High School - Multilingual Learner Supports

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 9–12 of Lenses on Literature meet the expectations for consistently amplifying rather than simplifying texts while maintaining their original complexity to provide access for MLLs without watering down content. Across the program, the design intentionally preserves the rigor, structure, and linguistic richness of complex literary and informational texts. Instead of reducing text demands, the materials layer linguistic, syntactic, and discourse-level supports that expand students’ access to meaning and strengthen their ability to navigate grade-level English.

Across the grade band, the materials strategically embed differentiated supports, which can be applied on the digital platform: Core, Light-Multilingual, Moderate-Multilingual, and Intensive-Multilingual.  These supports are available before, during, and after reading. These supports highlight high-level vocabulary, model academic and rhetorical language, guide annotation, and provide structured opportunities for oral and written meaning-making. Because the scaffolds are layered onto the original text rather than replacing it, MLLs participate in the same rigorous reading experiences as their peers while receiving the linguistic tools needed to make meaning.

The program overview explains that all levels of multilingual support include “front-loading activities such as text summaries and vocabulary previews; audio support for all texts; embedded annotation cues; glossed terms, synonyms, translated definitions, and cognates; and graphic organizer support with editable sentence frames.” These scaffolds highlight, expand, and model complex language features in ways that amplify access without altering text rigor.

This amplification approach is evident in Grade 11, Unit 2, Section 2, Comprehension, where students read Zora Neale Hurston’s “How It Feels to Be Colored Me.” The materials identify the text as “qualitatively moderately complex” and containing “compound and complex sentences” as well as “instances of archaic and high-level vocabulary.” Scaffolds vary by multilingual support level:

• At the Core-Multilingual level, 21 terms in the text are linked to glossary definitions, which are available written in 11 different languages. Additionally, the English definition is available in audio.  Audio is also available in eight of the other languages. 

• At the Light-Multilingual level, students receive an additional two glossed terms, as well as four prompts to stop and annotate, such as “Describe the relationship between Zora and the white people who pass through her town.  Highlight phrases that show this relationship.”

• At the Moderate-Multilingual level, students receive 38 glossed terms and an additional three prompts to stop and annotate.

• At the Intensive-Multilingual level, the same 38 terms are linked to the multilingual and multimodal glossary, and there are eight prompts to stop and annotate. 

These supports expand the linguistic and cognitive resources available to MLLs, enabling them to decode and analyze an argument at an above-grade level while engaging fully in the text's rigor.

At each stage of reading, the program continues to amplify rather than simplify text demands. For example, in the Grade 11 reading of “How it Feels to be Colored Me” detailed above, before reading, students complete a vocabulary sort that includes challenging academic and literary words such as aristocratic, circumlocutions, disembarked, heathen, narcotic, primitive, skirmish, raiment, proscenium, saunter, sea change, and venturesome.  Scaffolds are differentiated.  For example, at the Moderate-Multilingual level, students receive “a list of examples of labels so they may consider how to label the words they’ve grouped,” amplifying metalinguistic awareness without altering the text. During reading, students annotate the full text and respond to guiding questions such as: “What is the central idea of the text? What figures of speech does the author use?”  Students may also listen to the text read aloud to support oral processing of complex syntax.  After reading, students complete an “escalating summary” in which they summarize different sections of the text within explicit word constraints. Differentiated supports are available.  For example, at the Moderate-Multilingual level, students receive “sentence starters for each part of the escalating summary,” enabling them to practice increasingly concise academic expression while maintaining full access to the interpretive task. Together, these supports strengthen students' ability to understand and produce academic language across genres. MLLs engage deeply with literary style, rhetorical choices, syntactic patterns, and conceptual structures while reading the same rigorous texts as their peers.

While the materials consistently amplify texts, there is limited explicit guidance on fading scaffolds over time. There is a missed opportunity here to provide guidance for teachers for the gradual removal of supports, which could further strengthen MLLs’ independence with complex texts.

Overall, the materials for Grades 9–12 consistently amplify text complexity through targeted linguistic supports, including glossed vocabulary, guided annotation questions, sentence frames for academic responses, explicit modeling of analytical thinking, structured post-reading tasks, and multimodal access options. These scaffolds highlight and expand the linguistic and rhetorical features of complex texts while preserving their full rigor and complexity. As a result, MLLs are provided meaningful access to grade-level content without simplification, enabling them to develop strong academic English and literary reasoning skills.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 9–12 of Lenses on Literature partially meet the expectations for providing support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in text-based questions, tasks, and assignments, as well as the demonstration of their thinking in various formats. The materials provide supports designed to help MLLs engage in text-based learning and demonstrate understanding; however, these supports are often confined to the digital Student Edition and are not fully integrated into the accompanying teacher guidance.

The materials provide strategies that allow MLLs to engage in comprehension-level work and to complete text-based questions and tasks. In Grade 12, Unit 3, Section 3, Building Knowledge, students read “What are the Characteristics of Epic in Literature?” by Douglas Matus, annotate for the defining traits of epics, and summarize key ideas. The Responsive Teaching Move notes include targeted small-group questions (e.g., “What defining characteristics of epics are addressed in the first two sections of the text?”) and guidance to help MLLs identify examples of compound and complex sentences that convey meaning. The materials provide explicit linguistic scaffolding alongside content comprehension by modeling academic sentence structures and focusing attention on how syntax conveys meaning. Additional supports are available through the digital Levels of Support, however MLLs using print materials will be well-supported in this activity through the guidance provided in the Teachers Edition. This integration supports MLLs in both understanding and summarizing key information, moving beyond literal comprehension to structured knowledge expression.

While the materials include strategies and digital supports to help MLLs engage in comprehension-level analysis tasks, they lack sufficient guidance in the print materials and sometimes the Teacher Edition to ensure educators know when and how to provide these additional supports effectively. For example, in Grade 10, Unit 2, Section 5, Synthesis, students reread four poems—“One Hundred Love Sonnets: XVII” by Pablo Neruda, “Before You Come” by Faiz Ahmed Faiz, “Love After Love” by Derek Walcott, and “Quarantine” by Eavan Boland—and annotate for diction, theme, and literary devices. The Responsive Teaching Move note provides a paraphrasing strategy (“focus on a small section of text,” “infer the text’s meaning,” “put the text into your own words”) and small-group annotation support. The materials provide additional supports for MLLs to annotate the four poems through the Levels of Support in the digital platform.  At the Light-Multilingual level, Stop and Annotate boxes with additional focus questions for students are provided at the end of each poem.  The Moderate-Multilingual and Intensive-Multilingual levels provide the same Stop and Annotate boxes as well as additional Stop and Annotate boxes in the middle of the first and second poems. This annotation guidance is available in the print version of the Student Edition, and the necessity for additional supports is not highlighted for teachers in the Teacher Edition. The materials would benefit from additional teacher guidance to bridge the gap between instruction and the supports provided in the Levels of Support.  Without that, teachers may not be aware of when MLL students, particularly those early in their English proficiency, may need additional support to understand the task at hand and fully and completely participate alongside their peers.

As mentioned above, in the digital platform, teachers have the option to use the Level of Support system to “deliver responsive instruction, assigning supports to individual students or groups based on assessment and observation data.”  This system “offers different types of supports that are included based on the instructional purpose of the activity.”  The four Assignable Support Levels are:

• “CORE/MLL:  Provides universal supports such as accessibility tools and vocabulary aids in English and multiple languages.

• LIGHT/MLL: Adds occasional prompts to enhance comprehension and task completion.

• MODERATE/MLL: Provides multiple, layered supports to increase access to content.

• INTENSIVE/MLL: Offers modifications to content to streamline student thinking and prioritize Focus Skills.”

This is a strong example of lesson-specific supports embedded in the core content to enhance participation for MLLs. Its impact is limited, however, by being available only on the digital platform, which reduces access for students using print materials. For students working solely in the digital environment, the Levels of Support system is highly beneficial.

Overall, Grades 9-12 of Lenses on Literature meet expectations for supporting MLLs’ full participation in text-based questions, tasks, and varied demonstrations of learning. The materials incorporate meaningful scaffolds, such as structured discourse, sentence frames, small-group strategies, modeling, and multimodal engagement, that effectively support comprehension-level analysis and academic language development. In addition, the digital Levels of Support system provides a comprehensive, differentiated framework that allows teachers to tailor instruction to students' needs. However, while the digital platform offers robust, lesson-specific supports, these scaffolds are not integrated into the print Student Edition or clearly emphasized in teacher guidance. As a result, the effectiveness of these supports may depend on teachers’ awareness and use of the digital tools, with reduced access for students relying solely on print materials.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 9–12 of Lenses on Literature meet the expectations for providing support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in the explicit instruction of independent word-learning strategies and key vocabulary words to build knowledge within and across texts. The materials consistently provide strategies and supports for MLLs to fully engage in vocabulary routines and word-learning instruction. Responsive Teaching Move notes appear throughout the program and include MLL supports that help students work alongside their peers in building academic vocabulary and deepening knowledge of texts.

Across lessons and units, MLL supports are embedded directly in instruction rather than added as optional supplements. For example, in Grade 9, Unit 2, Section 2, Comprehension, all students participate in a vocabulary activity before reading “Harrison Bergeron.” As part of this routine, students review the program’s “list-group-label” strategy, sorting vocabulary words by conceptual relationships. The materials provide Responsive Teaching Move notes in the form of guiding questions for students who need more support, and Teacher Resources supply differentiated scaffolds such as partially completed charts. This combination of explicit teacher guidance and differentiated support enables MLLs to participate fully in the vocabulary strategy.

The materials continue to offer sustained scaffolding for vocabulary development at upper high school grades. In Grade 12, Unit 1, Section 4, Building Knowledge, students read and annotate three poems—Pablo Neruda’s “Ode to the Onion,” John Keats’s “To Autumn,” and Eavan Boland’s “Ode to Suburbia.” MLL supports include access to an audio version of each text for students who may not yet read independently, ensuring they can participate in the same learning tasks as their peers. Teacher modeling reinforces vocabulary learning through think-alouds that demonstrate how to evaluate the impact of word choice, such as noticing how the word claustrophobia conveys a harsh or critical tone. The materials also include Responsive Teaching Move notes that guide teachers to support small-group annotation with targeted questions, such as: “How does the speaker feel about the onion?” or “What figurative devices does the speaker use to introduce the onion?” Sentence stems, such as “In line ___, the poet uses a metaphor to compare ___ to ___,” further help students articulate ideas using academic language. Additional support includes teacher-created visual glossaries to anchor vocabulary understanding. These integrated scaffolds—audio access, modeled think-alouds, discussion stems, and visual tools—ensure that MLLs can fully participate in explicit instruction of vocabulary and word-learning strategies.

Additionally, in the digital platform, teachers have the option to use the Level of Support system to “deliver responsive instruction, assigning supports to individual students or groups based on assessment and observation data.”  This system “offers different types of supports that are included based on the instructional purpose of the activity.”  The four Assignable Support Levels are:

• “CORE/MLL:  Provides universal supports such as accessibility tools and vocabulary aids in English and multiple languages.

• LIGHT/MLL: Adds occasional prompts to enhance comprehension and task completion.

• MODERATE/MLL: Provides multiple, layered supports to increase access to content.

• INTENSIVE/MLL: Offers modifications to content to streamline student thinking and prioritize Focus Skills.”

This is a strong example of lesson-specific supports embedded in the core content to enhance participation for MLLs. Its impact is limited, however, by being available only on the digital platform, which reduces access for students using print materials. For students working solely in the digital environment, the Levels of Support system is highly beneficial.

Overall, the materials provide coherent, embedded support that fosters active participation in vocabulary learning. Teacher modeling, targeted scaffolds, and structured opportunities for speaking and writing ensure that MLLs can access grade-level vocabulary tasks and apply strategies for determining meaning in context. Because these supports appear throughout the instructional materials and are meaningfully connected to the texts and routines students engage with, Lenses on Literature meets expectations for supporting MLLs’ complete participation in explicit vocabulary instruction and independent word-learning strategies.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 9–12 of Lenses on Literature meet the expectations for providing support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in opportunities to practice the writing process using evidence-based strategies. The materials include scaffolded writing instruction and practice with planners, teacher modeling, and step-by-step lesson plans.

Lessons include writing-process supports that meaningfully assist MLLs in generating ideas, organizing their thinking, and planning for extended writing. For example, in Grade 9, Unit 1, Section 6, Writing Process, students plan a short story using a multi-step, highly structured process. Students prewrite by brainstorming ideas, then plan their hero using the Short Story Planner graphic organizer, considering factors such as name, motivation, obstacles, and responses to challenges. Next, students plan the plot pyramid—exposition, inciting incident, rising action, climax, falling action, resolution, and denouement—as well as the sequencing of their hero’s journey. Students also plan their setting with attention to figurative language and sensory details, and subsequently plan dialogue and story endings. This planning sequence is supported by a Responsive Teaching Move note that provides targeted, actionable scaffolds: If students need support generating ideas, teachers prompt them to review their brainstorming work and discuss questions with peers. For MLLs specifically, the materials suggest that students follow these steps in their home language and provide a bank of sequencing phrases (e.g., later, afterward, earlier, suddenly, eventually). Additionally, the Levels of Support in the digital platform provide sentence stems, sentence frames, and question prompts across the light, moderate, and intensive levels for the planning graphic organizers. These supports enable MLLs to fully participate in idea development and narrative organization by addressing both cognitive and linguistic demands. This is a strong example of aligned support that scaffolds students toward grade-level expectations.

Other lessons throughout the course offer comparable supports for MLLs to practice the writing process. For example, in Grade 11, Unit 3, Section 6: Writing Process, students write an argumentative essay and are expected to revise and edit their drafts for voice, sentence variety, precise language, and control of register—high-level, abstract writing skills that require substantial linguistic control. The primary MLL-specific support highlighted in the Teachers Edition in this section is the suggestion that students write their response in their home language and then translate what they can into English using a bilingual dictionary or translation device. Although drafting in a student’s home language can serve as a valuable cognitive tool, relying on translation for a complex task may not always provide the most effective supports.  MLLs may benefit from additional targeted English-language scaffolds to fully support their work, as they navigate both the demands of expressing their thinking in academic English and the revision process to improve sentence variety and structure, word choice, style and tone, and capitalization/formatting. The student-facing materials on the digital platform do provide linguistic scaffolds to support MLLs in participating in the planning, revising, and editing processes through the Levels of Support.  The Argumentative Essay Planner and the Revise for Voice and Edit for Register activities all include question prompts, examples, and sentence frames targeted to the Light, Moderate, and Intensive-Multilingual levels to facilitate MLL participation in practicing the writing process.   Although the Teacher’s Edition could more clearly reference the supports available in the student-facing digital materials, the Levels of Support offer sufficient scaffolding for MLLs to engage in practicing the writing process in this lesson and across the course. 

As mentioned above, in the digital platform, teachers have the option to use the Level of Support system to “deliver responsive instruction, assigning supports to individual students or groups based on assessment and observation data.”  This system “offers different types of supports that are included based on the instructional purpose of the activity.”  The four Assignable Support Levels are:

• “CORE/MLL:  Provides universal supports such as accessibility tools and vocabulary aids in English and multiple languages.

• LIGHT/MLL: Adds occasional prompts to enhance comprehension and task completion.

• MODERATE/MLL: Provides multiple, layered supports to increase access to content.

• INTENSIVE/MLL: Offers modifications to content to streamline student thinking and prioritize Focus Skills.”

This is a strong example of lesson-specific supports embedded in the core content to enhance participation for MLLs. Its impact is limited, however, by being available only on the digital platform, which reduces access for students using print materials. For students working solely in the digital environment, the Levels of Support system is highly beneficial.

Overall, Grades 9-12 of Lenses on Literature provide meaningful, embedded supports that enable MLLs to engage at each stage of the writing process, particularly through the differentiated Levels of Support available on the digital platform. While the Teacher’s Edition could more explicitly connect instructional guidance to the scaffolded student-facing resources and incorporate additional targeted linguistic supports for complex writing tasks, the integrated planners, sentence frames, modeling, and tiered scaffolds collectively create sustained opportunities for MLLs to participate in writing instruction. When implemented within the digital environment, these materials offer a coherent and responsive system that promotes access, engagement, and growth in academic writing.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 9–12 of Lenses on Literature meet the expectations of intentionally developing language in ways valued by disciplinary practices over time, across lessons, units, and throughout the course. The materials provide ongoing, coherent development of academic language across the entire course. Throughout the course, students are explicitly taught how to interpret task language and use language to meet content and disciplinary goals. Lessons and units embed disciplinary practices into instructional design, making language use deliberate and directly connected to how students read, write, and discuss texts in English language arts.

The Sequence of Instruction outlines where MLL language goals are embedded within lessons and activities, demonstrating a coherent and progressive approach to language development. Across the program, teachers guide students to use academic English to interpret texts, express ideas, and engage in extended oral and written discourse aligned with English language arts disciplinary practices. As detailed in the 2.2.MLL-2 report, disciplinary language builds within and across units, reflecting the materials’ plan to intentionally develop language aligned with disciplinary practices over time.

In Grade 10, Unit 5, Activity 1.4, students participate in a reader response task designed to help them share their initial reactions and interpretations of a text. Teacher guidance explicitly supports the use of academic language through structured scaffolds and sentence frames that help students express analytical and comparative ideas. For example, teachers prompt students to respond using frames such as “One way our annotations are similar is _____,” and “I bring the perspective of _____, which affects how I see _____ in the text.” These supports encourage students to articulate their thinking in ways that integrate evidence-based reasoning with reflective commentary. The activity develops both linguistic precision and disciplinary communication skills by modeling how readers analyze and discuss texts using academic English. This approach demonstrates how Lenses on Literature intentionally supports language growth through structured, content-connected scaffolds.

In Grade 12, Section 5 students participate in a critical discussion about the role of science fiction and authorial intent in shaping the genre. In Activity 5.2, Narrow the Topic, students pitch an idea for an argumentative essay to their classmates, developing both their conceptual understanding and their use of persuasive academic language. The language goal for the lesson states that “in discussion, students will argue their ideas using persuasive language.” The Planning for Varied Learning Needs section includes targeted MLL guidance, recommending that teachers allow students to collaborate in their home language with partners and providing a bank of persuasive phrases such as “Some people believe… yet others believe…”, “It is evident that…”, and “The opposition might claim that…” This structured linguistic support helps MLLs engage meaningfully in academic argumentation while building proficiency with the rhetorical structures and formal syntax expected in literary analysis and argumentative writing.

Across units, Lenses on Literature weaves language objectives into content instruction, ensuring that students develop academic communication skills alongside conceptual mastery. The materials consistently link language use to disciplinary purposes—such as analyzing evidence, constructing arguments, and engaging in interpretive discussions—thereby reinforcing the interdependence of content, practice, and language. Teachers guide students to move fluidly between informal and formal modes of communication, practicing how to express ideas conversationally before refining them into precise, discipline-specific academic forms. Over time, this design enables students to transition from informal explanations to precise, formal academic communication, aligning with the expectations of middle-grade English Language Arts.

While the materials effectively embed disciplinary language development across lessons and units, there are missed opportunities for teachers to explicitly model the bridge between everyday and academic communication. For example, while students are often prompted to use academic terms and structures, the teacher-facing guidance does not always describe how to model this shift from conversational to formal English.

Overall, Lenses on Literature for Grades 9–12 comprehensively supports the deliberate and progressive development of disciplinary language over time. Through explicit language goals, structured discussion protocols, and well-integrated scaffolds for multilingual learners, the materials ensure that students gain the linguistic tools necessary to analyze texts, construct arguments, and communicate insights using the formal, precise language valued in the discipline of English Language Arts.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 9–12 of Lenses on Literature meet expectations for including a scope and sequence that develops different language learning goals over time. The materials demonstrate explicit alignment between language goals and complex disciplinary tasks, intentional progression across the four language domains, and sustained practice that promotes independence and advanced proficiency for MLLs.

The scope and sequence presents a coherent design for language development that parallels the progression of content and skills in high school English Language Arts. For example, in Grade 12, Unit 4, students analyze rhetoric across several texts and then write a rhetorical essay taking a position on an issue, using rhetorical techniques, textual evidence, and multimodal elements to support their argument. The unit identifies the priority language functions as “explain” and “argue,” with persuasive language as the priority form. This intentional design guides MLLs through a sustained process of mastering persuasive and argumentative language in multiple modes before applying it in a culminating task. The extended, focused attention on explanation and argument equips students with both the grammatical and rhetorical tools to engage in advanced reasoning and academic discourse—essential for demonstrating independence in evidence-based, analytical writing.

The materials also demonstrate clear alignment between language goals and content standards across the year. In Grade 10, Unit 5, for example, the Scope and Sequence specifies that in Lesson 4, students will “explain character development using comparison language,” which is directly aligned with RL.9–10.3 (Analyze how characters contribute to the theme) and W.9–10.2 (Write informative/explanatory texts). This same language goal recurs in Lesson 13, where students “explain the development of characters using evaluation language.” The repetition of this goal across multiple lessons ensures that students revisit the same academic language function (explain) in increasingly complex ways, reinforcing conceptual understanding and strengthening language use within a literary context. By intentionally connecting ELA standards and language objectives, the materials ensure that MLLs consistently practice disciplinary language tied to authentic ELA tasks, rather than isolated vocabulary or grammar drills.

Over time, the spiraling of language goals reflects a deliberate progression from guided to independent use. Earlier units include more structured supports, such as sentence frames and explicit modeling of academic language functions, while later units gradually reduce scaffolds, expecting students to use these functions autonomously. For example, argumentative writing in Grade 9 emphasizes the use of claim and evidence language, while by Grade 12, students independently manipulate tone, syntax, and rhetorical devices to persuade audiences through written and multimodal compositions. This gradual release mirrors the development of both linguistic and cognitive independence expected of upper high school students.

While the materials comprehensively address reading and writing language goals, speaking and listening objectives are less emphasized. For example, in Grade 12, Unit 4, there are 28 lessons in the unit with 28 language goals listed in the Scope and Sequence. Three of these goals focus on speaking, while the remainder emphasize writing. Opportunities for oral rehearsal and academic discussion are present but infrequent, particularly in later grades where writing becomes the dominant focus. There is a missed opportunity for balanced development across all four language domains, and a stronger presence of oral rehearsal and academic discourse would further enhance students’ ability to transfer linguistic knowledge into authentic communication contexts.

In conclusion, Lenses on Literature provides a comprehensive, intentional scope and sequence that clearly articulates language-learning goals aligned with grade-level ELA standards. The materials scaffold the progression of linguistic complexity across reading, writing, speaking, and listening tasks, giving MLLs repeated opportunities to develop and refine academic language in context. Although there is an imbalance in the language domain focus, the overall design supports a coherent pathway toward independence, ensuring that MLLs are well-prepared to engage in the complex linguistic and analytical demands of high school English and postsecondary academic work.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 9–12 of Lenses on Literature meet the expectations of including language goals and objectives that are incorporated at the individual lesson level. The materials consistently feature clear, measurable language goals embedded within each lesson. These goals are explicitly tied to content objectives and define what students need to do with language—such as explain, evaluate, or compare—as well as the forms and vocabulary required to achieve those functions. Goals consistently identify one or more language domains and are supported by teacher guidance, modeling, and formative assessment checkpoints.

For example, in Grade 9, Unit 3, Section 6, Lesson 26, Activity 6.5, the Language Goal states: “In writing, students will explain their interpretation and evaluate the impact of word choice using explanation language and details from the text.” The corresponding content objective asks students to plan body paragraphs for a rhetorical analysis. Students use a Rhetorical Analysis Planner to map subclaims and evidence, while teacher move notes provide sample topic sentences such as “Thoreau bolsters his argument…,” modeling how to use evaluative language in writing. The goal is measurable, explicitly tied to the content, and focuses on both the function (explain and evaluate) and the forms (explanation language and textual evidence). The alignment between language and content objectives ensures that students are developing the academic discourse skills necessary to write analytically about complex texts.

Similarly, in Grade 12, Unit 1, Section 2, Lesson 6, Activity 2.13, the Language Goal reads: “In discussion, students will explain key ideas in the poems using comparison language.” The content objective for the lesson directs students to analyze the development of theme (RL.11–12.2). Teacher move notes strategically pair MLLs with peers, and provide key vocabulary such as before, after, in contrast, and similarly to support students’ comparative analysis. The goal is observable, measurable, and directly linked to the content objective. It focuses on the language function of explaining through comparison and on the domains of speaking and listening, ensuring that oral discourse supports deeper comprehension of literary analysis.

Across grades 9–12, Lenses on Literature ensures that language goals are embedded in every lesson and are consistently labeled for teacher visibility and planning. Each goal aligns with disciplinary tasks and is measurable through student products such as essays, discussions, and presentations. The goals clearly identify language functions (e.g., explain, analyze, evaluate) and the linguistic forms and vocabulary required to use those functions. Teachers are supported with prompts, frames, and sample responses that demonstrate how language can be used to meet the lesson’s academic expectations.

Overall, the materials effectively integrate lesson-level language goals that promote meaningful language development in the service of content learning. Through consistent and intentional focus on language functions and forms across multiple domains, students gain the tools necessary to engage in rigorous, discipline-specific communication. While the program could strengthen connections across lessons to more explicitly highlight progression in language goals over time, Lenses on Literature provides a robust and well-structured framework for supporting MLLs’ academic language growth in tandem with mastery of ELA content.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 9-12 of Lenses on Literature meet the expectations that materials provide explanations of the instructional approaches of the program for MLLs and the identification of research-based strategies. The materials consistently frame their MLL supports around an asset-based, UDL-aligned approach that integrates language and content goals, offers predictable scaffolds for academic discourse, and aligns directly with recognized research and national guidance for supporting MLLs.

The Program Overview presents a clear and comprehensive description of the instructional approach for MLLs. The Supporting MLLs section states, “Lenses affirms students’ cultural and linguistic identities while providing explicit language instruction and scaffolded support.” This section identifies key features of the program’s MLL design, including “Integrated Language and Content Goals,” “predictable lesson structure,” “formative assessment aligned to language goals,” and “home language access.” These components demonstrate that language development is not treated as supplemental but is embedded in the daily architecture of lessons. This approach reflects a commitment to ensuring that MLLs not only access materials but also leverage language to engage in grade-level disciplinary practices across reading, writing, speaking, and listening.

The program further anchors its MLL approach in its Research Hub. In Teacher Resources, Research Hub, Research Compendium, “Academic Language and the English Language Learner”, the materials explain, “Lenses offers text-level and activity-level supports to guide ELLs in building academic language while engaging with grade-level texts… Instruction in academic language should include an array of practices, including explicit instruction… ELLs need extended time and support… taught throughout the school day.” This explicit connection between research-based principles and instructional design offers teachers a clear rationale for how and why the program engages MLLs in sustained, embedded language learning within content-rich literacy instruction.

Additional program features reflect the practical integration of this research base. In the Program Overview, under the Scaffolding within Levels of Support section, the materials outline a continuum of MLL supports from Core to Intensive, including adapted text, strategic vocabulary scaffolds, and editable sentence frames. This structure provides teachers with concrete guidance for adjusting supports based on learner needs, aligning with best practices in responsive language instruction.

The approach is further operationalized through the Anchor Strategy Library, which includes robust academic discourse routines. These anchor strategies are structured, repeatable learning routines that develop students’ skills in analysis, comprehension, vocabulary, writing, and discussion. By using the same protocols across many texts and tasks, students internalize these processes and build the automaticity needed for effective learning. These supports foster structured, linguistically scaffolded opportunities for MLLs to rehearse and refine ideas, directly aligning with research emphasizing the role of oral language in academic learning.

The Research Hub maintains this coherence by identifying the broader instructional framework that informs the program. The Carnegie Learning Instructional Framework for Literacy within the Research Hub highlights the importance of “speaking and writing about complex texts, home-language access, and using language to do disciplinary work.” This aligns with widely accepted research that advocates for integrating meaning-making, output, and academic discourse into daily literacy instruction for MLLs.

Taken together, these materials demonstrate a strong and consistent alignment between research-based design principles and instructional implementation. The program does not simply reference research—it operationalizes it through daily instructional routines, explicit academic language instruction, scaffolded collaboration, culturally responsive teaching, and structured opportunities for oral language development. These features appear across lessons, units, and teacher resources, demonstrating a coherent, comprehensive approach rather than isolated add-ons.

Because Lenses on Literature integrates its MLL approach throughout its program architecture—supported by explicit research citations, language-focused routines, and scaffolded instructional features—the materials meet the expectations for providing clear explanations of instructional approaches and for identifying and implementing research-based strategies for MLLs.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 9-12 of Lenses on Literature meet the expectations for providing teacher guidance to support MLL students and to utilize the strategies, supports, and accommodations found. The materials embed clear, lesson-specific guidance throughout units, with supports tied directly to language and content learning goals. Teachers receive actionable strategies, scaffolds aligned to proficiency-based levels of support, and annotations that help them notice student language use and respond with targeted instructional moves.

Across the Teacher Resources, teachers are provided with direct explanations on how to apply the program’s Levels of Support system and how supports are integrated within activities. For example, in the Teacher Resources section, How to Support Varied Learning Needs, Levels of Support, teachers are informed that support levels can be digitally assigned and that “each activity in a Lenses unit offers different types of supports... based on the instructional purpose of the activity.” The materials also advise teachers to assign Levels of Support at the start of each unit so students “receive the scaffolds that they need to fully engage in discussions, text analysis, and writing tasks.” Unit-level guidance further reminds teachers to set levels of support before instruction and highlights embedded language goals and strategy cues throughout the lesson sequence.  A detailed continuum describes Core, Light, Moderate, and Intensive supports, and teachers are prompted to “monitor progress and make adjustments for the next unit.” This encourages teachers to anticipate language demands and adjust supports responsively as students develop proficiency.

Teachers are also prepared to recognize the academic language structures that students will need to meet content goals and are given explicit guidance on how to respond instructionally. For example, in Grade 11, Unit 5, Section 1, teachers are directed to “prepare and provide sentence frames” when students “are giving simplistic or generic explanations.” Sample frames include: “I [agree/disagree/partially agree] with this statement because…”; “One reason that supports my position is…”; and “An example of this might be…” This guidance helps teachers anticipate the linguistic challenges of constructing claims and supporting reasoning. The supports are directly tied to the task, allowing teachers to respond in real-time to students' needs while preserving the content expectations of argumentative analysis. 

The materials also help teachers anticipate potential language demands in upper-grade texts, such as figurative language, rhetorical structures, or domain-specific vocabulary. Teachers receive cues about where students might struggle and suggestions for scaffolding without diminishing rigor, such as modeling think-alouds, prompting evidence-based responses, or providing vocabulary supports tied to the day’s reading. These suggestions help teachers notice student moves—for example, whether a student is expressing partial reasoning, misusing academic vocabulary, or omitting textual support—and respond with flexible scaffolds that build independence over time.

This responsiveness continues throughout the unit. In Grade 11, Unit 5, Section 2, Lesson 5, a Responsive Teaching Moves note advises: “If students need support to describe how events and individuals interact in the text, have them identify the event associated with each individual and the impact they had.”  It also advises teachers, “To help students explain relationships and interactions within the text, direct students to specific organizational patterns within the text.” This move is tagged with an LG icon to show that it is directly connected to the activity’s language goal, which is “In writing, students will explain relationships and interactions in the Anchor text using connecting language.” This guidance aligns language supports with the cognitive and analytical demands of the work, enabling teachers to make targeted instructional decisions.

The guidance is accessible to teachers at all levels of experience. Teachers new to supporting MLLs benefit from concrete examples (e.g., sample sentence frames, partially completed organizers), while more experienced teachers have opportunities to refine their practice through alternative scaffolding pathways and flexible suggestions rather than rigid step-by-step scripts. This balance ensures that teachers can implement supports confidently while maintaining grade-level expectations.

In summary, Lenses on Literature provides comprehensive, lesson-embedded teacher guidance that is responsive to students’ developing language proficiency and aligned to the demands of grade-level reading, writing, and discussion tasks. The materials help teachers anticipate language demands, match supports to learner needs, and respond flexibly to student language use. For these reasons, the instructional materials meet expectations for providing teacher guidance to support MLL students and for effectively utilizing the strategies, supports, and accommodations.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 9-12 of Lenses on Literature meet the expectations of including guidance for teachers to engage students in drawing attention to the use and development of language functions within disciplinary practices, allowing students to link language to concepts. The materials provide clear explanations of language functions, embed them across lessons and teacher resources, and offer actionable guidance that supports MLLs in understanding how language is used to carry out disciplinary thinking in ELA. Teachers are consistently supported in drawing students’ attention to the ways language is used to describe, explain, compare, analyze, and argue, which are the functions that underpin grade-level reading, writing, and discussion tasks.

The Guide to Supporting Varied Learning Needs includes a dedicated section on Language Functions, which defines language functions as “what students are doing with language to accomplish a disciplinary task.” It explains that students use language intentionally and unintentionally to make meaning in every lesson. The materials provide a chart of common ELA language functions, paired with Supporting Questions teachers can use to help students carry out these functions during instruction. This resource makes the instructional purpose of language explicit and gives teachers practical tools to help students connect language choices to conceptual understanding. By situating language functions within the context of disciplinary literacy, rather than treating them as isolated skills, the materials enable teachers to help MLLs understand how analysis, synthesis, and argumentation are expressed through specific linguistic moves.

For example, in Grade 9, Unit 2, the Unit at a Glance and Lessons Overview sections integrate explicit language work into content tasks and repeatedly name language skills or MLL language goals at the activity level so that teachers can surface and cue the language functions during reading, discussion, and writing. Specifically, the materials directly name the language use tied to tasks, including “Language Skills – Exchange ideas – Connect ideas” for discussion after reading and “Language Skill – Use word relationships to clarify meaning” when analyzing language and vocabulary inside the anchor text. The lessons table also flags “MLL Language Goal” within the instructional sequence and includes a dedicated discussion activity (“5.6 Seminar”). These inclusions consistently provide explicit guidance for teachers to integrate language functions directly into disciplinary learning, ensuring that MLLs develop language intentionally as a tool for executing disciplinary practices and articulating academic concepts.

Together, these features demonstrate that the materials provide consistent, high-quality guidance for teachers to highlight language functions and support students in using them as part of grade-level ELA practices. The materials define and contextualize language functions, provide actionable instructional supports, and connect specific linguistic tools to the conceptual demands of lessons. As a result, teachers are well-supported in engaging all students, and MLLs in particular, in understanding how language enables the deeper thinking required in literary analysis, writing, and academic discussions.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 9-12 of Lenses on Literature meet the expectations for providing teacher guidance on how to match students with language supports, progress along a continuum, and be responsive to students’ current language development in relation to the content. The materials prompt teachers to assign and adjust Levels of Support based on ongoing observation and formative evidence, and they offer lesson-embedded scaffolds that respond to student performance in real-time. Guidance is designed to help teachers tune the support, rather than change or reduce the academic task, so that MLLs can engage meaningfully with grade-level content.

In the digital platform, teachers have the option to use the Level of Support system to “deliver responsive instruction, assigning supports to individual students or groups based on assessment and observation data.”  This system, described in detail in Criterion 1, “offers different types of supports that are included based on the instructional purpose of the activity.” The How to Support Varied Learning Needs with Lenses on Literature resource provides guidance for teachers on how to utilize the Levels of Support system as well as how to use data to determine appropriate supports. The materials provide guidance on how to interpret both internal and external data. The Interpreting Internal Data section includes a table of recommendations “to match consistent assessment results with appropriate Levels of Support and teaching strategies. This ensures that students receive scaffolds aligned to their needs while continuing to engage with grade-level content.” The section continues with step-by-step directions for using the table, guiding teachers to use recent assessment data to determine a student’s consistent performance level, match it to recommended supports, implement those supports, and then monitor and adjust after each unit. The table provides a crosswalk between the consistent performance level on internal assessments, the level of support to assign, the recommendations to try in the teacher edition, and the instructional focus. Overall, the materials provide a comprehensive, data-driven framework that helps teachers match students’ performance levels to targeted supports and instructional strategies, promoting sustained access to grade-level learning.

Across the program, teachers receive explicit direction on how to notice when students need additional linguistic support and how to adjust scaffolds without altering text complexity or diminishing the rigor of the task. Supports are presented at the point of use and are framed around what students are doing with language in the moment, making the guidance highly responsive and actionable. For example, in Grade 11, Unit 5, Section 3, the Teacher’s Edition offers the following guidance: “If students are reluctant to speak during the debate, intentionally pair Entering and Emerging MLLs with Bridging students for discussion and modeling of the discussion routine.” This guidance is responsive to the immediate classroom situation—students’ reluctance to participate orally—and prompts teachers to adjust support right away by pairing students strategically. The task itself, participating in an academic debate, remains intact; the level and type of scaffolding shifts to meet students’ current language development and confidence with disciplinary discourse.

Taken together, these examples illustrate a coherent and flexible system in which support levels are continually informed by ongoing teacher observation. Teachers are equipped to diagnose student needs and make moment-to-moment decisions about providing clarifying structures, smaller text chunks, targeted vocabulary supports, or enrichment opportunities, ensuring scaffolds remain responsive to students’ evolving language proficiency. While the program could further strengthen its continuum by offering more explicit modeling of how teachers might move a student between levels of support within a single lesson, the existing guidance still equips teachers with the tools to make informed adjustments that preserve the cognitive and linguistic rigor of grade-level tasks. Overall, Lenses on Literature offers responsive, proficiency-aligned guidance that helps teachers match students with appropriate language supports, enabling them to engage meaningfully with grade-level content.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 9-12 of Lenses on Literature meet the expectations for including guidance for intentional and flexible grouping structures for MLLs to ensure equitable participation. The materials provide clear teacher guidance on grouping strategies that are both intentional and flexible, ensuring that MLLs can participate equitably in discussions and collaborative work. Grouping guidance is consistently available in the Teacher Resources and Supplemental Anchor Strategy Library, providing teachers with structured ways to organize and monitor group dynamics based on lesson goals, student needs, and language proficiency. These grouping approaches are reinforced by research-based practices, including Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and the English Learner Success Forum’s ELA Guidelines, which promote both access and advancement toward grade-level standards.

Within the Teacher Resources, the document How to Support Varied Learning Needs with Lenses on Literature provides explicit, research-aligned guidance on how teachers should strategically group students to engage in the academic discourse central to the program. The “Using Supportive Grouping” section offers a detailed chart to guide teachers' thinking about when homogeneous versus heterogeneous grouping is instructionally appropriate: 

• “Homogeneous Grouping – Consider grouping students with similar needs together.  Use the following questions to guide your thinking:

  • Would students benefit from a reteaching opportunity?

  • How can targeted support benefit this group?

  • What will students gain by working with peers with similar learning needs?

• Heterogeneous Grouping – Consider grouping students with varied needs together.  Use the following questions to guide your thinking: 

  • Would students benefit from a chance to learn from each other?

  • How can a variety of learners work together to fill different roles?

  • What will all students gain by working with peers with different learning needs?”

This guidance helps teachers make intentional decisions grounded in formative assessment data and instructional purpose. By emphasizing how grouping structure connects to task complexity and student readiness, the materials support equitable participation and ensure that MLLs have access to collaborative meaning-making opportunities.

In addition to this program-wide guidance, individual lessons include task-specific supports that demonstrate how grouping structures are tied to language goals. For example, in Grade 9, Unit 5, Lesson 17, teachers are instructed to pair entering and emerging MLLs with students for discussion and modeling of the discussion routine. The lesson provides key words and phrases to scaffold student responses aligned to the language goal. Similarly, in Grade 12, Unit 3, Section 4, the Content Note for Multilingual Learners advises: “If students are reluctant to speak, intentionally pair entering and emerging MLLs with students for discussion and modeling of the discussion routine. Provide students with sentence frames to summarize important details.” These examples show clear, task-specific grouping guidance that is intentionally tied to oral language expectations. Pairing MLLs with peers who can model academic language ensures they have structured entry points into discussions, while sentence frames provide students with manageable structures to express ideas, supporting their ability to participate actively and confidently in group dialogue.

Across the program, teachers are provided with tools—charts, prompts, sentence starters, roles, and grouping rationales—to plan and monitor collaborative structures that support MLLs and offer substantial, actionable guidance. These structures reflect research-based approaches and provide multiple pathways for MLLs to engage, contribute, and develop disciplinary language. Overall, Lenses on Literature provides intentional, flexible, and well-supported grouping guidance that helps ensure MLLs can participate equitably in collaborative work. The program equips teachers with the tools needed to structure group interactions that promote oral language development, scaffold complex thinking, and support full engagement in academic discourse.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 9-12 of Lenses on Literature meet the expectations of providing scaffolds and supports for MLLs in an equitable way. Across the grade band, supports for MLLs are embedded directly into the program’s design. This design ensures that supports are fully integrated into instruction rather than provided as stand-alone or separate materials. Teachers can implement MLL supports during whole-class lessons using the same texts and tasks assigned to all students. This integration prevents the need for separate instructional tracks and supports equitable participation in disciplinary learning.

Evidence of this equitable design appears in the program’s overarching guidance. For example, Teacher Resources, Welcome to Lenses on Literature, Program Overview, the section on Scaffolding Within Levels of Support states that “The Levels of Support system is embedded in core instruction with assignable levels, including universal supports available in multiple languages, and it is designed for MLLs while effective for all students. Provides universal supports such as accessibility tools and vocabulary aids in English and multiple languages. Available in 11+ languages on the digital platform.” This structure ensures that scaffolds are built into the same lessons and digital environment used by all students, without requiring extra purchases or separate materials. As a result, teachers can offer differentiated language support without altering pacing or creating separate learning pathways for MLLs. Although classrooms that rely solely on print may face challenges, teachers can still leverage the digital platform’s chunking and prompts to support MLLs using printed materials. This is not a full substitute for the digital supports, especially without the interactive glossary, but it does offer helpful scaffolding.

Equitable integration is also evident at the lesson level. For example, in Grade 10, Unit 3, Section 3, the Planning for Varied Learning Needs notes address students’ potential challenges with complex vocabulary and long sentences in the text. The guidance states that “the many long sentences in the text will pose a challenge to MLLs. Have them work in pairs with other students to break the sentences into smaller sentences and paraphrase them.” Because this support uses the core text and occurs within the lesson itself, it enables equitable access to meaning-making while keeping MLLs with their peers. While the scaffold may require slightly more processing time for some learners, it does not remove students from the shared instructional experience.

While the program’s equitable design is strong, there are additional considerations. Some supports—particularly those used during formative assessments—ask MLLs to spend additional time practicing strategies such as the “Introduction Generator” or completing additional steps before returning to the main task. These extensions can introduce minor timing inequities, especially in contexts where class periods are short. However, these instances are limited and do not significantly detract from the program's overall equitable structure. Additionally, as mentioned above, the Levels of Support are only available on the digital platform, which may present a barrier for classrooms that use only print materials for students; the supports embedded in the digital platform nonetheless provide teachers with resources to assist MLLs who have access only to print versions.

Overall, the materials present scaffolds that are inclusive, embedded, and tied directly to the standard lesson flow rather than positioned as supplemental or external interventions. All core supports are included at no extra cost and accessible through the same digital ecosystem that all students use. Although a few supports require additional time for MLLs, the majority of scaffolding is integrated in ways that sustain equitable access to instruction, making the program strong in its design for MLLs.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 9–12 of Lenses on Literature meet the expectations of offering assessment accommodations that allow MLLs to demonstrate their knowledge and skills without changing the content of the assessment. The materials include accommodations that preserve the academic rigor and content of assessments while providing greater accessibility for students who may need additional support to engage with the assessment tasks.

As detailed in the 3n report, Lenses on Literature provides a structured, customizable system of accommodations and support levels that maintain grade-level rigor while ensuring all students can equitably access assessments. This system is guided by teacher use of internal and external data to assign and adjust supports between units. Since core assignments and activities make up the assessment system, with major writing tasks in Section 6 of each unit serving as summative assessments and selected activities throughout the unit functioning as formative checks, MLLs are supported by the Levels of Support system (detailed in Criterion 1). These instructional supports for MLL are maintained throughout the end-of-unit writing process, which serves as a summative assessment for the unit.  

The materials also offer program-wide accommodations for assessments that maintain content integrity. In the Teacher Resources section, under Using the Lenses Program, How to Support Varied Learning Needs with Lenses on Literature in the Implementing Supports in Assessment section, the materials note: “Lenses offers embedded accommodations and accessibility measures for formative assessments and end-of-unit writing products, including audio versions of all texts and the ability to change font size. In addition to accessibility measures, the Levels of Support offer additional accommodations that support students without changing the content of the assessment. Note: Skills Checks are designed to mirror high-stakes assessments, so digital accommodations are not available for them.” These supports, as detailed in 3n, provide access for all students as well as linguistic supports that benefit MLLs and other students who may need them. While these accommodations for formative and summative writing assessments are strong, the absence of supports that allow MLLs to demonstrate their knowledge on Skills Checks is a notable missed opportunity. The Program Overview describes the Periodic Skills and Comprehension Checks as appearing “after Comprehension, Building Knowledge, and Genre Study sections, as well as at the unit end. These mirror high-stakes assessments, offering snapshots of specific skill growth.” Although some teachers may value insight into how students might perform on state assessments, withholding accommodations for MLLs risks misrepresenting their skill levels; teachers may assume students lack certain competencies when, in reality, language barriers—not skill deficits—are preventing them from demonstrating their knowledge.

Overall, these accommodations show that the program preserves the rigor and content of many assessments while increasing accessibility for MLLs. The materials clearly distinguish between accessibility features and modifications, ensuring that supports do not lower grade-level expectations. However, gaps remain: the Skills Checks provide no accommodations, as they are intended to mirror high-stakes testing conditions. Teachers should be aware of both how the materials support MLLs in showing their knowledge and the ways in which they fall short.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 9-12 of Lenses on Literature meet the expectations for including a formative assessment plan for language alongside content that consistently includes a connection to established unit and lesson language goals. Across units, the materials embed structured opportunities for teachers to assess students’ use of academic language in relation to clearly defined language goals, and they provide guidance, such as rubrics, response tools, and responsive teaching move notes, to help teachers interpret this evidence and adjust instruction.

Formative assessments are routinely integrated into lessons, consistently requiring teachers to evaluate students’ language use within the context of content learning. The Program Overview, Supporting MLLs section lists four main ways in which the materials support MLLs, including “Assessment and Feedback – Formative Assessment Aligned to Language Goals:  Teachers receive tools to monitor both language development and content understanding, with checks specifically targeting MLLs’ progress toward language goals.” The materials provide teachers with clear procedures for collecting observations, including recording sheets, leveled rubrics, and suggested scaffolds aligned to each lesson’s language goal. These tools support a coherent system in which teachers gather language data at meaningful points throughout a unit and use it to guide next steps.

Overall, Lenses on Literature for Grades 9-12 provides a cohesive and robust approach to formative language assessment. The program embeds assessments aligned to explicit language goals, supplies tools for documenting student evidence, and offers responsive teaching guidance to support students’ progression in language proficiency. Although the materials meet expectations, there is a minor missed opportunity in lessons where teachers are given open-ended spaces to record student thinking without clear direction on which language features to capture. Providing more consistent specifications of observable language features would further strengthen alignment across lessons. Even so, the program’s integration of rubrics, reflection charts, structured prompts, and clear teacher guidance enables teachers to monitor MLLs’ language growth systematically and responsively across units, meaningfully supporting the development of academic language alongside content mastery.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 9–12 of Lenses on Literature meet the expectations for including guidance for gathering, analyzing, using, and communicating language and content data from formative assessments in a cycle of continuous improvement. The materials consistently include guidance for teachers to gather, analyze, use, and communicate both language and content data from formative assessments. They provide explicit, step-by-step instructions for interpreting student performance, detailed rubrics that distinguish between language and content demands, and clear recommendations for instructional next steps. Together, these components create a coherent system that supports continuous improvement in both disciplinary learning and English language development.

One example of how the materials guide teachers in gathering and analyzing formative assessment data can be found in Teacher Resources, "Scoring with SCALE Rubrics: A Roadmap for Responsive Instruction." This resource offers one of the clearest explanations of how assessment evidence should be used to support instruction. It directs teachers to “use rubric feedback to determine instructional next steps, reteach skills, or extend learning,” explicitly positioning assessment as part of a responsive cycle rather than an endpoint. The statement that “SCALE rubrics provide a roadmap for responsive instruction” reinforces that teachers are expected to interpret rubric feedback in ways that distinguish between content understanding and language development, and then act deliberately on that information through reteaching, targeted scaffolds, or enrichment. This guidance helps teachers understand how to determine whether a student’s challenge stems from language complexity or conceptual misunderstanding.

The materials also provide detailed guidance for using formative assessments to gauge students’ disciplinary language practices alongside content comprehension. For example, in Grade 10, Unit 6, Lesson 26, Activity 6.6,  formative assessment includes a printed worksheet for recording teacher observations and a scoring guide with questions such as: “Did the student consistently use discussion norms and conventions? Did they appropriately exchange ideas? Did they use adequate volume, clear pronunciation, and appropriate eye contact?” The Responsive Teaching Move note tied to the lesson’s language goal—explaining an interpretation using explanation language—offers additional scaffolds, including words and phrases such as for example and for instance. Teachers are also guided to support students in outlining their thinking by identifying a claim, citing evidence, explaining the author’s reasoning, and evaluating how well the evidence supports the claim. This structure ensures that teachers have concrete, observable indicators of both language use and reasoning, enabling them to provide informative, timely, and actionable feedback that addresses both domains.

The consistent inclusion of rubrics, observational tools, and responsive teaching move notes ensures that formative assessment is integrated into daily instruction. These tools distinguish between language demands (e.g., clarity of explanation, precision of vocabulary, sentence complexity) and content expectations (e.g., accurate interpretation, alignment of evidence and reasoning). As a result, teachers are equipped to avoid conflating challenges with language proficiency and challenges with conceptual understanding—a key expectation of this indicator. Students also benefit from structured opportunities to reflect on their skill development and language growth through activities that encourage them to articulate what they can do and identify next steps for improvement.

Together, these examples illustrate a system in which formative assessments are intentionally embedded, rubrics and criteria clarify expectations for language and content, and teachers receive concrete steps for analyzing and responding to student performance. Students are supported not only as learners but also as active participants in monitoring their own growth. As a result, formative assessment becomes a continuous cycle that informs instruction, fosters language development, and deepens content understanding rather than an isolated event. Overall, Lenses on Literature provides clear, consistent, and actionable guidance for using formative assessment to drive instructional improvement. Through the integration of rubrics, reflection tools, and responsive teaching guidance across units, the materials enable teachers to track progress in both content and language while engaging students in understanding and articulating their own development.