High School - Multilingual Learner Supports

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 phenomena. Materials provide strategies and supports for MLLs to participate in grade-level learning of phenomena as included in the materials, but these supports do not consistently provide for full and complete participation by all MLL students.

The materials partially provide content-specific strategies for supporting MLL students with engaging in grade-level instruction and negotiating meaning. For example, in Unit C.2, Lesson 3, the unit-level phenomenon is that lightning strikes do not happen evenly around the world, there are conditions that favor occurrence and frequency. In the Teacher Edition, section 7- Navigate, students engage in a turn and talk and then a group share out regarding related phenomena, answering the question, “What other phenomena have you

experienced that produced interactions like those we observed in the water dropper system? For example: attractive or repulsive forces at a distance, small sparks or shocks.” There is an Attending to Equity sidebar for the teacher that states, “Students may not use or know the term ‘static electricity’. However, many students will have experienced it and may refer to the phenomenon using other terms. Make sure the class agrees upon a term for the interactions they see as encapsulating all of the interactions they have observed, such as ‘when objects become charged and interact with each other,’ and encourage students to write those terms in their notebooks.” There is also a prompt to encourage students to write the terms in their notebooks. This example explicitly supports sensemaking by prompting students to brainstorm a related phenomenon and includes guidance for negotiating the meaning of ‘static electricity’. However, it lacks the linguistic scaffolds that would enable multilingual learners to fully engage in this opportunity to use and develop language.

Specifically, in Unit C.2, Lesson 8 Teacher Edition, the lesson ends with applying what was learned about polarization to explain how charged particles in clouds become attracted to the ground during lightning. The unit-level phenomenon is that lightning strikes do not happen evenly around the world, there are conditions that favor occurrence and frequency. Moreover, in Unit C.2, Lesson 8, Teacher Edition, section 5. Name Terms and Update Personal Glossaries, as students are building their understanding about partial charge, polarization, and induced polarization, there is guidance for all students to develop personal glossaries by creating an accessible definition. This guidance encourages teachers to support students in negotiating the meaning of key vocabulary related to the phenomenon; however, it is limited to individual words and does not extend to broader language structures or forms essential for deeper understanding.

The materials provide opportunities for MLLs to engage in structured academic discourse with teachers and peers to build conceptual understandings and disciplinary language use. For example, in Unit C.1, Lesson 2, Teacher Edition, section 11- Construct an Argument About the Cause of Ice Melt, students continue to work to explain the unit-level phenomenon about sea level rise by calculating the effect of heat flowing from water to the glacier. As students are constructing an argument about the causes of ice melting, there is guidance for the teacher in the Collaboration callout to “Alternatively, give students a few minutes to begin Data Analysis individually or with a partner, then use the peer feedback protocols described in the OpenSciEd High School Teacher Handbook to give each other feedback.” Although there are embedded sentence starters within the Teacher Handbook for peer feedback such as, “We agree that . We think you should add more evidence from the investigation,” and both productive and nonproductive examples, the presence of the protocols in a separate, unlinked, document requires teachers to consult multiple resources, limiting the ease of implementation.

While the materials occasionally encourage MLL students to use interdisciplinary words and phrases, they lack explicit connections or support to help students understand and apply them effectively. Specifically, in Unit C.1, Lesson 8, Teacher Edition, students return to the unit-level phenomenon about sea level rise. Students learn about Inuit knowledge and NASA programs studying glaciers in Greenland, and how bathymetry changes the temperature of the water glaciers touch. Students then discuss how a berm would affect the flow of matter and energy, and how reducing carbon dioxide emissions would affect the flow of energy. In Unit C.1, Lesson 8 Teacher Edition, Additional Teacher Guidance, Supporting Students in Making Connections in ELA, there is a connection pointed out that a key interdisciplinary skill in this lesson is comparing and contrasting, including the literacy standard it is addressing. This type of ELA connection is present in other lessons. However, the materials miss the opportunity to consistently make this connection explicit to students. Although the materials do not always explicitly connect for students the use of words and phrases in the content and their interdisciplinary use, they include effective strategies such as ELA and math connections, which demonstrate a thoughtful approach to interdisciplinary language acquisition by connecting language and skills in the lessons to standards outside of science.

The materials sometimes support MLL students’ meaning-making of vocabulary in context. For example, in Unit C.1, Lesson 3, Teacher Edition, students engage with the unit-level phenomenon about sea level rise. In Unit C.1, Lesson 3, Teacher Edition, “Reading Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”, students expand their understanding of carbon dioxide by doing a reading (with additional pictures, diagrams, etc.). Students encounter variations of the term ‘greenhouse gas’ within the reading. There are prompts to write short summaries of the different reading sections in their science notebook. Although the meaning-making in context supports are for all students and not specific to MLLs, there are Spanish-translated materials, which support some MLLs. Tracing the use of greenhouse gas or greenhouse effect across multiple lessons indicates that the unit is set up to expose and engage with content before defining terms, and is an effective strategy for learning language in context. Students are offered many different exposures to the terms in multiple modalities, demonstrating a thoughtful approach to cementing the word’s meaning and supporting the ability to make meaning. Although the materials offer opportunities for students to engage in meaning-making within context, an important factor in supporting MLL access, they lack sufficient linguistic supports to ensure full and complete participation.

Supports for listening, discourse, and vocabulary in context are uneven and sometimes missing. Scaffolds are often general 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 materials sometimes provide strategies, appropriate support, and accommodations that will foster MLL students' participation. For example, in Unit C.4, Lesson 5 Teacher Edition, the lesson ends with a class discussion returning to the problem of oyster die-offs and connecting the learning about the carbon cycle to the problem. The Attending to Equity sidebar highlights the importance of giving individual wait time before asking students to respond verbally. This strategy reminds teachers to allow all students to process ideas and make prior connections before sharing and working through ideas with peers. However, it does not provide linguistic support to allow for full and complete participation in the content.

The materials provide content-specific strategies for supporting MLL students with engaging in grade-level instruction and negotiating meaning, but miss the opportunity to include supports and scaffolds that help students navigate complex academic conversations and use of precise disciplinary language. For example, in Unit C.4, Lesson 1, students watch videos of a member of the Swinomish Tribal Community in the Pacific Northwest and learn about “first foods” and the role of the oyster in the tribe’s history. Students learn about problems in baby oyster die-offs in oyster hatcheries from an expert and predict the cause of oyster die-offs in the Pacific Northwest. In Unit C.4, Lesson 3 Teacher Edition, part 6. Read About pH Scale, there is a reading about pH with infographics, bolded vocabulary words, and intentional chunking of the text with headings in the form of questions. Text engineering is present in similar readings, maintaining the academic challenge of the readings alongside complex language. In addition, the Connect, Extend, Question Handout is a reading protocol that includes a graphic organizer to help students synthesize their learning and then compare their responses to a partner’s. Although the handout may support students in engaging in the reading, it does not provide linguistic supports for MLLs to access the reading.

The materials provide targeted opportunities for MLL students to use and develop language, but the linguistic supports for MLLs are lacking. Specifically, in Unit C.3, Lesson 1, students investigate the problem of humans who want to establish settlements on other planetary bodies, but have difficulty transporting everything needed due to distance and fuel constraints. In Unit C.3, Lesson 1, the Slides and Student Procedure define each time the students engage in academic discourse through whole group, and partner turn and talks. The prompts often ask students to listen and be able to co-construct meaning. Although the materials provide opportunities for MLLs to use and develop language through individual think time, followed by partner talk and a Scientist Circle, no linguistic supports are provided in this lesson to ensure MLLs’ full and complete participation in the activities.

The materials provide opportunities for MLLs to engage in structured academic discourse with teachers and peers to build conceptual understandings and disciplinary language use. For example, in Unit C.3, Lesson 2, there is a reference to the need to create substitutes for various medications and supplies that could be applied to the problem of humans wanting to establish settlements on other planetary bodies. In Unit C.3, Lesson 2, Teacher Edition, part 5. Prepare to Share Station Findings, students collaborate with peers to develop a conceptual understanding of water’s properties, then share their findings with the class. There is also teacher guidance to “offer chart paper and chart paper markers to groups if they wish to communicate station information visually,” and observe groups who may not understand each other: offering advice on how to model the vocabulary, clarifying questions to ask, etc. Specifically, in section 8. Discuss Station Findings, in the Additional Guidance, it states, “If students share terms that others may not be familiar with, ask clarifying questions or prompt students to explain the terms. Again, those terms may be: adhesion, capillary action, cohesion, specific heat, and surface tension. If students use those terms, spend a moment discussing a definition for them and then  encourage students to add them to their Personal Glossaries…” Although the materials provide opportunities for collaboration with peers and guidance, such as offering chart paper to support speaking with visuals and Personal Glossaries, there is a missed opportunity to intentionally support academic language development through structured routines, differentiated scaffolds, and explicit instruction in language functions and forms.

The materials sometimes support MLL students’ meaning-making of vocabulary in context. For example, in Unit C.5, Lesson 1, students discuss solutions to the problem that, while carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation have declined, carbon dioxide emissions from transportation have not changed much in recent years. In Unit C.5, Unit Overview, Guidance for Personal Glossaries, the teacher guide has a note that states “students will co-construct a definition for the following word, which they should add to their personal glossaries: carbon-based fuels. Do not ask students to define or keep track of any words until your class has developed a shared understanding of their meaning.” In every unit, there is a personal glossary opportunity that demonstrates effective support for students with meaning-making in context; however, there is a missed opportunity to provide MLL-specific support for the personal glossaries. While the general practice of personal glossaries with co-constructed definitions is a good instructional approach for vocabulary, it falls short for MLLs by not incorporating explicit, targeted linguistic supports and strategies that address their specific needs in acquiring academic language. This limits the "full and complete participation in grade-level learning" for MLLs by not sufficiently scaffolding their language development, despite attempting to support content meaning.

While the materials incorporate real-world phenomena and offer some strategies, such as personal glossaries, visual aids, and structured peer discussions, to promote access and engagement, they do not consistently integrate linguistic supports necessary for MLLs to fully engage with content. Opportunities for individual think time, partner talk, and collaborative discussions are present, yet lack the differentiated scaffolds, structured routines, and explicit instruction in language functions needed to develop academic language. Although elements like text engineering, infographics, and equity-based guidance appear throughout, these features rarely extend to targeted language development support. As a result, MLLs may participate in classroom activities but are not fully equipped to access or express their understanding in rigorous, content-rich tasks.

The instructional materials reviewed for High School partially meet the criteria of providing support for  Multilingual Learners’ (MLL’s) full and complete participation in the sensemaking of the 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.

The materials support students in engaging in structured discourse with peers and teachers to build their conceptual understanding while encountering disciplinary language. For example, Unit 2, Lesson 10 focuses on the SEP Developing and Using Models, where students “use models based on evidence to illustrate the relationships” within a system. The Teacher Edition, section 6. Building Understandings Discussion highlights the repeated structure for discourse provided throughout the curriculum; the Teacher Edition begins by guiding teachers to put up a visual prompt slide, explains the purpose/key ideas of the discussion, lists suggested teacher prompts, explains sample student responses, provides an Additional Guidance section for extra connections/points of clarification, then explains the look fors and listen fors and next steps. The look fors and listen fors highlight different targeted aspects of each of the three dimensions, so the teacher can connect the activity with the SEP that students are working on. The key elements of the discussion are modeled and include follow-up interventions to support struggling students further. Although there is an opportunity for discourse within the teacher guidance, it fails to provide any linguistic support. The discussion is also labeled for teachers as an Assessment Opportunity to identify its importance. Although the ‘listen fors’ and ‘look fors’ are aligned with the SEPs, the materials miss an opportunity to offer guidance that supports language development and differentiation across varying levels of English proficiency.

Another notable strength of the materials is supporting students’ meaning-making in context. As seen in C.5 Unit Overview Materials, the targeted disciplinary language is listed for teachers by lesson in the Guidance for Developing Your Personal Glossaries section. This guidance includes targeted academic vocabulary (Definitions We Co-construct) and anticipated non-targeted challenging terms (Definitions We Encounter). The curriculum states, “students will have experiences with and discussions about science ideas before they know the specific vocabulary word that names the idea.” This is seen in C.1, Teacher Editions for Lessons 1-3, which details the introduction, use, and co-constructing of a definition for the terms greenhouse gas/greenhouse effect. Students encounter the terms several times in context during readings, in the slides, from modeled teacher use, in data they analyze, and finally in a class discussion. This evidence shows that guidance aims to support understanding new vocabulary in context while students engage in a range of SEPs, such as Analyzing Data, Constructing Explanations, Designing Solutions, and Developing and Using Models. While engaging with the complex demands of the SEPs, students often run across the terms listed in the Definitions We Encounter section. The anticipated challenge of these terms helps teachers support MLLs in distinguishing the words from more familiar everyday uses of many of these words. Some lessons include additional sidebars to further support differentiating common meanings and technical meanings of language, like clarifying the difference between a “conductor” as used in science versus the “leader of a band” (Unit C.2, Lesson 11, Teacher Edition, 2 - Define Air as an Insulator, Attending to Equity sidebar for Supporting Emergent Multilinguals). However, the lesson guidance is often vague, such as in this lesson where it states, “work with students to distinguish between conductor as defined here versus as the leader of a band or orchestra, and conduct as referring to behavior in formal contexts.” The guidance lacks the explicit guidance to support teacher facilitation.

The materials state that the curricular design supports MLLs through pedagogical routines, and “just-in-time resources” with more activity-specific strategies (Teacher Handbook, Supporting Emerging Multilingual Learners, How does OpenSciEd support EMLs section). In some areas, this guidance is insufficient to support full MLL participation. In the context of SEPs, these mixed supports are present in teacher guidance for intervening based on current student understanding. For example, in C.5, Lesson 8, Answer Key 2 Cold Pack Key/Rubric for the mid-unit assessment, question 5 has students engaging with SEP 2.3 of developing/using models. Specifically, the question prompt in the mid-unit assessment is, “Use the graphs you identified in 4a and 4b as a model to explain how energy transfers caused the temperature change you observed. Focus on the reactant (potassium chloride) and final products (potassium and chloride ions). You may use words and/or drawings in your response.” Within the rubric, there are three columns linked to three levels of response relating to 3D Elements, an example response for each level, and “Feedback/What to Do” based on the example response. The guidance states that students with “Foundation Pieces” of this SEP may simply “reference” classroom evidence without citing specific evidence, while a student with “Organized Understanding” would include classroom investigation evidence demonstrating an understanding that “energy is transferred into the fields between particles,” depending on what is happening with the bonds. Depending on the students’ current demonstrated engagement with this SEP, guidance provides teachers with different ideas of “Feedback/What to Do” in response, as determined by the mid-unit assessment. See indicator 3n.MLL. While the guidance is helpful in responding to students in developing content knowledge, it is a missed opportunity to provide support for language development. 

Despite many of these planned MLL supports, the materials do not fully support the regular and active participation of all MLL students in the SEPs. For example, SEP tasks 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 support for Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) full and complete participation 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 not consistently provided throughout the program.

The materials provide detailed teacher guidance that helps to support the development of MLL content understanding of DCIs through structured discourse with teachers and peers. For example, in Unit C.3, Lesson 10, Teacher Edition, section 3. Read About Removing Metals From Water, students are working on DCI-PS2.B-H3 by reading about contaminated water. After the reading, students participate in a structured class discussion to emphasize key points of the DCI. The materials include question prompting slides (with symbols to indicate the type of discussion for MLLs), suggested prompts, examples of anticipated student responses, and follow-up questions based on responses. The guidance also outlines listen fors and look fors related to the DCI to guide teachers in checking for understanding as the DCI develops. This structured pattern of teacher guidance facilitates MLL engagement with the complex disciplinary task of using language to discuss and develop their DCI understandings. However, there is a missed opportunity to explicitly connect language forms to their intended functions. An example listen for aligned to the DCI and a language function is “Students describe and explain the ways in which the structure of water (polarity) and strength of forces between different ions cause the observed transformation (reaction),” and addresses DCI-PS2.B-H3. This look for is followed by “What to do”, stating “You may assess individual students by collecting Cleaning Metal-Contaminated Water at the end of class and examining their personal summaries. Encourage students to return to the reading during discussion and while modeling to ensure that they are using it as a resource, along with prior force thinking as prompted by the M-E-F poster.” Although the slides for this activity include question prompts, they do not provide language supports to guide students in using the language functions of describing and explaining. 

The corresponding reading for Unit C.3, Lesson 10, “Handout Cleaning Metal-Contaminated Water” mentioned in the discussion above, shows evidence for some level of text engineering. These scaffolds support MLLs in engaging with DCIs through amplified text rather than simplified English structures. In this case, the text includes pre-reading guidance for students on what to look for, labeled reading sections, graphics with captions and labels, and embedded reading reflection questions at the end, such as, “Summarize the new information about how the reactions discussed help clean water. Be sure to use your own words, while still giving an accurate meaning.” The consistency of reading supports like this for MLLs varies across the curriculum. For example, in Unit C.3, Lesson 14, there is a reading titled “CO2 Plastics/Bioplastics”. While there are three visuals, one for each “Article” in the reading, it lacks more intentional text engineering to support MLLs’ full participation. The teacher guidance within section 2 - Read About Innovative Materials, prompts teachers to form pairs for the readings and let them select the reading of their choice. However, the materials lack additional supports to engage MLLs in the reading, such as guidance tailored to students’ varying levels of English proficiency.

The materials prioritize MLL language development by presenting new language in context. As previously discussed in 1g.MLL-1, Personal Glossaries outlined in the Unit Overview Materials, are a key tool for supporting MLLs in sensemaking for DCIs. This includes new targeted language (Definitions We Co-Construct) while also anticipating potentially confusing language (Definitions We Encounter). Students have multiple opportunities to engage with new language aligned to DCIs, enhancing their sensemaking of disciplinary content. For example, in Unit C.2, Lessons 2-11 Teacher Editions, students work on understanding conductors vs. insulators. The lesson set begins with engaging students with prior knowledge about ‘metals’ and ‘nonmetals’, provides videos, followed by a class discussion about the role of air to elicit engagement with the conceptual understanding of air as an insulator. A peer-to-peer discussion about conductors/insulators, a whole-class discussion to “co-construct” definitions of the terms, and finally, individual time to add the terms/definitions to their Personal Glossaries. Students engage with DCI-PS1.A-H3 and corresponding language many times before officially ‘recording’ the new vocabulary for later reference. An Attending to Equity sidebar in this section also includes MLL support to differentiate the word conductor in this context vs. the ‘everyday’ use as someone who directs an orchestra (Unit C.2, Lesson 11, Teacher Edition, section 2 - Define Air as an Insulator). Specifically, it states, “The terms insulator and conductor have cognates or near cognates in many Romance languages and serve as the basis for loan words in many other languages. Also work with students to distinguish between conductor as defined here versus as the leader of a band or orchestra, and conduct as referring to behavior in formal contexts.” The Personal Glossaries and vocabulary sidebars are used to reinforce new vocabulary, aligned to DCIs, in context. However, these supports for MLLs are presented to all students intermittently across the curriculum. For example, in Lesson 12, students are introduced to the word bond, which has multiple meanings. However, no guidance is provided to help teachers distinguish between its everyday or root meaning, to bind, and its content-specific use related to atomic interactions.

As described in 1g.MLL-1, many of the planned MLL supports are embedded in the core curriculum without explicit labeling as a support solely for MLLs. The supports appear in various forms, such as Assessment Opportunities (discussions, writing, etc.) with look fors and listen fors that connect with the targeted DCIs, scaffolded rubrics, or Spanish & English versions of all student and teacher materials. Outlined Assessment Opportunities guide teachers to support MLLs through listen fors specific to DCIs while subsequently guiding how to facilitate deeper DCI understanding through additional activities, deeper questioning, student supports, etc. (focus on DCI-ETS1.A-H2 in Unit C.4, Lesson 2, Teacher Edition, 5-Develop an Argument for What to Focus on and Navigate). Similar suggestions for teacher guidance are present in activities with tiered rubrics, as discussed in 1g.MLL-1. Lesson/activity-specific MLL strategies, such as these, are rarely explicitly labeled “for MLLs,” and newer teachers may fail to recognize the role of integrated supports in supporting MLLs. The materials support content access; however, multilingual learners also need opportunities to develop language alongside content, and such integrated supports are not consistently embedded throughout the materials.

While MLLs are partially supported in engaging with the targeted DCIs, the materials fail to fully support the full range of demands required for full MLL participation. For example, while the materials regularly expose students to key language from DCIs in context, they offer few targeted opportunities for students to use that new language to demonstrate their sensemaking. Students may optionally use the modeled vocabulary to describe their understanding of DCIs when updating their Progress Trackers. The Unit Overview Materials for all units state, “The Progress Trackers are thinking tools designed to help students keep track of important discoveries that the class makes while investigating phenomena.” Throughout units, students are prompted to update their Progress Trackers in their notebooks using words or pictures, which builds coherence as students engage in DCIs. However, the guidance lacks linguistic supports that may benefit MLL students. For example, in Unit C.1., Lesson 6 Teacher Edition, section 10- Update Personal Glossaries and Progress Trackers, there are no Attending to Equity sidebars with guidance to support MLLs or sentence frames provided on the slides. This absence of explicit linguistic support is a recurring issue throughout Unit C.1.

 While MLLs are given significant linguistic flexibility to express their understanding, the curriculum lacks comprehensive supports to build on their linguistic assets and develop new English language skills or academic language forms. For example, the materials provide Spanish versions of the English content across all lessons. However, the materials do not guide teachers on strategically using the translated versions to engage MLLs and amplify their understanding of complex English structures or forms. Similarly, the Teacher Handbook, Supporting English Language Arts (ELA) section, mentions that having unrestricted access to all the materials in online versions allows MLLs to use support tools such as electronic translators. Similar to the provided Spanish materials, this provides no additional guidance for full MLL participation in understanding DCIs beyond simply accessing the reading.

The instructional materials reviewed for High School partially meet the criteria of supporting Multilingual Learners (MLLs’) full and complete participation in the sensemaking of Crosscutting Concepts (CCCs).

As previously discussed in 1g.MLL-1 and 1g.MLL-2, discourse is heavily structured with extra supports in the form of teacher guidance across this curriculum. To support MLL sensemaking of CCCs, the same guidance exists for peer, teacher, or whole class discussions with suggested prompts, anticipated student responses, look for and listen fors (with highlighted sections pointing to the targeted CCC), additional guidance, and follow-up questions to ask students. While CCCs are pointed out in the look fors and listen fors (similar to SEPs or DCIs), there is less targeted guidance on precise follow-up questions or additional activities to develop student understanding of CCCs. An example of this type of guidance is found in the Assessment Opportunity look/listen fors in Unit C.2, Lesson 11 Teacher Edition, section 6- Read About the Effects of Lightning, when teachers are guided to listen for “Students describe the causes of energy transfer at the particle level. (CCC: 2.2)”. In the activity students are reading about the effects of lightning and then engaging in a discussion. Suggested prompts, sample student responses, and follow-up questions are provided to guide teachers in engaging students in discussion. Specifically, examples of suggested prompts related to the CCC of Cause and Effect are “What connections did you notice between matter and energy?”, “How could we show energy transfer as light (radiation) with our energy transfer models?” The What to Do guidance and the Additional Guidance listed for this activity support all students with sensemaking, including connecting the content back to a prior lesson and using both words and models to express their understanding. A specific example of Additional Guidance related to the CCC look-for states, “Additionally, or alternatively, you might work with your paper-clip electrons to model what’s going on: The electrons first start moving quickly closest to the ground where the connection happened, so we see the bright light start there. Then, as the ones ‘behind’ them farther up the channel of ionized air start moving quickly, it brightens there, and so on up toward the cloud.” Although there are suggested models and question prompts to support students with communicating ideas related to describing cause and effect, there is a missed opportunity to provide supports for MLLs, such as sentence frames, or language look fors to support language development of disciplinary and interdisciplinary language.

The materials support student sensemaking of CCCs in context, a practice vital for MLL participation. For example, identifying cause and effect is a key CCC focus in Unit C.2. In Lessons 1-3 Teacher Editions, there is teacher guidance to model this CCC in prompts such as, “how does answering these questions help us figure out what causes lightning?”, listen for related anticipated student responses, like “how can water cause the spark?”, or suggestions from sidebars to guide student engagement with the CCC (“…encourage students to wonder about underlying causes.”). Despite consistently using and modeling key language from this CCC, the materials only occasionally call for students to use the language themselves. Additionally, students are most likely to engage with speaking or writing for the sensemaking of CCCs, and listening and reading guidance for MLLs is less frequent. 

Occasionally, the Personal Glossaries (explained in 1g.MLL-1 and 1g.MLL-2) include guidance and support for terms related to CCCs. For example, in Unit C.1, Unit Overview Materials, the section Guidance on Developing Your Personal Glossaries provides a chart with the lesson number, “Words with meanings we co-construct” and “Words with meanings we encounter”. The chart includes the words independent variable, dependent variable, system, input, and output, which are all cross-disciplinary vocabulary. In Lesson 3, the Handout Carbon Dioxide Investigation includes sentence stems to break down the variables. Specifically, the sentence stem “If the amount of carbon dioxide in the system increases, then the temperature of the system will ___” is provided to make predictions. When summarizing investigation findings, four additional sentence frames are provided. This guidance supports the CCC of Cause and Effect and provides support for cross-disciplinary language. An anchor chart, accompanied by teacher guidance to break down the terms independent and dependent variables in response to the investigation question, “How does carbon dioxide in the atmosphere affect temperature?” supports students’ language development within the lesson. However, the guidance misses an opportunity to help teachers make explicit cross-disciplinary connections beyond science.

There is some consideration for including MLL supports in key activities or concepts related to CCCs, but they may not be entirely adequate for grade-level participation of all MLLs. For example, students revisit, revise, and add to a conceptual model poster about the relationships between matter, energy, and forces across multiple units, primarily introduced in Unit C.2 and heavily revisited in Unit C.5. This Matter-Energy-Force chart is a key tool for developing CCCs around energy and matter, but MLL supports are not comprehensive. In Unit C.5, Unit Overview Materials, section titled, “What strategies are available to support equitable science learning in this unit?” there is guidance for the implementation of the multi-unit M-E-F poster. Specifically, it states, “Supporting emerging multilingual learners: Students may benefit from a brief word sort on cards to help clarify the relationships they are mapping back to the piston system. These words include: push, movement, heat, and pressure. Have students identify where each of these things occurs within the cylinder system, then add onto that by having them identify how each of these words explains one part of the M-E-F poster. Another option is to have students use the words in a sentence and use three different colored highlighters to show M-E-F thinking.” While the M-E-F poster offers a valuable ongoing visual for student thinking, the surrounding guidance lacks differentiation to address the diverse needs of students across varying levels of English proficiency. MLLs can not fully articulate their thinking without differentiated support.  

Overall, the instructional materials provide foundational support for Multilingual Learners (MLLs) to engage in sensemaking of Crosscutting Concepts (CCCs), particularly through structured discourse routines, embedded prompts, and multimodal representations. However, this support is often generalized and lacks the depth and differentiation needed to ensure full and equitable participation of all MLLs. While there are promising examples, such as the integration of sentence frames, glossaries, and visual models, these are applied inconsistently and are not always accompanied by explicit language supports that align with students’ varied proficiency levels. To fully meet the criteria, the materials would benefit from more consistent and intentional scaffolding that integrates both disciplinary understanding and language development across all modalities of learning.

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.

Specifically, in Unit C.4, Lesson 1, Teacher Edition, section Where We Are Going and NOT Going?, the guidance states, “In this lesson, students will co-construct a definition for the following term, which they should add to their personal glossaries: ocean acidification. Do not ask students to define or keep track of any words until after your class has developed a shared understanding of their meaning." This type of guidance is found in several lessons throughout the unit and supports the development of disciplinary ways of communicating by promoting meaningful use of vocabulary and encouraging students to co-construct definitions after engagement with the content, building conceptual clarity and language precision. 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.

Similar evidence is found in the program’s Design Specifications (Full) document. The guidance 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.

While the materials do not present a fully cohesive, unit-wide system for language development, they offer effective strategies, such as personal glossaries, that reflect a thoughtful effort to support students in developing academic language alongside science content.

The instructional materials reviewed for High School partially meet the criteria for explaining the instructional approaches of the program for Multilingual Learners (MLLs), and identifying research-based strategies for the MLL approach. 

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.

Additionally, lesson-level examples, such as structured opportunities for students to use their home language, sentence starters, and language routines, further demonstrate how these specifications are operationalized in the classroom. In most units, several lessons feature “Attending to Equity” sidebars alongside “Supporting Emergent Multilingual” sidebars, which provide strategies for teachers to engage students in learning. However, these sections often miss opportunities to cite the research supporting these strategies or to connect them to the cited research.

Although the materials do not explicitly cite the research-based strategies used in the MLL approach, they include effective strategies, such as ten 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 curriculum advises teachers that it provides 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’.

Similar guidance for anticipating student responses and responding with flexible questions according to look/listen-fors is consistently provided for other planned interactions. Several times each lesson, when teachers engage in student questioning (e.g. whole-class discourse), they are provided with anticipated student responses and suggested follow-up questions. This evidence shows a commitment to anticipating, assessing, and progressing student learning towards the goals of content understanding, but is a missed opportunity to anticipate the needs of MLLs language acquisition. 

Language acquisition is planned in the Unit Overview Materials for each unit in the guidance for Personal Glossaries. Teachers are guided not to front-load these vocabulary terms. To align with the planned curriculum design, students develop a conceptual understanding before co-constructing a definition for the key terms. Planned language is listed by lesson in the Unit Overview, then the specific instance for students to add the terms to their Personal Glossaries (following class discussion) is explained in each lesson’s Teacher Edition. Teachers are guided to encourage MLLs to utilize all available learning assets to engage with the lesson goals while maintaining grade-level rigor. Specifically, it says to encourage students to write their own definitions using phrases and pictorial representations. Furthermore, 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,” which is specifically helpful for MLLs. As demonstrated by this evidence, the Personal Glossary section helps teachers to anticipate potential language demands/challenges while carefully planning the vocabulary introduction to make progress towards the goals of content understanding and language use. This structure of language introduction is noted as especially important for encouraging functional disciplinary language acquisition for MLLs instead of decontextualized memorization. 

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 have missed opportunities 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 sensemaking. 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 sensemaking. Within the lessons, this guidance is reflected in intentional prompts that encourage engagement with students' home languages. For example, the curriculum promotes the use of cognates and looking for “loan words” across language families to connect home language with disciplinary language (as seen in Unit C.2, Lesson 11, Teacher Edition, section 2. Define Air as an Insulator, Attending to Equity sidebar). The focus of the guidance is on translating academic terms rather than utilizing the full linguistic repertoire MLLs possess for deeper meaning-making and engagement in disciplinary practices.

This positive presentation of multilingualism is consistently repeated in both the front materials and throughout the unit materials. 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. When additional Multilingual Learners (MLL) guidance is given in supports, it often references back to these principles as seen in Unit C.2, Lesson 11, Teacher Edition, “6. Read About the Effects of Lightning”, “Attending to Equity” sidebar. This sidebar encourages teachers to “honor the different language representations” utilized by students while guiding them towards using co-created classroom definitions and disciplinary language. These examples demonstrate a coherent commitment to value multilingualism as a meaningful tool for sensemaking. 

Additionally, in the Unit Overview Materials for each unit, “Guidance for Developing Your Personal Glossaries”, teachers are provided strategies that 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 don’t clearly explain how teachers should use it in instruction. While multilingualism is treated as an asset, this isn’t stated directly, missing a key opportunity to highlight its value in building science vocabulary.

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 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.