Appendix H, Federal Register Notice

appendix H

Federal Register Notice

(Tuesday, July 3, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 127, Pg. 36436)

Department of Education

Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations

Proposed Project

The proposed project is a one-year study to test the effectiveness of the Sheltered Instruction Observational Protocol (SIOP) model on teachers’ instructional practices and ELL students’ achievement in English language proficiency and core academic subjects.

SIOP was developed by researchers at the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) and California State University, Long Beach for the National Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence. Utilizing philosophies and techniques found in Sheltered Instruction, SIOP is intended to assist English language learners in developing a communicative, grade-level language alongside their attainment of content in diverse subject areas. The model consists of eight components—lesson preparation, building background, comprehensible input, strategies, interaction, practice and application, lesson delivery, and indicators of review and assessment—and is considered one of the most comprehensive programs of sheltered instruction developed.

The study will employ an experimental design with random assignment of schools such that all 4^th and 5^th grade teachers in the “treatment” schools will be trained to implement SIOP, and all 4^th and 5^th grade teachers in the “control” schools will conduct their instruction as usual without the SIOP training. Teachers in the treatment schools will attend a three-day training, and will receive four days of follow-up enrichment training spread throughout the year, including observation and coaching. The control group teachers will have the option to receive SIOP training, free of charge, in the year following the study year. Sixty-four schools (32 treatment and 32 control) will participate in the study, including approximately 640 teachers and 5,120 students.

The study will examine the following four questions.

1. Do SIOP-trained teachers score significantly higher on the Standards Performance Continuum (SPC) assessment than do control teachers? This analysis will address the degree to which the SIOP-trained teachers implement effective instructional practices for diverse learners--practices associated with sheltered instruction and "that are known to benefit students at risk of educational failure because of cultural, linguistic, or economic risk factors" (Doherty, Hilburg, Epaloose, and Tharp 2002: 78).

2. Do ELL students in schools with SIOP-trained teachers score significantly higher than ELL students in control schools on the ACCESS assessment (Georgia's state-adopted English-language proficiency assessment)? The aim of this investigation is to examine whether SIOP procedures benefit the development of ELL students’ academic English language proficiency.

3. Do ELL students in schools with SIOP-trained teachers score significantly higher than ELL students in control schools on the CRCT five content areas (Georgia’s end-of-year achievement tests)? The aim of this investigation is to examine whether SIOP methods benefit the development of ELL students’ achievement in the measured subject areas.

This study will also address the following additional research question to understand the nuances of the impact findings.

4. Is the extent of difference, if any, between ELL and non-ELL students related to whether the classes are taught by SIOP-trained or control teachers—in terms of their performance on the CRCT in the five content areas? If the ELL-non-ELL difference is smaller in the SIOP schools, the results would suggest that the SIOP teaching techniques reduce the achievement gap between ELL and non-ELL students.

Data Collection

The effectiveness of SIOP will be measured at three levels: school’s adoption of SIOP approach, teachers’ instructional practices, and ELL students’ achievements in English language proficiency and academic subjects.

Data collection will consist of the following elements:

1. Teacher outcome measures

   1. Standards Performance Continuum, a five-point observation rubric designed to measure pedagogical effectiveness, specifically for teaching children “at risk of academic failure due to cultural, linguistic, or economic factors”

   2. Teacher Survey, to determine teachers’ prior training in ESOL (English to Speakers of Other Languages) methods and their participation in other professional development activities during the 2008-2009 school year.

2. Student outcome measures

   1. Accessing Comprehensive and Communication in English State to State for English Language Learners (ACCESS for ELLs), an instrument designed to monitor progress in English language proficiency of ELL students in grades K-12

   2. Criterion Reference Competency Test (CRCT), annual state assessment designed to measure how well students acquire the skills and knowledge described in the Georgia Performance Standards (GPS) and the Quality Core Curriculum (QCC)

   3. Georgia State Student Records Database on student background, such as ethnicity, date of birth, ELL status, grade level, etc.

In addition to the key impact analysis (impact of SIOP on teachers and students), we will explore potential associations between teacher characteristics and teacher instructional practices, and those between student characteristics and student achievement, as post-hoc descriptive analyses. For these analyses, we will use teacher and student characteristic data extracted from the state and district databases.

The data collection will not pose a significant risk to any study participants. There will be no burden to students. The majority of the information to be gathered will be obtained from extant records found in the Georgia State Student Records Database and the Georgia State Certified Personnel Information (CPI) database. Observations of teachers will be conducted by SERVE evaluation staff. Some classroom observations will also be conducted by Pearson coaches as part of the implementation process; these data will be furnished to SERVE for process analysis. The survey burden for teachers will consist of up to 15 minutes, one time only. Teacher and student observations will not interfere with classroom instruction.

Data Confidentiality Provisions

Certificates of Confidentiality will be kept on file with the Principal Investigator’s research records for persons who are NOT principal investigators and who have access to research data (e.g., research assistants, transcribers). Participation is entirely voluntary; participants’ privacy will be protected because they will not be identified by name as a participant in this project. Any data collected as part of this study will be maintained in secure locations (locked filing cabinets and or password protected computers) at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro or Abt Associates offices for the duration of the research study. Paper data will be shredded and electronic data will be erased at the completion of the study and dissemination of study results, March 2014.

Request for Comments

In accordance with the above cited legislation, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, comments on IES/REL-SE’s information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of IES, REL-SE, or the State of Georgia; (b) the accuracy of IES/REL-SE’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Dated: [Add date here]

Officer contact info

CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Certifying Officer

3

R

egional Educational Laboratory