Sheltering As A Metaphor

This article was downloaded by: [University Of Maryland]
On: 04 September 2015, At: 09:00

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG
Curriculum Inquiry
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcui20
Teaching as Sheltering: A Metaphorical

Analysis of Sheltered Instruction for
English Language Learners
Anny Fritzen
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan

Published online: 07 Jan 2015.
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
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
Articles
curi_548
185..211
Teaching as Sheltering: A Metaphorical

Analysis of Sheltered Instruction for
English Language Learners
Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 09:00 04 September 2015
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
teach algebra concepts while also deliberately building English language

skills through attention to vocabulary, grammatical structures, and comprehension strategies. In light of the pressing need for better prepared teachers
who are skilled at making academic content comprehensible to ELLs, much
of the existing literature on sheltered instruction (SI) has been devoted to
rationales, instructional strategies, and professional development concerns.
While considerable emphasis has been placed on observable pedagogical
techniques that characterize SI, there has been little discussion of the
sheltering metaphor or the variety of ways in which this term has been used
by both researchers and teachers. In this article, I take up this issue by
considering how the metaphor of sheltering operates in three high school
sheltered history classrooms. While the instruction in all three cases demonstrates basic characteristics of SI as identified in the literature, the nature
of the instruction in each class created markedly different learning contexts
and positioned the students in distinct ways. I begin with an overview of
sheltered instruction followed by a rationale for metaphor analysis. Next, I
analyze the sample lessons, exploring how these lessons along with teacher
interviews reveal potential aspects of the sheltering metaphor. I close with a
discussion of possible implications for research and practice.
SHELTERED INSTRUCTION
Sheltered instruction is a form of content-based instruction (CBI), a large
collection of pedagogical models which integrate the teaching of content
(typically defined as academic subject matter) with the teaching of another
language. Rooted in the 1970s British language across the curriculum
movement and the Canadian French immersion programs (Brinton, Snow,
& Wesche, 1989), CBI has become a mainstay among widely accepted
second/foreign language instructional approaches worldwide. At the heart
of CBI is the assumption that language is best learned when embedded in
meaningful, comprehensible, and relevant contexts (Brinton, Snow, &
Wesche, 1989; Grabe & Stoller, 1997). Additionally, CBI has been
embraced because of its potential to meet the twin needs of students, such
as international students in higher education or immigrant students in
K12 settings, who are engaged in academic pursuits requiring them to
concurrently learn another language and academic content. Currently,
diverse implementations of CBI are practiced worldwide across educational
levels, from elementary school to the university (see Brinton, Snow, &
Wesche, 1989; Kauffman et al., 1995; Marsh, Maljers, & Hartiala, 2001;
Nunan, 2003; Snow & Brinton, 1997; Stoller, 2004). Over the past 2
decades, sheltered instruction has become a widely recognized form of
CBI (Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 1989; Echevarria, Short, & Powers, 2006;
Genesee, 1999; Kauffman et al., 1995; Snow & Brinton, 1997).
Early uses of the term sheltered appeared in the 1980s, when applied
linguist, Stephen Krashen (1985), proposed sheltered classes, or subject-
TEACHING AS SHELTERING
187
matter class[es] made comprehensible for the second-language student in

which native speakers of the language of instruction are excluded, as
an instructional approach potentially conducive to second language
acquisition (SLA) (p. 71). These classes were born out of a particular
theory of SLA and in response to the transition problem, the dilemma of
what to do with students who possessed intermediate proficiency in the
language of instruction yet werent ready to be optimally successful in
regular academic courses (Krashen, 1981, 1985). According to Krashens
theory of SLA, learners1 gradually and naturally develop linguistic proficiency as they are exposed to large amounts of comprehensible input
(language that the learner can understand with the aid of context, extralinguistic support such as visuals, and speech or text modifications)
(Krashen, 1982, 1985), supported by an authentic communicative purpose
and a low-anxiety environment (Krashen, 1982). Sheltered classes had the
potential to meet these requirements, a concept supported by the success
of Canadian immersion programs where children who were taught the
regular school curriculum in a second language emerged with both subject
matter knowledge and second language proficiency (Brinton, Snow, &
Wesche, 1989; Krashen, 1985). Similar positive findings emerged from
early studies of sheltered psychology courses at the University of Ottawa
(Edwards, Wesche, Krashen, Clement, & Krudenier, 1984; Hauptman,
Wesche, & Ready, 1988). Krashen didnt explicitly dwell on the meaning
implied by sheltered. Yet the metaphorical resonances of the term might
be extrapolated from the practice. For example, Krashen clearly intended
for sheltered classes to be temporary and transitional learning spaces that
offered a safe, productive, low-anxiety environment which protected students from educational contexts deemed inappropriate and inaccessible.
This conception reflects ideas associated with the word shelter, such as
protection, safety, temporariness. Faltis (1993) interprets Krashens idea as
students being sheltered from the potential learning problems they
might experience in a mixed language classroom (p. 137). Because
Krashen initially referred to these courses as international courses
(Krashen, 1981, p. 65) but then settled on the term sheltered, it seems clear
that shelter was a purposeful word choice (Krashen, 1981, 1982, 1985).
The idea of sheltered instruction made its way to K12 settings as educators struggled to accommodate the dramatic increase in the number of
ELLs in English-speaking schools in the 1980s and 1990s.2 Sheltered classes
were proposed as a viable option for these students to learn English while
also keeping up with grade-level academic content learning (Faltis, 1993;
Genesee, 1999; Grabe & Stoller, 1997; Short, 1991, 1994). Extending the
original objective of sheltered classes as a means to promote SLA, researchers began to articulate variations of specialized academic content teaching
tailored to ELLs. This is a subtle but significant shift in emphasis. Whereas
SI at the university level was intended to prepare language learners for
future full participation in regular, unmodified academic courses, SI at
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).
189
As the focus of sheltered instruction became as much about making the

mainstream curriculum accessible to ELLs as it was about preparing ELLs for
eventual participation in the existing mainstream curriculum, the meaning
of the term sheltered became less transparent. Were it not for the historical
basis of SI, it seems unlikely that more recent iterations of sheltered instruction would have been so named. The titles of seminal publications explaining the two most influential frameworks for SI reveal the current underlying
intention of the approach: Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English
(Sobul, 1995) and Making Content Comprehensible for English Language Learners: The SIOP Model (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 1999, 2003). Although both
frameworks are explicitly presented as guidelines for implementing sheltered instruction, the term sheltered appears to operate more as a label for a
bundle of pedagogical techniques than as a metaphor at work. The fundamental objective is to effectively teach the mainstream curriculum to ELLs,
not to shelter them from it. Another factor that renders the meaning of the
term sheltered less obvious is that SI is increasingly being implemented in
mainstream classes composed of ELLs and native English speakers instead of
as separate classes (Echevarria, Short, & Powers, 2006).
However, in a very significant way the term sheltered still applies, for both
early and recent versions of SI are addressing the same reality: without
modification, the mainstream curriculum is inaccessible to ELLs. Indeed, it
seems unfair and unreasonable to expect students to learn when they cant
comprehend the instruction. To highlight this reality, the sheltering metaphor has occasionally been appropriated by advocates of newer strands of
SI promoting accessible mainstream instruction. For instance, sheltered
classes are portrayed as a shelter from a veritable storm of concepts and
language (Rosen & Sasser, 1997, p. 45) or in another case, SI is depicted
this way: as an umbrella shelters pedestrians in a rain-storm, so, too, SI
provides some protection from the storm of concepts, contexts, and language (Gulack & Silverstein, 1997). These interpretations hearken back to
Krashens original idea that sheltered classes might protect language learners who arent yet prepared to fully participate in the mainstream. The
difference is that the original idea of SI was concerned with sheltering
learners from the storm; newer iterations are concerned with calming the
storm. Nonetheless, with various implicit meanings of sheltering circulating in the professional and academic discourse about SI, a particular
meaning of sheltered is very rarely articulated in the literature.
The idea of sheltering remains provocative, however, even when metaphorical connections are not explicitly drawn. Indeed, despite the widespread acceptance of SI as a viable instructional alternative for working with
ELLs (Genesee, 1999; Kauffman et al., 1995; Thomas & Collier, 2002), a
number of questions and complications remain. For instance, the way that
sheltered instruction can segregate ELLs from the rest of the school has
been problematized (sheltering from other students) (Bunch, Abram,
Lotan, & Valds, 2001; Cline & Necochea, 2003). Other researchers have
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-
191
tual osmosis (Sfard, 1998, p. 4) in which perception of the targeted

concept becomes an amalgam of various schemas, personal experience,
and social context. While metaphors are to some degree personally reconstructed and shaped by individual associations and experiences (de Guerrero & Villamil, 2002; Yob, 2003), they do not easily escape the schemata
imposed by the comparison evoked in a metaphor. In this way, the expression of a metaphorical relationship is not merely an observation about
analogous elements in dissimilar things. Once expressed, a metaphor gets
projected as a form of argument (Kliebard, 1982, p. 14). Because of the
persuasive power of metaphorand the tendency for this persuasion to be
hiddenit becomes particularly important to interrogate the assumptions
embedded in the metaphors we embrace (Cook-Sather, 2003; Kliebard,
1982; Martinez, Sauleda, & Huber, 2001; Sfard, 1998).
Fields such as education and SLA are particularly rich sites for metaphor, as metaphor is often applied to concepts that are ambiguous,
complex, and highly speculative (Yob, 2003). Thus, the scholarly work of
interrogating the metaphors used in education, SLA, and other disciplines
is an important endeavor that has precedent in the literature. For instance,
researchers have published critical analyses of metaphors for education
(e.g., Cook-Sather, 2003; Kliebard, 1982; Sfard, 1998) and SLA (e.g.,
Herron, 1982; Lantolf, 1996). While the aforementioned scholarship
grapples with metaphors commonly held by the field, another group of
studies investigates personal metaphors held by teachers (e.g., Bullough,
1991; Bullough & Stokes, 1994; de Guerrero & Villamil, 2002; Martinez,
Sauleda, & Huber, 2001). These studies invite us to take a closer look at the
implications of metaphors connected with education and language learning that we might otherwise take for granted.
However, throughout the evolution of sheltered instruction, the literature has largely overlooked the possibility that the sheltering metaphor
enables diverse uses of the term. Given that sheltered instruction is widely
practiced and accepted as a viable alternative for supporting ELLs academic and linguistic learning, it seems particularly important to consider
the metaphorical resonances invoked by this term. While the word shelter is
commonly understood, its meaning in this particular context is not transparent, although it suggests a variety of interpretations. What might it mean
for teachers to be shelterers? What is implied if we view ELLs as needing
shelter? How do teachers understand the purpose of sheltered instruction?
What are ELLs being sheltered fromincomprehensible language, the
mainstream curriculum, the other students?
THREE EXAMPLES OF SHELTERED INSTRUCTION
Using the metaphor of sheltering as a provocative lens or a thought
leader (Yob, 2003), I consider episodes of sheltered instruction from Lisa
Duvalls, Susan Millers, and Marilyn Welchs3 sheltered social studies
192
ANNY FRITZEN
classrooms. These teachers graciously consented to interviews and allowed

me to observe and record their lessons (approximately 145 minutes of
instruction per teacher). Each teacher worked in a different U.S. high
school in a western state. These particular schools were chosen because
their student populations represented a range of social and economic
demographics and because each school offered sheltered classes as part of
its support system for ELLs. It should be noted that I do not seek to
generally characterize the practice of the three teachers; rather, this is a
conceptual inquiry into potential enactments of sheltered instruction using
these lessons as exemplars. In other words, this article is an inquiry into
what sheltered instruction might mean beyond a definition that treats SI as
primarily a set of pedagogical practices.
To conceptualize these lessons in light of the sheltering metaphor, I first
conducted an etymological analysis of the word shelter to derive possible
entailments of the metaphor. I consulted various dictionaries and searched
the Internet to find collocations and contexts in which the language of
sheltering was used. The following aspects of sheltering seemed particularly
relevant:
Shelter as basic, essential protection, i.e., food and shelter, homeless
shelter, animal shelter, rudimentary shelter
Shelter connoting a place of respite and possibly even privilege, i.e.,
tax shelter, picnic shelter, sun shelter, sheltered from hardship
Shelter implying vulnerability to a real or perceived threat, often
suggesting the need for rescueat least temporarily until the threat
passes, i.e., bomb shelter, shelter from the storm, emergency shelter
Using these connotations to guide my analysis, I examined the lesson transcripts, field notes, and interview transcripts while asking these questions:
1. What characteristics of ELLs might suggest a need for sheltering?
a. What might they be sheltered from?
b. In what ways and to what ends might this sheltering be offered?
2. How might the metaphor of sheltering influence the nature of the
instruction and the relationship between ELLs and their teachers?
Analysis of the lessons and teacher interviews pointed to three versions
of high school sheltered instruction which incorporated similar instructional practices, but also offered some striking contrasts. It was clear from
the interviews that each teacher sincerely wanted to help her students be
prepared for future success in school and in life. The warm interaction
between teachers and students that I witnessed further substantiated their
good intentions. Each teacher spoke of the linguistic, cultural, and individual richness of her students. On a pedagogical level, all three teachers
mobilized instructional strategies characteristic of sheltered instruction
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
to facilitate successful transitioning to mainstream classes. Her comments

also hint at the tension that might arise as teachers work to address each of
these objectives. In theory, SI is meant to bring these three purposes into
concert, yet Duvalls lessons illustrate how in practice, these goals can seem
in competition with each other. With the focus on study skills, these lessons
suggest a particular interpretation of the sheltering metaphor which positions the class as a sheltera temporary, preparatory place where students
are protected from the linguistic, intellectual, and academic demands of the
mainstream until they are ready to make that transition.
Duvalls attempt to teach her students about a republican form of government is illustrative. To introduce the concept of a republic, she directed
the students to make a language quilt. Students were instructed to divide
a paper into four sectionsin one section they translated the target word
into their native language; in another they wrote a concise English definition; and in the final box, they were to draw an illustration of the word so
that if someone cant read your paper and understand [the word], the best
thing to do is draw it. She taught the students to find the definition in the
text by looking at the chapter headings and explained that in a republic
people choose who they want to have vote for them . . . if you understand the
concept of republic, draw for me a republic. This activity represents a useful
strategy for learning new vocabularyone that she had learned about in a
professional development workshop. However, the concept of republic was
oversimplified by virtue of the task. Duvall offered this explanation: So this
is what happens in a republic: people choose who they want to have vote for
them. There was, however, no discussion of how or why the Romans utilized
this form of government or any evaluation of its merits or drawbacks.
The follow-up activity to the language quilt task involved students practicing how to locate definitions in a textbook. Duvall directed her students
to the place in the textbook that defined the term republic. She gave an
additional clue by focusing their attention on the heading of the chapter.
In the interview, Duvall explained her rationale for this instructional move:
I cant stop and wait for [a student] to learn the language to be able to
teach her the things I need to teach . . . so I teach her how to learn these
things . . . she can go later through her dictionary and figure out what it
means. While being able to locate definitions based on textual clues, such
as bold-faced headings, can be a valuable skill, it does not require understanding of the underlying concept. However, if the overarching purpose
of a sheltered class is give students tools to aid their success in future
mainstream classes, one can understand the rationale for emphasizing
mastery of these common and useful academic tasks, especially if it is
assumed that content understanding will be attained later in the mainstream. Duvall acknowledged this tension:
A lot of times what Ill do, Ill give them this book and Ill say, I want you to try to
find the information, because I feel that in the world, thats whats going to be given
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.
Unwittingly trapped by her commitment to build foundational skills,

Duvalls interpretation of sheltered instruction seemed to position her
students as incapable of understanding challenging academic content.
However, although the content of the lessons was relatively thin, when
understood as a temporary shelter, the purpose of the class would be
accomplished if it allowed students to gather some English, a measure of
rudimentary content knowledge, and some basic study skills. This classroom was a rest stop, not a destinationa place to learn some survival
skills before entering the real world.
Thus, mainstream instruction became both the threat and the destination. Referring to students who do not seem to apply themselves in her
class, Duvall said, And then theres the kids that are just sitting back and
its the threat, well, lets put you in this regular class to see how youre going
to do, lets see if you can succeed in this. What is threatening about a
regular class? Duvall identified the textbooks, pacing, expectations for
content knowledge, unwieldy linguistic load, and assumed familiarity with
common academic tasks. But ironically, this version of sheltering seemed
more likely to protect students from, rather than prepare them for these
realities.
Still, Duvall expressed sensitivity to her students and demonstrated a
variety of pedagogies conducive to SI. Furthermore, she recognized that
learning to do school can provide ELLs with valuable tools, particularly
because they may not be familiar with the cultural norms and expectations
at an American high school. Duvalls lessons render transparent for ELLs
common school tasks that other students have been doing for years, but are
not necessarily easily and obviously accomplished by newcomers. At the
same time, the observed lessons bring into relief a dilemma inherent in SI.
Although SI is intended to make the mainstream curriculum accessible to
ELLs, the reality of students ongoing English language development and
in some cases, students limited educational backgrounds makes it difficult
to cover the same content at the same rate as might be possible with
students who do not have the additional challenge of learning English. This
reality is not instantly overcome simply by employing SI pedagogical techniques. However, because the mainstream is considered the true province
of content instruction, it is understandablethough not desirablefor an
SI teacher to assume that robust content learning can be reasonably relegated to that setting.
196
ANNY FRITZEN
Mountainside High School: Sheltering as Nurturing

Lesson Snapshot. Mountainside High School is situated within walking
distance of a university and draws students from both low-income and
wealthier suburban neighborhoods. Susan Millers United States history
class with its rows of desks, book-filled shelves, and brightly colored bulletin
boards was the image of a traditional American high school classroom. The
vast majority of the students were native Spanish speakers, but their ages,
educational backgrounds, and English proficiencies varied substantially.
Two adult aides were on hand to provide assistance as needed. The first
lesson was devoted to a group task in which students identified rights and
responsibilities of various groups of people as a preparatory activity for
lessons about the system of government in the United States. Miller
explained, Okay, what I would like us to do now is talk about some of the
responsibilities that individuals in society have. As a student, teacher,
parent, as children. She then divided students into groups based on
English ability and asked them to make a list of the rights and responsibilities of their assigned group. Students presented their lists during the next
class period. After each presentation, Miller added a brief commentary.
Lesson Analysis. To Susan Miller, teaching ELLs was a personal endeavor
and she embraced her role as nurturer. Highly aware of the personal and
academic challenges her students faced, Miller sought to nurture them in
their academic, linguistic, and personal development. In fact, she explicitly
characterized her role in terms of mothering.
And because my students are under a lot of stress from either family problems, with
the cultural thing, with learning a language in a new school, I tend to kind of
mother these kids. And I think thats probably fine because they need to know they
have somebody to talk to.
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:
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.
Consistent with this philosophy, the observed lessons were marked by

the frequent insertion of advice or admonishment intended to be character
building. For example, she talked about her experience as a child living
abroad in a country where only rich families could send their children to
school. Presumably to inculcate a sense of valuing education, Miller
reminded the students, When you learn things and understand how the
world is and all kinds of things you can do, then it helps our life be better.
On another occasion, she reminded students of the financial challenges of
raising a family and counseled them, So when you make a decision to get
married, then you need to think about all this. Think if you can really do all
of these things. Reinforcing the importance of citizen participation in
government, she offered the following illustration.
For example, my daughter and my son didnt vote in this election. I told them that
I didnt teach them right when they were growing up. Theyve both moved around
a lot, and they didnt get registered to vote. So their vote didnt count when it came
to the election. So what do we need to remember when were part of a democracy?
To vote.
In addition to offering counsel intended to cultivate responsible adults

and members of the community, Miller also extended offers of encouragement and personal support. For instance, after the group talked about the
responsibilities of parents, she said,
And, sometimes its hard to do these things, isnt it? Sometimes, its hard to do these
things as a daughter or son. Sometimes, parents have a hard time doing these
things. If you dont understand something, just dont go home and say I cant pass
this class. Talk to your teacher. And remember Im always here if youre having
problems with a class, Ill try to help you with it.
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.
Oak Heights High School: Sheltering as Separation

Lesson Snapshot. Drawing partially from uppermiddleclass neighborhoods and numerous families affiliated with the university, Oak Heights
had garnered the reputation as the rich, college-prep high school in the
city. In reality, the actual demographics of the student body were not
substantially different from Mountainside,5 but the perception remained.
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
for interpersonal communication, pretty much without my help. But Im here as a

facilitator to help them learn faster, to help them learn more, help them, open
them up, kind of force them, so to speak, like to get into literature, do things that
are a little less comfortable.
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
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.
Although history drove the instruction in these lessons, attention to

language issues featured periodically alongside the history content. Instead
of being systematic and planned, Welchs attention to language seemed to
be spontaneous, prompted either by her own intuition that a particular
linguistic issue might be problematic or a student question. For instance
when a student asked, Whats the difference between secede and succeed?
Welch responded with an extended explanation. In another case she asked,
Whats another word for reconstruction? Rebuilding. Good. What does
re mean in English, the prefix re-? These moments of spotlighting
language suggest an awareness of the central role language plays in learning new content and also of the potential for content to be a site for
learning new language. However, there was little extension or follow-up of
these spontaneous language-based moments.
Welchs lessons present an interesting contrast to the other two
examples of SI, as Welchs class was the only one that engaged with academic content in ways that seemed to resemble a mainstream high school
history class. This resemblance is a double-edged sword: on the one hand,
it creates a sense of academic legitimacy; on the other hand, it replicates
typical mainstream practices not necessarily ideal for ELLs. For instance,
each of the lessons in Welchs class were dominated by whole-class,
teacher-led discussions. While a number of students did participate in the
discussion, a handful of students did most of the talking while many of
the class members remained silent throughout the lessons. It is possible
that the large amount of teacher talk provided comprehensible input to
202
ANNY FRITZEN
the students that facilitated increased English language development. It is

also possible that because students were not required to actively engage
with the discussion that some of them werent paying much attention
and/or didnt actually understand what was going ona situation the
sheltered class was intended to prevent. Additionally, it seems likely that
important opportunities for building English language proficiency might
have been lost in treating the sheltered class as any other history class.
Thus, while the lessons in Duvalls and Fords classrooms illustrate how
content learning can be swallowed up in intense concern for the special
needs of ELLs, Welchs lessons point to the opposite potential problem
of a commitment to content teaching overshadowing these particular
needs.
Even if it turned out that all the students were actively participating,
mastering the history content, and building their language skills through
Welchs instruction, another concern remained. Im really worried about
segregating these kids from the rest of the school, Welch explained. And
this is where the sheltering metaphor sticks persistently to her class. She
continued:
Im really concerned about so many ESL classes and segregating the kids from the
rest of the school constantly. . . . The students segregate themselves, yet they come
here with the plan that they want to make American friends and they tell me that
forever, that they want to make American friends. . . . And I think most of the
American friends on a one on one [basis] think thatd be cool, too, to meet people
from other countries.
Just as a temporary shelter is not the same as a home in an established

neighborhood, a sheltered class is unlikely to engender full membership in
the school community. By virtue of having a section of U.S. history designated for ELLs, these learners were hidden from view of the other students
and teachers. Like the other sheltered classes in this article, Welchs
students were isolatedgeographically, socially, linguistically, and intellectually sheltered from the rest of the school. Of equal importance, the rest
of the school was also sheltered from them.
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
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
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.
IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION

While I have emphasized possible ways the metaphor of sheltering may be
shaping and reflecting SI, I do not suggest the metaphor itself is causing
this effect. As Sfard (1998) asserted, the metaphors we use should not be
held responsible for unsatisfactory practices (p. 10). Metaphors are influential, not deterministic. Still, metaphors can shape social realities as individuals absorb entailments of the metaphor and then act in ways that are
consistent with this understanding (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). This is especially true when people in positions of power coin metaphorical expressions. Thus, as teachers undergo professional development by experts
who consistently invoke the metaphor of sheltering through terms such as
sheltered instruction, sheltered class, sheltered students, etc., some understanding
connected to the idea of shelter is likely to be internalized and show up
in their practice. Should we then do away with the metaphor and call
sheltered instruction something else? Not necessarily. It does seem important, however, that we confront the metaphor explicitly and thoughtfully in
research and professional development.
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.
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.
2. While SI continued to operate in higher education settings, for the purposes of

this article, this literature review focuses on particular issues of SI in K12
contexts.
3. Pseudonyms are used for the names of teachers and schools.
4. Language quilts are a four-square table containing the definition of a vocabulary
word, the native language translation, a sentence using the word, and an
illustration.
5. Mountainside and Oak Heights were located in the same district and same city.
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
psychology classes at the University of Ottawa. Canadian Modern Language Review,

41(2), 268282.
Faltis, C. J. (1993). Critical issues in the use of sheltered content teaching in high
school bilingual programs. Peabody Journal of Education, 69(1), 136151.
Friedenberg, J. E., & Schneider, M. A. (2008). An experiment in sheltered sociology
at the university level. In Realizing content and language integration in higher education (pp. 155168). Maastricht, the Netherlands: Maastricht University Press.
Retrieved August 10, 2009, from http://brj.asu.edu/content/vol26_no2/pdf/
ART6.PDF
Genesee, F. (1999). Program alternatives for linguistically diverse students (Educational
Practice Report No. 1). Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity, & Excellence.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (1997). Content-based instruction: Research foundations.
In M. A. Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on
integrating language and content (pp. 521). White Plains, NY: Addison-Wesley
Longman.
Gulack, J., & Silverstein, S. (1997). TASSI: SDAIE handbookTechniques, strategies, and suggestions for teachers of LEP and former LEP students. Retrieved
March 11, 2008, from http://www.csupomona.edu/%7Etassi/sdaie.htm#
introduction
Hammond, J. (2006). High challenge, high support: Integrating language and
content instruction for diverse learners in an English literature classroom.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(4), 269283.
Hansen-Thomas, H. (2008). Sheltered instruction: Best practices for ELLs in the
mainstream. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 44(4), 165169.
Harklau, L. (1994). ESL versus mainstream classes: Contrasting L2 learning environments. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 241272.
Harper, C., & de Jong, E. (2004). Misconceptions about teaching English-language
learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(2), 152162.
Hauptman, P. C., Wesche, M. B., & Ready, D. (1988). Second-language acquisition
through subject-matter learning: A follow-up study at the University of Ottawa.
Language Learning, 38(3), 433475.
Herron, C. (1982). Foreign-language learning approaches as metaphor. The Modern
Language Journal, 66(3), 235242.
Huang, J., & Morgan, G. (2003). A functional approach to evaluating content
knowledge and language development in ESL students science classification
texts. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 234262.
Kauffman, D., Burkhart, G., Crandall, J., Johnson, D. E., Peyton, J., Sheppard, K.,
et al. (1995). Content-ESL across the USA. volume II: A practical guide. A descriptive
study of content-ESL practices. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Kliebard, H. M. (1982). Curriculum theory as metaphor. Theory Into Practice, 21(1),
1117.
Krashen, S. D. (1981). The fundamental pedagogical principle in second language
teaching. Studia Linguistica, 35(12), 5070.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Language
teaching methodology series. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: issues and implications. London: Longman.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. Metaphor and Thought, 2,
202251.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lantolf, J. P. (1996). SLA theory building: Letting all the flowers bloom! Language
Learning, 46(4), 713749.
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.
Ford High School

Location:
An urban center of over 1 million people in a

western state
School population:
Approximately 1,675 students, 65% White, 17%

Hispanic, 7% Pacific Islander, 8% Asian, 2%
Native American, 1% African American; 28%
free/reduced lunch
Serves a highly mobile, multiethnic community
Sheltered Teacher:
Lisa Duvall
Class:
World History
Credentials:
English and history certification

ESL training limited to professional
development workshops
Third year teaching
Mountainside High School

Location:
City of approximately 112,000 people in a

western state
School population:
Approximately 1,887 students, 80% White,

13.3% Hispanic, 3.8 % Pacific Islander, 1.8%
Asian, 1.5% Native American, less than 1%
African American; 33.7% free/reduced lunch
Serves both low-income and suburban
residential areas
Sheltered Teacher:
Susan Miller
Class:
U.S. history
211
Credentials:
English and ESL certification

Masters degree in TESOL
Sixth year teaching
Oak Heights High School

Location:
City of approximately 112,000 people in a

western state
School population:
Approximately 1,771 students, 85% White, 9.3%

Hispanic, 2.8% Asian, 2% Pacific Islander, 1%
Native American, less than 1% African
American; 22% free/reduced lunch
Serves several suburban areas, primarily from
upper-middleincome residential communities
Sheltered Teacher:
Marilyn Welch
Class:
U.S. history
Credentials:
History, English, Russian certification

ESL endorsement in progress (about 2/3
complete)
Eleventh year teaching

Sheltering As A Metaphor

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Sheltering As A Metaphor

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

This article was downloaded by: [University Of Maryland]

On: 04 September 2015, At: 09:00

Teaching as Sheltering: A Metaphorical

Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Teaching as Sheltering: A Metaphorical

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 09:00 04 September 2015

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 09:00 04 September 2015

teach algebra concepts while also deliberately building English language

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 09:00 04 September 2015

matter class[es] made comprehensible for the second-language student in

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 09:00 04 September 2015

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 09:00 04 September 2015

As the focus of sheltered instruction became as much about making the

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 09:00 04 September 2015

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 09:00 04 September 2015

tual osmosis (Sfard, 1998, p. 4) in which perception of the targeted

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 09:00 04 September 2015

classrooms. These teachers graciously consented to interviews and allowed

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 09:00 04 September 2015

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 09:00 04 September 2015

to facilitate successful transitioning to mainstream classes. Her comments

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 09:00 04 September 2015

Unwittingly trapped by her commitment to build foundational skills,

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 09:00 04 September 2015

Mountainside High School: Sheltering as Nurturing

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 09:00 04 September 2015

Consistent with this philosophy, the observed lessons were marked by

In addition to offering counsel intended to cultivate responsible adults

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 09:00 04 September 2015

Oak Heights High School: Sheltering as Separation

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 09:00 04 September 2015

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 09:00 04 September 2015

for interpersonal communication, pretty much without my help. But Im here as a

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 09:00 04 September 2015

Although history drove the instruction in these lessons, attention to

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 09:00 04 September 2015

the students that facilitated increased English language development. It is

Just as a temporary shelter is not the same as a home in an established

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 09:00 04 September 2015

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 09:00 04 September 2015

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 09:00 04 September 2015

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 09:00 04 September 2015

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 09:00 04 September 2015

2. While SI continued to operate in higher education settings, for the purposes of

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 09:00 04 September 2015

psychology classes at the University of Ottawa. Canadian Modern Language Review,

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 09:00 04 September 2015

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 09:00 04 September 2015

Ford High School

An urban center of over 1 million people in a

Approximately 1,675 students, 65% White, 17%

English and history certification

Mountainside High School

City of approximately 112,000 people in a

Approximately 1,887 students, 80% White,

English and ESL certification

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 09:00 04 September 2015

Oak Heights High School

City of approximately 112,000 people in a

Approximately 1,771 students, 85% White, 9.3%

History, English, Russian certification