Learning science content through SIOP and the 5E Learning Cycle

Vanashri Nargund-Joshi and Nazan Bautista

Learning science content through SIOP and the 5E Learning Cycle 24

The Science Teacher

S

cience vocabulary can be abstract (e.g., photosynthesis, ecosystem) and have different meanings than in daily life (e.g., class, work, power). For this reason, understanding individual vocabulary words isn’t enough for learners to be successful. The meaning is embedded in basic syntax, language functions, and patterns of discourse. The language aspect of science complicates matters even more for English language learners (ELLs) not yet proficient in English. Traditionally, educators believed that ELLs needed to learn and master the English language before taking contentspecific courses (Collier 1989; Met 1994). During years of remedial English, ELLs acquired basic social communication skills but not the more complex, content-specific language skills required for them to be academically successful (Stoddart et al. 2002). Unfortunately, because ELLs take five or more years to become proficient in academic English, this approach is neither convenient nor effective for high school students (Thomas and Collier 2002). Studies report that “content-based” approaches to teaching ELLs improve content understanding and develop language proficiency (Chamot and O’Malley 1994; Echevarria, Vogt, and Short 2002; Lee and Fradd 1998; Nutta, Bautista, and Butler 2010). In other words, if we make science content comprehensible and provide opportunities for ELLs to demonstrate their content understanding, their language skills will grow. As English communication skills grow, understanding of science concepts increases. This article presents an approach to supporting ELLs’ language growth in a constructivist-oriented science classroom. We compare and contrast a framework for inquiry-based science instruction called the 5E Learning Cycle (Bybee 1997) and a framework for language instruction called the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP; Echevarria, Vogt, and Short 2002). Then, we provide a lesson using both frameworks.

F IGUR E 1

5E Learning Cycle framework.

The 5E Learning Cycle: Exploratory science framework

The 5E Learning Cycle is a research-based instructional model developed by Rodger Bybee and his colleagues (1997) at the Biological Science Curriculum Study (Bybee 1997). It is based on the constructivist view of learning in which teachers identify and challenge students’ misconceptions and then provide students time to explore, investigate, and reconstruct their knowledge and understanding. The 5E model has five phases (Figure 1). The Engage phase piques students’ interest and curiosity, elicits prior knowledge, and identifies possible misconceptions. The teacher doesn’t instruct or explain concepts. In the Explore phase, learners participate in self-designed or guided investigations in which they ask questions, design experiments, gather and analyze data, and communicate results. They work in small groups, sharing and communicating their experiences. The teacher acts as a facilitator, providing materials and asking open-ended questions. In the Explain phase, learners reflect on their learnings from the Explore phase and communicate them. Once learners build their own understanding through inquiry, the teacher helps students develop conceptual understanding by providing formal instruction, introducing and defining key vocabulary, and addressing misconceptions identified in the Engage phase. The Elaborate phase allows learners to use their newly constructed knowledge and continue to explore and extend its implications and applications. They make connections to other related concepts and apply their understanding to the world around them.

April/May 2016

25

FI G U R E 2

Components of the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol. 1. Preparation a. Content objectives b. Language objectives c. Content concepts d. Supplementary materials e. Adaptation of content f. Meaningful activities 2. Building Background a. Link concepts to experiences b. Link concepts to past learning c. Highlight key vocabulary 3. Comprehensible Input a. Appropriate speech b. Clear explanation of tasks c. Comprehensibility techniques 4. Strategies a. Opportunities for strategies b. Scaffolding c. Ask higher-order questions 5. Interaction a. Opportunities for interaction b. Supportive grouping c. Wait time d. Clarification of key concepts 6. Practice/Application a. Practice hands-on investigation b. Apply content and language knowledge c. Integrate language skills 7. Lesson Delivery a. Supports content objectives b. Supports language objectives c. Engages learners more than 90% of the time d. Provides appropriate pacing 8. Review/Assessment a. Review vocabulary b. Review key concepts c. Provide feedback d. Assess comprehension and learning

26

The Science Teacher

Finally, in the Evaluate phase, both learners and teachers reflect on how much learning and understanding has taken place. Teachers should continuously evaluate learners’ performance throughout the learning cycle, but, in this final phase, they determine if learners have attained understanding of the target concept.

SIOP: Language assistive framework

Used with the 5E Learning Cycle, the SIOP helps teachers in mainstream classrooms adapt instruction for ELLs (Echevarria, Vogt, and Short 2002). In the late 1990s, two studies evaluated the SIOP framework’s effectiveness in supporting ELLs’ language growth over two semesters (Echevarria, Vogt, and Short 2002). In the second semester, both studies reported that those ELLs in classes with trained SIOP teachers had statistically significant improvements in their writing scores. The SIOP has eight components (Figure 2). In the Preparation phase, the teacher identifies both the content and language objectives. The lesson plan should include ageappropriate concepts, supplementary materials (e.g., manipulatives, realia, visuals), content adaptations for different language proficiencies (e.g., graphic organizers, highlighted texts, texts in ELLs’ native language), and integrated activities that foster language skills (e.g., reading, writing, listening, and speaking). A sample content objective for the concept of land pollution is: “Students will be able to recognize how humans’ actions directly and indirectly damage the environment.” The language objective focuses on the vocabulary, grammar, rhetoric, and discourse required to learn and demonstrate learning of the science content. For example: “Students will be able to look at pictures depicting humans’ negative actions and construct and complete a sentence for each picture.” In the Building Background phase, the teacher explicitly links concepts to the learners’ backgrounds, experiences, past learnings, and new concepts. The teacher also introduces, writes, repeats, and highlights key vocabulary. Krashen’s (1985) notion of the Comprehensible Input phase emphasizes techniques such as slow and simple speech, body language, gestures, modeling, visuals, and clear explanation of tasks geared toward ELLs’ language proficiency levels. Learning Strategies should provide ample opportunities for ELLs to engage in problem solving, predicting, organizing, summarizing, categorizing, evaluating, and self-monitoring. The teacher should support ELLs’ learning by consistently using scaffolding techniques and asking questions that promote higher-order thinking skills. Interaction is a key element in second language acquisition because it encourages language development and content learning. Interaction can be between teacher and learner(s) or learner(s) and learner(s). Purposeful group configurations that support language and content learning and sufficient

Which Comes First—Language or Content?

wait times for ELLs to formulate and produce responses are also helpful. Practice/Application involves using hands-on experiences, developing content knowledge, and integrating language skills (i.e., reading, writing, listening, speaking). Activities allow ELLs to apply content and language knowledge in the classroom. Lesson Delivery evaluates whether the instruction clearly supports the content and language objectives, promotes learner engagement, and properly paces the delivery. Lastly, Review/Assessment encompasses reviewing key vocabulary and content concepts, providing feedback, and assessing learner comprehension and learning of the lesson objectives throughout the course of the lesson.

F IG UR E 3

Relating the 5E Learning Cycle and SIOP.

Blending the 5E Learning Cycle and SIOP

Although both 5E and SIOP value active learner engagement and focus on learners’ meaning-making process, they have a fundamental difference in their goals. The 5E cycle is inductive and open-ended in its nature. Teachers build students’ conceptual understanding of science content, drawing from their backgrounds and encouraging them to use their own vocabulary. The teacher then introduces the appropriate academic vocabulary and explains the concepts. Conversely, SIOP requires teachers to introduce and teach the academic vocabulary and explicitly share the content and language objectives. Blending the inquiry-based 5E Learning Cycle with SIOP creates multiple opportunities for students to learn language in the context of science content and develop conceptual understanding of scientific concepts. Similar to the Engage phase of the 5E model, in which the teacher elicits learners’ prior knowledge and uses their responses to guide instruction, the SIOP model asks teachers to make connections between learners’ background knowledge and the target science concepts. Learners then engage in science activities that value teamwork, communication, and data collection. The below activity provides an example of how these two fundamental approaches can facilitate ELLs’ learning (Figure 3).

Land pollution: Causes, effects, and solutions

Our lesson on land pollution covers three class periods. In the first session, students reflect on their thoughts about land pollution. During the second session, we focus on the 3Rs: reduce, reuse, and recycle. During the third, students investigate the school’s current practices of waste management and develop a 3R proposal for the school to reduce cost and

pollution. Throughout the lessons, ELLs engage in different language-related activities to enhance their vocabularies and communication skills.

Session one: Engage/Building Background

Before starting the activity, we explain the safety guidelines (Cook and Weiland 2010)—including wearing gloves and safety goggles—and make sure the garbage can doesn’t contain any broken glass, sharp metals objects, or hygienic products. We begin the lesson by drawing students’ attention to the classroom’s garbage can and asking them to make observations about its contents. Students then use chart paper to write down where they think the garbage goes after it leaves the classroom. We record any new words that students use (e.g., landfills, waste) on chart paper and ask them to rate their knowledge of those words on a scale in which 1 = I know it, 2 = it looks familiar, and 3 = I have no idea (see “On the web”). We show students different pictures of land pollution and, in small groups of three to four students, they discuss what they think land pollution is and write responses in their science journals. We encourage ELLs with high languageproficiency levels to complete the task with the native English speakers; those with low language proficiency can use Google images or magazines to find pictures and create a collage of things they think of when they hear the term land pollution. We provide a road map to help students understand the important milestones of the lesson (Figure 4, p. 29) and sentence starters and frames such as, I think land pollution means _______.

April/May 2016

27

Connecting to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States 2013). Standards HS-ESS3 Earth and Human Activity Performance expectation(s) The chart below makes one set of connections between the instruction outlined in this article and the NGSS. Other valid connections are likely; however, space restrictions prevent us from listing all possibilities. The activities outlined in this article are just one step toward reaching the performance expectations listed below. HS-ESS3-2: Evaluate competing design solutions for developing, managing, and utilizing energy and mineral resources based on cost-benefit ratios. HS-ESS3-4: Evaluate or refine a technological solution that reduces impacts of human activities on natural systems. Dimension

Name and NGSS code/citation

Specific connections to classroom activity

Science and Engineering Practices

Constructing Explanations and Designing Solutions • Construct an explanation based on valid and reliable evidence obtained from a variety of sources (e.g., students’ own investigations, models, theories, simulations, peer review) and the assumption that theories and laws that describe the natural world operate today as they did in the past and will continue to do so in the future. • Design or refine a solution to a complex real-world problem based on scientific knowledge, studentgenerated sources of evidence, prioritized criteria, and tradeoff considerations (HS-ESS3-4).

Student groups investigate the types of waste the school produces and design a plan for the school to decrease its waste.

ETS1.B. Developing Possible Solutions • When evaluating solutions, it is important to take into account a range of constraints, including cost, safety, reliability, and aesthetics and to consider social, cultural, and environmental impacts (secondary to HS-ESS3-2).

Students complete a presentation about their recommendations for their school to more effectively reduce, reuse, and recycle.

Disciplinary Core Ideas

Students investigate the existing programs available in their local community that the school could partner and benefit from. They use visuals to orally present proposals that outline current practices and provide justifications for new recommendations to reduce, reuse, and recycle.

ESS3.C: Human Impacts on Earth Systems • Scientists and engineers can make major contributions by developing technologies that produce less pollution and waste and that preclude ecosystem degradation. (HS-ESS3-4) Crosscutting Cause and Effect Concept • Empirical evidence is required to differentiate between cause and correlation and make claims about specific causes and effects.

28

The Science Teacher

Students interview the principal and various staff who are knowledgeable about the building’s existing waste management plan and budget. Students investigate the school’s current recycling plan and if and how resources are reused. Students then compare the school’s plan with reduce, reuse, and recycle programs that exist in their community and look for opportunities for their school to partner to better use available resources.

Which Comes First—Language or Content?

FI G U R E 4

Road map for the land pollution lesson.

Session two: Explore/Comprehensive Input, Strategies, Interaction, Practice

We set up six stations around the classroom with various labeled objects that either increase (e.g., plastic cups) or help prevent (e.g., reusable water bottle) land pollution. Students then work in groups of threes to classify items into one of these two groups. ELLs work with native English speakers who we instruct to use body language and speak slowly and clearly. Each student receives a handout with two columns labeled “Increase Pollution” and “Decrease Pollution.” Before beginning the activity, we model the first station—containing a cloth handkerchief and paper tissues or napkins—for ELLs. Additionally, ELLs’ handouts include a space to note key words that can help them make categorizations. We move around the classroom and encourage students to express their thinking. During this time, we informally assess students through questions such as, “Can you tell me what made you put this item in this category?” After the stations,

the groups use a T-chart to record similarities among those items that increase land pollution and those that prevent land pollution (see “On the web”).

Explain/Building Background

After groups share their T-charts with the class, we draw students’ attention toward the similarities and differences between those items that create and prevent land pollution. Using all of the new words that emerge during the discussion, we create a word wall and list words with their definitions. For example, if students keep using the words reuse and garbage, teachers can introduce new words such as reduce, reuse, and recycle and use the stations’ objects to provide definitions.

Session three: Elaborate and Evaluate, Practice/Application, and Review/Assessment

In the third session, we ask groups to investigate the types of waste the school produces and design a plan for the school

April/May 2016

29

Which Comes First—Language or Content?

to decrease its waste. Groups interview the principal and various staff (e.g., custodians, administrative secretary responsible for budget entry) who are knowledgeable about the building’s waste management plan and budget. They focus on the school’s current recycling plan and practices, if and how resources are reused, and plans to reuse resources. Teams also investigate any existing community programs that the school could partner with and benefit from. After collecting this information, groups use visuals (see “On the web”) to orally present proposals that outline current practices (e.g., school’s recycling rate) and provide justifications for new recommendations to reduce, reuse, and recycle. (See box, p. 28, for how this activity connects to the Next Generation Science Standards.)

Concluding thoughts

The 5E Learning Cycle engages students in meaningful inquiry in which they act like scientists to explore scientifically oriented questions. SIOP allows ELLs with varying levels of English proficiency to access science content and demonstrate their understanding. With meaningful preparation, these two instructional frameworks provide a powerful combination, enhancing students’ learning of science and empowering ELLs to think about important ideas even if they may not be able to fully express them (Figure 5). ■ Vanashri Nargund-Joshi ([email protected]) is an assistant professor of Science Education at New Jersey City University in Jersey City, New Jersey; and Nazan Bautista (nubautista@miamioh. edu) is an associate professor of Science Education at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio.

On the web Elaboration phase handout: www.nsta.org/highschool/connections. aspx Land pollution handout: www.nsta.org/highschool/connections.aspx Students’ familiarity with new words: www.nsta.org/highschool/ connections.aspx

References Bybee, R. 1997. Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Chamot, A.U., and J.M. O’Malley. 1994. The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive language learning approach. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Collier, V.P. 1989. How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in a second language. TESOL Quarterly 23 (3): 509–531. Cook, K., and I. Weiland. 2010. A suggested project-based environmental unit for middle school: Teaching content through inquiry. Science Scope 33: 46–50. Echevarria, J., M.E. Vogt, and D. Short. 2002. Making content comprehensible for English language learners: The SIOP model.

30

The Science Teacher

F IGUR E 5

Student outcomes for the activity. Content objectives 1. Students will be able to recognize the damages caused, both directly and indirectly, by humans’ negative actions toward our environment. 2. They will be able to ask questions and identify the problems of pollution. 3. Students will be able to learn ways they can solve preexisting issues and how to prevent more damages from happening to our environment in the future. Language objectives 1. Students will be able to understand a new science concept via the assistance of visual aids. 2. Students will be prompted and supported by the teacher to aid in their understanding of key details. 3. Students will use the visuals provided by the teacher to foster their understanding of specific descriptions and provide additional details.

Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Krashen, S.D. 1985. The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman. Lee, O., and S.H. Fradd. 1998. Science for all, including students from non-English language backgrounds. Educational Researcher 27 (3): 12–21. Met, M. 1994. Teaching content through a second language. In Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole community, ed. F. Genesee, 159–182. Oakleigh, Australia: Cambridge University Press. NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Nutta, J., N. Bautista, and B. Butler. 2010. Teaching science to English language learners. Boston: Routledge. Stoddart, T., A. Pinal, M. Letzke, and D. Canaday. 2002. Integrating inquiry science and language development for English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39 (8): 664–687. Settlage, J., A. Madsen, and K. Rustad. 2005. Inquiry science, sheltered instruction, and English language learners: Conflicting pedagogies in highly diverse classrooms. Issues in Teacher Education 14 (1): 39–57. Thomas, W.P., and V.P. Collier. 2002. A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA, and Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence.