The Implementation of Sheltered Instructional Observation Protocol (SIOP) Model in Saudi Schools: A Study of EFL Teachers’ Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Sheltered Instructional Observation Protocol SIOP is a model designed to assist teachers in organizing and planning the lessons delivery through different stages. This model is also useful in enhancing the students’ achievement and minimizing any chance of educational failure. However, EFL teachers need to be trained in order to guarantee successful implementation of this model. This study examined the implementation of the SIOP model from teachers’ perspectives after they attended an introductory workshop in a private school in Riyadh city, Saudi Arabia. The study adopted the qualitative approach for collecting and analyzing the data. The sample of the study consisted of seven English language teachers (4 females & 3 males). Two data collection instruments were used, namely, observational sessions and a semi-structured interview. Most of the researcher interaction with the sample was done online due to the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic. The workshop and the interviews were done through Zoom video communication. The central findings of this study reveal that the majority of the teachers have covered all SIOP components during their lessons. Moreover, it was found that there is a relationship between the implementation of the SIOP model and the students' learning motivation. Furthermore, the results showed that the SIOP implementation might help in enhancing the teachers’ proficiency. Besides, it was revealed that most of the teachers had a positive attitude towards the implementation of the SIOP model. However, they claimed that time and place might hinder any future implementation of the SIOP model. This study recommends a larger sample size, longtime study application and a life sample workshop to guarantee better results. It also provides significant implications which might be useful for EFL teachers, policy makers and interested researchers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".