2.2.1 Incorporating Students’ Funds of Knowledge

One practice that enacts culturally sustaining pedagogies is incorporating students’ funds of knowledge (FOK; Reference Moll, Amanti, Neff and GonzalezMoll et al., 1992) in the classroom. The term “FOK,” initially defined as “historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household or individual functioning and well-being” (Reference Moll, Amanti, Neff and GonzalezMoll et al., 1992, p. 133), has evolved to now include students’ interests more broadly (Reference Hedges, Cullen and JordanHedges et al., 2011) and the ways of knowing that they develop from peer groups, communities, and popular culture (Reference Moje, Ciechanowski and KramerMoje et al., 2004). As such, we define students’ FOK as the dynamic knowledge, skills, and practices developed in households and communities (Reference de Jong, Harper and Coadyde Jong et al., 2013; Reference Moje, Ciechanowski and KramerMoje et al., 2004; Reference Moll, Amanti, Neff and GonzalezMoll et al., 1992). Students’ FOK are crucial sources of information that can lead to more effective teaching practices (Reference HoggHogg, 2011), but it takes purposeful planning that can be challenging, especially when teachers are faced with scripted curricula (Reference MeadMead, 2021).

Researchers have long advocated for curriculum and instruction to draw on students’ FOK (see Reference HoggHogg, 2011; Reference Llopart and Esteban-GuitartLlopart & Esteban-Guitart, 2018; Reference RodriguezRodriguez, 2013; Reference Short, Becker, Cloud and HellmanShort et al., 2018) and prior research has examined how teachers leverage students’ FOK in the classroom in order to create a more inclusive, engaging learning environment, to support students in understanding new content, and to assist students in developing their English language skills (e.g., Reference Blair, Haneda and BoseBlair et al., 2018; Reference Keefer, Lopez, Young and Haj-BroussardKeefer et al., 2020). For example, Reference Turner, Aguirre, McDuffie and FooteTurner and others (2019) leveraged elementary students’ experiences and understandings as they were introduced to mathematical modeling. More specifically, students drew on their prior experiences to identify important quantities and relationships, to make assumptions, to analyze and interpret the reasonableness of their solutions, and to revise their models when needed.

2.2.2 Drawing on Interactional Scaffolding Moves

Another practice that enacts culturally sustaining pedagogy is utilizing interactional scaffolding in the classroom. Early scholars in the field (e.g., Reference Wood, Brunner and RossWood et al., 1976) recognized that scaffolding was a means for adults to help children work within their zone of proximal development (ZPD; Reference VygotskyVygotsky, 1978), effectively bridging the gap between their current and future independent performance. This scaffolding is often accomplished as students work with a teacher or a more advanced peer, gradually releasing responsibility as they become capable of successfully completing the assigned task on their own (Reference BrunerBruner, 1983).

While scaffolding originated in studies of tutoring (e.g., Reference Wood, Brunner and RossWood et al., 1976), it has since evolved to capture classroom research and practice (e.g., Reference Athanases and de OliveiraAthanases & de Oliveira, 2014), where it has shown to be especially important for MLs’ participation in classroom discourse (Reference Hammond and GibbonsHammond & Gibbons, 2005). Interactional scaffolding involves teachers making use of different moves, making explicit connections between students’ prior experiences and their current and future learning, using appropriation, recasting, elaboration, cued elicitation, and recapping. These moves are instrumental in how teachers engage students in the learning environment, and they can support multilingual learners in developing oral language in the context of the classroom along with skills for interacting in a range of situations. Participation in rich classroom discourse is a key resource for learning from elementary to middle school years and beyond, where the language of schooling becomes more demanding (Reference GibbonsGibbons, 2006; Reference SchleppegrellSchleppegrell, 2004).

Classroom discourse, and specifically the notion of interactional scaffolding, appears to be a promising practice in classrooms with MLs (Reference Garton and CoplandGarton & Copland, 2019; Reference Hammond and GibbonsHammond & Gibbons, 2005; Reference JohnsonJohnson, 2019; Reference Short, Becker, Cloud and HellmanShort et al., 2018). Typically, this scaffolding is implemented through the initiation, response, and feedback sequence (IRF). Teachers implement the IRF sequence by asking a question, listening thoughtfully to students’ responses, and providing feedback in a way that encourages students to remain engaged, at times by asking them to clarify their response, provide additional details, or ask a question of their own. The IRF sequence contrasts with the typical structure of classroom discourse, Initiation-Response-Evaluation (IRE), which has been shown to inhibit continued conversation (Reference MehanMehan, 1979). Based on the context, teachers can draw on any one of the various scaffolding moves when providing feedback to students. For instance, the teacher may incorporate students’ prior knowledge and experiences, referencing their unique out-of-school and home experiences and shared experiences from previous teaching and learning activities. The teacher might also utilize cued elicitation, which involves the teacher using strong verbal or gestural hints about expected responses. Teachers often use this move to provide a substantial amount of support for students to participate or when attempting to make material more memorable (Reference Hammond and GibbonsHammond & Gibbons, 2005). Additionally, through appropriation, the teacher may incorporate the language and tools used by their learners in their own dialogue for their own purposes. When doing so, teachers typically recast the wording of the student into more academically appropriate discourse. This reshaping of students’ contributions allows the student to be a co-participant in the discourse, but it also enables the teacher to effectively move the discourse forward (Reference de Oliveira and Athanasesde Oliveira & Athanases, 2017). At times, the teacher may incorporate elaboration, which involves supplementing students’ contributions with extra information. Elaboration can also be used to ask students to provide more details for their own contributions, which allows them to continue their involvement in the discourse. Additionally, the teacher may use recapping to give a brief summary of the main points of an activity, lesson, or interaction. This can be very helpful for students as it provides them with a connection between key concepts, highlights the information students should have gathered from the activity, lesson, or interaction, and provides students with a clear focus for future learning. There has been increased interest in interactional scaffolding in research in both primary (Reference de Oliveira, Jones and Smithde Oliveira, Jones, & Smith, 2020) and secondary (Reference JohnsonJohnson, 2019) classrooms. In fact, Reference de Oliveira, Jones and Smithde Oliveira, Jones, and Smith (2020) found additional interactional scaffolding moves than the ones found by earlier research and have established a model that teachers can utilize when integrating this type of classroom discourse support (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 Interactional scaffolding moves

(based on Reference de Oliveira, Jones and Smithde Oliveira, Jones, & Smith, 2020)

2.2.3 Utilizing Students’ L1 in the Classroom

Closely related to incorporating students’ FOK in the classroom is the idea of utilizing students’ L1 in the classroom. Over the years, various scholars have investigated the use of students’ first language in multilingual contexts (e.g., Reference Polio and DuffPolio & Duff, 1994; Reference RamosRamos, 2005; Reference Rolin-Ianziti and VarshneyRolin-Ianziti & Varshney, 2008) and advocated for creating classroom spaces that support students’ bilingual and biliteracy development (Reference GalloGallo, 2014; Reference Martínez, Orellana, Pacheco and CarboneMartínez et al., 2008; Reference ReyesReyes, 2012). One of the first studies to examine the use of L1 in teaching came from Reference CookCook (2001), Using the First Language in the Classroom. In this important piece, Cook disentangled arguments against the use of L1 and put forth several ways that the L1 could be used in the classroom as a valuable resource (e.g., convey meaning, explain grammar, collaborative learning).

Following this study, other scholars (e.g., Reference CumminsCummins, 2007; Reference Gort and PontierGort & Pontier, 2013) investigating the use of L1 in the classroom also identified benefits for MLs, including cognitive, emotional, social, and cultural. Research has shown that using the L1 in the classroom can play an important role in developing students’ cognitive potential. Central to this finding is the concept of transfer (Reference CumminsCummins, 2005) and the idea that MLs have the ability to transfer their existing metalinguistic and metacognitive skills and strategies from their L1 to their learning of English (Reference CumminsCummins, 2001, Reference Cummins2007) which can contribute to their language development and overall academic success. In order to promote this transfer, researchers call for teachers to explicitly teach language transfer (e.g., systematic attention to cognate relationships across languages; Reference Cunningham and GrahamCunningham & Graham, 2000; Reference de Oliveira, Gilmetdinova and Pelaez-Moralesde Oliveira, Gilmetdinova, & Pelaez-Morales, 2015).

Apart from supporting students’ cognitive growth, utilizing the L1 in the classroom has been identified as a resource for developing students’ emotional, social, and cultural capital. By using students’ L1, teachers are conveying to children that their proficiency in the L1 “is an important accomplishment that is acknowledged and appreciated within the classroom” (Reference CumminsCummins, 2005, p. 588). Additionally, when teachers build on student’s L1 as a source of prior knowledge, they recognize the skills and knowledge that students possess across languages, which can send affirmative messages about the value of knowing and learning multiple languages (Reference CookCook, 2007; Reference CumminsCummins, 2001, Reference Cummins2007;) and offset the stigma associated with speaking another language that multilingual students may encounter in and out of school (Reference Bean, Eddy and GregoBean et al., 2003). Essentially, by bringing students’ first languages into the classroom, students are shown that all languages and cultures are respected and are a vital component of a safe and welcoming environment (Reference Bean, Eddy and GregoBean et al., 2003; Reference de Oliveira, Gilmetdinova and Pelaez-Moralesde Oliveira, Gilmetdinova, & Pelaez-Morales, 2015; Reference EdstromEdstrom, 2006), underscoring the fact that native and nonnative-English speakers bring different yet complementary strengths to the classroom.

More recently, research has focused on the use of translanguaging with multilingual learners (Reference Morales, Schissel, López-Gopar, Tian, Aghai, Sayer and SchisselMorales, Schissel, & López-Gopar, 2020; Reference PozaPoza, 2017). Translanguaging includes pedagogical practices that use bilingualism as a resource (Reference García, Kleyn and ChapelleGarcía & Kleyn, 2013). More specifically, pedagogical translanguaging refers to “a theoretical and instructional approach that aims at improving language and content competences in school contexts by using resources from the learner’s whole linguistic repertoire” (Reference Cenoz and GorterCenoz & Gorter, 2021, p. 1). The use of pedagogical translanguaging allows multilingual learners to employ all of their linguistic resources to increase their participation in classrooms and improve language and content development. With the goal of developing multilingualism, pedagogical translanguaging highlights an integrated approach to languages and multilingual learners’ use of their full linguistic knowledge to further their linguistic and academic learning. There is evidence in the research literature to support using students’ L1 in the classroom and pedagogical translanguaging as key parts of the teaching and learning process for MLs, also emphasizing a multilingual approach to language development rather than a monolingual approach that has been the “norm” in the TESOL field for many years now (Reference Ortega and MayOrtega, 2013).

2.2.4 Using Multimodal Instruction

Incorporating multimodal instruction in the classroom is an additional practice that enacts culturally sustaining pedagogies. Teachers are being urged to move past paper-based print texts to a more expanded view of instruction (Reference Lenters and WintersLenters & Winters, 2013) that can better support their students. This expanded view is one that encompasses multiple modes including image, writing, gesture, gaze, speech, and posture (Reference JewittJewitt, 2009) for meaning making across content areas. It is important to understand that often one mode alone fails to capture the entire meaning, as meaning resides in the combined effects of the different modes working together in a communicative event (Reference Kress, Ogborn, Jewitt and TsatsarelisKress et al., 2001). Multimodal instruction is particularly important for MLs as it has the potential to enhance and expand their understanding of texts (Reference AjayiAjayi, 2009). Rather than relying on a purely linguistic view of literacy, MLs can engage in complex literacy practices by engaging with multiple points of entry into texts (Reference JewittJewitt, 2005). Rather than starting with the language provided in print, students can opt to analyze visuals, review the typography, or interpret the layout first. This means that instead of simply lecturing on a particular topic, teachers are now charged with incorporating images, gestures, and written texts in their lessons.

Research has shown that multimodal teaching practices afford MLs with the opportunity to successfully comprehend higher level content, navigate complex activities and assignments, and participate fully in the classroom in such a way as to confirm their identities (Reference Garton and CoplandGarton & Copland, 2019; Reference Lenters and WintersLenters & Winters, 2013; Reference Pacheco and SmithPacheco & Smith, 2015; Reference TakeuchiTakeuchi, 2015; Reference Yi and ChoiYi & Choi, 2015). Furthermore, by utilizing multiple modes, teachers can purposefully tap into students’ strengths, lived experiences, and sociocultural knowledge (Reference AjayiAjayi, 2009).

For instance, Reference Pappas, Varelas, Gill, Ortiz and Keblawe-ShamahPapas and others (2009) focused on multimodal scientific activities that elementary students were involved in to advance their scientific thinking and aid in their literacy development. Students were engaged in various activities including listening to dialogically enacted read-alouds of information books for children, participating in hands-on explorations, enacting the roles of scientific phenomena by “becoming” scientific entities and “behaving” as part of a system, writing/drawing in a journal, creating an ongoing class semantic map, and finally, writing and illustrating an information book on a topic of choice at the end of a unit (Reference Pappas, Varelas, Gill, Ortiz and Keblawe-ShamahPapas et al., 2009). By examining the student-created books, they concluded that the children made substantial gains in their scientific thinking. The books displayed the rich content that children acquired through the multimodal activities that were conducted throughout the unit.

2.2.5 Applying a Functional Approach to Language Development

Applying a functional approach to language development is another practice that enacts culturally sustaining pedagogies as it seeks to purposefully maintain the practices of students while also expanding their knowledge and abilities. This particular practice encourages students to explore meaning in texts as they engage in classroom discussions about language. Guided by the teacher, students learn to use a metalanguage for identifying and describing the linguistic choices made by the authors and the language patterns that are present throughout the text. This approach can be incorporated across contexts and is particularly helpful for multilingual students as they are able to focus on how language works while developing their linguistic repertoires in more than one language.

A functional approach to language development (Reference de Oliveirade Oliveira, 2016; Reference de Oliveira and Westerlundde Oliveira & Westerlund, 2021; Reference Fang and SchleppegrellFang & Schleppegrell, 2008) draws on systemic functional linguistics (SFL), a meaning-based theory of language, in order to provide teachers with ways to talk about and address the language demands of the content areas for multilingual learners. Part of addressing the language demands is supporting students’ development of academic language, or the language used for schooling purposes, which exists on the same continuum as everyday language, or the language used for social purposes in everyday life (Reference Schleppegrell, Gee and HandfordSchleppegrell, 2013). In this process of supporting the development of academic language, educators must be knowledgeable about the language in and through which they teach as they are tasked with scaffolding multilingual students’ learning of both the content and the language. Along these lines, research has consistently shown how important it is to bridge everyday language with academic language for understanding content (e.g., Reference de Oliveirade Oliveira, 2016; Reference GibbonsGibbons, 2006; Reference Khote and HarmanKhote, 2018).

This approach has been shown to be particularly useful for MLs’ development of academic language across the grades (see, for example, Reference BriskBrisk, 2015; Reference Brisk, Zisselsberger and LucasBrisk & Zisselsberger, 2011; Reference GebhardGebhard, 2019; Reference Moore and SchleppegrellMoore & Schleppegrell, 2014). For example, Reference Symons and BianSymons and Bian (2022) found that teachers can use their metalinguistic awareness and knowledge of SFL to scaffold comprehension for MLs and amplify their metalinguistic awareness in discussions of texts. Reference Moore and SchleppegrellMoore and Schleppegrell (2014) found that a functional metalanguage helps teachers and students look closely at language to see patterns that are connected to categories of meaning and, therefore, explore with MLs the language features of the texts they read and write, supporting their overall understanding and language development.

The notion of genre is instrumental within this approach as it focuses explicitly on academic language development in the content of literacy activities, allowing the discussion of the social purposes of texts and the ways in which language is presented and organized differently to achieve specific goals. Genre has been defined as a “staged, goal-oriented social process” (Reference MartinMartin, 2009, p. 13). It is “staged” because it requires more than one phase of meaning to work through a genre; it is “goal-oriented” because the various phases are designed in order to accomplish something; and it is “social” because genres are undertaken with others interactively (Reference MartinMartin, 2009). The notion of genre was utilized to design what is now known as genre pedagogy or a genre-based approach, with a focus on enhancing literacy teaching and learning across disciplines and grade levels.

Genre pedagogy is often used to scaffold literacy instruction by means of the Teaching and–Learning Cycle (TLC; Reference HylandHyland, 2007; Reference MartinMartin, 2009; Reference Rose and MartinRose & Martin, 2012). The TLC (see Figure 3), a pedagogical framework which helps learners develop explicit knowledge about language, is centered on the principle of “guidance through interaction in the context of shared experiences” (Reference Martin and RoseMartin & Rose, 2005, p. 253). This principle refers to the guidance provided by teachers in talking, reading, and writing about a particular text in the context of a shared experience – a common reading, field trip or activity, movie, science experiment, school event, and so on. Students write about a common experience, not about something that they experienced on their own, which allows the teacher (and peers) to provide support. This is why the concept of a shared experience is so critical for students, especially MLs. Following the phases of the TLC, teachers and students first build shared knowledge through Detailed Reading, then move on to the deconstruction of mentor texts followed by a process known as joint construction, and finish up with collaborative and independent construction.

Figure 3 Enactment of a functional approach to language development: The teaching and learning cycle

The TLC takes students through various phases: building shared knowledge through Detailed Reading, deconstruction of mentor texts, joint construction, collaborative construction, and independent construction. Though the TLC allows students different points of entry and enables teachers to start at any one of these phases, it is important to build shared knowledge about a new genre by starting with the building of shared knowledge and deconstruction. Following these phases is important so that all students are prepared to write in the expected genres. Just giving students a topic or prompt and asking them to write is not teaching writing but assessing what students already are able to do with writing. This process can be recursive and repeated as students become more familiar with specific genres. Building Shared Knowledge through Detailed Reading (Reference de Oliveira, Klassen and Maunede Oliveira, Klassen, & Maune, 2015; Reference Derewianka and JonesDerewianka & Jones, 2016) develops students’ knowledge of the content and context of particular texts. Students also build a critical orientation to language by learning about language and about the genre while teachers assess student learning at all phases of activity. Detailed Reading involves purposefully selecting short passages from the focal text and guiding students to read them sentence-by-sentence. Many classrooms rely on complex informational reading selections, which is why this phase of the TLC is so critical in helping students understand the texts they read. Students and teachers explore how the text is written and how it accomplishes its goals through language choices. Detailed Reading focuses on classroom interactions with students, conducting read-alouds, identifying language features, focusing on grammatical expressions, target vocabulary, and main ideas. They focus on three areas of meaning: presenting content, enacting relationships, and constructing a cohesive message, and teacher and students explore the text as it is written, without any simplification (Reference de Oliveira, Gilmetdinova and Pelaez-Moralesde Oliveira & Schleppegrell, 2015). Table 1 presents these three areas of meaning, questions to guide language discussion, and the focus of language related to each area of meaning, described in more detail next.

When we look at how a text presents content, we explore the Participants (typically expressed through nouns) engaged in Processes (typically expressed through verbs) under certain Circumstances (typically expressed through prepositional and adverbial phrases) (Reference de Oliveira, Gilmetdinova and Pelaez-Moralesde Oliveira & Schleppegrell, 2015; Reference Halliday and MatthiessenHalliday & Matthiessen, 2014). Participants are the entities involved in the process, typically realized in noun groups (e.g., the magnet, many metal objects, a scientific phenomenon). These participants take on different semantic roles in different process types. Processes can be categorized into five main types, expressed through verbs:

1. - doing verbs represent actions such as participate and run

2. - relating verbs show relationships between ideas such as is and has

3. - thinking verbs represent thought such as think, know, consider

4. - feeling verbs represent feelings such as admire, love, like

5. - saying verbs indicate what someone or something has said such as say, tell, ask.

Processes also take place around circumstances (of time, space, conditions, purpose, etc.), typically realized in adverbs (e.g., finally, separately) or prepositional phrases (e.g., around the corner, with a fork). Teachers and students explore participants, processes, and circumstances in clauses to reveal how content is presented.

Texts also enact relationships through mood and modality choices. Teachers and students explore the presence or absence of the subject and finite elements of the clauses and in what order they occur with respect to one another (Reference Halliday and MatthiessenHalliday & Matthiessen, 2014). These are important because they realize the grammatical choice of the mood of a clause: either declarative, interrogative, or imperative. Examining the mood system allows us to identify how and why an author or speaker chose to make statements (typically expressed in declarative mood), ask questions (typically expressed in interrogative mood), or declare commands (typically expressed in imperative mood). Another area to examine is modality, which concerns the different ways in which someone expresses evaluation, attitudes, and judgments of various kinds. Modality allows us to express possibility, certainty, normality, usuality, necessity, and obligation. This includes modal verbs (e.g., should, might, could), modal adjectives (e.g., frequent, usual), modal adverbs (e.g., probably, certainly, typically), and modal nouns (e.g., condition, necessity). Evaluative vocabulary enables the construction of stance and judgment. Mood, modality, and evaluative vocabulary express meanings that enact a relationship between reader and listener and writer and speaker.

When we look at how a text constructs a cohesive message, we can examine Given/New patterns. “Given” is the first experiential element of the clause and “New” encompasses the remaining bit of the clause (Reference Halliday and MatthiessenHalliday & Matthiessen, 2014). One very useful strategy is tracking the given patterns (also called thematic development) through texts, which, in part, helps organize the overall text as it moves from paragraph to paragraph and within the paragraph. Another important area to explore is cohesion, the way a text hangs together with the support of cohesive devices such as pronouns (e.g., they, that, her), synonyms and substitutes (e.g., exemplar-ideal; The Declaration of Independence – this document), and connectors (e.g., and, despite, if).

Deconstruction is the next phase of the TLC. During Deconstruction, teachers introduce mentor texts from a focal genre which students are expected to read and write. The teacher uses demonstration, modeling, and discussions about text purpose, organization, and language features in order to scaffold students’ understanding about language and meaning (Reference Derewianka and JonesDerewianka & Jones, 2016). Teachers approach Deconstruction from various angles, sometimes incorporating graphic organizers (e.g., Reference Brisk, Hodgson-Drysdale and O’ConnorBrisk, Hodgson-Drysdale, & O’Connor, 2011), facilitating whole-class discussions (e.g., Reference Palincsar and SchleppegrellPalincsar & Schleppegrell, 2014), highlighting and underlining specific linguistic features (e.g., Reference de Oliveira and Lande Oliveira & Lan 2014; Reference SchulzeSchulze 2011), or drawing on manipulatives (Reference Brisk, Zisselsberger and LucasBrisk & Zisselsberger 2011) to foster an understanding of language and content. Most recently, after their work in K-5 classrooms, both Brisk (Reference de Oliveira and Lan2014) and Reference de Oliveirade Oliveira (2017) included an additional, optional phase entitled collaborative construction. Collaborative construction can be a significant phase in the TLC for the early grades, as described by Reference de Oliveira, Jones and Smithde Oliveira, Jones, and Smith (2020).

The next phase is Joint Construction, in which the teacher and students work together to write a text from the focal genre, using the text they deconstructed as a model. During this guided practice, teacher and students are writing together as a class and the teacher provides a bridge for students between the everyday language they are accustomed to using for social purposes and the academic language appropriate for the text in the new genre (Reference de Oliveirade Oliveira, 2017). When providing a bridge for students, the teacher draws their attention to the purpose, stages, and language features of the genre, with the idea of gradually handing over responsibility to students in the third and final phases of the TLC. Joint Construction typically takes place as a whole-class collaborative writing activity (e.g., Reference Caplan and FarlingCaplan & Farling, 2017; Reference Gebhard, Harman and SegerGebhard, Harman, & Seger 2007), but it can also work well in small-group and one-on-one settings (e.g., Reference HarmanHarman 2013; Reference Kerfoot and Van HeerdenKerfoot & Van Heerden, 2015). Regardless of the setting, this phase provides the teacher with a critical opportunity to demonstrate how different genre features come together to form a cohesive text. Joint Construction is a critical phase in the TLC which can make a significant difference in the preparation of MLs for writing independently (Reference Caplan and FarlingCaplan & Farling, 2017).

In the final two phases, students apply what they learned in the initial teacher-directed phases. Collaborative Construction provides students with an opportunity to work with their peers in pairs or small groups to create a text together, as they brainstorm and negotiate ideas, write, and revise (e.g., Reference Chung and WalshChung & Walsh 2006; Reference Woo, Chu and LiWoo, Chu, & Li, 2013). The teacher provides support to the pairs or groups as needed throughout the phase. This phase is especially important for younger learners who are in the process of developing reading and writing skills but can be used with students at any age. During Independent Construction, students are charged with writing a text in the new genre on their own, drawing on both the text they deconstructed and the texts they jointly created with the teacher and peer(s) in previous phases of the cycle.

A functional approach to language development has received increased attention over the past fifteen years in the United States. A renewed attention to this approach occurred with the publication of the new WIDA English Language Development Standards Framework (WIDA, 2020). In December 2020, WIDA, an organization dedicated to the academic achievement of MLs, published a new edition of the WIDA English Language Development Standards Framework. The revised edition offers a renewed commitment to equity for MLs and includes a functional approach to language as one of its “Big Ideas,” key premises that informed the development of the standards framework and should guide classroom instruction for MLs, along with building on students’ linguistic and cultural assets and bridging content and language in collaborative environments. While this approach may not be new in other parts of the world, it is new to many teachers in the US context in which most of our experiences have been.

3.1.1 Drawing on Students’ Funds of Knowledge in the Classroom Builds Background and Fosters Connections

This practice includes teachers’ connections to students’ lives, backgrounds, and experiences in instruction. MLs’ home experiences are strengths that can be drawn upon, and first-hand experiences with families allow MLs to show what they know. The example comes from a study in a fifth-grade classroom. We collaborated with the teacher, Ms. Jana Cabana, for three years when we worked in Florida. She first taught first grade and the year after the initial case study moved to teaching fifth grade. In fifth grade, Ms. Cabana had two classes. At the time of the studies, she had more than fifteeen years of teaching experience. Together, the classes were comprised of forty-four students, forty of whom spoke a language other than English at home. As part of the Spanish pathway in the international studies magnet program, many students were bilingual English/Spanish speakers. However, there were a number of other languages present as well, including French, German, Arabic, Russian, and Mandarin, among others. This classroom excerpt shows Ms. Cabana drawing on students’ FOK about their family’s histories and ancestors. The context was a lesson on traditions.

This example shows how Ms. Cabana is using students’ FOK to get to know students’ backgrounds and experiences and help draw on these skills in classrooms. Bringing students’ FOK to the forefront of a lesson is a strategy to build student engagement through connecting personal interests with curriculum content. Ms. Cabana recalls that students’ cultures are not just their country of origin and encourages them to think beyond geographical borders. She prompts students to offer ideas and the discussion turns to traditions and sharing family histories. When she asks “have you ever done your family history?”, Ms. Cabana sees the importance of valuing students’ home experiences. Family histories are relevant to learning more deeply about traditions. Acknowledging and incorporating personal histories develops a bridge for students to see themselves as individuals, parts of different communities, and necessary participants in the learning process.

This practice enriches students’ understanding of academic content while also motivating them during classroom activities and offers teachers opportunities to see a more complex view of families, bridging home and school. The use of this culturally sustaining teaching practice with MLs in particular can contribute to improving the classroom climate as the teacher gets to know the student in a broader context through more active and personal interactions (Reference ‘t Gilde and Volman‘t Gilde & Volman, 2021). It also better supports academic learning as students engage in discussions about their experiences and backgrounds that bridge into the formal curriculum.

3.1.2 Incorporating Interactional Scaffolding Moves Creates Spaces for Meaningful Classroom Interactions

Incorporating interactional scaffolding moves has shown to be a critical practice in the education of young MLs (see Reference de Oliveira, Jones and Smithde Oliveira, Jones, & Smith, 2020; Reference Hammond and GibbonsHammond & Gibbons, 2005). Interactional scaffolding is instrumental in how teachers engage students in the classroom and creates meaningful interactions. Young MLs need to productively engage in classroom discourse and express their knowledge and understanding of content. Teachers can create a positive classroom culture in which students feel that their participation and contributions are valued.

This exchange comes from a first-grade classroom that Ms. Cabana taught. At the time of this study, Ms. Cabana had twenty-three students in her classroom, four of whom were receiving English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) services. Two of these four students had a home language of Portuguese, while the other two identified Spanish as their home language. Twelve others identified as bilingual, although they did not receive ESOL services. In the United States, the great majority (3.6 million) of MLs speak Spanish at home (NCES, 2020), and this was reflected in Ms. Cabana’s first-grade classroom, where most of the bilingual students spoke Spanish and English, with parents from countries such as Cuba, Mexico, Argentina, Spain, and Honduras.

This exchange shows Ms. Cabana incorporating several interactional scaffolding moves to create spaces for meaningful classroom interactions. This exchange shows her asking students to interpret the figurative language and infer meaning from both the written text and the corresponding images (e.g., turn 5). The use of varied participant structures allowed students opportunities to contribute their ideas to the conversation (turn 9). Ms. Cabana used the interactional scaffolding moves of moving the conversation forward (turn 15), probing (turn 13), and cued elicitation (turns 17 and 19). Probing is used as a follow-up question after a student responds to an initial question, allowing the student to add new information or expand on their answer. With Student 2, a young ML (identified as a Level 4 ELL), she specifically asked an additional question to help her say more, using the probing move (turn 13). This move is especially important for young multilingual learners so they have opportunities for continuous participation in classroom discussions. Cued elicitation is when the teacher offers strong hints (e.g., spoken or gestural) about desired responses, as in “Gold was very ….” After deconstructing this text, Ms. Cabana encouraged students to make personal connections, asking them to think of someone that is personally like gold to them. Students eagerly named individuals specific to their lives, such as best friends, family members, and family pets. Linking this to students’ prior experiences, Ms. Cabana moved the conversation forward to focus on a shared connection with which everyone could relate (Reference de Oliveira, Jones and Smithde Oliveira, Jones, & Smith, 2020).

3.1.3 Using Multilingual Learners’ Home Languages and Cultures As a Resource Supports Language Development

Using MLs’ home languages and cultures as a resource is a key component of teaching this population of students, as many years of research have shown (Reference García and LiGarcía & Li, 2014). This practice fosters the use of students’ L1s in the classroom, including in teachers’ discourse, students’ contributions, and lesson planning and delivery to emphasize an integrated approach to language and content learning.

The following excerpts are taken from a kindergarten classroom. This case study was conducted in a kindergarten classroom in a school of 30 percent identified as ELLs, mostly from Latino/a backgrounds in Indiana (see Reference de Oliveira, Gilmetdinova and Pelaez-Moralesde Oliveira, Gilmetdinova, & Pelaez-Morales, 2015; Reference de Oliveira, Klassen and Maunede Oliveira, Klassen, & Gilmetdinova, 2015). The classroom was composed of twenty-three students, eight of whom were classified as ELLs from Latino/a backgrounds. The eight ELLs had different levels of English proficiency with three being fully bilingual and at least three being recent arrivals to the US and speaking little to no English. Ruby Li was the kindergarten teacher, who at the time of the study had recently completed a licensure program in English Language Learning (ELL), so she had developed specific skills and strategies for working with students whose home languages are not English. Her use of Spanish in the classroom is more fully described in Reference de Oliveira, Klassen and Maunede Oliveira, Gilmetdinova, and Pelaez-Morales (2015).

The two excerpts show Ms. Li’s use of students’ home language and culture as a pedagogical practice to apply the linguistic repertoires of her MLs in order to teach both rigorous content and language for academic use. These examples show the use of connections to children’s own experiences to improve literacy learning. In Excerpt 3, we can observe Ms. Li providing students with instructions in English (If you don’t have a grandpa, then do this for your grandma. Ok?), followed by the same instructions in Spanish (Si no tienes un abuelo, puedes dibujar tu abuela. [If you don’t have a grandpa, you can draw your grandma]). In this same excerpt, we see that she also is asking questions to elicit information from the students, therefore also clarifying content that MLs were exposed to during the lesson:

In excerpt 4, Ms. Li also combines English and Spanish instructions in turn 3 (Draw you in that box. Dibuja tu cuerpo.) By using both languages in the instructions, Ms. Li is legitimatizing the role of the students’ home language in the classroom. Her goal in using Spanish in many instances appears to be to clarify instructions.

While the Spanish Ms. Li uses is not complex or always accurate, she manages to communicate her messages clearly. Most importantly, she developed her knowledge of Spanish to be able to support her young MLs. Most of her language use involves vocabulary items and helping students understand instructions. She also actively relied on peer support from English and Spanish-proficient students to clarify something to a less proficiency student, to translate a concept, or even to learn new vocabulary herself. Ms. Li says she has learned to use Spanish for her classroom instruction over the years because she has seen the benefit of this practice for her Spanish-speaking bilingual learners.

3.1.4 Multimodal Instruction Creates Message Abundance That Provides Challenging Content, Not Simplified Instruction

Multimodal instruction affords MLs the opportunity to more fully participate in the classroom (Reference Pacheco and SmithPacheco & Smith, 2015). Multimodal activities are especially important for young MLs as they are tasked with learning both content and language simultaneously. Teachers can no longer reduce learning to paper-based resources (Reference Lotherington and JensonLotherington & Jenson, 2011) so, by utilizing multiple modes, students can use their strengths, experiences, and knowledge.

We use examples of our work with a second-grade pre-service teacher, Crista, who was completing her student teaching experience at an elementary school in Florida. At the time of this lesson, she was a senior pursuing a degree in elementary education with a specialization in exceptional student education (ESE) with additional endorsements in reading and ESOL. The class was part of a magnet program, which means the students receive instruction in English for two-thirds of the day and in Spanish for one-third of the day. The science instruction was taught in English. There was a total of 28 students, four of whom were labeled as ESOL learners and half the class identified as bilingual.

Crista worked in collaboration with her supervisors from the university to plan the unit of instruction on living things. The lesson is one of a series of lessons that were implemented over the course of several days. This lesson was framed by three main objectives: After the lesson, students will be able to (1) identify the main parts of the plant, (2) acknowledge why the leaves are the most important parts of the plant, and (3) describe the process of photosynthesis. This lesson used multiple modes to present information and focused on student’s engagement in various multimodal and multisensory activities to help develop their content knowledge (see Table 2).

To start this lesson, Crista engaged students in a discussion in which they reviewed information about the basic needs of living things and the parts of the plant that they had learned the previous day. Crista asked students, “What do plants need to survive?” to initiate the discussion, and several students volunteered their answers. She wrote the students’ answers on the board so that she could maintain a list of notes that students could then copy down in their notebooks to reference when needed throughout the lesson and the remainder of the unit. After the discussion to review previous knowledge, Crista worked with students to draw and label the parts of the flower on the white board. As Crista did this on the white board, students copied it down in their notebooks. During this process, as students identified the different parts of the flower, Crista showed pictures of real plants/plant parts on the smart board. Crista engaged students in conversation about how the parts of the plant relate to parts of the body. For example, she helped students make the connection between the stem of a plant and the spine of a body, the veins of the body and the veins in a leaf. Finally, Crista wrote the word photosynthesis on the board and helped students break it down to show that photo means light and synthesis means to put together. She used this term to describe how plants use light to put together chemical compounds and turn them into food: “Photosynthesis is how plants eat. They use this process to make their own food. Since they don’t have to move around to find food, plants stay in one place, which means they can make their food anywhere” (Field Notes, 3/14).

After this initial work, Crista took the students on a walking field trip through the main gazebo area of their school. During the walking field trip, Crista pointed out the different parts of a variety of plants (e.g., root, stems, leaves). In addition, she showed students epiphytes (a plant that grows off of another plant), as there were many examples of this in the area that they were exploring (see Figure 1). At the end of the field trip, Crista directed students to pick out a leaf to bring back to the science lab for another activity.

Once the students returned to the classroom they were directed to complete a leaf rub in their notebooks using the leaf they selected at the end of the walking field trip (see Figure 5). Students placed the leaf under one sheet of paper in their notebooks and shaded over it with a green crayon. This allowed students to see the details of the leaf including its shape and veins. At this time, Crista emphasized how the veins were the most important part of the leaf because they carry food to the rest of the plant to help it survive.

Figure 5 Epiphytes from the walking field trip and a leaf rub

Following the leaf rub, students participated in three more activities. They were given a worksheet to complete titled “Observe a Leaf.” Guided by this worksheet, students described where they found their leaf, the size (measured using a ruler), the texture, the smell, and the color. At the end of the worksheet students completed the sentence starter, “My leaf is important to its plant because ….” While students were completing this worksheet independently at their tables, Crista called groups of students to the back of the classroom to look at leaves that she had placed under microscopes. This activity allowed students to view the veins and cells of the leaves. At the very end of the lesson, the students were directed to go back to their journals to complete a quick summarizing activity. In their notebooks, students completed the following sentence: “In this investigation, I learned ____.”

The multimodal and multisensory activities used supported MLs as they worked to develop their language as well as scientific content knowledge. Crista used multiple modes in her teaching to encourage the participation and focus of all learners, especially MLs, while scaffolding their content learning. For instance, Crista was able to engage students by drawing and labeling the flower on the white board (with input from students), while simultaneously displaying images of various plants/plant parts (with labels) on the smart board. This multimodal use of the board allowed students to see the connection between the parts of the plant they had been discussing and the plants that they see outside in their everyday lives. In addition to drawing on the modes of image, speech, and writing, Crista used gestures a great deal to capture students’ attention and emphasize important ideas throughout the lesson. For example, when participating in the walking field trip, she constantly pointed to the parts of plants, prompting students to identify what the part was called (Lesson Plan: “Point out the roots, stem, and leaves of different plants. Point out the epiphytes”). This use of gestures required students to draw on the material they had learned and reviewed in class over the past couple of days. Her multimodal instruction provided message abundancy (Reference GibbonsGibbons, 2015) – key ideas being presented in many different ways – to provide challenging content, not simplify instruction.

3.1.5 A Functional Approach to Language Development Expands Multilingual Learners’ Meaning-Making Resources

A functional approach to language development offers ways of engaging MLs in exploring meaning in texts through purposeful classroom discussions about language (Reference de Oliveira and Westerlundde Oliveira & Westerlund, 2021). This approach provides a metalanguage for talking about the meanings in authors’ language choices. It enables teachers to identify language patterns in order to help young MLs see how language works and expand their meaning making resources.

The excerpts shown next are from a case study conducted with a fourth-grade teacher in Indiana, Karla Dixon. At the time of the study, she had been teaching fourth grade for six years at Campus University School District. Mrs. Dixon taught in a school district with 30 percent culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students, including MLs, and 70 percent White backgrounds. Many of the CLD students came from families whose parents were associated with the nearby university, including children of international students and immigrants. Over the course of five years, Mrs. Dixon implemented a functional approach to language development in her classroom in various “phases.” Phase 1 focused on reading science texts and developing lessons to address the challenges of science, then moved on to Phase 2 addressing writing instruction about science experiments. Phase 3 focused on talking science, or the classroom discourse about science that supported and challenged MLs (see Reference de Oliveira and Lande Oliveira & Lan, 2014, for more details about each phase). At the time of the study, she had just completed her Master’s degree in Literacy and Language Education at a local university.

We use excerpts from her classroom teaching to exemplify how a functional approach can be implemented in the classroom, in this case in the teaching of science. The following are excerpts from class discussions about a science text. At this point in the lesson, Mrs. Dixon and students are going through a text about how animals are classified. Students had been working on the concepts of participants, process, and scientific description, based on systemic functional linguistics, introduced in previous lessons. Mrs. Dixon had explained to students that participants are the who or what that is participating in the process, represented as a person(s) or thing(s). A process is a verb group that shows what is going on (the doing, thinking, saying, or being). The scientific pattern is what came after the doing or being processes that described or explained something about the participants and processes. Students were working on a “language dissection” activity, as Mrs. Dixon named these lessons.

This exchange exemplifies how the implementation of a functional approach to language development can expand MLs’ meaning-making resources. Mrs. Dixon is focusing on the phase of “Building Shared Knowledge” through Detailed Reading and examining how the textbook is presenting content. Specifically, she is exploring the language of the text with students by discussing the use of the process are covered in the text. Mrs. Dixon calls students’ attention to this pattern and asks them to notice why covered is not used in other examples when the text discussed hair or fur. This part of the text was “All mammals have hair or fur.” This is part of a collaborative activity in which students were engaged and discussed challenging concepts. Mrs. Dixon asked Alena, a ML, a specific question, drawing on her linguistic resources. After this “language dissection,” students played a game and continued to explore the language of the text. Mrs. Dixon explained in her lesson plan that she selected this text because it presented key concepts about animals and their classification, including their bodies.

Choosing a particular text and deconstructing its language features is a critical component of a functional approach and provides more than an abstract focus on language. MLs have opportunities to explore the different patterns of language that construct different types of texts (see Reference de Oliveirade Oliveira, 2016, for a full discussion). By focusing on texts, Mrs. Dixon was able to highlight key language patterns that present specific content, which encourages conversation in the classroom about which content is presented, who is represented and how, and how the text is organized.

Mrs. Dixon was able to show her MLs how language works in science, a practice that highlights how language expresses disciplinary knowledge. In order to develop lessons, Mrs. Dixon began with the selection of key concepts then designed units of study that incorporated language analysis based on a functional approach to highlight the key concepts in her content curriculum. She chose a related text and developed a guiding question that focused on language analysis and discussion. Then she engaged in language analysis using a functional approach, first to learn more about the text herself, and then to design activities that could engage her MLs in seeing the multiple meanings embedded in the text. As the example presented shows, teachers can develop ways to talk about both language and content in ways that help MLs access the language of the text so they can understand the content better.

The next example comes from the first-grade classroom with Ms. Cabana. The content area was English language arts/literacy. The lesson is centered around the Joint Construction phase of the TLC in which the teacher shares responsibility with students for writing the same genre and co-constructs another example of this genre based on suggestions from students (see Reference de Oliveira, Jones and Smithde Oliveira, Jones, & Smith, 2021, for a full description). The teacher is typically in front of the room scribing while everyone is writing together. The Building Shared Knowledge through Detailed Reading phase focused on exploring how the text is written and how it accomplishes its goals through its language choices. Notes were displayed on the board via projector so that students and teacher had a common vocabulary and set of grammatical structures (common phrasings unique to the genre) from which to draw. The specific lesson is based on the book Last Stop on Market Street (Reference de la Peñade la Peña, 2015).

Last Stop on Market Street (Reference de la Peñade la Peña, 2015) is about a boy named CJ riding the bus with his grandma. CJ asks several questions, which are answered in an inspiring way by grandma, who helps him appreciate the world around them. Ms. Cabana planned several interactions that drew upon the different parts of Detailed Reading to engage students in discussions about the book. A major part of the TLC is a shared experience, and Ms. Cabana brainstormed with students ways that they could help the community, as CJ, the main character, helped at the soup kitchen with his grandma. The students voted and decided that they would collect food items to make Thanksgiving baskets for the “Feed South Florida” initiative, which provides food and other resources to those who need it. Students brought in their own donations and solicited donations from other students and staff members at the school. Because the TLC is based on the principle “guidance through interaction in the context of shared experiences,” Ms. Cabana thought about using this shared experience as a springboard for writing.

Another important part of the TLC is the Deconstruction phase in which the teacher deconstructs a mentor text with students. For this lesson, we collaboratively constructed a mentor text that captured the major events of the Last Stop. Ms. Cabana displayed the mentor text on the board and used it to discuss different aspects including language used, topic sentence, common and proper nouns, and transitions. Ms. Cabana felt like she needed to add an additional phase to the TLC because her first-grade students needed additional practice that bridged the reading and writing components (see Figure 6). She, therefore, added a phase to the TLC that we call Bridging Reading and Writing so first graders would be more prepared for the other phases of the TLC. Ms. Cabana had the following content and language objectives and used the following materials:

Figure 6 Modified teaching and learning cycle for Ms. Cabana’s first-grade classroom

Ms. Cabana began the lesson by asking students, “First of all, has anyone gone away to visit a family member?” This question initiates discussion in which students share their experiences of visiting their grandparents, cousins, aunts/uncles, and so on.