3rd-5th Grade - Multilingual Learner Supports

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 3–5 of Kiddom IM® v.360 partially meet the criteria of providing support for Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) full and complete participation in intentional opportunities to develop procedural skills and fluencies. The materials partially provide embedded opportunities for MLLs to engage in developing procedural fluency through well-structured tasks and routines. They lack consistent and explicit language supports necessary for MLLs to fully and completely participate in all phases of procedural learning, particularly in explanation, justification, and synthesis.

Specifically, in Grade 3, Unit 7, Two-Dimensional Shapes and Perimeter, Lesson 7, Warm-up, students work independently during the Instructional Routine True or False to determine whether expressions involving repeated addition and multiplication are equivalent (3.NBT.2). The Instructional Routine True or False supports procedural fluency by prompting students to justify their reasoning about equivalence by applying their knowledge about addition, multiplication, and properties of operations. However, the Warm-up lacks suggestions for the productive language demands of justifying mathematical reasoning. This limits accessibility for MLLs who may demonstrate procedural skills and fluency and still need support with expressing their ideas with academic language. 

In Grade 5, Unit 8, Putting It All Together, Lesson 1, students create expressions for the greatest product using specific digits and then explain their reasoning, targeting procedural fluency with multiplication (5.NBT.5). Activity 1 begins with structured language supports for students to work in partners to agree or disagree with mathematical statements about the greatest products that can be made with specific digits. The materials direct the teacher to support MLLs with the language demands of the task using Mathematical Language Routine 8 Discussion Supports, where students restate their partner’s reasoning using the displayed sentence frame, “I heard you say...” Then, the activity moves to independent practice of procedural skills and fluency in the next problem where students are asked to explain how to create the greatest product using specific digits. The materials do not provide language supports for the productive language demands of explaining mathematical reasoning. The activity concludes with whole-class discourse in which the teacher asks students to generalize about the placement of digits when multiplying larger numbers. Without consistent language supports, MLLs do not have access to the meaning-making that occurs during the whole-class discourse, limiting their full and complete participation in the task. 

The materials partially meet the criteria for this Indicator because the lessons’ instructional design includes Warm-ups, one to three instructional Activities, Lesson Syntheses, and Cool Downs which are designed to give students repeated access to procedural skills and fluency. However, these aspects of the instructional design often do not consistently include built-in supports for MLLs who may need productive language supports for speaking or writing their thinking in English, specifically where procedural skills and fluency is called for in the standards. Without consistent language supports, MLLs may have limited opportunities to fully demonstrate procedural understanding or engage in discussions requiring explanation and justification.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 3–5 of Kiddom IM® v.360 partially meet the criteria of providing support for Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) full and complete participation in the intentional development of students’ ability to utilize mathematical concepts and skills in engaging applications. The materials partially provide supports that allow MLLs to engage in applying mathematical concepts and skills in routine and non-routine tasks as well as partner and whole-class discourse focusing on mathematical reasoning. These supports are not consistently provided or available at the point of entry, which limits full and complete participation for MLLs across all lessons.

Specifically, in Grade 3, Unit 6, Measure Length, Time, Liquid Volume, and Weight, Lesson 19, students work in partners to solve non-routine, real-world word problems using concepts of time, weight, and volume (3.MD.1, 3.MD.2, 3.OA.3). In Activity 1, partners create a poster that shows their solutions and mathematical reasoning to four word problems. The teacher encourages students to be creative in how they put their ideas on their poster, and to do so in an organized manner. This activity lacks suggestions for the receptive language demands of MLLs reading the non-routine, real-world word problems and listening to their partner discuss their reasoning. This activity also lacks suggestions for the productive language demands of MLLs orally describing their reasoning and writing on the joint poster. The lesson moves on to Activity 2, where students engage in a Gallery Walk to compare and connect various solution strategies. A note titled Access for English Language Learners suggests the use of Mathematical Language Routine (MLR) 7 Compare and Connect which recommends that the teacher leads a discussion at the end of the Gallery Walk to compare and connect solution strategies by asking questions like, “What did the approaches have in common? How were they different? Why did the different approaches lead to the same outcome?” During the discussion, the note recommends that the teacher includes multimodal instructional moves through pointing and gesturing to the corresponding mathematical representations, which is supportive of building MLLs’ listening skills. In summary, these activities do not consistently provide language supports for all four domains of language: reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Without consistent language supports, MLLs do not have support for grappling with non-routine, real-world application problems, limiting their full and complete participation in tasks. 

Additionally, in Grade 5, Unit 3, Multiplying and Dividing Fractions, Lesson 18, students make sense of routine, real-world word problems involving multiplication and division of fractions (5.NF.6, 5.NF.7). In Activity 1, students work with partners to read and make sense of word problems and for each problem, students engage in partner discussions to support them by independently drawing a diagram and writing multiplication or division equation(s) to represent each situation. A note titled Access for English Language Learners suggests the use of MLR6 Three Reads to support MLLs with the language demands of reading and making sense of word problems; the teacher directs students to read the problem three different times with three separate purposes, aiming to gain clarity in comprehension with each read. However, the activity lacks suggestions for the productive language demands during partner discussions around how to draw a diagram and write equations to represent each situation. Then, in Activity 2, students engage with three more routine, real-world word problems in a similar manner as in Activity 1, this time with 6 minutes of independent work time before partners are directed to discuss their diagrams, equations, and solutions. The materials do not draw a connection for teachers between the suggested use of MLR6 in Activity 1 in the independent student work time in Activity 2, which creates a barrier in the point of entry into the task for MLLs. Therefore, the lesson lacks consistent language supports for accessible entry points into tasks as well as the language demands of reading, speaking, and listening while MLLs grapple with, make sense of, and solve application problems. 

The materials partially meet the criteria for this Indicator because in every lesson, students are asked to engage with routine and non-routine application problems through: tasks that promote the use of known facts to build new understanding, the incorporation of multiple representations, such as number lines, arrays, and symbolic equations, and lesson structures that move from independent exploration to partner discussion and group synthesis, promoting reflection and connection-making. However, these opportunities often do not consistently include language supports for MLLs to participate in the full depth of application-based learning at critical moments, such as the launch of new tasks or during partner synthesis discussions.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 3-5 of Kiddom IM® v.360 partially meet the criteria of providing support for Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) full and complete participation in the intentional development of MP2: Reason abstractly and quantitatively.

In every unit, the materials provide opportunities for students to use and develop language when reasoning abstractly and quantitatively through whole-group and student-to-student discourse. The materials provide these opportunities through features embedded within the lesson facilitation or as a suggested support in notes titled Access for English Language Learners. An example of a feature embedded within the lesson facilitation is the Instructional Routines. Specifically, the Course Overview, What’s in an IM Lesson, describes how the Instructional Routines Card Sort and Estimation Exploration support MP2. Card Sort states, “A card-sorting task gives students opportunities to analyze representations, statements, and structures closely, and make connections (MP2 and MP7).” Estimation Exploration states, “Estimation Exploration encourages students to use what they know and what they can see to problem-solve for a rough evaluation of a quantity rather than giving a ‘wild guess.’ The estimates can be in the context of measurement, computation, or numerosity—estimating about a large group of objects (MP2).”

As described in the report for 1d.MLL, the materials consistency employ Mathematical Language Routines [MLRs] by Stanford University UL/SCALE. The specific MLRs that directly support MP2 are as follows:

• MLR4 Information Gap: In a group, each student has different parts of a mathematical situation, and they piece together that information orally or visually to bridge the gap between the parameters of the situation and a question to solve a mathematical problem. Through this questioning, students are clarifying the meaning of the numbers and symbols  in the mathematical situation.

• MLR6 Three Reads: Students are guided to read a problem three separate times with three separate purposes, with quick discussions between each read. In the second read, students are guided to consider quantities and units involved in the problem.

• MLR7 Compare and Connect: Students identify, compare, and contrast their own understandings with other students’ mathematical approaches, representations, concepts, examples, and language. Through this discussion, students are making sense of the relationships between representations and the problem to solve.

• MLR8 Discussion Supports: Teachers provide a variety of supports to foster inclusive whole-class discussions, which at times focuses on making sense of representations and symbols. 

Specifically, in Grade 3, Unit 4, Relating Multiplication to Division, Lesson 4, Activity 1, students work in partners to match five division expressions to five real-world division situations. All of the division situations involve tops from various cultures, and the activity begins with a short partner and whole-class discussion to activate or build prior knowledge around the tops contexts. Using one real-world context throughout several problems supports MLLs with abstract reasoning because students only need to activate or build prior knowledge one time, freeing up their working memory to focus on the language needed to engage with the mathematics at hand. As students work in partners to match expressions and situations, the materials direct the teacher to monitor for students who can justify their matches by explaining how the numbers in the expression represent the situation. The lesson does not contain language support for MLLs to participate fully in the partner discussion. The activity ends with whole-class discourse in which students share their matches. The teacher asks questions that aim to support abstract reasoning by drawing connections between the expressions and the division situations, such as, “How do the numbers in the expression represent what is in the situation?” The lesson does not provide language supports for MLLs to participate fully in the whole-class discourse. 

The materials partially meet the criteria for this Indicator because while the materials embed opportunities for students to engage with MP2 through the use of specific Instructional Routines and MLRs, the materials lack language supports during partner and whole-class discourse in which students are asked to reason abstractly and quantitatively.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 3-5 of Kiddom IM® v.360 partially meet the criteria of providing support for Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) full and complete participation in the intentional development of MP4: Model with mathematics.

In every unit, the materials provide opportunities for students to use and develop language when modeling with mathematics through whole-group and student-to-student discourse. The materials provide these opportunities through features embedded within the lesson facilitation or as a suggested support in notes titled Supporting Multilingual Learners. An example of a feature embedded within the lesson facilitation are the Instructional Routines. Specifically, the Course Overview,  Standards for Mathematical Practice states, “Some instructional routines are generally associated with certain MPs. For example… The Estimation Exploration routine offers students opportunities to share a mathematical claim and the thinking behind it (MP3), and to make an estimate or a range of reasonable answers, with incomplete information, which is a part of modeling with mathematics (MP4).”

As described in the report for 1d.MLL, the materials consistency employ Mathematical Language Routines [MLRs] by Stanford University UL/SCALE. The specific MLRs that directly support MP4 are:

• MLR4 Information Gap: In a group, each student has different parts of a mathematical situation, and they work together to piece together that information orally or visually to bridge the gap between the parameters of the situation and a question to solve a mathematical problem. Through this questioning, students are breaking down the modeling process, identifying important information in the problem. 

• MLR7 Compare and Connect: Students identify, compare, and contrast their own understandings with other students’ mathematical approaches, representations, concepts, examples, and language. Through this discussion, students are modeling the situation with representations and describing what they do with the models. 

• MLR8 Discussion Supports: Teachers provide a variety of supports to foster inclusive whole-class discussions, which at times focuses on describing what students do with mathematical models. 

Specifically, in Grade 3, Unit 3, Wrapping Up Addition and Subtraction within 1,000, Lesson 19, Activity 1, students work in groups of 3 to match tape diagrams, equations, and word problems, and to explain the connection to model with mathematics. The activity is composed of several opportunities for students to use and develop language authentically through structured small group and whole-class discourse. The activity begins with each member of the small group choosing one word problem to independently read and make sense of the context. The materials do not provide language supports to aid MLLs with reading their chosen word problem. Then, the teacher prompts students to be ready to explain to their group how they have made sense of their chosen context; prompting students how they will use language in the future provides MLLs with time to translate in their heads, if needed, and mentally rehearse what they will share with their groups. After students work independently for 2 minutes, the teacher invites group members to share their thoughts with their group. The activity continues with small groups working together to match each word problem with a provided tape diagram, explaining the visual model (tape diagram) represents the quantities and relationships described in the word problem. Through this work time, the materials prompt teachers to provide opportunities for structured small group discourse through pausing the small group work three times, asking groups to answer probing questions that aim to support modeling with mathematics, such as, “How did you connect the diagrams to the situations?” The materials do not provide consistent language support for MLLs to participate fully in the structured small-group and whole-class discourse in which they model with mathematics. 

The materials partially meet the criteria for this Indicator because while the materials embed opportunities for students to engage with MP4 through the use of specific Instructional Routines and MLRs, the materials lack language supports during partner and whole-class discourse in which students are asked to model with mathematics.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 3-5 of Kiddom IM® v.360 partially meet the criteria of providing support for Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) full and complete participation in the intentional development of MP5: Choose appropriate tools strategically.

As described in the report for 1d.MLL, the materials consistently employ Mathematical Language Routines [MLRs] by Stanford University UL/SCALE. The specific MLRs that directly support MP5 are:

• MLR7 Compare and Connect: Students identify, compare, and contrast their own understandings with other students’ mathematical approaches, representations, concepts, examples, and language. Through this discussion, students are choosing appropriate tools or strategies and recognizing the pros and cons of each tool. 

• MLR8 Discussion Supports: Teachers provide a variety of supports to foster inclusive whole-class discussions, which at times focuses on describing how to use various tools.

Specifically, in Grade 3, Unit 3, Wrapping Up Addition and Subtraction within 1,000, Lesson 5, students work in partners to compare and contrast addition algorithms. The lesson includes multiple opportunities for students to engage in structured partner and whole-class discourse. The Warm-up begins with the Instructional Routine Notice and Wonder, in which students discuss an addition problem involving larger numbers. This discussion is designed to activate or build prior knowledge around place value understanding, supporting MLLs in anticipating language they may need when comparing algorithms later in the lesson. In Activity 1, students examine two worked examples that show different addition algorithms and engage in structured partner discourse comparing and contrasting the worked examples. The Activity Synthesis prompts the teacher to facilitate whole-group discourse using questions such as, “Where do you see the 8, 90, and 500 in Elena’s algorithm?” This supports students in analyzing how each algorithm represents place value concepts, which are key mathematical tools in this context. However, the materials do not include language supports to help MLLs explain how these tools are being used or to compare them effectively during discourse. Activity 2 follows a similar structure. A note titled Supporting Multilingual Learners suggests the use of MLR8 Discussion Supports, which encourages the teacher to provide MLLs an opportunity to orally rehearse with a partner before contributing to the whole-group discussion. While this support is beneficial, it is not paired with specific guidance on how MLLs might talk about tool use or choose between different representations to solve problems. In summary, while the lesson engages students in reasoning about multiple tools—such as expanded notation and algorithmic strategies—it does not consistently provide the language supports necessary for MLLs to fully and strategically engage in selecting and discussing those tools, limiting the development of MP5.

The materials partially meet the criteria for this Indicator because while the materials embed opportunities for students to engage with MP5 through the use of specific MLRs, the materials lack language supports during partner and whole-class discourse in which students are asked to choose appropriate tools strategically.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 3-5 of Kiddom IM® v.360 partially meet the criteria of providing support for Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) full and complete participation in the intentional development of MP8: Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.

In every unit, the materials provide opportunities for students to use and develop language when looking for and expressing regularity in repeated reasoning through whole-group and student-to-student discourse. The materials provide these opportunities through features embedded within the lesson facilitation or as a suggested support in notes titled Access for English Language Learners. One example of a feature embedded within the lesson facilitation is the use of Instructional Routines. Specifically, the Course Overview, What’s in an IM Lesson, describes how the Instructional Routine Number Talk supports MP8. Number Talk states, “The sequence of problems in a Number Talk encourages students to look for structure and use repeated reasoning to evaluate expressions and develop computational fluency (MP7 and MP8).”

As described in the report for 1d.MLL, the materials consistency employ Mathematical Language Routines [MLRs] by Stanford University UL/SCALE. The specific MLRs that directly support MP8 are:

• MLR7 Compare and Connect: Students identify, compare, and contrast their own understandings with other students’ mathematical approaches, representations, concepts, examples, and language. Through this discussion, students notice repeated calculations or evaluate the reasonableness of answers.

• MLR8 Discussion Supports: Teachers provide a variety of supports to foster inclusive whole-class discussions, which at times provides sentence frames to support students with describing a general formula or algorithm.

For example, in Grade 3, Unit 7, Two-Dimensional Shapes and Perimeter, Lesson 6, students work independently and in partners to engage with the concept of perimeter for the first time by determining the number of paper clips it takes to line all of the side lengths of flat shapes. As students repeat this measurement process across shapes, they are prompted to observe that the total count of units around a shape’s boundary remains consistent—allowing them to generalize and define perimeter based on that repeated reasoning. The Warm-up begins with the Instructional Routine Notice and Wonder in which students engage in structured partner and whole-group discussions to make a prediction about the number of paper clips it would take to line all of the side lengths of a trapezoid. This Warm-up supports MLLs with anticipating the geometric language needed to explain reasoning about calculating perimeter later in the lesson. Activity 1 directs the teacher to give students a concrete experience of lining the side lengths of flat shapes with paper clips. Students work in small groups and apply self-selected strategies to determine the number of paper clips needed for each shape. The Activity Synthesis directs the teacher to facilitate whole-class discourse in which students share their answers and strategies and the teacher defines the term perimeter with a student-friendly definition. The materials do not provide language supports to aid MLLs’ full participation in their small groups or in the whole-class discourse. Activity 2 invites students to work first independently and then in partners to determine the perimeter of shapes on a grid and explain or show their reasoning. The Activity Synthesis for Activity 2 mirrors the Activity Synthesis for Activity 1. A note titled Supporting Multilingual Learners suggests the use of MLR8 Discussion Supports in which the teacher optionally invites MLLs to chorally repeat phrases to support the transfer of new vocabulary to long-term memory. The materials do not provide language support to aid MLLs with independently write their reasoning for their calculated perimeters, express what they notice, engage in partner discussions, or participate fully in whole-class discourse. 

The materials partially meet the criteria for this Indicator because while the materials embed opportunities for students to engage with MP8 through the use of specific Instructional Routines and MLRs, the materials lack language supports during partner and whole-class discourse in which students are asked to look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 3-5 of Kiddom IM® v.360 partially meet the criteria of intentionally developing language in ways valued by disciplinary practices over time, across lessons, units, and throughout the course. 

The Course Overview, Advancing Mathematical Language and Access for Multilingual Learners outlines the interdependence of content, language, and practices. It states, “Adapted with permission from work done by Understanding Language at Stanford University. For the original paper, Principles for the Design of Mathematics Curricula: Promoting Language and Content Development, please visit https://ul.stanford.edu/resource/principles-design-mathematics-curricula. In a problem-based mathematics classroom, sense-making and language are interwoven. Mathematics classrooms are language-rich—and therefore language-demanding—learning environments for every student. The linguistic demands of doing mathematics include reading, writing, speaking, listening, conversing, and representing (Aguirre & Bunch, 2012). Students are expected to say or write mathematical explanations, state assumptions, make conjectures, construct mathematical arguments, and listen and respond to the ideas of others. In an effort to advance the mathematics and the language learning of all students, the materials purposefully engage students in sense-making and using language to negotiate meaning with their peers. To support students, who are learning English, in their development of language, this curriculum includes instruction devoted to advancing language development alongside mathematics learning, and fostering language-rich environments in which there is space for all students to participate.” As noted in the report for 1d.MLL, the Course Overview, Advancing Mathematical Language and Access for Multilingual Learners outlines how the lesson design centers the unique language needs of MLLs by embedding Stanford University’s four design principles: Support Sense-Making, Optimize Output, Cultivate Conversation, and Maximize Meta-Awareness. This lesson design is rooted in multimodal instruction, which creates accessible entry points and structured opportunities for disciplinary language usage alongside mathematics learning. 

The materials show partial evidence of intentional disciplinary language development aligned to mathematical content and practices. Disciplinary language development consists of functional language development alongside mathematical vocabulary development. In the materials, functional language development is inconsistent and often serves students’ understanding of the mathematical practices rather than explicitly advancing disciplinary language development over time, as noted in the reports for 2e.MLL-2l.MLL. The materials lack a clearly articulated, longitudinal plan for developing language as a disciplinary practice beyond moments embedded within mathematical content or practices. As noted in the report for 2j.MLL, the materials fully support the development of mathematical vocabulary over time.

The materials do not provide a plan for teachers to bridge between students’ informal and everyday ways of communicating and more precise mathematical ways of communicating. However, the materials encourage students to use informal and everyday ways of communicating, and the lesson design supports teachers in connecting students’ informal language with more precise mathematical language. Specifically, in the Course Overview, What’s in an IM Lesson, the materials describe the problem-based lesson design, which begins with a Warm-up, then engages students with one to three instructional Activities, and ends with a Lesson Synthesis and Cool-Down. This lesson design supports students’ use of informal and everyday ways of communicating within Warm-ups that feature Mathematical Language Routines or Instructional Routines like Notice and Wonder, which invites students to use everyday language to describe what they notice and wonder about a mathematical situation. Within the lesson, Activities encourage disciplinary language usage within partner, small-group, and whole-group discourse. Lessons close with a Lesson Synthesis, which provides an opportunity for students to summarize mathematical learning by either listening to or orally practicing precise language usage. Therefore, the materials support students in connecting informal with more formal language usage, but the materials do not provide a plan for teachers to bridge the two. 

Overall, the materials provide some, but not comprehensive, support for the ongoing development of disciplinary language. While they promote language-rich classrooms and consistently build mathematical vocabulary, support for functional language development is inconsistent and lacks clear progression. The lesson design encourages the use of informal language and provides opportunities to transition to more precise mathematical language, but it does not offer explicit guidance for teachers to bridge the two.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 3-5 of Kiddom IM® v.360 partially meet the criteria of including language goals/objectives at the lesson level that are clear, measurable, and support language development in service of content learning. 

The materials provide language and content goals that are one in the same, called Learning Goals. In some lessons, the Learning Goals include references to language use or development, partially fulfilling the purpose of a language goal, even though the materials do not explicitly name them as language goals. Due to this design, not all of the language goals are clear or measurable, especially in relation to language. When lessons contain language goals, they are tied directly to the content goals and are clearly focused on at least one domain of language (reading, writing, speaking, or listening) and at least one language function. The language goals do not incorporate the language structures and vocabulary used in conjunction with the listed language function, and they are not always measurable or specific enough for teachers to be able to formatively assess language usage and development. 

Specifically, in Grade 3, Unit 6, Measuring Length, Time, Liquid Volume, and Weight, Lesson 4, students are asked to engage in speaking and writing about line plots. For example, the two Learning Goals are, "Ask (orally and in writing) questions that can be answered by a line plot. Interpret (orally and in writing) line plots that display measurement data in fractions of an inch." These language goals clearly focus on the language domains of speaking and writing and include two language functions: ask and interpret. These language domains and functions are embedded throughout the lesson with teacher prompts such as, “What questions could be answered more easily with the line plot than the list?” Students are prompted to type or speak responses in small groups and partner discussions. While these activities are aligned to the language goals, without clear performance indicators built into the goal, teachers can’t consistently determine whether a student has met the goal. The language goals themselves lack clear performance measures; students are asked to pose questions, but there is no guidance for assessing the quality, specificity, or complexity of the language used.

Not all lessons contain language goals. For example, in Grade 5, Unit 5, Place Value Patterns and Decimal Operations, Lesson 6, the two Learning Goals are, “Represent decimals on a number line. Use a number line to compare decimals and represent the comparison using the symbols >, <, or =.” These Learning Goals do not contain a language domain, language structures, or vocabulary. 

These examples explicitly demonstrate that while the materials include lesson-level Learning Goals that describe the language-rich mathematical tasks, they partially meet the expectation that goals are clear, measurable, and supported with explicit scaffolds for language structure and form.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 3-5 of Kiddom IM® v.360 partially meet the criteria of providing teacher guidance to support Multilingual Learners (MLLs) and to utilize the strategies, supports, and/or accommodations found. The materials partially provide useful suggestions for language supports, outlined in the Course Guide and at point-of-use within lessons. However, the materials do not provide teacher guidance on how to anticipate, observe, and respond to potential language demands, challenges, and opportunities in a lesson along the progression of language acquisition.

In every unit, the materials describe language supports, such as Stanford UL/SCALE’s Mathematical Language Routines (MLRs), in teacher guidance embedded within lesson facilitation or as a suggested support in notes titled Access for English Language Learners (see the reports for 2e.MLL-2l.MLL). The Course Overview, Advancing Mathematical Language and Access for Multilingual Learners guides teachers to, “Use the suggested MLRs and language strategies, as appropriate, to provide students with access to an activity, without reducing the mathematical demands of the task. When using these supports, take into account the language demands of the specific activity—and the language needed to engage the content more broadly—in relation to students’ current ways of using language to communicate ideas as well as their English language proficiency… Use the MLRs, as needed, and phase them out as students develop understanding and fluency with the English language.” The materials do not provide teacher guidance for how to use the suggested MLRs “as appropriate” or “as needed,” especially in relation to “phasing them out.” Without this guidance, materials do not facilitate understanding in teachers new to working with MLLs, nor do they support deepening the understanding of MLL experts. Therefore, the teacher guidance around implementing MLRs is not inclusive of all levels of teachers’ understanding in instructing MLLs.

In Grade 3, Unit 8, Putting It All Together, Lesson 2, students work independently and in small groups to create their own number line to represent and compare fractions. The Learning Goals are, “Explain (orally) strategies for locating and labeling whole numbers, unit fractions, and non-unit fractions on the number line. Express comparisons of fractions and whole numbers, using >, <, and =.” In the Activity Synthesis for Activity 1, the teacher facilitates whole-group discourse for students to share a method they used to place fractions on a number line, asking questions such as, “Did any groups use a similar strategy?” A note titled Supporting Multilingual Learners suggests the use of MLR8 Discussion Supports, stating, “At the appropriate time, give groups 2–3 minutes to plan what they will say when they present to the class. ‘Practice what you will say when you share your number line with the class. Talk about what is important to say, and decide who will share each part.’ ” The lesson does not provide additional guidance around how teachers can anticipate the language demands of the activity to support MLLs with planning what they will say to present to the class. Also, the lesson does not provide guidance for teachers to observe student language development, such as what teachers can look for or listen for in regards to the disciplinary language usage outlined in the Learning Goals of orally explaining strategies for locating and labeling fractions on a number line. 

In Grade 4, Unit 4, From Hundredths to Hundred-Thousands, Lesson 1, students use a square grid of 100 to express numbers in decimal notation, making connections with fraction notation. The Learning Goals are, “Comprehend (in spoken and written language) the meaning of the term ‘decimal notation.’ Interpret (orally) tenths and hundredths expressed in decimal notation. Represent tenths and hundredths using decimal notation.” In the independent work and partner discussions in Activity 2, a note titled Access for English Learners suggests the use of MLR2 Collect and Display, which states, “Direct attention to words collected and displayed from the previous activity. Invite students to borrow language from the display as needed, and update it throughout the lesson.” The lesson does not provide additional teacher guidance around possible teacher responses, such as teachers asking probing questions or teachers providing feedback about MLLs’ usage of the language from the display. The materials do not provide teacher guidance about how to connect this suggested language support with MLLs’ disciplinary language usage outlined in the Learning Goals of comprehending the term decimal notation and orally interpreting tenths and hundredths.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 3-5 of Kiddom IM® v.360 partially meet the criteria of guiding teachers on how to match students with language supports, progressing along a continuum. The materials provide three strategies that guide teachers on how to match students with language supports, progressing along a continuum. The materials do not guide teachers on how to be responsive to students’ current language development in relation to the content. 

In the Course Overview, Advancing Mathematical Language and Access for English Learners, the materials outline the language supports and instructional approaches to support Multilingual Learners (MLLs), stating “To support students who are learning English in their development of language, this curriculum includes instruction devoted to advancing language development alongside mathematics learning, and foster language-rich environments in which there is space for all students to participate” (see report for 3e.MLL). 

Similar evidence is found in lesson-level materials. The materials include language supports such as Mathematical Language Routines (MLRs) and student-facing glossary definitions. These supports are not differentiated by students’ language proficiency levels and do not guide teachers in adjusting scaffolds over time based on language growth.

Additionally, in the Course Overview, Advancing Mathematical Language and Access for Multilingual Learners, the materials contain a document titled 3-5 Spanish Cognate Toolkit. This Toolkit outlines how incorporating instruction on English-Spanish cognates can support translanguaging and metalinguistic transfer for MLLs whose home language is Spanish, stating, “The nature of math vocabulary in English presents a unique opportunity to teach multilingual learners to make explicit connections between vocabulary in their home language(s) (i.e. L1, L2, etc.) and vocabulary in the target language, which in this case is English.” The Toolkit features three sections: an overview of the research and background of cognate instruction, five strategies to teach English-Spanish cognates, and a list of cognates for each grade. Each of the five strategies to teach English-Spanish cognates includes a strategy description, an outline of what teachers will do, and an outline of what students will do, broken down by WIDA levels 1-5. These descriptions of what students will do based on WIDA levels outline language supports at varying language proficiency levels. Therefore, these three strategies guide teachers on how to match students with language supports, progressing along a continuum. The materials do not reference these strategies in any other location; the onus is on the teacher to identify when to implement one of the strategies, which would add time to lesson facilitation. The strategies do not guide teachers on how to be responsive to students’ current language development in relation to the content. Additionally, the Toolkit centers English-Spanish cognates with no guidance for identifying and supporting cognates in other home languages.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 3–5 of Kiddom IM® v.360 partially meet the criteria of providing guidance to encourage teachers to draw upon student home language to facilitate learning. The materials offer translated resources, but include minimal guidance for teachers to leverage Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) home language in math learning. Additionally, the materials lack teacher-facing guidance at point-of-use within lessons on how to integrate MLLs' home languages into classroom instruction. 

As found in the reports for 3.1.MLL-3 and 3e.MLL, the Course Overview section titled Advancing Mathematical Language and Access for Multilingual Learners includes a resource called the K–2 Spanish Cognate Toolkit, designed to support teachers working with MLLs whose home language is Spanish. This Toolkit outlines how incorporating instruction on English-Spanish cognates can support translanguaging and metalinguistic transfer for MLLs whose home language is Spanish. The Toolkit features five strategies to teach English-Spanish cognates and a list of cognates for each grade. The materials do not reference these strategies at point-of-use within lesson facilitation; the onus is on the teacher to identify when to implement one of the strategies, which would add time to lesson facilitation. Additionally, the Toolkit centers English-Spanish cognates with no guidance for identifying and supporting cognates in other home languages. Therefore, the materials provide very minimal guidance for teachers to leverage MLLs’ home language in math learning, and it is limited to MLLs whose home language is Spanish. 

The materials include translated teacher- and student-facing resources in Spanish, available digitally and in print. All student-facing materials are available fully translated into Spanish, including Family Materials. All teacher-facing materials are available partially translated into Spanish, with student-facing sentences, prompts, or words and student responses printed in Spanish and English. For example, in Grade 5, Unit 8, Putting It All Together, Lesson 1, the Launch for Activity 1 states, “Groups of 2. ‘Van a discutir una afirmación durante 2 rondas. En la primera ronda, lean la afirmación y expliquen por turnos si están de acuerdo, en desacuerdo o no están seguros. Después, cambien de grupo y completen la ronda 2’ // ‘You will discuss a statement in 2 rounds. In the first round, read the statement and take turns explaining whether you agree, disagree, or are unsure. Then we will switch groups and complete Round 2.’ Partner work time: 2-3 minutes.” All teacher guidance is printed in English, such as the lesson facilitation, Unit Goals, Course Overview, etc. The digital platform works with browser translations, making the digital teacher- and student-facing materials available in many languages.

The materials do not feature guidance for teachers on how to utilize these translated resources to incorporate students’ home languages to support math learning, nor are there suggestions for gathering or leveraging information about students’ linguistic backgrounds (e.g., literacy in home language or prior educational experiences) to support translanguaging. There is also no indication that the materials support teachers in strategically applying this information to tailor instruction or enhance student learning experiences.

While the materials promote rich mathematical discourse and peer-to-peer interaction, they do not include explicit in-lesson guidance for connecting MLLs’ home languages to math learning. There are no strategies or prompts for teachers to support MLLs by drawing on their linguistic resources. Additionally, there is no reference to using MLLs' home languages to support comprehension of story problems, to encourage explanation of strategies, or to access mathematical vocabulary. As a result, the opportunity to affirm multilingualism as an asset in problem-solving and oral communication is missed in the instructional design.