This reading is about the “how” in implementing the SIOP model of lesson planning. It addresses six features that teachers should incorporate when designing content lesson plans that include language objectives for ELs. Before I read this article, I was struggling with the idea of how to combine course content teaching with teaching language acquisition. I wondered, “How are teachers able to teach class and also help their EL students successfully?” I didn’t know anything about the kinds of strategies and skills that are used to help create this balance. This article really helped me with this area because it showed an organized way in which to combine these two components and it also provided a lot of examples – it even lays out resources teachers should look at when searching for different kinds of language objectives.
One of the six features that really stood out to me was feature number two when it addressed writing content and language objectives on page 27. Within this section it states that “An objective is not a by-product of an activity but the foundation of one.” From my experience in writing small lesson plans I usually see the objectives as bullet points that come after planning what the activity is. After I read this quote I realized that the objective, not the activity is what should be decided on first. The objective is what the students will learn and the activity is what supplements this. This section also helped me see how teachers need to re-write objectives at the level of language proficiency that their students are at so that they can clearly understand what they are being taught and was is expected from them. Without clear instruction, a student can be confused for a whole lesson right off the bat, especially ELs. This section shows great examples as to how to re-word objectives that incorporate content and also language objectives. One example was used in which a teacher used a science objective: learning parts of a tree with a language objective: reading The Giving Tree and acting out the story using vocabulary words such as trunk, branch, leaf, etc. The students would have to be able to act out the parts of the tree while also using the vocabulary words to name them (p. 28). It is important to keep in mind that if your class is made up of students with varying levels of English proficiency not to write different language objectives for each level. Rather, write the lesson objective for all students to complete but change the expected level of completion to measure up to different students’ abilities. Pages 29 and 30 provide an example of how teachers can go over their course content topics and look for ways to incorporate language objectives within them by looking for language cues such as: Key vocabulary, language functions, language skills, grammar or language structures, lesson tasks, and language learning strategies.
Another feature that I found interesting was feature number five in which it talks about task analysis. A task analysis is “a process in which you carefully analyze the requisite knowledge a student must possess in order to understand what is being taught.” A task analysis is used so that teachers can recognize which students, such as ELs, haven’t been introduced to a topic before and therefore may not understand the lesson. Ways in which teachers can help out these students is to either review the background of the content first in a “mini-lesson” for the whole class to go over or the teacher can teach a brief background of the subject to only a small group of students. Another point that stuck out to me in this feature was the warning that teachers should not give students in higher grades books of such easier reading levels that course content is missing. Instead teachers should find other materials (addressed in feature four) that are not so “young” even if the reading level is easier. Instead, teachers can scaffold for the student if need be, or the student can participate in a specialized course to accelerate their learning to the grade-level standard in a shorter amount of time (p. 32).
Task: I am curious as to what features stuck out to you? Which ones do you think are the most important? Is there a feature that you didn’t like? Did this article help you understand how to incorporate content objectives with language objectives? What feature helped you out the most?
I think that the feature about how teachers often design their lesson plans is essential to being a successful teacher. We must remember that as teachers our goal is to complete that standards that are given to use at the beginning of the year. Last semester the first things my CT from TE 401 told me prior to creating the lesson plan was that many teachers tend to plan their lesson plan and then see what standard it can apply to. So many of us (including myself at one point) have thought up these extravagant lesson plans that we want to share with our students. Many people think the more "colorful" the lesson plan the better the kids will remember. Too often do teachers go off track about what the standard actually implies just because they think it is "cool." It's vital to remember that yes some lesson plans may be a great time for kids, (which in turn makes them memorable), but are they going to remember the objects/activities or the lesson implied within them?
ReplyDeleteKim, I think you pick up an important point of how the institution where we teach will shape how we are able to teach. This can both be in a positive and in a negative way. The SIOP model is no different.
ReplyDelete