26 27 0 0 0 0.06 27 28 0 0 0 0.06 28 29 0 0 0 1 29 30 0 0 0 0.22 30 TOTALS 0.70 0.33 0.77 0.67 Teacher’s SOLOM SCORE 4 3 APPENDIX XIII MEAN SIOP SCORES BY TEACHER (page 4) 311 GAMMA SCHOOL SIOP CRITERION NUMBER TEACHER #1 SCIENCE, LANGUAGE, ART SCHOOL AVERAGE PROJECT AVERAGE (AGGREGATE SCORES OF ALL SCHOOLS) SIOP CRITERION NUMBER 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 3 2.67 2.67 2.7 3 4 0.27 0.27 1 4 5 0 0 0.31 5 6 0 0 1.13 6 7 0 0 0.16 7 8 0 0 0.24 8 9 1.27 1.27 1.12 9 10 2.43 2.43 1.74 10 11 0.50 0.50 1.12 11 12 0 0 1 12 13 0 0 0.26 13 14 0 0 0.18 14 15 0 0 0 15 16 0 0 0 16 APPENDIX XIII MEAN SIOP SCORES BY TEACHER (page 5) 312 17 0 0 0 17 18 1.17 1.17 1.62 18 19 2.80 2.80 2.68 19 20 0 0 0.65 20 21 0.27 0.27 0.70 21 22 0.40 0.40 0.70 22 23 0 0 0.32 23 24 0 0 0.22 24 25 0.40 0.40 1.44 25 26 1.40 1.40 1.30 26 27 0 0 0.06 27 28 0 0 0.06 28 29 0.27 0.27 1 29 30 0.33 0.33 0.22 30 TOTALS 0.47 0.47 0.67 Teacher’s SOLOM SCORE 4 APPENDIX XIII MEAN SIOP SCORES BY TEACHER (page 6) 319 Is there a statistical significance between the SIOP scores achieved on a scale of 0 to 4? The results of this exact contingency table shows a very low probability of relationship between the row and column data. No single SIOP score is more or less statistically significant than the others. A contingency table is a tabular arrangement of count data representing how the row fac tor frequencies relate to the column factor. A contingency table with “r” rows and “c” colum ns, is an r x c contingency table. r × c Exact Contingency Table: Results In this case, using an r x c 4X5 contingency table, the row factors are the SIOP score ranges of (1) 0 - 0.4 (2) 0.5 – 0.9 (3) 1 – 1.4 (4) 1.5 – 1.9. (The data was all multiplied by 100 for analysis.) These column ranges were achieved by dividing into four equal ranges the lowest score possible (0) to the highest score achieved 1.9. The column factors are the five schools in the study. data: contingency table A B C D E 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 87 50 69 60 0 266 3 0 0 0 0 109 109 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 50 69 60 99 365 expected: contingency table A B C D E 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 63.4 36.4 50.3 43.7 72.1 3 23.6 13.6 18.7 16.3 26.9 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 The given table has probability 4.8E-92 The sum of the probabilities of "unusual" tables finds p < .001 i.e., p = 0. (the value that you would get if you assumed compound symmetry in the variance-covariance matrix). APPENDIX XV SIOP SCORE STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE CALCULATIONS 320 CORRELATION BETWEEN YEARS OF PROGRAM EXISITENCE AND SIOP SCORES SCHOOL YEARS PROGRAM HAS EXISTED SIOP AVERAGE SCORE COVARIANCE Alpha School 4 0.87 Beta School 6 0.50 Gamma School 6 0.69 Delta School 6 1.12 Epsilon School 2 0.60 0.0792 Correlation coefficient shows a low correlation A second correspondence calculation gave the same results: Sample Mean and Covariance Calculator Covariance is a measure of two variables (X and Y) changing together. Result Mean x: 4.8 Mean y: 0.756 N: 5 Cov(X,Y): 0.0792 Covariance has Low correspondence 0.0792 APPENDIX XVI CORRELATION TABLE SIOP AND YEARS OF PROGRAM EXISTENCE 321 formula for the t-test, Where: Where: is the mean for Group 1. is the mean for Group 2. is the number of people in Group 1. is the number of people in Group 2. is the variance for Group 1. is the variance for Group 2. APPENDIX XVII t Test Formula 322 Pearson's Correlation Coefficient Create a table of the variable scores and the product of the two scores. Score X Score Y X2 Y2 XY 4 1.530 16 2.341 6.120 4 0.700 16 0.490 2.800 4 0.470 16 0.221 1.880 4 1.320 16 1.742 5.280 4 1.040 16 1.082 4.160 4 0.960 16 0.922 3.840 4 0.430 16 0.185 1.720 4 0.500 16 0.250 2 4 0.870 16 0.757 3.480 3 0.260 9 0.068 0.780 3 0.330 9 0.109 0.990 42 8.410 162 8.166 33.050 Use the following equation to calculate Pearson's coefficient: APPENDIX XVIII SIOP AND SOLOM SCORE CORRELATION TABLE (page 1) ( 323 Substitute the values obtained from the table into the equation: 33.050 – 42 x 8.410 11 ( 422 ) 11 ( 8.166 – 8.4102 ) 11 Simplify the equation: 33.050 – 32.111 (162 – 160.364) (8.166 – 6.430) 0.939 (1.636) (1.736) 0.939 2.841 0.939 1.685 0.557 APPENDIX XVIII SIOP AND SOLOM SCORE CORRELATION TABLE (page 2) ( 324 Therefore, Pearson's correlation coefficient is 0.557. A perfect correlation = 1.0 High correlation: .5 to 1.0 or -0.5 to 1.0 Medium correlation: .3 to .5 or -0.3 to .5 Low correlation: .1 to .3 or -0.1 to -0.3 A high correlation exists. APPENDIX XVIII SIOP AND SOLOM SCORE CORRELATION TABLE (page 3) ( 325 Correlation between subject content area and SIOP Scores r × c Exact Contingency Table: Results A contingency table is a tabular arrangement of count data representing how the row fac tor frequencies relate to the column factor. A contingency table with “r” rows and “c” colum ns, is an r x c contingency table. In this case, using an r x c 5X4 contingency table, the row factors are the five content areas and the column factors are SIOP score ranges of (A) 0 - 0.4 (B) 0.5 – 0.9 (C) 1 – 1.4 (D) 1.5 – 1.9. These column ranges were achieved by dividing into four equal ranges the lowest score possible (0) to the highest score achieved 1.9. A B C D 1 2 2 1 0 5 2 3 2 1 0 6 3 2 0 1 1 4 4 0 1 0 1 2 5 0 1 0 0 1 7 6 3 2 18 A B C D 1 1.94 1.67 0.833 0.556 2 2.33 2.00 1.00 0.667 3 1.56 1.33 0.667 0.444 4 0.778 0.667 0.333 0.222 5 0.389 0.333 0.167 0.111 The given table has probability 2.9E-04 (0.00029) The sum of the probabilities is, p = 0.773 (the value that you would get if you assumed compound symmetry in the variance-covariance matrix). This table shows a very low probability of relationship between the row and column data. APPENDIX XIX SIOP AND SUBJECT CORRELATION ( 326 T-test to find significance of differences between ELLOPA pre and post test scores formula for the t-test, Where: is the mean for the pre-test. (1.332) is the mean for post-test. (1.284) is the number of criteria in the pre-test. is the number of criteria in the post-test. is the variance for the means of criteria on the pre-test is the variance for the means of the criteria on the post-test. The two-tailed P value equals 0.7084 This difference is considered to be not statistically significant. APPENDIX XX ELLOPA PREAND POST-TEST CORRELATION ( 327