WEEK 5: LEARNING ON SIOP MODEL AND LESSON PLAN

 WEEK 5: LEARNING ON SIOP MODEL AND LESSON PLAN

    We have successfully reached the fifth week of classes, and with the upcoming reading week, I am looking forward to some well-deserved relaxation. This past week was particularly enlightening with the primary focus on the SIOP Model and lesson plan. Let's begin with a brief overview of this model, which comprises 8 key components (lesson preparation, building background, comprehensible input, strategies, interactions, practice and application, lesson delivery, review and assessment) along with 30 distinct features. Besides that, during our tutorial session, we discussed lesson planning in-depth, and Prof. Lee, invited by Dr. Lina, offered a comprehensive explanation of this crucial aspect of teaching.

    On Monday, we moved to a new classroom with a double U-shaped seating arrangement, which was a departure from our usual setup. According to McCorskey and McVetta (1978), effective communication in the classroom is pivotal to the success of both the instructor and the students. It is mentioned by Hilal (2014) that this horseshoe seating arrangement is an effective way to encourage student interaction in the classroom because it will allow them to engage and communicate with the instructor and other students. Surprisingly, I genuinely felt that this new arrangement facilitated more robust communication throughout the lecture.

    The lecture began with a recap of previous knowledge shared by Dr. Lina. This session is important because research indicates that these recap sessions strengthen student voices, stimulate interactive learning, and evaluate the involvement of students (Lowe, 2016). In addition, students tend to forget what they have previously learned. Weisten et al. (2018), however, contend that revisiting knowledge after a while might help us remember it for longer periods of time and that the process of "forgetting" is an essential part of learning.

    Dr. Lina then gave us an introduction to the SIOP Model, and prior to this, she advised us to review Making Content Comprehensible for English Language Learners: The SIOP Model in order to gain a general understanding of the model (Echevarría, J., Vogt, M., & Short, 2012). In our group, each of us selected a chapter to study and extract essential information for the group. Even though this way saved time, it led to my confusion as I hadn’t fully grasped the other chapters. However, Dr. Lina’s concise explanation of the model, employing the “chunking” strategy, was instrumental in enhancing my comprehension of the SIOP Model. It entails breaking up large amounts of knowledge into smaller ones while maintaining the same amount of fresh information (Lah et al., 2014). This approach is employed because we can only retain a limited amount of information in our working memory at once, which is where we process the information (Miller, 1956).

    Chunking teaching aligns with Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy which focuses on the cognitive domain (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). It helps with "understanding," "remembering," and "application" since Dr. Lina made complex information easier to understand and impart knowledge to us in class. The information included in chunks is discovered and the connections between those chunks can be seen during the "analysis" stage. She enhanced "evaluation" by having us respond to her questions using the material that has been taught, and she also encouraged "creation" by letting students recombine and rearrange the more manageable, smaller pieces of knowledge they have learned. For instance, Sitao sums up the knowledge she gained that day in her own words, which was really impressive!

    In our tutorial session, the focus shifted to lesson planning. Each group was assigned a question based on a lesson plan by Luna. After the group discussions, presenters shared their insights, and Prof. Lee added valuable notes. The key takeaway was the importance of aligning classroom activities with predetermined learning outcomes or learning objectives. Numerous scholars emphasized the significance of learning outcomes (LOs) in lesson planning (Biggs, 2012; Kennedy et al., 2006). Additionally, the consideration of students’ varying abilities is crucial as the class may include fast, average, and slow learners. Tailoring teaching methods to bring out the inherent talents of all students can make learning more enjoyable, especially for slow learners (Korikana, 2020). This takes me back to the period when I designed lesson plans for the modules taught by both Dr. Chu and Dr. Sharimila. They have also underlined these two points numerous times that I can currently recall.

    To sum up this week’s experiences, I have learned that seating arrangements can impact learning outcomes, and I will consider this in the future classroom. Besides, utilizing Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy when designing lessons can effectively impart knowledge. Last but not least, I will pay close attention to the alignment of the class activities with the learning objectives in lesson plans and understanding students’ abilities when planning for future classes.

References

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:

A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives: complete edition. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Biggs, J. (2012). Higher education research & development what the student does: teaching for

enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(1).

Echevarría, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. J. (2012). Making content comprehensible for English

language learners: The SIOP Model (Book). Modern Language Journal, 17(3).

Hilal, Ü. S. (2014). Effects of different seating arrangements on learning experience: The case of

medium sized lecture settings in Bilkent University. Pontificia Universidad Catolica Del Peru, 8(33).

Justine Levy. (2017, June 9).  8 components of SIOP [Video]. YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdTpGF1LxJs&ab_channel=JustineLevy

Kennedy, D., Hyland, Á., & Ryan, N. (2006). Writing and using learning outcomes: A practical

guide. Implementing Bologna in Your Institution.

Korikana, A. (2020). Slow learners- A universal problem and providing educational opportunities

to them to be a successful learner. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 6(1), 29-42.

Lah, N. C., Saat, R. M., & Hassan, R. (2014). Cognitive strategy in learning chemistry: How

chunking and learning get together. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Science, 2(1).

Lowe, D. (2016). Remembrance of philosophy classes past: Why cognitive science suggests that

a brief recap is the best way to start each class day. Teaching Philosophy, 39(3). https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil20168455

McCorskey, J. C., & McVetta, R. W. (1978). Classroom seating arrangements: Instructional

Communication theory versus student preferences. Communication Education, 27(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/03634527809378281

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity

for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2). https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158

Weinstein, Y., Sumeracki, M., & Caviglioli, O. (2018). Understanding how we learn: A visual

guide. Routledge.