Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Curriculum Inquiry
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcui20
To cite this article: Anny Fritzen (2011) Teaching as Sheltering: A Metaphorical Analysis of Sheltered
Instruction for English Language Learners, Curriculum Inquiry, 41:2, 185-211
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2011.00548.x
Articles
curi_548
185..211
ANNY FRITZEN
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
ABSTRACT
The term sheltered instruction (SI) has become a widely used metaphor representing a
common pedagogical intervention intended to help English language learners
simultaneously gain English proficiency and academic content knowledge. While
existing research places considerable emphasis on observable pedagogical techniques that characterize SI, there has been little discussion of the sheltering metaphor itself or the variety of ways in which this term has been used by both researchers
and teachers. In this article, I draw on lesson observations and interviews to consider
how the metaphor of sheltering operates in three high school sheltered history
classrooms. While all three examples demonstrate basic characteristics of SI, the
observed instruction in each class created markedly different learning contexts and
positioned the students in distinct ways. I characterize these diverse enactments of
sheltered instruction as 1) sheltering as protection, 2) sheltering as nurturing, and 3)
sheltering as separation. These lessons highlight the complex and sometimes competing aims of sheltered instruction and point to the potential of the sheltering
metaphor as a rich site for professional development and future inquiry.
Allons! we must not stop here,
However sweet these laid-up stores, however convenient this
dwelling we cannot remain here,
However shelterd this port and however calm these waters
we must not anchor here,
However welcome the hospitality that surrounds us we are
permitted to receive it but a little while.
Walt Whitman, 1904. From Song of the Open Road,
Leaves of Grass.
The term sheltered instruction has become a widely used metaphor for
pedagogical interventions intended to help English language learners
(ELLs) simultaneously gain English language proficiency and subject matter
understanding. A sheltered algebra class, for instance, might be designed to
2011 by The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto
Curriculum Inquiry 41:2 (2011)
Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc., 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, and 9600 Garsington Road,
Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-873X.2011.00548.x
186
ANNY FRITZEN
TEACHING AS SHELTERING
187
188
ANNY FRITZEN
the K12 level was particularly concerned with making the mainstream
curriculum accessible to ELLs even before their language skills were fully
developed. In contrast to adult students in postsecondary contexts who
could conceivably become fully matriculated at various points of time, these
younger learners were under pressure to get through school, progressing
annually from grade to grade, with or without ideal levels of English language proficiency. Thus, academic achievement took the spotlight as the
focal objective of SI with language acquisition assumed to be a critical
component of this goal (Genesee, 1999; Short, 1991; Sobul, 1995). As an
aspect of promoting academic achievement, the literature also emphasized
that high-quality SI ought to be concerned with building general academic
competencies (critical thinking, study skills, learning strategies) and systematically building language and literacy development (Echevarria, Vogt,
& Short, 2003; Rosen & Sasser, 1997).
Accordingly, the research agenda turned to the pedagogy of sheltered
instruction and a body of literature emerged that sought to address the
question of how teachers might make academic content comprehensible to
ELLs not only for the purpose of learning English, but also for succeeding
in school (e.g., Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 1999; Rosen & Sasser, 1997;
Short, 1993, 1994; Snow, Met, & Genesee, 1989; Tang, 1994). This strand of
research addressed challenges unique to SI when it is enacted with the dual
objectives of language and content learning within a K12 school setting.
These issues included assessment (e.g., how to fairly assess ELLs content
learning when limited English proficiency could muddle their expression
of conceptual understanding), curriculum (e.g., adapting grade-level curriculum for ELLs), and how to teach classes composed of both ELLs and
native English speakers.
In particular, researchers identified instructional techniques conducive
to sheltered instruction such as using visual representations and graphic
organizers, drawing connections between the course content and students
prior knowledge, and paying special attention to language issues (e.g.,
explicitly teaching key vocabulary terms and necessary linguistic structures)
(Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2003; Rosen & Sasser, 1997; Short, 1999).
Cooperative learning and alternative assessment models were also discussed as common features of SI (Short, 1993). In an effort to synthesize
and streamline SI, sheltering pedagogies were codified in instructional
frameworks for planning and teaching sheltered content lessons. Two
prominent models for SI include Specially Designed Academic Instruction
in English (SDAIE) (Cline & Necochea, 2003; Sobul, 1995) and the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short,
1999, 2003). While in many ways, sheltering pedagogies resembled what
might be considered high-quality instruction in any context, scholars
emphasized that SI addresses the unique needs of ELLs in purposeful ways
that moves beyond just good teaching (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2003;
Hansen-Thomas, 2008; Harper & de Jong, 2004).
TEACHING AS SHELTERING
189
190
ANNY FRITZEN
cautioned against watered-down curricula (sheltering from robust academic content) (e.g., Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2003; Short, 1991; Sobul,
1995). Furthermore, researchers have investigated other issues that influence SI and pose challenges for ELLs including lack of background knowledge, cultural understanding, subject-specific considerations, unfamiliar
school routines and social expectations, and discriminatory practices and
attitudes (sheltering from full participation in school) (Faltis, 1993;
Hammond, 2006; Harklau, 1994; Huang & Morgan, 2003; Short, 1996).
These and other issues of sheltered instruction in practice call for additional consideration. In particular, there is much to be explored regarding
how the sheltering metaphor might be shaping and/or reflecting the
relationships between teachers and students, students and the curriculum,
and between language learners and the rest of the student body.
METAPHOR: REFLECTING AND SHAPING OUR THINKING
The suggestive potential of metaphor has been asserted by researchers
from both cognitive and sociocultural perspectives who have demonstrated
that metaphors can change the way we think in significant ways, whether or
not we are consciously aware of their influence (de Guerrero & Villamil,
2002; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Defining metaphor belies the straightforward explanation often given in high school English classes, that is, a
literary device used to compare dissimilar things, such as Shakespeares
famous line, Juliet is the sun. This line of thinking stems from classical
theories that consider metaphor to be essentially a linguistic device
ornamental deviations from the literal for poetic or rhetorical purposes
(Cameron & Low, 1999). More recently, however, theorists have challenged this traditional position based on evidence from cognitive linguistics. This view articulated in Lakoff and Johnsons (1980) seminal work,
Metaphors We Live By, asserts that metaphor is deeply embedded in cognition, that we regularly use metaphor in everyday speech, and that it is a
fundamental vehicle for expressing how we conceptualize the world. Thus,
metaphor is much more than a decorative, literary flourish. Lakoff (1993)
explains, The locus of metaphor is not in language at all, but in the way we
conceptualize one mental domain in terms of another (p. 203). In other
words, we think in metaphor. The pervasive use of metaphor in our communication across topics and genres supports this proposition (Lakoff &
Johnson, 1980). For instance, we use metaphors to understand and communicate scientific principlese.g., ecological footprint, to express
emotion, he broke my heart, and to describe ordinary circumstances,
our time is cut short. These metaphorical expressions are not especially
poetic, but they do reveal particular possibilities for understanding while
rendering other possibilities improbable.
A seemingly infinite space exists for metaphorical thinking because of
the conceptual border crossing it enables. The result is a sort of concep-
TEACHING AS SHELTERING
191
192
ANNY FRITZEN
TEACHING AS SHELTERING
193
such as using visuals and drawing connections between the subject matter
and students lives. Each paid attention to language issues embedded in the
lesson content and explicitly taught basic academic skills. However, the
substance, purpose, and rigor of the lessons as well as teacher expectations
for student performance varied substantially. Analyzing the lessons and
interviews through the metaphor of sheltering brings some of these unique
features to light and provokes critical examination of potential meanings of
sheltered circulating in professional discourse and practice. In the following section, I present my analysis of these examples of sheltered instruction, beginning with a lesson snapshot briefly summarizing the observed
lessons and followed by a discussion of the instruction in light of the
sheltering metaphor.
Ford High School: Sheltering as Protection
Lesson Snapshot. Ford High School, located in an urban center in the
western United States, drew students from highly mobile, culturally diverse
neighborhoods. With students from Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin American, Lisa Duvalls sheltered world history class represented a vibrant tapestry of students, languages, cultures, and life experiences. During the
observed lessons, students were participating in a unit on ancient Greece
and Rome. Mythology was the focus for the first lesson. Duvall asked for
volunteers to share their personal heroes. Pointing out that people looked
up to the gods in a similar way that people in modern society admire
heroes, Duvall transitioned into a worksheet activity in which students filled
out brief, basic information about Greek and Roman gods and goddesses.
In addition to the worksheet, students began a poster project in which they
were to portray a symbol, a trait, a story, family members, and domain of the
assigned god or goddess. Another lesson served as an introduction to
ancient Roman government. Students constructed language quilts4 for
the words democracy and republic. They also completed a task in which they
defined a list of related content vocabulary such as plebeian, consul, and veto.
Lesson Analysis. In considering her overarching purpose for this class,
Duvall explained that her primary objective was to teach generic academic
skills that would facilitate success in future classes. She explained:
I think the purpose of this class is to give them the skills to prepare them for their
other classes. I mean, thats the best thing I think I can do. I think language is
important. Im hoping theyre learning that from my class. Im hoping that theyre
going to learn history. I cant count on them learning history . . . but most of all, Im
hoping that theyre going to learn skills that theyre going be able to use in other
classes.
Duvalls explanation highlights three core objectives of sheltered instruction: language development, content learning, and academic preparation
194
ANNY FRITZEN
TEACHING AS SHELTERING
195
to them. Someones going to say, Heres a bookfind it. So I feel I need to help
them try to learn that skill. Then I realize theyre just copying information; they
dont even know what theyre learning. Then I have to go back and reteach it, and
talk about, these are the pieces; this is what you need to know. So a concept that
would take most classes may be a half an hour is taking me three days to teach. And
part of that is may be my fault, because Im hoping they can find information in the
book. But I at least want to give them that opportunity.
196
ANNY FRITZEN
This perspective placed high priority on personal relationships and cultivating students academic and moral development. In addition, Miller
seemed to view her classroom as a protective and nurturing haven from the
harsh realities of life and school. Consequently, helping students to navigate the throes of life sometimes took priority over academics. For instance,
Miller related, There have been times when Ive spent a whole class period
while my aides teach the class, talking to a student whos having problems.
I would feel sad if I had a student who did not feel comfortable enough to
come to me.
With sheltered instruction wrapped up in a mothering motif, the
purpose and nature of the curriculum shifted focus. Instead of being
primarily about learning history and English, the purpose was expanded to
emphasize preparation for schooling and for lifehelping the students
develop basic skills for academic success and to mature into responsible
adults. Miller explained:
TEACHING AS SHELTERING
197
I really feel the kids come away with some really good things with our history class.
In my history class I can talk about a lot of interpersonal relationships, their
responsibilities. One of the best things that . . . I do is when I talk to them about why
theyre here and what kinds of things they can do with their lives. I try to work in as
much as I can to relate to them and sometimes its not easy with history. But the
concepts and the things that have happened in the past, if you dont learn from
them, dont do us any good.
In tone and substance, much of the teacher talk in the observed lessons
was reminiscent of a parent speaking to a child rather than a teacher
presenting academic content to high school students. For instance, 35
minutes of one class period was spent viewing pictures from a multimedia
history curriculum as a review of previously taught concepts. Miller commented on each picture as it was displayed. Her remarks were largely
descriptive in nature and highlighted bits of trivia or side commentary
presumably intended to interest the learners. The following excerpt is
illustrative.
198
ANNY FRITZEN
Now, were going to see a picture of when we signed the Constitution. . . . Okay,
notice most of those men have white hair. Do you think . . . why did they all have
white hair? What were they called? What do they have on their heads? Not real hair;
wigs, thats right. . . . How many of you think it would be fun to wear a wig like that?
Millers focus on the superficial aspects of the visuals, such as wigs, might be
an attempt to capture the attention of the students, but it also diverted
from the deeper issues. This folksy treatment of history stresses the novelty
of the past. But in so doing, Miller seemed to overlook the opportunity of
helping students grapple with bigger issues such as the implications of a
constitutional form of government or how clothing reflects social status.
Consistent with recommendations in the sheltered instruction
literature, these lessons included scaffolding of unfamiliar concepts of
government with familiar concepts of family, school, and community. Additionally, students engaged in cooperative learning, were given support with
English, and had opportunities to read, write, and speak in English.
However, the lessons lacked robust history content. Miller acknowledged
that the instruction was not really highly academic, but I try to build their
skills. Nevertheless, she also admitted that when students leave the shelter
of the ESL classroom to enter mainstream classes, they die.
In these lessons we find a teacher who demonstrated many desirable
traitsshe is patient, supportive, flexible, caring, and aware of her students backgrounds. Additionally, she implemented a variety of pedagogical practices recommended for sheltered instruction. While doing so, her
conception of sheltered instruction as nurturing seemed to position her
students in a class that was safe, but offered limited opportunities for
students to interact with high schoollevel history content in intellectually
challenging ways. Yet this interpretation of SI that emphasizes personal
relationships and caring taps into the long-standing recommendation that
teachers ought to exercise particular care for ELLs who are prone to
becoming invisible and lost at school. It speaks to an awareness of the
difficult cultural, personal, and social transitions many ELLs experience as
immigrants. Furthermore, it contributes to a low-anxiety atmosphere which
can be conducive to language learning. However, similar to the lessons
from Duvalls class, these episodes of SI highlight how easily the protective
aspect of sheltering can overshadow the academic instruction.
TEACHING AS SHELTERING
199
Of the 27 students in this U.S. history course, 25 were ELLs (of that group,
18 were native Spanish speakers) and the remaining two students were
native English speakers who needed additional literacy support. The
teacher, Marilyn Welch, led largely teacher-fronted lessons. The discussions
focused on the period during and after the American Civil War.
Following a short-answer quiz and a discussion about the upcoming job
actions planned by teachers in the district, Welch showed the class a period
photograph of a Civil Warera nurse. This image spawned a discussion
about the role of women during the Civil War. Welch told the class about
female relief societies that provided aid to soldiers and families affected by
the war and maybe more interesting than being a nurse or raising money
for the war, is about 250 women actually fought in the war as men. The
topic of female soldiers led to a discussion about the role of women in the
militaries of other countries, including the native countries of the students.
Next, Welch displayed a painting depicting Shermans scorched earth
policy. A student reminded her of General Shermans refrain, war is hell.
A lively debate ensued about the ethics of war and the effects of war on
civilians. Welch and some of the students brought up examples from recent
history to illustrate their points.
Lesson Analysis. The lessons observed in Welchs class provide examples of
SI that closely resemble a mainstream class. Like Duvall, Welch was a history
teacher and spent most of her time teaching mainstream history courses.
Comparing this class to her other history classes, she said, I dont teach
much differently. Officially, the unique nature of her class composition
was also downplayed. Welch explained, to be totally honest, the sheltered
class is not designated on their transcript as an ESL class. Along with her
general instructional approach, Welch reported that she used much of the
same curriculum as well:
I try to align my curriculum of my ESL class with my mainstream class. At the
moment were like a day or two behind. Theyve done a couple of different things
than the other class, so thats gotten them a little behinda couple special immigration projects. But I do try to keep them up at the same level, so if they need to
transfer at semester, theyre not too far off. And because they wont have to take
another U.S. history classthis is the U.S. history class that they need for graduation, so what I teach them is it for high school. I follow the core curriculum.
Although Welch stressed the similarities between her sheltered and mainstream classes, both the lesson and the interview data point to a definite
awareness of the unique characteristics of her students. She offered
language-sensitive curriculum and mobilized SI pedagogies. She defined
her role this way:
With ESL, the kids are immersed in our culture and theyre surrounded by our
language and theyre going to pick up English at least on a superficial level, at least
200
ANNY FRITZEN
In this excerpt, Welch acknowledged that ELLs are learning and capable
of learning independently. The academic opportunities she created for
them might be uncomfortable, but not out of reachan important
distinction.
This view of ELLs as fully capable individuals was further reinforced in a
rather striking moment of the interview. When I asked her to describe the
most challenging aspects of teaching content to ELLs, Welch did not have
a ready reply. Oh boy. Greatest challenge. Ive never thought about that.
Ive just been doing it. After a pause she continued:
I guess getting to the critical thinking. Getting beyond the surface memorization of
facts, dates . . . and getting so that we can really talk about the issues and you know,
the historical happenings being right or wrong and really delving into them with
a limited language. . . . I think its an issue because of language and lack of
background.
By attributing this challenge to a lack of background and language proficiency, she was placing responsibility on circumstantial characteristics, not
as a reflection of the intellectual ability or potential of her students. At
another point in the interview, Welch observed, So they are behind, but we
would be behind if we were in their country, too. She hoped that other
students would hold this opinion about their non-native Englishspeaking
peers: This kid over here cant speak English but listen carefully, hes got
a lot of really great ideas. His English isnt perfect. It takes him a while to
get it outbut hes a deep thinker.
The content of Welchs lessons was based on the grade-level curriculum
and reflected attempts to teach history in ways that avoided overly simplistic
explanations and narratives. She regularly presented more than one side of
an issue (e.g., northern and southern perspective of Reconstruction, pros
and cons of a teacher strike, current and historical views on the aftermath
of the Civil War). Furthermore, Welch engaged the students in the content
using a variety of resources, including primary sources (period photographs and political cartoons), the textbook, graphic organizers, and illustrative explanations from the past and present, personal and historical.
Rather than simply presenting history as an undisputed set of facts, she
encouraged students to think complexly about the content. For example,
as she was teaching General Shermans philosophy of total war during
northern attacks on the South during the American Civil War, she
addressed the controversial nature of his policy and connected it to the
present time. Many people today, today if people did thatand it still does
happen in wars today, they are charged with war crimes. Um, even though
TEACHING AS SHELTERING
201
its war, we still think theres some rules about how it oughta be handled.
When a student contested her assertion of the need for rules of war, Welch
engaged the class in a discussion about this topic, connecting it with recent
examples of war atrocities in other countries.
Although the lessons were teacher fronted, Welch welcomed questions
and comments. During the three lessons, there were multiple instances
of student-initiated, content-related input. The following excerpt is
illustrative:
Welch: The plantations of the Confederate leaders . . . their land was taken from
them and it was, was given out to the freed slaves. Not very many freed slaves got it,
but actually . . .
Student: What happened with Robert E. Lee?
Welch: Robert E. Lees land or him?
Student: No, him.
Welch: He went on to live peacefully. They didnt prosecute him. He went on to be
a president of a college and um . . .
Student: They didnt kill him?
Welch: They didnt kill anyone after the Civil War, like Jefferson Davis, no one was
executed for treason.
202
ANNY FRITZEN
DISCUSSION
These incidents of sheltered instruction suggest three different interpretations of the practice, each emphasizing different purposes of SI: sheltering as protection, sheltering as nurturing, and sheltering as separation.
Duvalls lessons stressed the preparatory and transitional component. The
lessons in Millers class highlighted a caring, personal relationship
between teacher and students which is conducive to a safe, low-anxiety
learning environment. Welchs lessons, while more closely resembling a
mainstream history class in form and content, brought to the fore the
TEACHING AS SHELTERING
203
issue of segregation that troubles the very concept of SI. These three
examples cannot be easily dismissed as simply products of the teachers
making. Rather, they demonstrate aspects of sheltered instruction that
are suggested by the sheltering metaphor and have been circulating in
professional discourse since the idea of SI first took root in second language education.
An important issue raised by these examples of SI in practice is the
nature of the content selected as curriculum for a sheltered class. The SI
literature recommends a supported, yet rigorous, grade-level curriculum
(Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2003; Genesee, 1999). However, as the lessons
from Duvalls and Millers classes illustrate, other priorities and the constraints of students limited language can get in the way of this objective.
The problem is that a focus on vocabulary teaching, study skills, and
discussions loosely based on academic topics (e.g., republic) may give a
teacher a false sense of attention to content, when in reality, academic
context has been conflated with substantive academic content. As researchers have pointed out, Sheltering complex material requires maximum
clarity and simplicity be achieved while preserving the materials intellectual integrity (Friedenberg & Schneider, 2008, p. 157). As demonstrated
in Duvalls and Millers lessons, achieving clarity and simplicity can come at
the expense of intellectual integrity.
It is significant that employing SI pedagogical strategies does not automatically solve the problem of the nature of the curriculum carried by these
strategies. Although all the lessons demonstrated characteristics of SI, the
way these strategies were used resulted in different outcomes and reflected
different assumptions. The use of visuals is illustrative. For example, Welch
used historical photos to engender relatively complex conversations about
social, political, economic, and ethical aspects of history. In contrast, Miller
used historical photos as illustrations for oversimplified renditions of the
past, while Duvall encouraged her students to draw pictures as proxies for
key content vocabulary. Most likely, each teacher believed she was enacting
SI in a manner intended by the approach and their use of visuals in each
likely made the content more comprehensible to ELLs. Yet the application
of strategies alone does not ensure that students learn rich, complex,
grade-levelappropriate content or achieve desired levels of language
development (Echevarria, Short, & Powers, 2006).
Thus, a critical exploration of the practice of sheltered instruction
demands that we look beyond strategies. SI strategies have the potential of
making all kinds of content comprehensible. The difficult and complex
task of SI teachers, then, is figuring out how to bring several concerns into
balance. While sheltered classes might be set up to serve a transitional role
toward preparing ELLs for success in mainstream classes, intellectually
challenging and engaging content should not be relegated to the mainstream. While sheltered classes ought to protect learners from inaccessible
content, they also ought to appropriately push students. Interacting with
204
ANNY FRITZEN
language, content, and academic tasks that might be beyond the learners
present abilities is essential to facilitate the necessary experience, knowledge, and language/ literacy proficiencies most likely to position ELLs for
future success in school (Bunch et al., 2001). Hammond (2006) calls this
approach supporting up, as opposed to watering down the curriculum.
Adequate support, however, is crucial, especially if ELLs are to master
the level of academic language and literacy required to full participation in
schoolwhich brings us back to the fundamental rationale for SI and a
possible reason why some teachers might enact SI with a remedial curriculum. The concepts of sheltering and challenging are not intuitively
associated, although they need not be mutually exclusive. The language of
sheltering, with its overtones of protection, speaks to the moral imperative
of providing protection from fundamentally unfair learning environments
(sheltering as protection). If unfair is interpreted to mean too hard, a
logical response is simplification. Additionally, the language of sheltering
casts ELLs as vulnerable and in need of rescue. Imbued with this sense, the
teachers role is morphed from educator to protector.
Such an understanding might undergird an interpretation of SI that
treats a sheltered class as a respite, a place of escape from the oft-times
perplexing and unwelcoming culture of the larger school. Sheltering as
nurturing, as Millers lessons demonstrate, might be built on this interpretation. Embracing such a vision of a sheltered class is not altogether problematic because a safe haven and caring relationships with adults are vital
for ELLs. This is born out in studies investigating the schooling experience
of adolescent immigrants which suggest that special classes and programs
for ELLs provide valued social support, a sense of belonging, and the most
likely place for ELLs to be individually known by teachers (Harklau, 1994;
Surez-Orozco, Surez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008). In contrast, in the
mainstream these students are prone to becoming invisible, isolated, and
misunderstood (Duff, 2001; Miller, 2000; Sharkey & Layzer, 2000; SurezOrozco, Surez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008). Yet as Surez-Orozco and her
colleagues (2008) observed, safe havens such as Millers classroom, can
reflect a certain Faustian bargain as academic challenge is exchanged for
a warm and comfortable social situation (p. 144).
Compared to the lessons from Duvall and Miller, the lessons in Welchs
class seemed to achieve a greater degree of academic rigor, offering recognizable history instruction. However, while the curricular content did
seem more likely to promote students academic achievement, Welchs
lessons bring to the fore other questions about SI. For example, they
illustrate what sheltered instruction might look like when it is considered
just good teaching, an approach that researchers warn can obscure
important, unique characteristics of ELLs (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2003;
Hansen-Thomas, 2008; Harper & de Jong, 2004).
Welch seemed to view ELLs as fully capable of thinking deeply and
mastering grade-level curriculum. However, by not providing special
TEACHING AS SHELTERING
205
instruction, there is also the possibility that her students were missing out
on crucial instruction to build academic language and literacy development. From a different angle than Duvalls and Millers, then, Welchs
lessons also demonstrate the complexity of interweaving the language,
content, and academic preparation goals of SI. The issue that most
troubled Welch, however, was the fact that the students in her sheltered
class were separated from the rest of the school. The segregation inherent
in many enactments of SI is an especially perplexing issue. On the one
hand, the separation can be justified as necessary to achieve optimal language learning, as Krashen (1985) originally argued, although he never
intended for this segregation to be long term (Faltis, 1993). Separate
classes for ELLs might also result in situations where students feel more
comfortable to speak and participate, thus enhancing language acquisition
opportunities and a sense of belonging (Faltis, 1993; Harklau, 1994). They
can also provide emotional support even as they function as holding
places, which Surez-Orozco et al. (2008) suggest can be powerful, providing children with psychological space to deal with the multiple losses
inherent in immigration (p. 176). Yet, these special classes also reinforce
the otherness of ELLs and prevent crucial opportunities for ELLs and
mainstream students to interact (Bunch et al., 2001). Finally, the potential
for subpar instruction in segregated classes can result in a separate but
unequal learning situation (Faltis, 1993). Careful consideration of the
pros and cons of separating ELLs in sheltered classes does not yield an
obvious answer, although as Faltis (1993) observes, either way demands
high-quality instruction.
206
ANNY FRITZEN
This article suggests that teacher education and professional development should help teachers carefully consider not only how curriculum
might be packaged for ELLs (instructional strategies), but also think critically about what actually goes inside those packages. Furthermore, for
teachers to make appropriate instructional decisions, they need to be aware
of why they are teaching specific content in particular ways. This involves
rooting SI practices in principled and research-based pedagogy, and grappling with personal whys regarding how teachers understand their individual roles as sheltered instruction teachers, and recognizing how these
understandings position ELLs. Using the sheltering metaphor as a vehicle
for interrogating their own perspectives could invite teachers to make
otherwise invisible assumptions more tangible and concrete, thus giving
them an additional layer of understanding to proactively shape their
instruction.
As this study represents a close look at just three examples of sheltered
instruction, additional research is needed to better understand how SI is
enacted in other contexts and subject areas. One potentially beneficial
approach would be to consider how the notion of sheltering might intersect with and diverge from the responsibility of rigorously engaging ELLs
with academic content and language. Future research might also invite
teachers to explicitly engage with the sheltering metaphor and articulate
how they understand this metaphor to be informing their practice over an
extended period of time. In a related vein, this analysis suggests the need
for a more explicit articulation of the meaning of sheltered instruction in
the literature, along with a debate of its merit.
In this article I have explored the complex intersections between a
sheltering metaphor, sheltered instruction theory, and sheltered instruction in practice. Potential meanings suggested by the metaphor reveal
multiple realities that can be variously interpreted, as the SI lessons discussed in this study suggest. One meaning of the term highlights the
responsibility to advocate for ELLs and offer protection from unfair learning context. However, the potential to position ELLs as needing to be
rescued is also suggested. Instruction shaped by this connotation may
unwittingly undermine the strengths and resources of ELLs and take on the
peculiar role of providing refuge at the expense of high-quality instruction.
In the process, this interpretation of SI risks denying ELLs the very opportunities sheltered instruction is intended to engender: namely, opportunities to experience high-quality, rigorous instruction that is appropriately
sensitive to their unique needs. Ultimately, sheltered classes are intended as
a temporary intervention to facilitate ELLs full participation in schoola
function grounded in compelling rationale. Yet ironically, rather than
pushing them forward these classes can wind up anchoring students in a
track that holds them back. It is not enough for SI classrooms to be safe,
convenient, and comfortable places for ELLs, for however shelterd this
port and however calm these waters we must not anchor here.
TEACHING AS SHELTERING
207
NOTES
1. Krashen makes a point of distinguishing between language learning and language acquisition. In his work, he privileges acquisition over learning and refers
to language acquirers instead of language learners. However, for the sake of
transparency to a broader audience, I have chosen to use the term language
learner where Krashen would have likely preferred language acquirer.
REFERENCES
Brinton, D., Snow, M., & Wesche, M. (1989). Content-based second language instruction.
New York: Newbury House.
Bullough, R. V. (1991). Exploring personal teaching metaphors in preservice
teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(1), 4351.
Bullough, R. V., & Stokes, D. K. (1994). Analyzing personal teaching metaphors in
preservice teacher education as a means for encouraging professional development. American Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 197224.
Bunch, G. C., Abram, P. L., Lotan, R. A., & Valds, G. (2001). Beyond sheltered
instruction: Rethinking conditions for academic language development. TESOL
Journal, 10(2/3), 2833.
Cameron, L., & Low, G. (1999). Metaphor. Language Teaching, 32(2), 7796.
Cline, Z., & Necochea, J. (2003). Specially designed academic instruction in English
(SDAIE): More than just good instruction. Multicultural Perspectives, 5(1), 1824.
Cook-Sather, A. (2003). Movements of mind: The matrix, metaphors, and
re-imagining education. Teachers College Record, 105(6), 946977.
De Guerrero, M. C. M, & Villamil, O. S. (2002). Metaphorical conceptualizations of
ESL teaching and learning. Language Teaching Research 6(2), 95120.
Duff, P. A. (2001). Language, literacy, content, and (pop) culture: Challenges for
ESL students in mainstream courses. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(1),
103132.
Echevarria, J., Short, D. J., & Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based
education: A model for English language learners. Journal of Educational Research,
99(4), 195210.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. J. (1999). Making content comprehensible for English
language learners: The SIOP model. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. J. (2003). Making content comprehensible for English
language learners: The SIOP model (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
Edwards, H., Wesche, M., Krashen, S., Clement, R., & Krudenier, B. (1984). Second
language acquisition through subject-matter learning: A study of sheltered
208
ANNY FRITZEN
TEACHING AS SHELTERING
209
Marsh, D., Maljers, A., & Hartiala, A. (2001). Profiling European CLIL classrooms.
Jyvskyl, Finland: University of Jyvskyl Press. Retrieved August 20, 2009, from
http://www.cec.jyu.fi/kasvatusjaopetus/clil/clilprofiling
Martinez, M. A., Sauleda, N., & Huber, G. L. (2001). Metaphors as blueprints of
thinking about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(8),
965977.
Miller, J. M. (2000). Language use, identity, and social interaction: Migrant students
in Australia. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(1), 69100.
Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational
policies and practices in the Asia-Pacific region. Tesol Quarterly, 37(4), 589
613.
Rosen, N. G., & Sasser, L. (1997). Sheltered English: Modifying content delivery for
second language learners. In M. A. Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The contentbased classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 3545). White
Plains, NY: Addison-Wesley Longman.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just
one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 413.
Sharkey, J., & Layzer, C. (2000). Whose definition of success? Identifying factors
that affect English language learners access to academic success and resources.
TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 352368.
Short, D. J. (1991). How to integrate language and content instruction: A training manual.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. A unique accession number
assigned to each record in the database; also referred to as ERIC Document
Number (ED Number) and ERIC Journal Number (EJ Number).ED359780).
Short, D. J. (1993). Assessing integrated language and content instruction. TESOL
Quarterly, 27(4), 627656.
Short, D. J. (1994). Expanding middle school horizons: Integrating language,
culture, and social studies. TESOL Quarterly, 28(3), 581608.
Short, D. J. (1996). Integrating language and culture in the social studies: A final report to
the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and the National Center for
Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.
Short, D. J. (1999). Integrating language and content for effective sheltered instruction programs. In C. J. Faltis & P. Wolfe (Eds.), So much to say: Adolescents,
bilingualism, & ESL in the secondary school (pp. 105137). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Snow, M. A., & Brinton, D. (1997). The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content. New York: Longman.
Snow, M. A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the
integration of language and content in second/foreign language instruction.
TESOL Quarterly, 23(2), 201217.
Sobul, D. (1995). Specially designed academic instruction in English (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 391357).
Stoller, F. L. (2004). Content-based instruction: Perspectives on curriculum planning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 261283.
Surez-Orozco, C., Surez-Orozco, M., & Todorova, I. (2008). Learning a new land:
Immigrant students in American society. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press.
Tang, G. M. (1994). Teacher collaboration in integrating language and content.
TESL Canada Journal, 11(2), 100117.
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for
language minority students long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA: Center
for Research on Education, Diversity, & Excellence.
210
ANNY FRITZEN
Whitman, W. (1904). Song of the open road. In Leaves of Grass (p. 125). Boston:
Small, Maynard, & Company.
Yob, I. M. (2003). Thinking constructively with metaphors. Studies in Philosophy and
Education, 22(2), 127138.
APPENDIX
The following chart provides additional details about the data used in this
study.
School population:
Sheltered Teacher:
Lisa Duvall
Class:
World History
Credentials:
School population:
Sheltered Teacher:
Susan Miller
Class:
U.S. history
TEACHING AS SHELTERING
211
Credentials:
School population:
Sheltered Teacher:
Marilyn Welch
Class:
U.S. history
Credentials: