High School - Multilingual Learner Supports

The instructional materials reviewed for High School partially meet the criteria of supporting Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) full and complete participation in grade-level learning of phenomena. Although the curriculum is grounded in rich, observable phenomena and includes a range of scaffolds to support MLLs, these supports are inconsistently applied across lessons. As a result, MLLs at varying proficiency levels may encounter barriers to fully accessing and engaging with the content.

The materials sometimes provide supports sufficient for MLLs to fully and completely participate in learning phenomena. While the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) guidance may offer some support for MLLs during reading tasks, it lacks targeted language development strategies to support students as they engage in phenomena-based learning activities. For example, in Unit B.5, Lesson 1 Teacher Edition, in the section 9- Investigate Traditional Knowledge About Polar Bears, students examine quotes and build arguments in pairs. This activity supports content understanding and creates space for speaking. There is also an Attending to Equity - Universal Design for Learning sidebar that states, “Students who are not confident reading aloud may benefit from receiving a shorter quote in advance and holding onto it until it is their turn to read.” Reducing the length of a quote, while seemingly helpful for "struggling readers," can inadvertently reduce the linguistic and conceptual complexity of the text, thereby "watering down" the content and academic challenge.

A Progress Tracker supports students in breaking down and reflecting on complex phenomena, scaffolding cognitive demand without diluting rigor and promoting meaning-making through synthesis. However, such amplifications appear more frequently in investigative lessons than in text-dense ones, limiting consistent support across lesson types. For example, in Unit B.5, Lesson 2 Teacher Edition, section 17- Navigate: Introduce Progress Trackers, there is teacher guidance to support the implementation of progress trackers after they carry out a thermoregulation investigation. Phenomenon-based instruction is designed to build understanding over time. When support structures are uneven, students may make strong conceptual connections in one type of lesson (e.g., investigative) but falter in others (e.g., reading-heavy lessons). This disrupts continuity in their sensemaking and prevents full engagement with the phenomenon throughout the unit.

In some instances, guidance is provided; however, it lacks intentional design to effectively support MLLs across all levels of English proficiency. In Unit B.3, Lesson 1, students develop an initial consensus model in groups. They are given whiteboards or chart paper and markers. Although the guidance states, “Revisit your classroom agreements and ask students to recall what equitable participation looks like in small groups,” there is no teacher guidance present to support MLLs with this activity, which may create inequitable participation within the small groups. In Lesson 2 Teacher Edition, section Develop a Model to Explain How Cancer Causes Illness, there is an Attending to Equity sidebar that states, “Students should be encouraged to record their ideas using linguistic (e.g., written words) and nonlinguistic modes (e.g., photographs, drawings, tables, graphs, mathematical equations, measurements), especially as we develop these new ideas. This is particularly important for emerging multilingual students because making connections between written words and nonlinguistic representations helps students generate richer explanations of scientific phenomena.” Although this support is intended to provide access, it lacks sufficient embedded supports to ensure that MLLs at lower proficiency levels can fully engage and participate meaningfully.

In some lessons, there are supports such as sentence frames/stems to assist students in speaking. In Unit B.4, within Lesson 2, Slide O, sentence stems are present to engage students in speaking when comparing their explanations about the effect of fragmentation on seed dispersal. An example sentence frame is, “We used the term ___ to explain the same idea because…” These supports help students produce scientific explanations and bridge the gap between content and language. However, these supports are not intentionally designed to develop language forms and functions, nor are they explicit in promoting student language development.

Although there is guidance for teachers to engage students in interdisciplinary activities and discussions, there is no intentional guidance to develop language. For example, in Unit B.1, Lesson 4 Teacher Edition, there is a sidebar titled, Supporting Students in Engaging in Using Mathematics and Computational Thinking, and another sidebar to support discussion, titled Strategies for this Building Understandings Discussion. The lesson does not include any specific supports for multilingual learners as they engage in interdisciplinary activities.

There are opportunities for academic discourse in some lessons, but the materials do not provide scaffolds for MLLs. For example, in Unit B.3, Lesson 2 Teacher Edition, section Reading About Cancer, there is an Attending to Equity sidebar to support reading before a group discussion. Specifically, it states, “Have them circle any unknown words, highlight important takeaways, and write questions in the margins so that they have articulated their ideas before the whole-group discussion.” Students then discuss their notes in small groups. While opportunities for academic discourse are present, it lacks scaffolds such as sentence frames or modeled exchanges, limiting access for beginner MLLs.

Although lessons provide handouts with visuals connected to vocabulary and some guidance to bridge new vocabulary to prior knowledge, the guidance is ambiguous. For example, in Unit B.4, Lesson 2 Teacher Edition, in Handout Hawksbeard Garden Experiment, vocabulary terms appear in bold with visuals. In addition, the Attending to Equity sidebar suggests connecting new terms to cognates to help MLLs bridge existing linguistic knowledge. However, these supports are vague and do not include potentially helpful cognates, leaving it up to the teacher to research and determine what those are. The lack of clarity in the support may disrupt the progression of learning around the unit’s phenomenon, leaving MLLs without the comprehensive guidance needed to fully engage.

As stated in the report for Indicator 1a, phenomena are consistently used to organize instruction. However, the materials lack consistent language supports tied to phenomena. While the content is designed to include phenomena, the scaffolds that help MLLs engage in meaning-making through those phenomena are uneven. For example, while some lessons include multiple scaffolds and Attending to Equity sidebars, others,  such as Unit B.5, Lesson 3 in the Teacher Edition, lack these supports entirely.

The materials are designed to include phenomena, and in some lessons, scaffolds such as sentence frames, visual supports, and structured partner work provide meaningful language access. However, these supports are not applied consistently or comprehensively. Specifically, in Unit B.4, Lesson Set 1 (Lessons 1-6), as students engage in the phenomenon and conduct investigations, there are some lessons with multiple Attending to Equity sidebars, like Lesson 1 with six, but do not specifically call out supports for MLLs. In other cases, specific supports for “Emerging Multilingual Learners” are called out multiple times, as in Lesson 2, with three callouts for MLLs. This results in inconsistent support for students as they engage in and investigate phenomena.

Opportunities to explicitly distinguish between everyday and academic meanings of vocabulary terms are notably limited. The curriculum frequently engages students in structured peer interactions tied to real-world phenomena. Sentence stems, visuals, and personal glossaries are present in multiple lessons, and Attending to Equity sidebars highlight key considerations for supporting MLLs. Multimodal resources (videos, infographics, graphs) and tools like Progress Trackers offer concrete support for making sense of phenomena.

Supports for listening, discourse, and vocabulary in context are uneven and sometimes missing. Scaffolds are often optional and not woven into core task design. Supports do not target the full range of language proficiency levels, like advanced MLLs and students at bridging proficiency levels. Opportunities to distinguish everyday from scientific language and to support interdisciplinary academic language use are underdeveloped.

The instructional materials reviewed for High School partially meet the criteria of providing support for Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) full and complete participation in grade-level learning of problems. Materials provide strategies and supports for MLLs to participate in grade-level learning of problems as included in the materials, but these supports do not consistently provide for full and complete participation by all MLL students.

The instructional materials use real-world problems, such as developing a community fire management system and determining if polar bears should be protected from extinction to focus instruction. However, MLL-specific scaffolds that support language development in the context of these problems, such as structured academic talk, modeled writing, or content-specific sentence stems, are rare within those problem-solving experiences. 

In Unit B.5, Lesson 8, students investigate a species as at risk for extinction with a group. The Teacher Edition guides teachers to “organize the class into groups of 3-5 students and allow them to choose one of the case studies.”  The Attending to Equity bar guides teachers to reference the “UDL for Case Studies for differentiation guidance.”  This separate document details the “text structures and design features that benefit all readers in this lesson” for each of the eight case studies. For example, the materials list the Manatee Case Study as having the following text features:

• Images

• Line Graph

The materials also include the following differentiation guidance:  “Manatee Case Study may be most accessible due to previous exposure in Serengeti Unit. The reading level and easy-to-interpret graph may further support students’ comprehension.”  This document also advises teachers that “The Google versions of these articles are accessible to screen-reading technology and online translator services. Some articles have additional features that may help when differentiating readings for students.”  Differentiating texts for the case is an important step towards MLLs’ full and complete participation in this problem-focused activity. However, the materials provide no further supports for students. The absence of linguistic scaffolds for key components of the activity, such as the Research Notes Organizer, group discussions, poster development, and the gallery walk, limits MLLs’ ability to fully engage in and contribute to the lesson. 

Similarly, in Unit 2, Lesson 10, students investigate four case studies of fire management. In part 2. Investigate Successful Fire Management, the Attending to Equity sidebar guides teachers to “allow students to self-select readings based on interest... or difficulty. Cultural Burn Case Study is most accessible, while Prescribed Burn Case Study is most challenging.”  This sidebar also directs teachers to a separate document entitled UDL for Jigsaw Readings, which details Universal Design Features and Differentiation Guidance for each case study in the same manner as the previous example. MLLs are again supported in their access to the case study readings without receiving any further support or linguistic scaffolds for other activities in this lesson set.  

The materials use real-world problems, such as developing a community fire management system and determining whether polar bears should be protected from extinction, to focus instruction and build coherence. Visual supports, Progress Trackers, and structured peer discussions offer entry points for meaning-making and discourse. Culturally relevant tasks, such as investigating Indigenous knowledge systems in Unit B.5, promote inclusivity and meaningful engagement with content.

While the materials incorporate real-world, culturally relevant problems to drive instruction and offer some differentiation through accessible texts and visual features, they lack consistent linguistic scaffolds to fully support MLLs throughout the learning process. Supports such as structured academic talk, modeled writing, and sentence stems are rarely embedded within key activities like group discussions, research, poster creation, and gallery walks. Although tools like UDL documents and Progress Trackers provide entry points for content access, the absence of integrated language development strategies limits MLLs’ ability to engage in and contribute to the full scope of these problem-solving experiences.

The instructional materials reviewed for High School partially meet the criteria of providing support for Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) full and complete participation in the sensemaking of Science and Engineering practices (SEPs). The materials include some supports intended to help MLLs access and engage in SEP-based practices; however, these supports are inconsistently integrated and often lack the explicit guidance needed to ensure full participation by MLLs.

For MLLs, the materials support learning through their intentional structural design. For example, the Teacher Handbook’s Universal Design for Learning (UDL) section describes how materials support all learners through embedded supports. Additionally, the handbook explains how MLL support is found through the intentional curricular design, pedagogical routines, and specific strategies for engaging MLLs in Attending to Equity sidebars.

While there are callout boxes that provide specific support for SEPs and Attending to Equity sidebars to support MLLs, there are also supports beneficial for all students, including MLLs, embedded within the curriculum design. However, the guidance does not support full and complete participation for MLLs. Specifically, in Unit B.2, Lesson Set 1 introduces students to the phenomenon of zombie fires and guides them through developing investigations about energy movement in an ecosystem to develop a model to explain zombie fires. This sequence allows students to meaningfully engage in SEPs, such as planning investigations, asking questions, and modeling. However, some supports do not allow students to fully engage in SEPs. For example, in Lesson 2, there is a Discussion Self-Assessment for students to complete, with directions that state, “Read each statement and mark YES or NO for whole-class discussions and/or small-group discussions.” Students self-assess whether they shared their thinking, listened actively to others, respectfully gave critiques, and invited others to share their thinking in both whole-class and partner/group discussions. Then, the activity states, “Choose one statement that you checked NO for or that you think you can improve on, and write down two ideas for what you can do to improve in the next discussion.” This activity comes after students engage in the SEP of Planning and Carrying Out an Investigation on burning fuels to answer questions about the role of peat in zombie fires. While this guidance may support awareness of discussions aligned with the SEPs, it lacks concrete strategies for how teachers can support students who are not actively participating in those discussions.

The materials sometimes guide teachers to encourage students to complete assignments in multiple modalities. In B.3, Lesson 5 Teacher Edition, section 10. Revise Explanations, a sidebar encourages teachers to allow students to present their knowledge in an accessible way, “verbally with you or with another student acting as a scribe to record their thinking on paper or through a voice recording.” In addition, the guidance suggests visuals, stating, “Some students may benefit from using gestures, images, or manipulatives to support their explanations instead of written text.” While these supports help MLLs access content, they do not intentionally promote language development and lack targeted guidance for using interdisciplinary language or varied language forms.

In Unit B.5, Lesson 8 Teacher Edition, section 3. Introduce Case Studies, the lesson focuses on various case studies based on the extinction of different species and what is happening to prevent extinction. An Attending to Equity sidebar directs teachers to a “Teacher Reference UDL for Case”. This document provides structures and design features within the case studies that benefit all readers, such as images and graphs, and chunked sections with titles and subtitles. There is also the option to access companion videos. The same side bar also states, “Students may choose which text to read based on reading level, familiarity with the species, text features, or the option to access companion videos.” The text engineering and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) guidance that allows students to choose their case study reading creates an opportunity to amplify text access without simplifying its complexity. While text features and general accessibility guidance are provided, there's no explicit mention of how the materials guide students to use language to do science (e.g., compare, analyze, describe, explain).

In some cases, the materials offer limited MLL-specific supports with linguistic scaffolds. For example, in Unit B.3, Lesson 11, Teacher Edition, section 5. Build a Class Organizer, all students are given a role to participate in creating a class organizer to understand how the cell cycle disrupts the cause of cancer. The class organizer is blank, and the guidance states, “Assign each group, pair, or individual student to be responsible for a row or cell in the organizer, depending on the size of your class. Try to ensure that everyone has a role.” Despite the SEP engagement in obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information, MLL supports are not present. This is a missed opportunity to provide scaffolds to support the full participation of MLLs in this group activity.

Despite many of these planned MLL supports, the curriculum does not fully support the regular and active participation of all MLL students in the SEPs. For example, tasks involving SEPs rarely include guidance on providing additional context if a student doesn’t understand what is required of them. While speaking and writing tend to be highly structured with clear interventions and guidance for teachers, listening and reading have fewer specific strategies regularly included in lessons. Spanish translations are available for all materials, yet there is no guidance on strategically using these translated materials to amplify English structures/forms or push students to concurrently develop new language skills through leveraging current linguistic abilities. Finally, while targeted language is consistently modeled and presented in context, there are rarely explicit prompts or calls for students to use the new language.

The instructional materials reviewed for High School partially meet the criteria of providing strategies and supports for Multilingual Learners (MLLs) to fully and completely participate in the sensemaking of Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCIs). The materials include strategies and supports that help MLLs engage in grade-level learning of the DCIs, but the supports are inconsistent throughout the program.

The materials intentionally support sensemaking with the three dimensions using Universal Design for Learning principles, embedded in the curriculum and sidebars. These supports provide general guidance for engaging in DCIs across the activities. In Unit B.5, Lesson 1 Teacher Edition, section 9-Investigate Traditional Knowledge About Polar Bears, there is an Attending to Equity sidebar to support matching quotes to students. Specifically, it states, “Students who are not confident reading aloud may benefit from receiving a shorter quote in advance and holding onto it until it is their turn to read.” While this reading support addresses MLLs who are uncomfortable reading aloud, it misses the opportunity to offer linguistic scaffolds tailored to individual student needs.

The materials support vocabulary development in context through Personal Glossaries, as outlined in each unit’s overview. Specifically, in Unit B.5, Unit Overview Materials, section Guidance for Developing your Personal Glossaries, the guidance states, “After students have developed a deep understanding of a science idea through these experiences, and sometimes because they are looking for a more efficient way to express that idea, they have co-developed that definition and can add the specific term to a Personal Glossary at the back of their science  notebooks.” Additionally, it states, “It is best for students if you create consensus definitions in the moment, using phrases and pictorial representations that the class develops together as they discuss their experiences in the lesson. When they co-create the meaning of the word, students ‘own’ the word, it honors their use of language and connects their specific experiences to the vocabulary of science beyond their classroom. Emergent multilingual students need to have a reference for this important vocabulary, which includes an accessible definition and visual support.” Then, in Lesson 2, guidance is given about developing specific terms related to DCI-LS1.A Structure and Function. It states, “In this lesson, students will co-construct a definition for: homeostasis, thermoregulation, positive and negative feedback. Students encounter the term refute. Words should be defined and recorded in Personal Glossaries AFTER your class has developed a shared understanding of their meaning.” Later in the lesson, after engaging in an initial ideas discussion about overheating and viewing additional data about a polar bear on a treadmill, the teacher guidance states, “Update Personal Glossaries. Say, As you all have described the polar bear getting hot and finding ways to cool down, you have described what scientists call thermoregulation. Display slide N. Pause to give students a moment to add this definition to their Personal Glossaries. Definitions may look like: how the body maintains a constant temperature.” While the Personal Glossaries may help students develop conceptual understanding of vocabulary related to the DCIs, the materials lack explicit guidance for teachers on how to differentiate this support for students with varying levels of language proficiency. As a result, opportunities to tailor instruction to meet the diverse linguistic needs of learners may be missed.

The materials also incorporate interdisciplinary tasks that integrate math and ELA, but lack targeted support for language development. For example, in Unit B.3, Lesson 3 Teacher Edition, at the end of the lesson in the Additional Lesson 3 Teacher Guidance section under Supporting Students in Making Connections in ELA, it states, “CCSS.ELA - Speaking and Listening SL.11-12.5: Make strategic use of digital media (e.g., textual, graphical, audio, visual, and interactive elements) in presentations to enhance understanding of findings, reasoning, and evidence and to add interest. Teachers present a visual element (video, images), and guide students as they engage with an interactive element (Cell Game) in order to collect evidence and develop a model to explain how non-cancer cells can sometimes form cancer cells when p53 functions differently.” Although this guidance may support students in engaging in the DCI of identifying limits of the Cell Game model (DCI-LS1.B-H1), the guidance is vague and posed at the end of the lesson, making it difficult for teachers to integrate the cross-curricular connections with the DCI content. 

Another missed opportunity to implement supports for language development is in the Assessment Opportunity look fors and listen fors in each lesson. Specifically, in Unit B.1, Lesson 9 Teacher Edition, the learning objective is “Use a model based on evidence to explain how the plan to establish the Serengeti National Park contributed to the stability of the ecosystem (SEP: 2.3; DCI: ESS 3.C.1; CCC: 7.1 )”. In section 5- Evaluate the Serengeti Conservation Plan, students are revisiting their Serengeti conservation plan and engaging in a discussion, and evaluating their plans using a Conservation Evaluation Tool in partners. The look for and listen fors under Assessment Opportunity are:

• Creating the park protected the wildebeest migration and protected stability of the system. (DCI: ESS:3.C.1; CCC 7.1)

• The whole system is more stable because the wildebeest are connected to so many things and protecting them protects biodiversity. (DCI: ESS 3.C.1; CCC 7.1 )

• Some interest holders benefit, but others are harmed, and not all human connections in the system are stable. (DCI: ESS 3.C.1; CCC 7.1 )

• Successful conservation that supports a stable ecosystem also involves relationships between the conservation managers and the broader community. (DCI: ESS 3.C.1; CCC 7.1 )

The What to Do guidance states to collect the conservation plan and “Provide written feedback with a focus on questions 5 and 6 using Conservation Plan Key as a guide. Provide an opportunity for students to revise their thinking and resubmit their responses either verbally or in writing. Point them to their consensus model and use the following prompts:

• What did the park protect?

• How did that protection contribute to stability in the ecosystem?

• How were different interest holders impacted?”

While students are engaging in a whole-class and partner discussion, teacher guidance includes look fors and listen fors aligned to DCIs, but there is a missed opportunity to guide the development of language. In addition, the What to Do guidance is vague and does not support specific teacher guidance for language. 

In conclusion, while the materials offer some thoughtful MLL supports, particularly in the form of vocabulary scaffolds based on conceptual development, listen fors and look fors, integration of ELA and math, they fall short of enabling MLLs’ full and complete participation in the sensemaking of DCIs.

The instructional materials reviewed for High School partially meet the criteria for providing support for Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) full and complete participation in sensemaking of the Crosscutting Concepts (CCCs). Materials provide strategies and support for MLLs to participate in grade-level learning of CCCs, but these supports are not employed consistently throughout the program.

Materials are structured with Universal Design for Learning (UDL) practices where supports are embedded in the materials to provide structured routines to engage all students, including MLLs. Additionally, guidance in the Attending to Equity sidebars engages MLLs in grade-level science instruction through speaking, reading, writing, and listening activities. In Unit B.1, Lesson 4, students study rainfall data in the Serengeti to investigate patterns relating to the wildebeest occupancy. Section 12- Data Excursion Part 2 has a callout relating to supporting students in developing and using cause and effect. Specifically, the guidance states, “Students use empirical evidence collected from observations of wildebeest occupancy and rainfall. Remind them that they used empirical evidence in Lesson 3 when they investigated mortality patterns. Here, students begin to distinguish between correlation, that rainfall pattern and wildebeest location are related, and cause, that the rainfall pattern causes wildebeest migration.” The teacher guidance for the activity states to “Organize students into small groups of 2-4; consider drawing on the exit ticket responses to form heterogeneous groups based on students’ abilities to support claims with adequate evidence.” However, there is a missed opportunity to provide support for varying English proficiency levels. In addition, the lesson has multiple turn-and-talks to discuss predictions and relationships of cause and effect, such as in section 10- Whole-class Discussion About Rainfall and Wildebeest Location. Teachers are guided to implement a turn-and-talk for the questions, “What additional data could help us answer our question about the relationship between rainfall and wildebeest location? Give students time to discuss these questions with a partner and call on a few pairs to share.” There are listen fors, such as “We need more rainfall data from more places,” and “We need a count of the wildebeest.” The guidance includes listen fors focused on content understanding but lacks prompts that attend to students’ language use or development. The guidance for the turn-and-talks does not include any language scaffolds, such as sentence stems, to support MLLs’ full and complete participation in the activities. The use of sentence stems is inconsistent across the program; while they are included in some lesson activities, they are entirely absent in others, resulting in uneven scaffolding for language learners.

Furthermore, the guidance for Personal Glossaries in Lesson 4 provides a chance for students to negotiate the meaning of “limiting factors” when engaging in the CCC of Cause and Effect between rainfall and grass growth. The materials provide guidance for all students to develop personal glossaries as a key component of developing scientific language. In the Teacher Handbook, the section Supporting English Language Arts (ELA) provides guidance for teachers as to how to support student creation of Personal Glossaries. The guidance includes the importance of the co-creation of definitions as well as stating, “It is especially important for emergent multilingual students to have a reference for this important vocabulary, which includes an accessible definition and visual support.” This guidance encourages teachers to support students in negotiating the meaning of key vocabulary related to the content; however, it is limited to individual words and does not extend to broader language structures or forms essential for deeper understanding. This is a missed opportunity to provide specific support, such as sentence stems, for MLLs, or to support the interdisciplinary language function of cause and effect.

In Unit B.3, Lesson 3 Teacher Edition, section 12- Navigate, the materials support the CCC of Systems and System Models. During this activity, students “reflect on the limitations of the cell game model”. The guidance states, “ask students to turn and talk with a partner about where the model helped us make progress and the limits of the model.” Students record their answers in their science notebooks. Then, in section 14- Interpret Data About the Cell Cycle, the activity prompts teachers to, “Say, We are going to look at three different pieces of evidence for non-cancerous cells to see if we can better understand the Cell Game model. For each piece, I would like you to briefly record what you think the evidence is showing and how this might be related to the Cell Game. Ask students to create a T-chart to record their thinking.” There is an Attending to Equity sidebar with scaffolds for all learners. Specifically, it states, “Consider adding or removing scaffolding for your students to support them as they use the data to provide evidence of mechanistic accounts. Some examples of scaffolding may include metacognitive techniques to think about how we interpret figures and/or discussing as a class different parts of the figures like legends, keys, axes, and labels before students interpret figures. Some examples of less scaffolding may include removing visual cues like arrows from the slides for Figure 1 or the cell diagrams from Figure 2, or separating images like the microscope images from the model images in the M Phase Card Sort (featured in section 15).” Although the supports have the potential to benefit MLLs, the guidance is vague and places the responsibility for effective implementation on the teacher.

Overall, while the materials offer some support for language development and content access for MLLs, these supports are applied inconsistently, limiting their effectiveness. For instance, in B.4, Lesson 3, students are engaging in the CCC of Patterns, “observing how patterns at different scales (genetic, physiological, and geographic) provide evidence for poison as a selective pressure in rat populations.” While this lesson involves turn-and-talks and a Scientist Circle discussion, and revision of thinking with sentence frames “I used to think ___. Now I think ___ because ___”, there is a missed opportunity to provide teacher guidance to support MLLs when engaging in the CCC of Patterns. Many supports are general for all students and lack guidance for varying English proficiency levels.

The instructional materials reviewed for High School partially meet the criteria for intentionally developing language in ways valued by disciplinary practices over time, across lessons, units, and throughout the course. The materials provide strategies for teachers to bridge the gap between students’ informal and everyday ways of communicating and support the development of disciplinary ways of communicating, but do not include an intentional plan for the development of language across lessons, units, and the course.

Specifically, in the How is the Unit Structured? section of the Unit Overview Materials, there is evidence that each unit is built around a sequence of investigative questions. This structure helps build on prior knowledge, but there is a missed opportunity to provide opportunities for students to develop disciplinary language.

Another example is found in the Unit Overview Materials within the What Elements of the NGSS Three Dimensions are Developed in This Unit? section, which is found within every unit. The section highlights the intentional development of Science and Engineering Practices (SEPs), Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCIs), and Crosscutting Concepts (CCCs), such as revising models, which gives students ongoing chances to develop concepts, moving from individual ideas to more complex systems thinking. This guidance lends itself to the intentional development of language, but lacks specific guidance and is focused on science concepts.

Similar evidence is in the Guidance for Developing Your Personal Glossaries section within every unit, which supports language development by encouraging teachers to co-create vocabulary definitions with students. This begins with the language students know, then gradually builds toward more formal scientific terms. Instead of introducing vocabulary up front in isolation, new terms are introduced in the context of activities and investigations, helping students naturally acquire the vocabulary as they progress through the unit.

In addition, the program’s Design Specifications (Full) document states, “Units incorporate a student science notebook and additional written student work on a daily basis for students to write, draw, and communicate their understanding of science ideas and practices.” While a science notebook may support the development of disciplinary communication and shifts in thinking over time, it lacks a clear, intentional plan for systematic language development.

In every unit, language support tools such as co-created glossaries, structured conversations, and repeated modeling help students effectively refine their scientific language. The Teacher Edition includes scaffolds to help students grow their language throughout the unit. These routines support all learners, including multilingual students, by giving them structured ways to talk and think in scientific terms. Specifically, in Unit B.5, Lesson 1, Teacher Edition, in the Where We Are Going and NOT Going section states, “If the terms species, tundra, adaptation, population, convergent, divergent, and archipelago are new for your students, add them to their Personal Glossaries as well. Words should be defined and recorded AFTER your class has developed a shared understanding of their meaning.” While the guidance for personal glossaries supports language development within units, it lacks alignment with an intentional, long-term plan for language development across the course.

While units often begin with open, informal discussions where students share initial ideas, the progression to more precise scientific language varies. When it does occur, the shift is reinforced through peer feedback, revisions, and structured group discussions. The success of these strategies depends heavily on teacher facilitation. There’s a missed opportunity to ensure consistent use of supports like talk moves, sentence stems, and scaffolds for multilingual learners. These elements are not reliably included throughout the materials, which can leave teachers unsure of how to use them effectively. For example, in Unit B.2, Lesson 1, students begin developing initial ideas about zombie fires through activities such as notice/wonder, turn-and-talks, visual inquiry, Scientist Circle discussions, and writing tasks like stop-and-jots. While these routines support the development of disciplinary thinking, the materials lack explicit guidance to intentionally build and support students’ language development throughout the lesson. Specifically, the teacher guidance in step 10- Develop Initial Consensus Model for the Scientists Circle states, “Debrief similarities and differences in initial models. Display slide R and put up two pieces of chart paper. Invite students to briefly share the similarities and differences they wrote in their science notebooks. Begin with writing the similarities on the first piece of chart paper.” Although the Scientist Circle provides a valuable opportunity for students to use and develop disciplinary language, the teacher guidance lacks intentional scaffolds to support Multilingual Learners (MLLs) in accessing and applying that language effectively.

While the materials do not present evidence of a fully cohesive system for language development throughout the course, they offer some effective strategies, such as personal glossaries, and scientific notebooks, that reflect a thoughtful effort to support students in developing academic language alongside science content.

The instructional materials for High School partially meet the criteria for explaining the instructional approaches of the program for Multilingual Learners (MLLs), or the materials include and reference research-based strategies for the MLL approach. The materials reference instructional approaches for MLLs, such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and equity-based design, but they do not fully identify or explain the research base for these strategies. 

Specifically, in the Design Specifications, within the Overview, Section 2. Equitable Science Instruction for All states, "The instructional materials support equitable participation in science and engineering practices in ways that are culturally sustaining, leverage students’ full linguistic repertoires (multiple languages and registers), and value and promote multi-modal performances beyond written or spoken forms of expression." This example explicitly demonstrates how the materials provide explanations of the instructional approaches used in the program for MLLs and how the materials frame their approach to MLLs.

In the Full Design Specifications, the same section emphasizes that instructional materials should support inclusive participation, particularly for MLLs and students from historically marginalized groups. It notes that lessons should provide multiple means of engagement and representation, such as language scaffolds, visual representations, and discourse support.

Similar evidence is found in the Teacher Handbook, Strategies for Supporting Emerging Multilingual Learners’ Sensemaking, where the section provides “ten research-based strategies”, as well as where the strategies can be found in the materials. The strategies are grouped into five categories: Student Engagement, Students’ Expression of Ideas, Use of Language for Scientific Sensemaking, Representation of Content, and Additional Strategies. While these strategies may support teachers in leveraging students' linguistic resources, and the materials title them “research-based,” the strategies lack any citation of research.

The materials reference instructional approaches, such as in High School Design Specifications - Full, 3.3.1, which explains that assessment opportunities have gone through "bias and sensitivity review for all students," including "students with limited English language proficiency.” This example effectively describes how and where the materials explain the instructional approaches of the program for MLLs. However, there’s a missed opportunity to identify a reference that supports the approach as a research-based strategy.

In the Unit Overview of Unit B.4, Teacher Edition, a section titled, “What strategies are available to support equitable science learning in this unit?” outlines some core strategies built into the program, including the use of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), discourse, and providing specific supports for emerging multilingual students. However, these supports are described broadly, and while MLLs are mentioned, no specific details are given about what those supports are or how they are grounded in research. Instead, teachers are told that strategies can be found in the callout boxes throughout the unit. 

In Unit B.4 within the Teacher Edition, the materials also reference the Learning in Places nature-culture relations framework, which is cited and positioned as a foundation for helping students explore the relationship between culture and science. While the framework aligns with culturally relevant teaching, the explanation focuses on “students” generally rather than MLLs specifically.

In Unit B.2, a similar equity strategy section again highlights UDL, supportive norms, discourse, and MLL scaffolds; however, like the others, it does not delve into detail about the MLL approach or cite the research base behind those supports. 

Although the materials do not explicitly cite the research-based strategies used in the MLL approach, they include effective strategies, such as 10 strategies for supporting multilingual learners' sensemaking, which specifically help address how and where the materials explain instructional approaches of the program for MLLs.

The instructional materials reviewed for High School partially meet the criteria for providing teacher guidance to support Multilingual Learner (MLL) students and to utilize strategies, supports, and/or accommodations found. The materials offer general guidance for supporting MLL students, including suggested strategies, supports, and accommodations. However, the guidance is optional in most cases and does not intentionally facilitate understanding in teachers new to the work while simultaneously refining the knowledge of MLL experts. In addition, the guidance does not clarify when or how to support productive struggle before providing intervention.

The materials advise teachers that they provide MLL support in two ways: 

• The intentional design of the curriculum,

• Attending to Equity call-outs/sidebars, providing specific “just-in-time” supports or scaffolds

To facilitate teacher implementation, the Teacher Handbook, in a section titled Supporting Emerging Multilingual Learners, clearly explains this instructional plan. This section also guides teachers in encouraging students to use all linguistic abilities to engage with the language demands necessary for science content. Clear explanations, such as these, level the playing field for all MLL educators to understand and effectively use the materials. Explaining that the curriculum is part of the planned MLL supports is especially important for helping less experienced MLL teachers. Without this information, a novice MLL educator could miss many built-in MLL supports in the curriculum as they aren’t necessarily labeled ‘for MLLs’.

Specifically, in the Unit Overview Materials, in the Guidance for Developing Personal Glossaries section, it states, “When they co-create the meaning of the word, students “own” the word—it honors their use of language and connects their specific experiences to the vocabulary of science beyond their classroom. It is especially important for emergent multilingual students to have a reference for this important vocabulary, which includes an accessible definition and visual support.” Additionally, there are suggested definitions to support the accuracy of vocabulary, recommended after students have developed conceptual understanding. This example helps teachers anticipate potential language demands, challenges, and opportunities in a lesson. However, there is a missed opportunity to support teachers through examples of what to expect from student responses (listen or look for), suggestions of how teachers should respond to students with probing questions, or guidance for teachers around productive struggle.

While the curriculum is designed to prioritize student sensemaking, it lacks explicit guidance on when and how to support productive struggle, especially for MLLs. Although there are suggested responsive questioning techniques (typically listed in the Teacher Editions for whole class discussions), these do not clarify when to allow students to keep working independently, nor how to identify the need for intervention or additional supports. While the materials include suggested strategies, supports, and accommodations, the guidance is largely optional and does not intentionally support both building foundational understanding for teachers new to the work and deepening expertise for those experienced with MLLs.

The instructional materials reviewed for High School partially meet the criteria of providing guidance to encourage teachers to draw upon students’ home languages to facilitate learning. 

The materials provide suggestions and strategies for teachers to utilize home language to support students in learning grade-level science and engineering. But the materials miss the opportunity to provide guidance on how to garner information that will aid in learning (including the family's preferred language of communication, schooling experience in other languages, literacy abilities in other languages, and previous exposure to academic or everyday English).

The materials mainly incorporate home language through guidance to teachers to value and allow its use within the process of science sense making. General guidance on valuing all language assets is seen, for example, in the High School Design Specifications section 2 - Equitable Science Instruction for All Students. This section promotes teachers to “leverage linguistic resources” along the whole continuum from informal language to specific disciplinary science language, further explaining that the curriculum does not promote “English-only” instruction. Instead, teachers are guided that students can/should use a variety of techniques, such as using home language or “blending multiple languages” to engage in sense making. In addition, the High School Design Specifications, 2.4.2., introduces the incorporation of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) with the materials. It highlights that the UDL framework prioritizes student sensemaking by leveraging their multiple means to engage and express themselves. The UDL framework, with its promotion of all student linguistic capabilities, is mentioned with relative frequency throughout the course.

Within the lessons, this guidance is reflected in intentional prompts that encourage engagement with students' home languages. Specifically, in Unit B.2, Lesson 1, Teacher Edition, 5. Navigate: Home Learning, there is evidence of providing strategies to support students in learning at grade level with the use of their home language. The materials state that “by encouraging students to gather ideas from their communities, you are blurring the boundaries of home and school learning and making a more meaningful and integrated science experience”. The materials are encouraging teachers to blur the boundaries of home and school learning, which attempts to present multilingualism as an asset, but this does not explicitly encourage the use of home language in the activity. Additionally, teachers are not guided on how to garner information gathered from the activity to help aid in the learning.

Cognates are one way the materials intentionally connect students’ home languages to science content. For example, in Unit B.3, Lesson 8, Teacher Edition, during the “Investigate a Pedigree” section, the “Attending to Equity” sidebar encourages teachers to “make connections to cognate words when possible.” This guidance highlights the importance of multilingualism and affirms its value in supporting students’ engagement with classroom science, however, the guidance is sometimes vague and does not offer specific cognates that clearly connect with the science vocabulary.

Additionally, in Unit B.4, Unit Overview Materials, “Guidance for Developing Your Personal Glossaries”, teachers are provided strategies that will assist students in developing their personal glossaries. This section highlights how the personal glossary “honors [students]... language and connects their specific experiences to vocabulary of science beyond the classroom”. The materials include home language to support grade-level science learning, but they don’t clearly explain how teachers should use it in instruction. 

Currently, all the student-facing and teacher materials are provided in both English and Spanish. These are identical versions of each document, worksheet, assessment, etc., across all the units in both languages. Spanish-speaking students would have full access to grade-level identical versions of all the materials, although there is currently no evidence of teacher guidance on when or how to best utilize the translated materials to strategically engage Spanish-speaking MLLs with language acquisition in the targeted language. Essentially, it is left to the discretion of the teacher to use the translated materials to transition and scaffold MLLs into acquiring new targeted language.

Teachers are given some tools to engage in gaining information about students’ linguistic and cultural backgrounds to support learning. The High School Design Specifications, 2.4.3. point out the inclusion of “cultural formative assessment[s]” to gather information about the pre-existing knowledge and identities of students. These planned opportunities to engage with prior student experiences appear in a variety of forms, including: discourse, open response questions, anticipated cultural sensitivities to consider, etc. Teachers are also given tools, such as optional letters to send home, provided in English in the Unit Overview Materials for each unit. These letters help explain the content covered in the unit, things to consider, and a place for teacher contact information. The Teacher Handbook further provides suggestions on how to engage with families to help students make sense of their learning. While there are multiple means provided for gathering information from students' surrounding cultural context/home languages, there is limited guidance on how to strategically utilize this information in planning or altering instruction for increased effectiveness or engagement. There is a missed opportunity to strategically utilize the information gained for instructional planning.