References

Studies that fall outside the English Language Learners review protocol or do not meet evidence standards

Dennis, R. L. (2004). The effects of the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol Model on the vocabulary development of English language learners in the content area. Masters Abstracts International, 43(04), 101–1073. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: A model for English-language learners. Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 195–210. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Additional source:
Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2008). Making content comprehensible for non-native speakers of English: The SIOP Model. International Journal of Learning, 14(11), 41–50.

Engel, S. (2007). SIOP and the struggling reader: In what ways could the use of the Sheltered Instruction Observational Protocol (SIOP) be appropriate for struggling readers? Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin–Green Bay. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Gammon, M. L. (2004). Bilingual Education: Program Development and Implementation Grant: Final evaluation. Arizona/USA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Guarino, A. J., Echevarria, J., Short, D., Schick, J. E., Forbes, S., & Rueda, R. (2001). The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol: Reliability and validity assessment. Journal of Research in Education, 11(1), 138–140. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Miner, K. A. (2006). Fostering teacher efficacy for teaching elementary English language learning students using the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol and systems-level supports: A case study. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(07A), 160–2411. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.

Pascopella, A. (2008). Missouri district brings struggling learners up to snuff. District Administration, 44(13), 73. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Top