欢迎来到吾爱文库! | 帮助中心 分享价值,成长自我!
吾爱文库
换一换
首页 吾爱文库 > 资源分类 > PDF文档下载
 

DTPQDT02019019669.pdf

  • 资源ID:3440       资源大小:1.43MB        全文页数:111页
  • 资源格式: PDF        下载权限:游客/注册会员/VIP会员    下载费用:0金币 【人民币0元】
快捷注册下载 游客一键下载
会员登录下载
三方登录下载: QQ登录   微博登录  
下载资源需要0金币 【人民币0元】
邮箱/手机:
温馨提示:
系统会自动生成账号(用户名和密码都是您填写的邮箱或者手机号),方便下次登录下载和查询订单;
验证码:   换一换

加入VIP,下载共享资源
 
友情提示
2、PDF文件下载后,可能会被浏览器默认打开,此种情况可以点击浏览器菜单,保存网页到桌面,既可以正常下载了。
3、本站不支持迅雷下载,请使用电脑自带的IE浏览器,或者360浏览器、谷歌浏览器下载即可。
4、本站资源下载后的文档和图纸-无水印,预览文档经过压缩,下载后原文更清晰   

DTPQDT02019019669.pdf

TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTION OBSERVATION PROTOCOL WITHIN A RESPONSE-TO-INTERVENTION FRAMEWORK A dissertation submitted to Edgewood College Doctor of Education degree program in Educational Leadership in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Doctor of Education Amy Swick Degree awarded May 2019 Approved by Bette A. Lang, Ed.D. Advisor Timothy D. Slekar, Ph.D. Dean, School of Education Sara Jimenez Soffa, Ph.D. Director, Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership Associate Dean and Associate Professor, School of Education TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTION OBSERVATION PROTOCOL WITHIN A RESPONSE-TO-INTERVENTION FRAMEWORK by Amy Swick A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education at Edgewood College 2019 ProQuest Number All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages,these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ProQuest Published by ProQuest LLC . Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 13897168 13897168 2019 Copyright 2019 by Amy Swick 3 Abstract As numbers of English Learner EL students continue to grow from year to year, regular- education teachers are expected to have background knowledge necessary for supporting EL students at all tiers of the Response to Intervention RtI framework. To meet this challenge and provide high-quality instructional practices for ELs, the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol SIOP model was implemented in the district under study. The purpose of this study was to examine teachers’ perceptions of the degree of implementation of the SIOP model within an RtI Framework. The population for this quantitative study comprised 92 teachers of regular education, English-language, and special education, who participated in the SIOP model training in one Midwestern district. A survey was used to gather data on participants’ backgrounds, perceptions of degree of SIOP implementation within Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3, and participants’ responses to an open-ended question. The response rate was 35 32/92. This study found that participants were implementing the features and components of the SIOP model within the three tiers of an RtI framework. However, certain features and components were more likely to be implemented by participants than others, regardless of area of certification, grade-level bands, and years since SIOP training. Effective professional development opportunities were found to be an essential component to support the implementation of SIOP within all three tiers of an RtI framework. A recommendation is that regular coaching opportunities include peer coaching study teams. Additionally, principals, coaches, and peer coach study teams must monitor the implementation of the SIOP framework within the RtI framework, as well as the potential impact on student outcomes. 4 Acknowledgements From the moment I began this program, I knew I would not be able to accomplish this alone. There are many people who supported me along the way, offering much-needed advice and guidance. I could not have done this without the support of Dr. Tom Evert and Dr. Bette Lang. This journey would have been very different without their guidance along the way. From the very first class I had with them, to the very last sentence I wrote in Chapter 5, I always looked forward to their insight and feedback. Bette, I do not know how you did it, but you checked in with me just when I needed it, every single time. You kept me focused on my work and deadlines, and provided encouragement every step of the way. Thank you I also could not have finished this without the support of Dr. Henry St. Maurice. He pushed me to reflect on my writing from the very start, and thanks to him, I have effectively omitted many needless words in my dissertation. His suggestions always improved my writing and made it all the more concise. I can also say that I will never forget our classes at Smiley’s, which consisted of good coffee, good food, and great discussions among our cohort Another thanks goes to Dr. Ting Lan Ma and Patrick Estes for guiding me through Qualtrics and SPSS. Their support was critical as I began collecting and analyzing my research. Thank you for answering the many questions I had Finally, I cannot say enough about the members of Cohort XV, my colleagues and friends Ashley, Andy, Linda, Mark, Michael, and Tiffany. This experience was so worth it, mainly because of all of you. I have learned so much from each and every one of you. From our car rides, to our classes, to our texts, you listened, supported, and inspired me. I am certain we will keep in touch and continue to support each other for many years to come. 5 Dedication I dedicate this dissertation to the most important people in my life. This journey has not always been easy, but your never-ending love and support have gotten me through it. To my husband, Reed, who has been there to help, listen, and encourage me along the way. I know I could not have done this without your love and support, and I cannot thank you enough for all you have done for me and our family. To my amazing children, Hallorin, Royal, Katherine, and Elizabeth. You inspire me to always do better and to be the best I can be. This has not always been easy on any of us, but I did this for all of you. My hope is that you will always know how proud I am of each of you and how much I love you. To my parents and siblings, who have always been there for me when I needed it, from my earliest years through today. You helped to instill in me my faith, ambition, and competitive nature, which I collectively needed to get me through this. Thank you for always being there for me. 6 Contents Abstract . 3 Acknowledgements . 4 Dedication . 5 List of Tables 8 List of Figures . 8 Chapter 1. Introduction . 9 Context 11 Statement of the Problem 15 Purpose 17 Research Questions . 20 Theoretical Model . 21 Significance . 22 Summary . 23 Chapter 2. Review of Literature 24 Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol 24 Response to Intervention . 30 Response to Intervention for ELs 33 Professional Development . 35 Summary . 39 Chapter 3. Method 40 Design 40 Participants 42 Instrument 43 Procedure . 44 Data Analysis 45 Summary . 46 Chapter 4. Results . 47 Demographics 48 Perceptions 49 Analysis . 49 7 Primary Research Question . 49 Secondary Research Questions . 55 Secondary research question 1. . 55 Secondary research question 2. . 57 Secondary research question 3 59 Open-Ended Responses . 61 Summary . 64 Chapter 5. Conclusions and Recommendations 65 Key Findings . 65 Conclusions . 71 Implications . 74 Recommendations for Stakeholders 75 Recommendations for Further Research . 78 Limitations of the Study 78 Summary . 79 References . 81 Appendix A. 87 Appendix B. 95 Appendix C. 96 Appendix D. 97 8 List of Tables Table 1. English Learners ELs in the school district from 2014-2017 11 Table 2. English Language Arts Achievement Data . 12 Table 3. SIOP Components Building background; Comprehensible input; Strategies; Interaction; Practice Lesson delivery; and Review and Short, Fidelman, 28 SIOP model survey; and Student achievement scores in writing, reading, and oral Language from the IPT, New Jersey’s assessment of English language achievement Short, Fidelman, O’Neal, Ringler, 30 Organizational support and change; Participants’ use of knowledge and skills; and Student learning outcomes O’Neal, Ringler, Rativa Murill, 2013; Short, Fidelman, Stuart 2 sometimes S; 3 most of the time MT, and 4 always A. The SIOP survey had eight components and each component had a total of 30 corresponding features Appendix A. Data reported for each feature included means, standard deviation, ranges of responses, numbers of participants and percentage of sample Appendix D, Table D1. The highest mean value in Tier 1 was 3.78 SD 0.42; range 2 to 4 for responses to the SIOP feature entitled Lesson Preparation- I prepare content concepts appropriate for age and educational background of my students. Of the sample group, thirty-two participants 60 responded to this feature; seven participants 13 selected Option 3 MT and 25 participants 47 selected Option 4 A. The second highest mean value in Tier 1 was 3.68 SD 0.55; range 2 to 4 for responses to the SIOP feature entitled Building Background- I explicitly link past learning and new concepts. Twenty-eight participants 53 responded to this feature; one participant selected Option 2 S, seven 13 participants selected 3 MT, and 20 38 participants selected 4 A. The lowest mean value in Tier 1 of 2.68 SD 0.87; range 1 to 4 was for responses to the SIOP feature entitled Interaction- I provide ample opportunities for students to clarify key concepts in first language as needed with aide, peer, or first language text. Thirty-one participants 58 responded to this feature. 51 The second-lowest mean value of 3.0 SD 0.84; range 2 to 4 was for responses to the feature entitled Lesson Preparation-I clearly define, display, and review language objectives with students. Thirty-two participants 60 responded to this feature. Tied for the second-lowest mean value of 3.0 SD 0.52; range 2 to 4 was for responses to the feature entitled Lesson Delivery- My students are engaged approximately 90- 100 of the period. Thirty participants 57 responded to this feature. The highest mean value in Tier 2 was 3.71 SD 0.46; range 3 to 4 for responses to the SIOP feature entitled Strategies- I consistently use scaffolding techniques to assist and support student understanding e.g., think-alouds. Twenty-nine participants 55 responded to this feature. The second-highest mean value in Tier 2 was 3.68 SD 0.48; range 2 to 4 for responses to the SIOP feature entitled Lesson Preparation- I prepare content concepts appropriate for age and educational background of my students. Thirty participants 57 responded to this item. The third-highest mean value in Tier 2 was 3.67 SD 0.64; range 2 to 4 for responses to the SIOP feature entitled Lesson Preparation- I adapt content e.g., text, assignment to all levels of student proficiency. Thirty participants 57 responded to this feature. The lowest mean value in Tier 2 was 2.7 SD 0.95; range 2 to 4 was for responses to the SIOP feature entitled Lesson Preparation-I clearly define, display, and review language objectives with students. Thirty-one participants 58 responded to this item. The second-lowest mean value in Tier 2 was 2.73 SD 1.00; range 1 to 4 was for responses to the SIOP feature entitled Interaction- I provide ample opportunities for students to clarify key concepts in first language as needed with aide, peer, or first language text. Twenty- nine participants 55 responded to this feature. The SIOP feature entitled Lesson Preparation- 52 I clearly define, display, and review content objectives with students had the third lowest mean value of 3.0 SD 0.92; range 1 to 4 in Tier 2. Thirty-one participants 58 responded to this feature. For participants’ reported perceptions on the degree of implementation of each feature of SIOP within Tier 3 Appendix D, Table D3, the highest mean value was 3.83 SD 0.39; range 3 to 4 for the SIOP feature entitled Review range 3 to 4 for responses to the SIOP feature entitled Strategies- I consistently use scaffolding techniques to assist and support student understanding e.g., think- alouds. Twenty-eight participants 53 responded to this feature. The following SIOP features had mean values of 2.75 SD 0.45; range 3 to 4 in Tier 3 Practice Review and Lesson Delivery- The pacing of my lesson is appropriate to students ability levels. Twenty-eight participants 53 responded to the feature entitled Practice range 1 to 4 was for responses to the feature entitled Lesson Preparation-I clearly define, display, and review language objectives with students. Twenty-seven participants 51 responded to this feature. The second-lowest 53 mean value in Tier 2 was 2.67 SD 0.89; range 1 to 4 for responses to two SIOP features. First, Lesson Preparation-I clearly define, display, and review content objectives with students had twenty-eight 53 participants responding and a standard deviation of 0.89. Second, the feature entitled Interaction- I provide ample opportunities for students to clarify key concepts in first language as needed with aide, peer, or first language text had a range of 1 to 4 with 26 participants 49 responded to this feature. For participants’ reported perceptions on the degree of implementation of each component of SIOP within Tier 1 Appendix D, Table D4, the highest mean value in Tier 1 was 3.57 SD 0.49; range 2 to 4 for the SIOP component Building Background. Thirty-two participants 60 responded to this component. The second highest mean value in Tier 1 was 3.47 SD 0.51; range 2 to 4 for responses to the SIOP component Comprehensible Input. Thirty-two participants 60 responded to this component. The lowest mean value in Tier 1 was 3.05 SD 0.54; range 1 to 4 for responses to the SIOP component Interaction. Thirty-two participants 60 responded to this component. The second-lowest mean value in Tier 1 was 3.15 SD 0.52; range 1 to 4 for the SIOP component Review range 2 to 4 for responses to the SIOP component Comprehensible Input. Twenty- seven participants 51 responded to this component. 54 The second highest mean value in Tier 2 was 3.58 SD 0.61; range 1 to 4 for responses to the SIOP component Building Background. Twenty-six participants 49 responded to this component. The lowest mean value in Tier 2 was 3.18 SD 0.58; range 1 to 4 for responses to the SIOP component Interaction. Twenty-seven participants 51 responded to this component. The second-lowest mean value in Tier 2 was 3.33 SD 0.54; range 2 to 4 for responses to the SIOP component Review range 2 to 4 for the SIOP component Comprehensible Input. The second highest mean value in Tier 3 was 3.64 SD 0.52; range 1 to 4 for responses to the SIOP component Strategies. The lowest mean value in Tier 3 was 3.14 SD 078; range 1 to 4 for responses to the SIOP component Interaction. The second-lowest mean value in Tier 3 was 3.21 SD 0.47; range

注意事项

本文(DTPQDT02019019669.pdf)为本站会员(admin)主动上传,吾爱文库仅提供信息存储空间,仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理,对上载内容本身不做任何修改或编辑。 若此文所含内容侵犯了您的版权或隐私,请立即通知吾爱文库(发送邮件至123456@qq.com或直接QQ联系客服),我们立即给予删除!

温馨提示:如果因为网速或其他原因下载失败请重新下载,重复下载不扣分。




copyright@ 2008-2013 吾爱文库网站版权所有
经营许可证编号:京ICP备12026657号-3

收起
展开