Molle - Wilfrid - 2021 - Promoting Multilingual Students' Disciplinary and Language Learning Through The
Molle - Wilfrid - 2021 - Promoting Multilingual Students' Disciplinary and Language Learning Through The
Molle - Wilfrid - 2021 - Promoting Multilingual Students' Disciplinary and Language Learning Through The
research-article2021
EDRXXX10.3102/0013189X211024592Feature ArticlesEducational Researcher
Feature Articles
This article explores the development of a guidance document titled the “Framework for Equitable Instruction” (Framework),
which aims to support multilingual students’ content-area learning and language development. The Framework was
developed by WIDA, a national consortium of states, as part of its system of language standards, assessments, and
professional learning. The article discusses the Framework using a protocol originally created for the alignment of content-
area and language standards. The protocol highlights the rigorous theoretical foundations of the Framework, the research-
based rationale behind its conceptualization of language trajectories, and the tight linkages between the Framework,
content-area standards, and classroom instruction. The systematic exploration of the Framework’s features in this article
can inform the future design of language standards and related documents and serve as a foundation for the constructive
critique of existing ones.
Introduction and (c) the setting of normative expectations related to more for-
mal uses of a standardized language variety (Shohamy, 2011). On
Language proficiency or development standards (hereafter, lan-
the other hand, language standards must also support effective
guage standards) exist at the intersection of policy, instruction,
instruction for multilingual students and reflect the multimodal,
and assessment. This positioning is reinforced through legisla-
multilingual, and contextual nature of language use (Leung &
tion (e.g., the Every Student Succeeds Act—see U.S. Department
Valdés, 2019). They need to promote a view of language as a tool
of Education, 2015) and reflected in the scholarly literature
for sense making and position the “four skills” as inextricably
(e.g., Wolf et al., 2014). Poza and Valdés (2016) describe stan-
connected and interdependent (Lee et al., 2013). Effective
dards as “an essential and defining element” in the education of
instruction also has to endorse multilingual students’ dynamic
multilingual students1 (p. 2). Language standards are expected to
language practices, which involve fluid movement across multiple
support states and districts in both assessing multilingual stu-
named languages (Flores & Schissel, 2014).
dents’ language development and promoting their academic
One way to address the conflicting demands placed on lan-
achievement (Bailey & Huang, 2011).
guage standards is to design not a single standards document but
Language standards’ positioning at the intersection of policy,
a system of resources. This was the approach taken by WIDA, a
language instruction, and assessment creates an irreconcilable
national consortium of states,2 as it updated its English language
tension between conflicting ideologies. On one hand, language
development (ELD) standards. In addition to the WIDA ELD
standards need to define what language proficiency in a given
standards (WIDA, 2020 edition), WIDA developed the
language entails (Council of Chief State School Officers
“Framework for Equitable Instruction” (hereafter referred to as
[CCSSO], 2012). Accomplishing this task requires (a) a view of a
the “Framework”), to be published in the latter half of 2021.
language as an autonomous entity, pure and distinct from other
The updated WIDA ELD standards and the Framework have
languages (Kibler et al., 2014); (b) the separation of language use
into either the “four skills” (reading, writing, listening, and speak-
ing) or the receptive and productive domains (Cumming, 2008); 1
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI
certain common elements, including attention to language use resource designers who work with teachers of multilingual chil-
across the disciplines, interactional uses of language, and lan- dren and youth.
guage functions. At the same time, the two documents have dif-
ferent purposes. The ELD standards are a key instrument for
Theoretical Foundations
complying with federal requirements and therefore need to serve
as a foundation for the development of language benchmarks The first component of the alignment protocol (CCSSO, 2012)
and assessments for summative purposes. The Framework, on addresses the theoretical grounding of the Framework. In this
the other hand, specifically focuses on classroom practice and section, we illustrate how theories from different fields (psychol-
aims to guide teachers in supporting students’ equitable partici- ogy, linguistic anthropology, second-language acquisition, and
pation in disciplinary practices and discourses, creating opportu- genre studies) can be integrated to provide a robust foundation
nities for student agency, and developing students’ metalinguistic for resources that focus on content and language integration. We
awareness. address two key questions: (1) What is language development?
This article addresses the development of the Framework. We and (2) How do students learn language in content-area class-
discuss the design of the Framework using a protocol for align- rooms? For clarity, we explore these questions in succession but
ment between content-area and language standards published by the close relationship between them is evident in the discussion
the CCSSO (2012). Even though the Framework is not a stan- of each question.
dards document, it is part of the WIDA system of standards,
assessments, and professional learning. The Framework also
What Is Language Development?
plays an essential complementary role to language standards in
supporting instruction for multilingual students. For these two To answer this question, the Framework development team3
reasons, the rigorous protocol for aligning language and content needed to address language and development both separately and
is as relevant to the Framework as to language standards. The as a single construct. To theorize development (or learning), we
alignment protocol has four components: theoretical founda- draw on cultural–historical activity theory (CHAT). Our theory
tions, language progressions, standards match, and classroom of language is based on William Hanks’s (1996) model of com-
match. We address each component in turn as it relates to the municative practice. Our approach to language development is
Framework and to current issues in the field of language educa- consistent with an emerging consensus about language learning
tion. A visual representation of the content and organizational in the field of English as an additional language (Hakuta &
structure of the Framework can be found in Figure 1. Santos, 2012), and we conceptualize the process as the expan-
The systematic exploration of the Framework presented here sion of students’ linguistic repertoires and their effectiveness as
makes an important contribution to academic discussions communicators. We draw on genre studies to inform our under-
about the representation of language and language develop- standing of how multilingual students develop language in the
ment in documents intended to support the instruction of context of disciplinary learning.
multilingual learners across states (many of these discussions
have taken place on the pages of this journal, e.g., Lee, 2019). Learning as cultural–historical activity. CHAT is a theory of
The Framework advances a view of language as a hybrid, multi- learning and development that places individual learning in a
modal social practice; places language learning in the context of social and cultural context. One of the reasons for the theory’s
students’ meaningful participation in disciplinary practices and lasting relevance and appeal is that it “addresses the troubling
discourses; and views language development as the expansion of divides between individual and collective, material and mental,
students’ linguistic repertoires and their development of meta- biography and history, and praxis and theory” (Roth & Lee,
linguistic awareness. This view positions language learners as 2007, p. 191). Two CHAT concepts are central to the Frame-
competent and strategic users of the rich language resources at work: practice and appropriation. Practices are recurring and
their disposal. We hope that the rigorous exploration of the recognizable ways in which participants in a collective activity
Framework and its design can inform the efforts of teacher edu- use tools for particular purposes. Through participation in and
cators, professional development facilitators, and instructional observation of activities in communities, families, and class-
Ideology individual judgments about the roles and strategic positioning of self, critical language awareness (i.e.,
expectations of actors in a particular situation; others, and ideas using increased capacity to recognize the
interacting, valuing, and using tools; awareness of and use language strategically to
how power relations shape and are shaped by accomplish one’s goals in specific
Formal structure knowledge of language patterns and conventions knowledge of language as a expansion of linguistic repertoires
(phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, system through use in terms of quantity, accuracy
dimensions that are specific to, cut across, variety, and complexity
Performance unique language choices in a certain rhetorical capacity to accomplish increase in the student’s capacity to
context that are informed by one’s judgement of the particular goals using respond effectively to an ever-
situation and knowledge of language patterns and language expanding range of disciplinary and
educators to provide language support in the service of effective interpreting, expressing, co-constructing, and presenting disciplin-
communication and deeper exploration of disciplinary concepts ary meaning (see Figure 4). We identified the practices through
rather than language accuracy (Shohamy, 2011). a three-step process. First, we created a list of standards-based,
discipline-specific analytical tasks. Analytical tasks “outline the
intellectual activities in which students engage” (CCSSO, 2012,
Standards Match
p. 12). They tend to synthesize the expectations for cognitive
The standards match component of the alignment protocol asks engagement of related performance expectations in the content
developers to connect the language expectations they design to standards. For the content areas of math and science, we lever-
expectations for student language use in content-area standards aged the analytical tasks in the ELPD framework (CCSSO,
(CCSSO, 2012). The college and career readiness standards in 2012). For social studies and English language arts (ELA), we
the United States do not adequately address how multilingual referred to the ELPD framework and also analyzed the CCSS
students are expected to use language as they engage in for ELA (CCSSO, 2010) and the C3 Framework for Social
standards-based learning (Kibler et al., 2014). Therefore, a
Studies (National Council for the Social Studies, 2013).
national organization of educational leaders, the CCSSO, con- Example analytical tasks for ELA include the following: “com-
vened a group of language experts to derive these expectations. pare and contrast texts in the same genre” and “identify specific
The outcome of this effort was the English Language Proficiency/ ideas, events, or characters in text as support for a prediction,
Development (ELPD) Framework (CCSSO, 2012). In this sec- interpretation, or inference.” Example analytical tasks for social
tion, we explain how the design of the WIDA Framework builds studies are “examine limitations of available data” and “explain
on the ELPD framework and other literature on ensuring strong the roles and responsibilities of different actors, organizations,
linkages between language and content expectations. and systems.”
The Framework uses four cross-disciplinary language prac- Once we had a list of analytical tasks for each core content
tices as a key organizational feature. These four practices are area, we explored how we would expect students to use language
as they engage in the tasks. This analysis was informed by the Classroom Match
language functions in the ELPD framework (CCSSO, 2012)
This component of the alignment protocol (CCSSO, 2012)
and led to the creation of Framework-specific language func-
focuses on the extent to which the Framework can inform and
tions for the four core content areas. The language functions in
guide language use in content-area classrooms. Conceptually,
the Framework differ from those in the ELPD framework pri-
this component addresses how the Framework defines the lan-
marily in the level of abstraction. For example, while the ELPD
guage of school. From a practical standpoint, the classroom
functions pay attention to genre (e.g., “comprehend the logic
match component refers to the relevance of the Framework to
and meaning of arguments”), the Framework language functions classroom practice.
apply across genres (e.g., “follow the line of reasoning in explana- In recent years, many scholars who draw on sociocultural
tions or arguments”). We designed language functions at a larger theory have argued that the language of school is not a mono-
grain size to limit their number and so make the Framework less lithic register but a hybrid (Martinez et al., 2017). Everyday reg-
overwhelming for teachers. isters and languages other than English play a key role in
The third step in connecting language expectations to deepening students’ engagement with disciplinary meanings and
content-area standards involved a search for a way to organize practices (for research on the role of translanguaging in building
the Framework’s language functions that would hold across dis- content understanding, see Hornberger & Link, 2012; for
ciplines and represent a productive way of thinking about research on everyday discourses as integral to disciplinary sense
instruction for multilingual youth. This search led to the identi- making, see Gutiérrez et al., 2010). The coexistence of multiple
fication of the four cross-disciplinary language practices. The discourses within classrooms does not mean that there is no ten-
practices represent what students may be expected to do with sion between them. On the contrary, some of the social lan-
language in the course of disciplinary learning. All the practices guages used in school conflict sharply with students’ way of
integrate the four language domains and emphasize collaborative knowing (Low, 2015) and engender a sense of loss in students
meaning making (see Figure 4). Each practice includes a unique when they adopt them (Gee, 2005). The coexistence of social
set of language functions. languages means that there is a legitimate place for a wide range
It is important to point out that our process of linking con- of languages, dialects, and ways with words in classrooms (Leung
tent and language followed recommendations in the literature & Valdés, 2019).
(Lee, 2018) and began with an exploration of disciplinary prac- The Framework acknowledges and supports the multivoiced-
tices. We embarked on deriving expectations for language use ness of classroom discourse in several ways. First, the interactive
based on the practices in the NGSS (n.d.) and the CCSS for language practices of express and co-construct encourage educa-
math (CCSSO, 2010). We discovered, however, that each disci- tors to distinguish between students’ use of a formal register and
plinary practice encompasses a wide range of potential uses of the quality of their reasoning (e.g., Otten et al., 2019) and to
language. The disciplinary practices are intentionally general recognize that students can engage in disciplinary sense making
enough to be applicable to many contexts and subdisciplines through multiple languages, dialects, and modalities. Second,
(NGSS, n.d., Appendix F), but expectations for language use the language practice of present positions formal registers as aris-
need to be situated in particular learning activities. The disci- ing from and rooted in the use of students’ familiar registers. The
plinary practices describe collective activity at the same level of use of formal registers is an opportunity for students to re-
abstraction as language practices and could not serve as a foun- present the ideas learned in the context of interactive (and uned-
dation for deriving language practices. We therefore turned to ited), collaborative meaning making.
analytical tasks as a more tangible representation of student The classroom match component of the alignment protocol
engagement in disciplinary learning and used them as a founda- (CCSSO, 2012) also encompasses evidence of how the
tion for deriving language functions and language practices. Framework may be used by practicing educators. In the course
Support student learning and participation through language-related Teachers make visible important sections of the text through highlighting
scaffolding
Engage students in intellectually challenging work Teachers expect students to provide details and connect ideas
Leverage students’ interests and experiences Students choose what to read and write about
Support and further develop student agency Teachers allow students to use PowerPoint slides not only to convey information but also
to support the delivery of their oral presentations
Analyze the language students have opportunities to learn Teachers write texts that are accessible to students based on their language competencies
Plan multiple opportunities for language development Teachers incorporate more discussion opportunities
Formatively assess language development Teachers determine where students are on the continuum of language development
Choose and communicate to students a language focus Teachers model language and provide sentence starters for small-group work
Develop students’ awareness of the use of language for a range of Teachers make visible the connections between language use and rhetorical techniques
purposes
of developing the Framework, WIDA engaged in a rigorous and inspired changes in their practice. If participants’ practice shifted
iterative process of feedback gathering and revision. This process in some way, these shifts seemed to expand their understanding
included multiple rounds of internal review, expert review, com- of the role of language scaffolding in setting up multilingual stu-
mittee review, and teacher focus groups, as well as a public input dents for success and supporting student engagement.
survey. Here, we report on the last round of feedback gathering We provide examples of shifts in teacher practice inspired by
that was part of the Framework design process: a two-session the Framework in Table 1. The table illustrates the mediating
series of focus groups in the spring of 2019. effect of the Framework through research-based pedagogical
Before finalizing the content of the Framework, we wanted to practices that support the learning of multilingual youth (e.g., de
collect evidence about the potential of the Framework to both Jong et al., 2013; Faltis et al., 2010). Table 1 offers one example
accurately represent classroom discourses and support multilin- from the data per pedagogical practice. For many of the practices
gual students’ participation in these discourses. We designed a listed in the table, however, we had multiple examples. The two
focus group series that consisted of two sessions: an introductory practices listed first were the ones that we encountered most fre-
session and a feedback session. We conducted focus groups in quently in the data (we had eight examples of the first practice
three WIDA states in different geographic regions (South, and seven of the second).
Midwest, and West). The focus groups were district based. Two The findings from the last focus group session, along with
of the districts were rural, and one was suburban. The sessions other data sources, suggest that the Framework (a) represents the
lasted between 90 and 120 minutes. The time between sessions language of school in a way that resonates with content-area and
ranged from 3 weeks to 2 months. The same WIDA staff mem- language educators, and (b) can be a powerful tool for mediating
ber conducted both sessions at each research site. The number of the instruction of multilingual youth. Our analyses also indicate
participants ranged from seven to 11. By design, the participants that it is particularly accessible to educators with a background
in the focus groups included elementary as well as secondary in language teaching and learning.
educators, and content-area as well as language teachers. Teacher
leaders participated in two of the focus groups. Between the
Conclusion
introductory and feedback sessions, all the participants were
asked to post a classroom artifact online and explain how that High-quality education for multilingual learners has remained an
artifact illustrated the use of the Framework in their practice. elusive goal despite legal mandates and policy initiatives intended
For reasons of space, we provide only a cursory description of to promote high-quality learning opportunities for all students.
our findings. These findings are from the two focus groups in This article makes the case that guidance documents specifically
rural districts (we were unable to record the focus group sessions focused on promoting equitable instructional practices for multi-
in the third, suburban district). Three main findings emerged lingual youth are an important complement to language stan-
from the analysis of the recorded feedback sessions and the par- dards and should meet the same high expectations for rigor as
ticipants’ postings online. First, both content-area and language language standards. The article discusses one such guidance doc-
teachers perceived the Framework as educator friendly and ben- ument: the WIDA Framework for Equitable Instruction. We use
eficial for instruction. Second, teachers used the Framework in a robust protocol initially designed for aligning content-area and
different ways and for different purposes. We were surprised to language standards to describe the development of the Framework
discover that the participants’ use of the Framework did not cor- and showcase the innovative nature of its design (CCSSO, 2012).
relate with their role as a content-area or language educator. The alignment protocol has four components: theoretical foun-
Third, we found that the integration of the Framework in the dations, language trajectories, standards match, and classroom
participants’ teaching both confirmed what they had already match. The article highlights how sociocultural theories inspired
perceived as appropriate instruction for multilingual youth and equity-focused and assets-based approaches to conceptualizing