October 12, 2016 ISSN 1094-5296

Crawford, J., & Reyes, S. A. (2015). The trouble with SIOP®: How a behaviorist framework, flawed
research, and clever marketing have come to define - and diminish - sheltered instruction for English
language learners: Featuring an alternative approach to sheltered instruction and a sample unit applying
that framework. Portland, OR: Institute for Language and Education Policy.

Pp. 106 ISBN: 978-0986174704

Reviewed by Anthony Sparks

Southern Methodist University
United States

The percentage of U.S. public school

students identified as English learners (ELs)
has increased from 8.7% in the 2002-03 school
year to 9.2% in 2012-2013 (Kena et al., 2015).
In the most recent reauthorization of No
Child Left Behind, the Every Student
Succeeds Act (2015) asserts that English
learners “attain English proficiency and
develop high levels of academic achievement
in English” (p. 153). The Sheltered Instruction
Observation Protocol (SIOP) claims to be one
of the best models for instructing ELs in
English. According to the Center for Applied
Linguistics, SIOP has been implemented in
school systems across all 50 states in the
United States as well as in 12 countries (SIOP
– FAQs, n.d.). To meet the needs of a growing
EL population, schools of education, districts,
and schools are increasingly turning to the
SIOP framework, which promises to meet the
needs of ELs.

Sparks, A. (2016, October 12). Review of The Trouble with SIOP, by J. Crawford & A. R. Reyes. Education
Review, 23. http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/er.v23.2051
Education Review /Reseñas Educativas 2

SIOP, a Pearson product, was shown “no scientific evidence one way or
developed by Jana Echevarría, MaryEllen another”; in other words, none of the SIOP
Vogt, and Deborah Short (SIOP - About, studies have shown any meaningful effects. Of
n.d.). Since SIOP’s development, Pearson has the five studies done on SIOP, four have been
published numerous books, provided implemented by the creators of the model. Of
professional development, and had numerous those studies, one this study consisting of only
conferences pertaining to the model. 12 teachers focused on fidelity (Echevarría et
Considering all the attention devoted to the al., 2011a) and found the relationship between
SIOP model, an academic review is fidelity of implementation related to student
appropriate to determine if SIOP is as achievement did not reach statistical
effective as the creators claim it to be. The significance. Another study conducted by the
Trouble with SIOP by James Crawford and creators of SIOP was a comparison group
Sharon Reyes is a systematic review of the study related to science. Using the same 12
SIOP model. James Crawford, the founding teachers and their students from the previous
president of Institute for Language and study, SIOP creators claimed all students made
Education Policy, and Sharon Reyes, who gains, but students in the SIOP model did
holds a Ph.D. in curriculum and design, are better (Echevarría et al., 2011b). Again, this
both well situated to critique the SIOP model. study did not reach statistical significance, and
As a former math teacher with a masters in the disaggregated data showed ELs, who are
English as a second language, my own supposedly the main benefactor of the SIOP
experiences using the SIOP model color my model, had a very small effect sizes (.062 and
review of the author’s appraisal of this well- .087),
recognized model of instruction. While the In a writing study done by the SIOP
authors offer good points in their critique of creators, a significant difference between ELs
SIOP, they ignore that SIOP theory is still in in the SIOP group and those in the non-SIOP
the early stages of development, and for other group was detected (Echevarría et al., 2006).
reasons that I will describe below. However, according to Crawford and Reyes,
In The Trouble with SIOP, Crawford and the effect size provided by the authors of the
Reyes introduce readers to the purpose of study was not accurately portrayed because it
sheltered instruction by delving into the did not take into account the growth of the
theoretical perspective of the person who students in the control group. Echevarría et al.
coined the term, Stephen Krashen. After this (2006) claimed a relatively large effect size of
introduction, the authors start their analyses of .833, but after some recalculation, the actual
what they believe is wrong with SIOP by effect size was only .21. In a New Jersey study,
framing their argument around the creators’ the SIOP creators analyzed the development
claim that SIOP is “research-based”. The of academic literacy among ELs through a
analysis then shifts to look at SIOP from a quasi-experimental study (Short et al., 2012).
theoretical perspective, and lastly from a The researchers did find significant differences
practical perspective, calling into question between SIOP and non-SIOP classrooms in
whether the model is worth pursuing and writing and oral language; however, the lack of
providing an alternative to SIOP. Similarly, information provided about the control group
this review analyzes the author’s “research- and the fact that teachers were not randomly
based” argument and then shifts to the selected raises concerns about the validity of
theoretical and practical issues associated with the study. Finally, a reading study done by
SIOP. external researchers, McIntyre et al. (2010)
Crawford and Reyes first address the found no significant differences on reading
Institution for Educational Sciences (IES) achievement among students who were in
statement that studies that tested SIOP have classrooms where teachers were “full-
Review of The Trouble with SIOP by A. Sparks 3

implementers” of SIOP and those who were SIOP creators tout that their model can be
not. In summary, all of the studies done on used in almost any context, with almost any
SIOP so far have shown little to no effect. learner, even native English speakers. For
While Crawford and Reyes found example, the SIOP creators are currently
compelling evidence of no overall positive creating a model for bilingual education,
effect of the SIOP model on student TWIOP. However, Krashen’s ideas were only
achievement, there is still the possibility of intended for the intermediate second language
obtaining positive effects for individual learner who has a beginning understanding of
practices that might be masked by using the the second language that they are trying to
model as a whole. From a research acquire. During the beginning learning phase,
perspective, if the authors had been provided as the authors point out, learners should be
this recommendation, they may have produced placed in bilingual education settings, not in a
a review that was less of a critique of the sheltered environment that SIOP creators
SIOP’s claims and more of a recommendation suggest would work for all learners. Practically,
to further the research base, which eventually a framework of 30 practices for working with
develops richer theory. ELs is hard to implement into every lesson.
From a theoretical perspective, Teachers with practical knowledge know that
Crawford and Reyes claim SIOP is a there are no one size fits all models. According
hodgepodge of theoretical underpinnings for to Killen (2006), “no strategy is better than
academic learning, from behaviorism to others in all circumstances, so you have to be
constructivism. They discuss how the SIOP able to use a variety of teaching strategies and
creators do not even acknowledge Stephen make rational decisions about when each one
Krashen, the theorist who coined the terms, is likely to be most effective” (p. 74).
sheltered instruction and comprehensible Furthermore, teachers should know how to
input. The authors argue for SIOP to choose pull strategies, implement them, and adjust
an academic learning framework and to stick their teaching accordingly. From a practical
with it (e.g., behaviorism or constructivism). perspective, the authors’ critique of the SIOP
They also encourage the SIOP creators to model could have included ways in which the
reconsider the theoretical underpinnings of strategies might work together individually, or
second language acquisition. The authors’ how some of the strategies might work
case against the theoretical basis of SIOP is together better than the collective.
very well constructed; however, in critiquing Readers will find that this critique of
the SIOP model, the authors have yet to the SIOP model urges caution in
provide constructive feedback on how to implementing the model in their classrooms.
make the model better. It is my speculation Considering the tendency toward over-
that the SIOP creators might be in the early standardization in our current educational
stages of theory development for second climate and the standardized nature of the
language acquisition and are currently model, it is hard to imagine that the SIOP
grappling with the issues behind the theory. model will be going away anytime soon. As a
Providing constructive feedback would have former math teacher who has taught ELs in a
solidified the author’s knowledge of the topic, sheltered setting, I did find the author’s claims
as well as made a stronger case for the Engage quite eye-opening. However, as an educator, I
framework, an alternative framework have enough practical knowledge and
developed by one of the authors. experience to know how and when to use
In practice, Crawford and Reyes point certain aspects of the SIOP model when
out that Krashen never intended his ideas to appropriate, as I am sure many other
be a one size fits all approach as the SIOP educators do as well.
creators are claiming their model to be. The
Education Review /Reseñas Educativas 4

The Trouble with SIOP contributes to educational practices get meshed with
the literature and provides educators who corporations. Pearson adopted the SIOP
teach ELs insight into a well-established model model before meaningful research could
of teaching. I would suggest anyone with a occur. Although not a main point of the book,
vested interest with the education of ELs read readers may get a sense that when it comes to
The Trouble with SIOP, and particularly, teachers the SIOP model, the monetary gains of
who teach ELs should read this book before education outweigh student outcomes.
adopting the SIOP model as a whole. District Finally, the SIOP creators and Pearson should
level personnel should also read this before read the book, to not only gain third party
implementing the model in schools. It also insight into their creation, but to make
explores the consequences of when adjustments to what they have created.

References

Echevarría, J., Richards-Tutors, C., Canges, R., & Frances, D. (2011b). Using the SIOP model to
promote the acquisition of language and science concepts with English learners. Bilingual
Research 34(3), 334-351.
Echevarría, J., Richards-Tutor, C., Chinn, V.P. & Ratleff, P.A. (2011a). Did they get it? The role of
fidelity in teaching English learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 54(6), 425-434.
Echevarría, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: A
model for English-language learners. Journal of Education Research, 99(4), 195-210.
Every Student Succeeds Act, 3, USC §3003. (2015).
Kena, G., Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., Wang, X., Rathbun, A., Zhang, J., . . . Dunlop Velez, E.
(2015). The Condition of Education 2015 (NCES 2015-144). U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC. Retrieved March 29, 2016, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
Killen, R. (2006). Effective teaching strategies: Lessons from research and practice. South Melbourne, Vic:
Cengage Learning Australia.
McIntyre, E., Kyle, D., Chen, C-T., Muñoz, M., & Beldon, S. (2010). Teaching learning and ELL
reading achievement in sheltered instruction classrooms: Linking professional development to
student development. Literacy Research & Instruction 49, 334-351.
SIOP. (n.d.). About. Retrieved March 10, 2016, from http://siop.pearson.com/about-
siop/index.html
SIOP. (n.d.). FAQs. Retrieved April 03, 2016, from http://www.cal.org/siop/faqs/#13
Short, D. J., Fidelman, C. G., & Louguit, M. (2012). Developing academic language in English
language learners through sheltered instruction. TESOL Quarterly 46(2), 334-361.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse. (2013,
February). English Language Learners intervention report: Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol
(SIOP). Retrieved from http://whatworks.ed.gov
Review of The Trouble with SIOP by A. Sparks 5

About the Reviewer

Anthony Sparks is currently a doctoral Student at Southern Methodist University. A former

mathematics teacher from North Carolina, he received his M.Ed. focusing in TESOL and is currently
researching ways in which to make mathematics instructions and assessment more accessible for
English learners, particularly for students at the secondary level.

Education Review/Reseñas Educativas/Resenhas Educativas is supported by the edXchange initiative’s

Scholarly Communications Group at the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State
University. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to
the Education Review. Readers are free to copy, display, and distribute this article, as long as the
work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Review , it is distributed for non-commercial
purposes only, and no alteration or transformation is made in the work. More details of this
Creative Commons license are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by -nc-sa/3.0/.
All other uses must be approved by the author(s) or Education Review. Education Review is
published by the Scholarly Communications Group of the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College,
Arizona State University.

Please contribute reviews at http://www.edrev.info/contribute.html.

Connect with Education Review on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Education-

Review/178358222192644) and on Twitter @EducReview