6th to 8th Grade - Multilingual Learner Supports

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6–8 of Lenses on Literature meet the expectations for amplifying rather than simplifying texts while maintaining text complexity to provide access for MLLs without watering down content. The program is intentionally structured to preserve the rigor of grade-level and above-grade-level texts while offering a robust system of linguistic scaffolds that increase access to meaning, academic language, and disciplinary reasoning. These supports illuminate and expand the language of the texts rather than rewriting, reducing, or simplifying them.

Across the grade band, the materials strategically embed differentiated supports, which can be applied in the digital platform: Core, Light-Multilingual, Moderate-Multilingual, and Intensive-Multilingual.  These supports are available before, during, and after reading. These supports guide students through complex vocabulary, syntactic structures, discourse moves, and interpretive tasks. 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 7, Unit 3, Section 2, Comprehension, where students read “Lincoln’s Call to Service—and Ours,” a text identified as “above the grade band’s Lexile range” and qualitatively moderately complex. The Text Info sheet notes challenges such as the absence of an explicit definition of public service, the need for inferential reasoning, and vocabulary that “may present a challenge.” Rather than simplifying the text, the program provides multilayered access points:

• At the Core-Multilingual Level, 29 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, in addition to more glossed terms, the materials embed “stopping points after every one to two paragraphs with questions to guide annotations,” such as: “Highlight evidence that reveals the author’s proposal. Explain his ideas in your own words.”

• At the Moderate and Intensive-Multilingual Levels, more terms include multilingual and multimodal glossary definitions, and stopping points appear after every paragraph, expanding opportunities for meaning-making and monitoring comprehension.

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

At each stage of reading, the program continues to amplify rather than simplify text demands. For example, in Grade 7 reading of “Lincoln’s Call to Service” detailed above, students complete a vocabulary organizer “tailored to each student’s set level of support.” For instance, students at the Moderate-Multilingual level receive a partially completed organizer for the word exhorted, while students at the Intensive-Multilingual level see the organizer fully completed as a model. Teachers also review the concept of argument before reading to ensure that all students understand the disciplinary context for their analysis. During reading, all students annotate the full text—never a substituted or simplified version—and may listen to an audio narration to reinforce processing of complex syntax and rhetorical structures. After reading, the materials offer robust scaffolds for complex reasoning tasks. At the Intensive-Multilingual Level, students receive sentence starters for each discussion question and structured frames to help them evaluate the author’s reasons, evidence, and reasoning. These supports amplify the language of argument and analysis, providing students with access to the discourse practices necessary for more in-depth interpretive work. Together, these examples demonstrate that the program consistently amplifies linguistic and academic features of texts rather than reducing or simplifying them. MLLs are granted multiple pathways into meaning while still engaging with the full text complexity, rigorous analytical questions, and discipline-specific reasoning required at this grade band.

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.

Across Grades 6–8, Lenses on Literature offers a cohesive approach to amplification, including glossed terms, contextual annotations, structured opportunities for oral and written academic language, and differentiated graphic organizers. These supports illuminate grammatical, syntactic, and discourse-level features without reducing cognitive load or textual rigor. Through multimodal supports, the program ensures MLLs engage meaningfully with grade-level texts while building the academic English needed for college and career readiness.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6–8 of Lenses on Literature meet the expectations for providing support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in text-based questions, tasks, and assignments, and 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 6, Unit 2, Section 2, Comprehension, students read “The Medicine Bag” by Virginia Driving Hawk Sneve and analyze character development through guided questions such as “How does the narrator’s grandfather differ from the version he told his friends about?” and “How does the narrator’s feeling toward his grandfather change over the course of the story?” The Content Notes and Planning for Varied Learning Needs recommend small-group instruction, acting out scenes, and sentence frames that model comparative and analytical language. The Responsive Teaching Move note further guides annotation with targeted questions. These strategies collectively provide conceptual, linguistic, and kinesthetic supports, helping MLLs access character analysis, build academic language, and express their understanding through multiple modalities. 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.  The integration of structured discourse, sentence framing, and multimodal engagement exemplifies a strong model for equitable participation.

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, at times, in the Teacher Edition to ensure educators know when and how to provide these additional supports effectively. For example, in Grade 8, Unit 4, Section 5, Synthesis, students reread “The Iraqi Nights” by Dunya Mikhail to examine diction, structure, and allusions in relation to the theme. Students annotate for figurative language, structural features, and allusions, then respond to guiding questions such as “How is diction used to convey emotion and develop the theme?” and “How do these structural elements impact the text?” The Planning for Varied Learning Needs section includes targeted strategies for MLLs, such as modeling the evaluation of diction through a teacher's Think Aloud, highlighting noun groups and descriptive adjectives, and providing a sentence frame for writing a theme statement. The materials provide additional supports for MLLs in answering the guiding questions through the Levels of Support in the digital platform.  At the Light-Multilingual level, sentence starters are provided to students to answer the guiding questions.  The Moderate-Multilingual and Intensive-Multilingual levels provide the same sentence starters as well as partial exemplars. These questions and sentence stems are not available in the print version of the Student Edition, nor is the necessity for additional supports 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 6–8 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 6–8 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 engage meaningfully in vocabulary learning, and Responsive Teaching Move notes appear throughout the program to guide teachers in delivering scaffolds that ensure equitable access to grade-level vocabulary instruction.

Across units and lessons, vocabulary routines are embedded into the core instructional sequence, and MLL supports are designed to integrate seamlessly into these routines rather than appear as stand-alone add-ons. For example, in Grade 6, Unit 6, Section 2, Comprehension, students participate in a vocabulary activity before reading “Secret Samantha” by Tim Federle. Students preview high-frequency vocabulary from the text—including various, common, producer, edge, entire, and instead. To support MLLs in meeting the language goal, the materials direct teachers to model the process of choosing a word to define by using a think-aloud and an exemplar from the text: “For my Word Solving Tool, I want to choose a word that the author uses to convey a key idea… I will choose the word ‘common’ to examine in my Word Solving Tool.” A Responsive Teaching Move note further guides teachers to model the process of using context clues, analyzing word parts, and determining connotation. By walking students through this sequence, the materials ensure MLLs have the structured support they need to determine meaning from context—an essential independent word-learning strategy. These supports allow MLLs to participate fully and confidently alongside peers as they define vocabulary within authentic literary contexts.

Additional supports appear as students engage in vocabulary instruction within knowledge-building lessons. In Grade 7, Unit 2, Section 3, Building Knowledge, students practice using connotation and denotation to evaluate how authors use word choice to convey meaning. The materials include several layers of scaffolding for MLLs, such as audio versions of the text for students who are not yet able to read independently, intentional pairing of entering and emerging MLLs with peers for modeled discussion, and guidance encouraging students to draft in their home language before translating into English. Teacher modeling for evaluating word choice is explicit and robust; for example, teachers are guided to model an analysis using a line from “The Butterfly,” explaining how descriptive adjectives convey contrast and create imagery. MLL supports further prompt teachers to provide sample noun groups and adjectives to help students evaluate the impact of specific word choices. These supports collectively ensure MLLs have structured entry points into vocabulary analysis tasks and can fully meet the language demands of the lesson.

Across both examples, the materials demonstrate a consistent pattern: vocabulary instruction is paired with clear teacher modeling, differentiated scaffolds, and responsive supports that help students negotiate meaning and acquire independent word-learning strategies. MLLs are not merely supported in learning definitions—they are guided in using vocabulary to analyze texts, articulate ideas, and participate in structured academic discourse.

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, Lenses on Literature meets expectations by providing effective strategies and supports that enable MLLs to fully engage in explicit instruction on independent word-learning strategies and key vocabulary, helping them build knowledge within and across texts. The program provides coherent, integrated supports that help MLLs fully and completely participate in explicit vocabulary instruction and in the development of transferable word-learning strategies. These supports—ranging from modeling and sentence frames to strategic pairing and multimodal tools—make it possible for MLLs at varying proficiency levels to access grade-level texts while building deep, functional vocabulary knowledge.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6–8 of Lenses on Literature meet the criteria of providing support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in opportunities to practice the writing process using evidence-based strategies embedded across each unit. The materials include scaffolded writing instruction and practice with planners, teacher modeling, and step-by-step lesson plans. Together, these elements ensure that MLLs are consistently supported in writing process practice.

Writing activities throughout the course include MLL supports connected to a step in the writing process. For example, in Grade 6, Unit 6, Section 6, students plan a short story by completing a Short Story Planner that guides them to brainstorm characters and map out the plot using the plot pyramid (exposition, inciting incident, rising action, climax, falling action, and resolution).  Within the digital platform, the Levels of Support provide scaffolds for each part of the Short Story Planner.  The Light-Mutlingual level provides sentence starters for each question.  The Moderate-Mutlingual Level provides sentence frames and examples of key terms and concepts.  The Intensive-Multilingual Level builds on the Moderate-Multilingual supports to provide examples in the Short Story Planner chart itself.   Targeted linguistic supports in the Teachers Edition are minimal in this section, confined mostly to the Peer Feedback activity. While the materials could benefit from more explicit connections in the Teacher Edition to the supports provided in student-facing materials on the digital platform, the Levels of Support provide enough scaffolding for MLLs to participate in the practice of the writing process here, and throughout the course.  

Similarly, in Grade 7, Unit 2, Section 6, students write a literary analysis by drafting a thesis, body paragraphs, an introduction, and a conclusion using the Literary Analysis Planner. One of the only explicit MLL supports highlighted in the Teachers Edition is a Content Consideration, Planning for Varied Learning Needs, that first appears in Lesson 28, then is repeated in Lessons 29, 30, and 31, suggesting that reluctant writers may draft in their home language first, translate what they can independently, and then use a translation device for the remaining portions. While drawing on a student’s home language can be a valuable cognitive strategy, relying primarily on translation for a complex task such as literary analysis may not always provide the most effective support. MLLs may benefit from additional targeted English-language scaffolds to fully support their work, as they navigate both the demands of interpreting literature and of expressing their thinking in academic English.  The student-facing materials on the digital platform do provide linguistic scaffolds to support MLLs in participating in the planning process through the Levels of Support.  Both the Thesis Statement Breakdown chart and the Support for Literary Analysis Planner include partner talk prompts 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 6–8 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 6–8 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 in lessons and activities, demonstrating a coherent, 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 8, Lesson 4, Activity 4.5, Delineate the Argument, students identify the elements of argument in the article “Should Kids Take Mental Health Days?” The Language Goal for the activity specifies that “in writing, students will explain and classify the argument using explanation language and disciplinary vocabulary.” This explicit language goal ensures that students understand both the linguistic and cognitive demands of the task. The Content Considerations section provides targeted support for MLLs, guiding teachers to help students identify claims, subclaims, and reasons by looking for key connecting words and phrases such as so, as a result, and because. Aligned to the lesson’s language goal, teachers are also prompted to provide a bank of explanation phrases—for example, for instance, such as, displays, demonstrates, exhibits, indicates—to support students in producing clear, formal, and text-based explanations. This integration of content and language supports students in using disciplinary vocabulary to articulate reasoning, fostering both conceptual understanding and academic precision.

Similarly, in Grade 6, Section 1, Lesson 1, Activity 1.2, Analyze Quote, the materials name a clear and intentional language objective tied to a discussion task: “Students will orally explain key ideas about poets and poetry by using comparison language.” Teacher guidance prompts students to use comparative phrases during the discussion, such as both, in contrast, on the one hand, and on the other hand. This activity exemplifies how the program integrates content and language development within the same learning experience. By embedding explicit language instruction within an analysis task, students learn how to use comparative structures—a key feature of literary analysis—to discuss complex ideas about poetry, authorship, and theme.

Across units, the materials consistently include explicit language goals, sentence-level scaffolds, and opportunities for students to use disciplinary language in authentic contexts. 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 use formal language structures to explain, compare, and argue, while teachers are equipped with strategies to connect these linguistic moves to the core content. 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. 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 demonstrates a coherent and intentional approach to developing language valued by disciplinary practices. Through its integration of language goals, disciplinary vocabulary routines, and scaffolded discussion strategies, the program provides students—particularly MLLs—with consistent opportunities to use, refine, and internalize academic language as they engage in the authentic reading, writing, and analytical practices of English Language Arts.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6–8 of Lenses on Literature meet expectations for including a scope and sequence that develops different language learning goals over time. The scope and sequence included in the materials demonstrates explicit alignment between language goals and complex content tasks, intentional progression across the four language domains, and sustained practice that enables MLLs to build increasing linguistic and academic sophistication throughout the year.

The scope and sequence outlines a coherent progression of language development that parallels the development of reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills. For example, in Grade 8, Unit 4: The Power of Myth, the Driving Task Prompt asks students to analyze Dunya Mikhail’s “The Iraqi Nights” and related texts. The corresponding language function and form, as listed in the Scope and Sequence, are “explain and describe,” “cause and effect language,” and “evaluation language.” These are the precise linguistic tools MLLs need to master in order to construct a reasoned, evidence-based literary analysis, moving beyond simple comprehension to sophisticated argumentation. 

Across grades and units, the Language strand in the scope and sequence demonstrates a clear spiral of recurring and increasingly complex skills. For example, in Grade 6, Unit 1, students meet expectations aligned to standards W.6.7 and W.6.8, which guide them to conduct short research projects, gather information from multiple sources, and evaluate the credibility of those sources. Later units revisit these skills while introducing more sophisticated expectations, such as the application of academic and domain-specific vocabulary (L.6.6) and the flexible use of strategies for determining word meanings (L.6.4). This progression demonstrates intentional, year-long attention to vocabulary and academic language development, essential for MLL success. Repetitive exposure to similar skills with increasing complexity ensures that students not only retain language structures but also refine and transfer them across tasks, genres, and contexts.

The scope and sequence reflects explicit alignment between language and content goals, ensuring that MLLs develop the linguistic tools required to access grade-level ELA standards. Language objectives are directly tied to disciplinary practices—such as explaining, describing, and evaluating—rather than existing as isolated grammar or vocabulary targets. This interdependence between content and language supports MLLs in using English as a tool for meaning-making, academic discourse, and evidence-based reasoning. Over time, supports gradually fade, allowing students to demonstrate autonomy in language use, organization of ideas, and argumentation.

While the materials comprehensively address reading and writing language goals, speaking and listening objectives are less emphasized in later units. For example, in Grade 8, Unit 4, there are 27 lessons in the unit with 27 language goals listed in the Scope and Sequence. Four of those goals are speaking-focused, and 23 are writing-focused. 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 well-structured and intentional scope and sequence that aligns language and content goals, scaffolds linguistic complexity across lessons and units, and supports students’ growth toward independent and proficient use of academic English. The materials strike a balance between rigor and accessibility, offering MLLs a clear pathway to mastering the language functions and forms necessary for success in secondary ELA coursework and beyond.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6–8 of Lenses on Literature meet the expectations of including language goals and objectives that are incorporated at the individual lesson level. The materials consistently include lesson-level language goals that are clearly labeled, measurable, and directly tied to content objectives. Each goal identifies what students should do with language, specifies the language structures and vocabulary that support those functions, and consistently names at least one language domain—speaking, listening, reading, or writing. Goals are embedded in the lesson pages, supported by responsive teacher “moves,” and checked through formative assessments.

For example, in Grade 6, Unit 2, Section 1, Lesson 1, Activity 1.2, the Language Goal reads: “Students will orally explain key ideas about family by using explanation language.” The content objective asks students to select and discuss a quote about family. This goal is measurable and directly tied to the task, requiring students to speak and explain using targeted explanation language. Teacher supports include sentence frames such as “Family means… to me” and “I chose this quote because…,” ensuring all learners can meet both the language and content expectations through structured oral interaction. The clarity of the goal, the explicit language function (explain), and the defined forms (sentence frames) all align closely with the lesson’s purpose and promote productive academic discourse.

Similarly, in Grade 7, Unit 4, Section 2, Lesson 4, Activity 2.4, the Language Goal states: “In writing, students will explain and classify details using opinion language.” The corresponding content objective directs students to determine importance and identify key details. The teacher supports this task through opinion frames such as “I agree with…” and “I would like to add…” The goal is measurable and precise, guiding students to use opinion language while completing a written classification task. This integration of language function (explain and classify) and form (opinion frames) ensures that students develop both content understanding and control of academic language simultaneously.

Across grades 6–8, Lenses on Literature consistently embeds language goals within lessons that connect directly to student products, such as summaries, written explanations, and oral discussions. Each goal reflects a clear language function—such as explain, evaluate, or describe—and identifies linguistic forms and vocabulary appropriate to the task. These goals are supported by teacher scaffolds, modeling, and opportunities for peer interaction that reinforce language use across all four domains.

Overall, the materials demonstrate strong alignment between content and language objectives. The consistent inclusion of clear, measurable language goals that integrate language functions, forms, and vocabulary ensures that MLLs develop academic language as they build content knowledge. Through explicit attention to speaking, listening, reading, and writing, Lenses on Literature provides teachers and students with a coherent, well-structured framework for language development in service of content learning.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6–8 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 6–8 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.

The materials further guide teachers to implement supports at the point of use—not just in unit overviews. Strategy cues, embedded language goals, and support labels are directly presented in lessons, enabling teachers to attend to students' language moves and provide responsive scaffolding. For instance, when students are asked to complete text-based responses or participate in discussions, teachers are reminded how the Levels of Support can modify access (e.g., providing language frames, key vocabulary previews, or annotation cues) without lowering expectations.

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 7, Unit 5, Section 1, Lesson 1, the materials include a Planning for Varied Learning Needs note that includes teacher direction to “prepare and provide sentence frames” when students “are giving simplistic or generic explanations.” Sample frames include: “And what about ___?”, “As for ___”, and “Similarly, ___”. This guidance helps teachers anticipate some of the linguistic challenges of generating questions about different perspectives. The supports are directly tied to the task, allowing teachers to respond in real-time to student needs while preserving content expectations. Across lessons, the materials also help teachers anticipate linguistic challenges. Guidance highlights text features that may be demanding—such as figurative language, syntax patterns, or academic vocabulary—and offers suggestions for scaffolding without reducing rigor. These suggestions include prompting students with questions that encourage them to provide evidence-based explanations, providing feedback stems, and modeling think-alouds to clarify complex concepts. While not always present in every lesson, these supports collectively help teachers make informed decisions about how to support productive struggle and when to intervene.

This responsiveness continues throughout the unit. In Grade 7, Unit 5, Section 2, Lesson 6, a Responsive Teaching Moves note makes the recommendation that, “If students need support to connect ideas and pose questions during discussion, provide them with a short list of guidelines and sentence stems to use as they talk with their partners.” It also advises teachers, “To help students evaluate the impact of word choice, select examples of noun groups and descriptive adjectives that are used to convey ideas.” 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 evaluate the impact of word choice using explanation 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 6–8 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.

This relationship between language and disciplinary meaning-making is reinforced within daily instruction. For example, in Grade 6, Unit 5, Activity 2.8, the Teacher Edition includes a responsive teaching move note designed to help students develop the language function of describing and explaining. Teachers are guided to provide transition words such as because, due to, similarly, however, and in contrast to support students in articulating relationships between ideas. This guidance directly equips students with the linguistic tools they need to increase the sophistication of their explanations and comparisons, enabling them to link language structures to conceptual demands such as cause-and-effect or contrast. The support is not generic; it is tied to the lesson’s language goal and embedded within the content task, ensuring MLLs can participate fully and accurately in the disciplinary work.

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 6–8 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 students' 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 enables teachers to match students’ performance levels with 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 6, Unit 4, Lesson 14, the Planning for Varied Learning Needs guidance instructs teachers that “If students are unable to read independently, break the text into small sections” and recommends dividing the selection into “a beginning, middle, and end” to support comprehension. This is a clear demonstration of responsiveness: teachers are prompted to observe students’ difficulty accessing the text and to apply a scaffold that meets that need without simplifying the task. The core reading expectation remains unchanged; instead, the support adjusts to maintain access.

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. Consequently, the instructional materials meet expectations for this indicator.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6–8 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.

Additional structures for equitable collaboration appear throughout the Supplemental Resources, particularly in the Anchor Strategy Library. For example, the Grade 7 “Fishbowl” strategy provides explicit steps for setting up both small-group and whole-class discussions, with norms that ensure balanced participation. The strategy includes sentence starters designed to scaffold academic language for MLLs, such as: “I understand what you mean by ___, but I see it differently because ___.” By combining an organized participation structure (inner/outer circles with rotation) with language supports, this strategy simultaneously promotes oral language development and ensures that MLLs have meaningful access to disciplinary discourse. The Fishbowl routine also reinforces equitable talk time by requiring students to rotate roles and perspectives.

The materials further strengthen equitable participation through collaborative role structures. In the “Student Roles” strategy, students are guided to adopt purposeful, discourse-based roles—such as Summarizer, Clarifier, or Predictor—that distribute cognitive responsibility across the group. For example: “The Summarizer reviews and clarifies the task for the group to complete.” These roles help MLLs engage with academic language within a supported structure and provide accessible entry points into complex conversations. Each role includes a clear function that supports both comprehension and language production, allowing MLLs at varying proficiency levels to participate meaningfully in group problem-solving and discussion.

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 and actionable guidance for teachers. 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 6–8 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. In Grade 6, Unit 6, the Lessons Overview and Lesson Materials show that supports are “part of the core sequence, are assignable, and are available to all students in the digital platform.” In Activity 3.9, the teacher is instructed: “Pair MLLs with students who can identify the context clues for MLLs, and have the MLLs try to use these clues to unpack meaning.” The pairing strategy uses existing lesson materials and keeps students engaged in the same task as their peers. The reminder to set Levels of Support and to include explicit MLL Language Goals within the activity further ensures that MLL scaffolds are embedded within grade-level learning rather than added on separately. These features enable teachers to support language development without modifying the timing or structure of the lesson.

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 in 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 6-8 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 6–8 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 6–8 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 6–8 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 formative assessment data related to both content understanding and language development. Teachers receive explicit, step-by-step instructions, detailed rubrics, and structured opportunities for feedback and reflection, which together support a coherent, ongoing cycle of instructional improvement.

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 identify whether a student’s challenge stems from language complexity or conceptual misunderstanding.

Throughout the program, teachers are guided to collect formative assessment data that distinguishes between content and language goals. For example, in Grade 7, Unit 6, Section 2, the formative assessment task evaluates each student’s Artifact of Learning using a rubric with four performance levels—emerging, approaches expectations, meets expectations, and exceeds expectations. The Teacher Edition instructs teachers to download a worksheet for recording formative assessment observations, prompting the collection of both qualitative and quantitative data. Crucially, teachers are directed to assess students on the stated Language Goal by asking, “Did the student define neurodiversity using examples and details from the text?” A Responsive Teaching Move note provides actionable next steps: If students need support to meet the language goal, teachers can offer opportunities for students to share their ideas in smaller groups using sentence frames. This example demonstrates how the materials guide teachers to interpret formative data and determine whether students’ challenges stem from language development needs or gaps in content understanding.

The materials also support students in reflecting on and communicating their own learning progress, making formative assessment a shared process. In Grade 6, Unit 1, Activity 6.18: Final Skill Reflection, students engage in structured self-assessment by completing a Skills Reflection Chart. The materials prompt students to identify three skills they succeeded with, two skills they want to improve, and one activity that helped them grow. This task is scaffolded earlier in the sequence: in Activity 6.17, a Responsive Teaching Move note recommends providing sentence frames with transition words (e.g., “In the end, I felt ___,” “As a result, I believe ___,” “Consequently, I think…”) to support students in expressing their thinking with increased sentence complexity. This reflective structure supports students’ metacognition around both content and language practices and generates meaningful data that teachers can use to plan future instruction.

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.