SIOP components: Application and assessment through PBL in a content-language college classroom

Luisa Cecilia Chavez

doi:10.5294/laclil.2013.6.1.3

Authors

Luisa Cecilia Chavez Author Institución Universitaria Colombo Americana, ÚNICA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2013.6.1.3

Keywords:

aplicación, valoración, aprendizaje basado en proyectos, modelo de apoyo, SIOP (Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol)

Abstract

This article describes the circumstances and outcomes of an on-going research which explores the effectiveness of explicitly exercising a relationship between two of the eight components from the constructivist model SIOP (Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol): Application and Assessment, through PBL (Project-Based Learning) in a content-language context at university level. It begins by compiling thoughts from various theorists who emphasize the importance of opening real application avenues to assess students learning. The research took place in a bilingual college in Bogotá, Colombia, during the second semester of 2011 and the first semester of 2012. The data analysis was taken from a group enrolled in a sixth semester class. Results make clear that through accompanying students through the proper use of PBL ladder, as an application tool, they will be able to value their own process of learning.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Luisa Cecilia Chavez, Institución Universitaria Colombo Americana, ÚNICA

Luisa Cecilia Chávez holds an M.A. in Liberal Arts with a special focus on Applied Linguistics and Latin America Literature from Temple University (Philadelphia, PA, USA). She also has postgraduate degrees in Learning Disabilities from the Clínica de Foniatría y Logopedia (Madrid, Spain). She has done research in the area of Bilingual Education for five years as a member of the research group SIRP (SIOP Research Program) at the Institución Universitaria Colombo Americana ÚNICA (Bogotá, Colombia). She has taught for more than fifteen years at college level as well as at AP and IB schools in the USA and Spain. She is currently a full-time faculty member at ÚNICA, where she is the editor of the Bilingual Literature Magazine as well in charge of the students’ library as part of their self-access center. She has been an active participant in various international conferences, panels, and workshops regarding constructivist theories and their application to L2 content-language classrooms.

References

Barak, M., & Raz, E. (2000). Hot-air balloons: Project-centered study as a bridge between science and technology education. Science Education, 24(1), 27–42.

Brownlee, J., Purdie, N., & Boulton-Lewis, G. (2003). An investigation of students teachers’ knowledge about their own learning. Higher Education, 45(1), 109–125.

Buehl, D. (2001) Classroom strategies for interactive learning (2nd Ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

ChanLin, L.-J. (2008). Technology integration applied to project-based learning in science. Innovation in Education and Teaching International, 45(1), 55–65.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Diaz-Lefebvre, R. (2006). Learning for understanding: A faculty-driven paradigm shift in learning, imaginative teaching, and creative assessment. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 30(2), 135–137.

Doppelt, Y. (2003). Assessment of project-based learning in a mechatronics context. Journal of Technology Education, 16(2). Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v16n2/doppelt.html

Doppelt, Y. (2003). Implementation and assessment of project-based learning in a flexible environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(3), 255–272.

Echavarria, J., Short, D., & Vogt, M. (2008). Implementing SIOP Model through effective development and coaching. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Geeslin, K. L. (2003). Student self-assessment in the foreign language classroom: The place of authentic assessment instruments in the Spanish language classroom. Hispania, 86(4), 857–868.

Gülbahar, Y., & Tinmaz, H. (2006). Implementation project-based learning and E-portfolio assessment in an undergraduate course. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 309–327.

Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Alemany/Prentice Hall.

Lou, Y., & MacGregor, S. K. (2004). Enhancing project-based learning through online between-group collaboration. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10(4–6), 419–440. doi:10.1080/13803610512331383509

McLaughlin, M., & Vogt, M. (2000). Creativity and innovation in content area teaching: A resource for intermediate, middle, and high school teachers. Norwood, MA: Chirstopher-Gordon.

McLaughlin, M., & Kennedy, A. (1993). A classroom guide to performance-based assessment. Princeton, NJ: Houghton Mifflin.

Menken, K. (2000). What are the critical issues in wide-scale assessment of English language learners? Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED450595.pdf

Mills, G. E. (2007). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Nunan, D. (1998). Second language teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

O’Malley, J. J & Chamot, A. U. (1990) Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Short, D. J. (2006). Content teaching and learning and language. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed., vol. 3, pp. 101–105). Oxford, England: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00685-4

Stefanou, C., & Parkes, J. (2003). Effects of classroom assessment on student motivation in fifth-grade science. The Journal of Education, 96(3), 152–162.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45(4), 477–501.