High School - Multilingual Learner Supports

The instructional materials reviewed for High School partially meet the criteria of providing support for Multilingual Learners (MLLs) to fully and completely participate in grade-level learning of phenomena. While the materials offer strategies to support MLL participation, these supports are not implemented consistently and therefore do not fully enable comprehensive participation for all MLL students.

The materials include a variety of strategies intended to support MLL engagement with grade-level phenomena and science practices. When present, these supports may consist of language scaffolds such as sentence stems to support discourse, visual aids like anchor charts, turn-and-talk opportunities, and differentiated readings. However, these strategies are often generalized and lack consistent differentiation to address the diverse range of English proficiency levels among MLLs.

An example of reading support related to a phenomenon is in Unit P.2, Lesson 7, Teacher Edition, 6. Develop a Mechanistic Explanation about Radioactive Decay section, where students are asked to read three different readings: one on energy, one on matter, and one on forces, and complete a cause-and-effect worksheet. Students are working to connect movement in the mantle with heat and how that movement impacted the large crack seen in Afar. The Attending to Equity sidebar for Supporting Emergent Multilingual Learners states: “There are two versions of the same cause-effect modeling handout, which vary in the level of scaffolding they provide. Cause-Effect Model A is a more scaffolded version with suggestions for building the causal chain, whereas Cause-Effect Model B only provides sentence frames. We recommend starting with the less-scaffolded version but having the other on hand. If a student needs extra support, offer them the more-scaffolded version in the moment as needed. However, if you have a class with many students who are multilingual or who need additional literacy support, consider starting with the more scaffolded version for all students.” While the more-scaffolded version may benefit some MLLs, the materials do not specify which students should receive which level of support. As a result, teachers may default to providing the more-scaffolded version to all MLLs, potentially diluting the rigor of the content.

The materials provide flexible entry points for learners, including SIFE/SLIFE students, primarily through visual support and experiential learning. However, there is no guidance for differentiation tailored to long-term MLLs or students literate in their primary language. Teachers are expected to modify instruction for varied proficiency levels without receiving support or explicit instructional direction.

The teacher guidance encourages authentic academic discourse and scientific reasoning, but does not always include scaffolds to support MLL’s full engagement. For example, in Unit P.6, Lesson 1, students are introduced to the phenomenon that guest stars appeared in the night sky and then suddenly disappeared. In the Teacher Edition, section 8. Individual Modeling, students work in their science notebooks, to: “Develop models to explain why the stars we see at night appear not to change, while historical accounts of guest stars describe them changing dramatically.”  Students are to “Share models with a partner through the lens of our M-E-F noticings and then revise models if necessary. After five minutes, the teacher presents Slide R. Ask students to pair up. In pairs, they should compare models and discuss the prompts on the slide.” Students collaborate to construct meaning of each other’s models and are expected to describe, explain, and justify ideas using discipline-specific language, which supports both conceptual understanding and language development. There is an Attending to Equity sidebar to support MLLs stating, “Allowing students to use multiple languages allows them to use their full repertoires to make sense of phenomena.” However, if a student uses their own language, but is not paired with a student who understands the language, the guidance states, “use it as a learning experience and ask them to explain their sensemaking.” There is a missed opportunity to provide additional support for MLL students to fully engage in speaking during this activity.

Students also engage with both discipline-specific and interdisciplinary language, and are encouraged to differentiate between everyday and scientific meanings (e.g., “work,” “power,” “energy”). Vocabulary is typically introduced in context, after students have explored the underlying phenomena, which deepens understanding. For example, in Unit P.4 Lesson 4, section 10. Update Personal Glossary and Progress Tracker, there is guidance to ask what new terms the class has started using to describe the phenomena, such as eclipse, foci, semi-major, axis, and create a class definition from the previous activities within the lesson that is shared among everyone and recorded in their personal glossaries. Visual models, real-world contexts, and data help students internalize new terms meaningfully.

While the materials include several strong components that support MLL participation in grade-level science instruction, these strategies are not consistently embedded across all lessons and do not sufficiently address the full range of MLL needs. As a result, the program partially meets the criteria for fully supporting multilingual learners.

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 plan for a reliable energy infrastructure that meets the community’s needs. These problems are revisited and developed across multiple lessons, building coherence and deeper understanding. 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.

The materials incorporate a variety of instructional routines and scaffolds to foster MLL engagement. These include:

• Turn-and-talks and partner discussions to encourage verbal interaction,

• Sentence stems, discourse frames, and anchor charts to support academic language use,

• Science notebook tasks focused on claims, evidence, and reasoning, and

• Visual models, hands-on investigations, and data tables that provide nonlinguistic access to content.

While these features promote listening, speaking, reading, and writing, their implementation is not consistent across units and is not tailored to MLLs’ varying English proficiency levels.

OpenSciEd’s routines, such as student-generated questions and co-constructed models, help support meaning-making by offering entry points that do not rely solely on language. For example, Scientist Circles provide structured opportunities for discourse, supporting collaborative sense-making and language development. Specifically, in the Teacher Handbook under the section titled, “How does a Scientists Circle support equitable science classrooms?” it states, “Changing this physical arrangement of the classroom (with students seated facing one another in a circle) coupled with utilizing moves that shift the authority of the classroom (e.g., Talk Moves or asking a student to publicly record the ideas the class is agreeing on, etc.) can lead to more opportunities for students to make meaning collaboratively through talk.” Furthermore, the guidance states that the circle seating arrangement “can make listening to each other and building upon ideas easier, and it can foster a sense of accountability…” While this routine is often used during the first lessons in a unit when “students are developing an initial classroom model or artifacts,” they are also embedded at “key points for building understanding or working toward consensus. While this is a valuable tool for building understanding of disciplinary concepts, supports such as word banks, sentence frames, and model responses appear inconsistently, limiting multilingual learners’ full and meaningful participation in the routine. In Unit P.1, Lesson 10 and 11, students engage in a Design Challenge developing a community plan about energy. The teacher guidance includes an Attending to Equity sidebar aligned with Universal Design for Learning (UDL), which encourages students to choose a modality that best fits their group. This approach is described as supporting “student ownership of their learning by giving them choice, access, and control in navigating their own understanding around the science ideas (Lesson 11, Step 6: Complete Part 3 of the Design Challenge)." While this approach may support group access, the materials do not offer intentional guidance for teachers on how to form groups  that support the diverse needs of multilingual learners. In Lesson 10, when the Design Challenge is introduced, the guidance is vague, stating, “Then arrange students into purposeful groups of 3-4. These groups will work together for several days on the culminating project, so make sure each group represents a diversity of ability.” This general guidance does not address considerations such as language proficiency levels, peer language models, or opportunities for targeted language support within collaborative groups.

Furthermore, in Unit P.1, Lesson 1, students explore the design challenge of developing a plan to advocate for improving electricity infrastructure to increase reliability and meet a community’s needs in section 2. Read Articles and Identify Tradeoffs in Jigsaw Groups, the Attending to Equity sidebar advises teachers to create either random or intentional mixed-ability groups. It notes that while the articles Biomass Impacts, Gas Impacts, and Wind Impacts are of similar reading levels, the shorter ones may be more accessible. While offering a less complex reading can help MLLs access content, the lack of specific guidance may lead teachers to assign it to all MLLs indiscriminately, regardless of their individual proficiency levels. This is also the only reading support provided within this section. Students are also provided a sentence stem: “When choosing whether to use this source to produce electrical energy, there is a tradeoff between _____ and _________.” This scaffold supports discussion, but is limited to supporting beginner MLLs and does not provide flexibility for MLLs at more advanced levels. While OpenSciEd offers flexible entry points, such as visuals, investigations, and collaborative work, that can benefit students with interrupted formal education (SIFE/SLIFE) and emerging MLLs, it falls short in providing consistent, embedded strategies to support the full diversity of multilingual learners. Students who are long-term MLLs, literate in their home language, or positioned across a broad spectrum of English proficiency levels are often left without targeted support. The program’s strong emphasis on language-rich science discourse, encouraging students to construct explanations and models using precise academic language, represents a powerful integration of disciplinary thinking and language development. However, without consistent scaffolding or structured guidance for differentiation, the burden falls heavily on teacher discretion. As a result, many MLLs may find these cognitively demanding tasks inaccessible, limiting their ability to fully engage and thrive in rigorous problems.

Overall, the materials lay a strong foundation for integrating MLLs into science learning through problem-based instruction, structured discourse routines, and academically rigorous tasks. However, the supports for varying language proficiency levels are inconsistent, general, and insufficiently differentiated, resulting in only partial alignment with the criteria for effectively supporting MLLs.

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

For example, Unit P.1, Lesson 1 introduces students to the phenomenon of blackouts in the Texas energy grid and guides them through modeling electricity transfers, analyzing data, and developing explanations for instability in electrical systems. This opportunity meaningfully engages students in multiple SEPs, such as Developing and Using Models and Analyzing Data, while tying in DCIs and CCCs like Systems and System Models. For MLLs, the guidance in section 2- Jigsaw Blackouts Articles suggests multiple modes of communication; students are encouraged to use linguistic and nonlinguistic representations (e.g., drawings, graphs, mathematical equations). This support provides context when they engage in section 3 - Notice Outage Patterns aligned to the SEP of Analyzing Data. Although there is reading support and guidance for multiple modes of communication in section 2, there are only general supports for students engaging in the SEP in section 3. Specifically, when students are presented with a map of the Texas blackouts and capturing noticings and wonderings in a T-chart, the teacher guide states: “Ask students what the map represents and how to read it, making sure that everyone understands that the color gradient represents the percent of customers without power in that county. You can point to a county and check the class’s understanding by asking, How were the people in this county affected by the power outages? How can you tell?” This is a missed opportunity to provide specific linguistic support when students engage in an SEP. 

When engaging in the SEP of Developing and Using Models, the Attending to Equity sidebar in section 8- Come to Consensus in a Scientists Circle suggests allowing students to use “everyday words and phrases” to discuss their ideas as the class is discussing their models and other models after a gallery walk. Specifically, the guidance states, “Switching back and forth between different registers is especially important for emergent multilingual students because it helps them draw on their full range of sensemaking resources.” This guidance may help MLLs engage in speaking about their model and encourage the use of everyday words, but there is a missed opportunity to provide guidance to scaffold up to the grade-level content-specific vocabulary.

The materials sometimes provide sentence stems and discourse supports that assist MLLs in developing language aligned to SEP participation. For example, in multiple lessons, sentence frames are provided for students to articulate observations or construct explanations. In other lessons, while there are opportunities for discourse, the sentence frames are not present. For example, in Unit P.5, Lesson 1, there are two turn-and-talks, but neither provides sentence frames. 

The materials provide additional supports in response to the content. For example, Unit P.6, Lesson 1, focuses on the life cycle of stars and incorporates historical texts in multiple languages (e.g., Old Chinese, Coptic, Persian). The Attending to Equity sidebar for section 2- Read About Other Guest Stars suggests that students who speak these languages can share their interpretations with the class. It also includes the reading level of each of the readings. Although this connection to home language might engage some MLL students, it is not inclusive of engaging all MLLs. During a “mini-lecture” in section 7- 1987 Guest Star Deep Dive, in the Attending to Equity sidebar, the materials recommend pacing supports such as annotating printed slides and peer summarizing. While this guidance indicates support for the SEP of Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information, it lacks specific strategies to support speaking during summarization and does not clarify which information should be annotated to enhance comprehension.

These supports are not distributed consistently across the program. For example, Unit P.4, Lesson Set 2, Lessons 8-15, which investigates the likelihood of large-scale meteor collisions with Earth, offers a learning sequence engaging students in multiple SEPs (e.g., Using Mathematics and Computational Thinking, Analyzing Data, and Planning and Carrying Out Investigations). Students analyze the Chelyabinsk meteor event, plan and conduct investigations, and develop explanations for extinction events. Despite the rigorous SEP engagement and strong integration across all three dimensions, these lessons do not include any Attending to Equity sidebars specific to supporting MLLs. 

Additionally, in Lesson 10, section 6- Analyze and Interpret Data, there are a few cross-disciplinary activities that make connections to math while supporting SEPs, such as Using Mathematics and Computational Thinking, and Analyzing Data. While there are opportunities to write ideas in their science notebook and share their ideas as the teacher discusses patterns in the data, there are no explicit connections to interdisciplinary language. This reflects a missed opportunity to scaffold participation for MLLs in a high-demand sequence where such supports would be particularly impactful.

Moreover, while sentence frames are available in several lessons and sometimes connect to the SEPs, they lack support for varying levels of language proficiency. For example, in Unit P.4, Lesson 3, section 5- Develop an Explanation About the Stability and Change of Orbits, there is embedded guidance specific to “English language learner students”, stating, “English language learner students might benefit from sentence stems that can help them organize their ideas.” An example sentence stem is “When____________ of an orbiting object is balanced with _______, it results in__________.” While there are sentence frames present in some lesson activities aligned to the SEPs, there is a missed opportunity to provide supports at varying levels of language proficiency, supporting a wide range of MLLs.

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, 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 sensemaking of Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCIs). The materials include thoughtful attempts to support MLLs through select scaffolds and pedagogical strategies. However, these supports are uneven across the program and are not consistently integrated to ensure full participation of MLLs in DCIs.

For example, sentence frames, discourse prompts, and suggestions to use both linguistic and nonlinguistic representations (e.g., models, diagrams, and graphs) are present in some lessons. An example of a unit that provides such support is Unit P.1, where students engage in modeling energy transfers and use Progress Trackers to reflect on their evolving understanding of blackout phenomena in Texas. The Teacher Editions for lessons include guidance encouraging MLLs to represent ideas using visual and written modes. For example, in Lesson 1, Section 2. Jigsaw: Texas Blackouts Articles, the Attending to Equity callout box states, “Supporting emergent multilinguals: 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). This is especially important for emergent multilingual students because making connections between written words and nonlinguistic representations helps students generate richer explanations of scientific Phenomena.” Although the guidance provides suggestions on what students are encouraged to do, it does not offer specific guidance to teachers on how to effectively implement these supports for MLLs or anticipate potential language demands. The materials also encourage students to draw upon their community and family experiences to support sensemaking, promoting equity and cultural integration. For example, in Lesson 1, Section 4. Navigate: Home Learning and Exit Ticket, after students have learned about a blackout in Texas, the teacher guide states, “Say, I bet there is a lot we can learn from your stories, and the stories of those in your families and communities. Let’s gather some of these stories for next time.” Students then collect stories from family and community members and bring them back to share with the class. While these supports are found within this lesson in Unit P.1, other lessons lack MLL supports for language development. For example, in Lesson 4 Teacher Edition, there are no Attending to Equity sidebars providing MLL-specific supports as students are engaging in understanding that methods of energy productions and resource extraction have trade-offs that can be influenced by technology and policy (DCI-ESS3.A-H2). This two-day lesson includes a gallery walk, turn-and-talks, Stand and Talk protocol, and class discussions, but does not include any teacher guidance specific to language development. 

Where MLL supports are present, they help maintain the cognitive demand of tasks. For instance, in Unit P.5, Lesson 3, section 1- Navigate, an Attending to Equity sidebar to support “emergent multilinguals” suggests breaking down the word microwave. Specifically, it states, “Prompt students to reason about the first part by asking, What does ‘micro’ mean to you? What other words have you heard that use the prefix micro?” This guidance supports students after taking an exit ticket at the end of Lesson 2, section 5, when answering the question, “What do you think is happening between the magnetron antenna and the light bulb to transfer energy all the way across the microwave oven?” This exit ticket supports DCI-PS4.B-H1, which focuses on “The microwave oven is designed so the magnetron antenna changes electric fields near the oven’s cooking area. This energy transfers across space and somehow reaches the food.” While the guidance in Lesson 3 may help students negotiate the meaning of a content vocabulary term aligned to a DCI concept, there is a missed opportunity for the materials to provide guidance with interdisciplinary words and phrases.

Some units, such as Unit P.6 on star formation, include multimodal lectures and modeling activities where students are encouraged to use their home languages and annotate printed slides. This shows a thoughtful attempt to support comprehension and expression during cognitively demanding tasks. Yet, in many other units, such as P.4 and P.5, there are minimal or no targeted supports for MLLs. The reliance solely on instructional design to support MLLs leaves them without the necessary linguistic scaffolds to fully engage in the content. 

The program misses opportunities to embed language scaffolds that promote extended, meaningful conversations about science content, particularly when crafting consensus. Specifically, in Unit P.4, Lesson 6 Teacher Edition, when students engage in DCI-PS2.B-H1 and develop models of Chelyabinsk meteor redirection from its orbit, they engage in a gallery walk. In section 3- Coming to Consensus, it states, “Ask students to justify their ideas if they disagree with a representation. Encourage students to respond to one another as you come to consensus.” While there is guidance for students to use the language function of justify, no language scaffolds support MLLs’ full engagement in this activity.

In conclusion, while the materials offer some thoughtful MLL supports, particularly in the form of multimodal engagement, occasional vocabulary scaffolds, and community-centered discourse, 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 of providing support for Multilingual Learners' (MLLs’) full and complete participation in the sensemaking of Crosscutting Concepts (CCCs). While the design of the materials engages students in the Crosscutting Concepts (CCCs), they lack robust and consistent supports for MLLs in making sense of the CCCs.

Across units, teacher guidance sometimes encourages multimodal expression (e.g., visual, oral, written), supporting MLLs’ engagement in science discourse. For instance, in Unit P.1, Lesson 1 Teacher Edition, section 2-Jigsaw: Texas Blackouts Articles, guidance in the Attending to Equity sidebar for “supporting emergent bilinguals” states that students should “record their ideas using linguistic (written words) and nonlinguistic modes (photographs, drawings, tables, graphs, mathematical equations, measurements).” The guidance supports students to Stop and Jot, documenting ideas in their science notebooks as they read the articles. This strategy helps MLLs express ideas using their full communicative repertoires, mainly when engaged in activities aligned with the CCCs of Systems and System Models and Stability and Change. 

For some lessons, the materials provide support for MLLs to engage in discussion. For example, in Unit P.4, students engage with multiple CCCs such as Patterns, Scale, Proportion, and Quantity, and Energy and Matter, as they analyze meteor collisions and crater formations. In Lesson 3, section 5-Develop an Explanation About the Stability and Change or Orbits, the Attending to Equity sidebar provides sentence stems for MLLs to organize their ideas around stability and change. For example:

• The relationship between gravitational force and velocity is a key factor in determining ________.

• When ________ of an orbiting object is balanced with _________, it results in ________.

• Changes in _____________ of an orbiting object can impact the orbit stability by ________.

• When the distance of the orbiting object increases, its _______ has to ________ in order to remain in a stable orbit.

While this lesson includes sentence frames, such supports appear inconsistently across the materials. An example of where sentence frames would benefit MLLs is in Unit P.4, Lesson 10, Teacher Edition, section 6- Analyze and Interpret Data. A call-out box states that this is an opportunity to “use the following CCC element: Mathematical representations are needed to identify some patterns.” Furthermore, students are prompted to answer the question, “What patterns do these graphs help us identify?” While this lesson involves six turn-and-talks and opportunities to discuss the relationship between the independent and dependent variable, it lacks language scaffolds to support MLLs’ full engagement in the multiple opportunities for academic discourse. 

In some places, the materials provide supports that may benefit MLLs, but they do not intentionally develop language. For example, in Unit P.6, Lesson 1, when introducing the phenomenon, the materials encourage honoring students’ traditions and stories when describing the patterns for stars. For example, when engaging in the CCC of Stability and Change, students analyze ancient records of “guest stars” and construct explanations of how things change and how they remain stable. In section 2- Read About Other Guest Stars, the Attending to Equity sidebar prompts teachers to celebrate diverse linguistic backgrounds by inviting students who speak the original languages of translated texts, including Old Chinese, Italian, Egyptian (Coptic), and Persian (Farsi), to contribute their knowledge. While culturally affirming, this strategy does not offer direct linguistic scaffolds for CCCs or explicitly support MLLs. Additionally, although the lesson includes some reading supports, such as visuals on slides, handouts, and prompts for teachers to read aloud, it misses the opportunity to intentionally develop students’ use of disciplinary language.

Across the reviewed units, the presence of explicit, task-specific modeling or strategic integration of CCCs with language supports is inconsistent. For example, Unit P.5 heavily engages students in the CCCs of Patterns and Cause and Effect, but provides limited support designed explicitly for MLLs to engage with those concepts. Even where vocabulary scaffolds appear, such as breaking down the word “microwave” in Lesson 3, these are surface-level interventions that do not link directly to how MLLs can apply CCCs in their reasoning or communicate disciplinary thinking effectively. Furthermore, when students are engaging in the CCC of Patterns, there are multiple modes of engaging students to make sense of the relationship between independent and dependent variables. Specifically, there is a computer simulation in section 6, and then a discussion with a handout to help students identify wave variables in section 8. This section, titled Navigate: Identify Wave Variables, includes an Attending to Equity sidebar to support “emergent multilinguals” that states, “As students identify frequency as a variable, help them make connections to the everyday ways they use the word. Ask, ‘If you are getting a high frequency of text messages, what does that mean? Listen for ideas about how it means a lot of text messages coming close together. Help students see the connection between this everyday use and the scientific definition, which means almost the same thing.’” This guidance may help MLLs make sense of the word, frequency, and “multiple media, such as a simulation, handout, and chart of words and images” may help MLLs better express their ideas. However, this level of support is not present in all lessons and tasks.

In sum, while the instructional materials maintain cognitive rigor and provide some support for MLLs’ participation in CCCs and general science discourse, they do not consistently provide intentional or sustained guidance for supporting MLLs in using CCCs as tools for sensemaking. This limits the opportunity for MLLs to build coherent understanding and to use CCCs as analytical frameworks that support deep disciplinary 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 an intentional plan 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 disciplinary language, but lacks specific language 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.

Within Unit P.5, Lesson 1, Teacher Edition, the section Where We Are Going and Not Going provides the teacher both precise and imprecise language related to the content of the unit, with specific examples and directives for a teacher to follow to move students from imprecise language to precise academic language to support their understanding of science concepts and standards, as well as the use of academic language. The guidance states, “Throughout this unit, the materials use the phrase 'heating up' in the microwave oven, which is an imprecise term. This was an intentional choice to support student sensemaking by using everyday language.” The guidance focuses on a singular instance of "imprecise" to "precise" language transition for a specific term. However, it does not demonstrate how teachers are supported in anticipating and addressing the broader language demands, challenges, and opportunities in a lesson along the progression of language acquisition.

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.

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 the High School partially meet the criteria for explaining the instructional approaches for Multilingual Learners (MLLs) and include some references to research-based 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.

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.

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’.

For example, in Unit P.1, Lesson 1, Teacher Edition, 2. Jigsaw: Texas Blackouts Articles, in the Attending to Equity sidebar, there is guidance for the teacher to allow students to record their ideas using both linguistic and nonlinguistic modes, or to suggest that students discuss the content being taught within lessons with their peers before whole-group discussion. This guidance is an attempt to anticipate where students may struggle, but it fails to provide look-fors and listen-fors aligned to student moves.

While the materials occasionally support anticipating potential language demands, challenges, and opportunities, they miss the opportunity to address the progression of language acquisition. Specifically, for each unit, in 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.

In Unit P.4, Lesson 3, Teacher Edition, section 5. Develop an Explanation About the Stability and Change or Orbits, teacher guidance includes a list of sentence stems that could be provided to MLL students in order to help them write a response when comparing velocities. Specifically, it states, “English language learner students might benefit from sentence stems that can help them organize their ideas. Provide them with the following sentence stems:” While the materials do explain to teachers why this support might be important, they fail to guide teachers as to which MLLs would benefit from this support.

The guidance for look-fors and listen-fors focuses solely on content, lacking specific support for monitoring language acquisition or its progression. Additionally, there were no suggestions found that provided guidance for teacher responses, including probing questions and feedback, aligned with language goals. 

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 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 P.5, Lesson 3, Teacher Edition, 1. Navigate, materials guide teachers to connect content vocabulary ("microwave") to prefixes ("micro") that have cognates in multiple languages. This supports the use of students’ home languages and presents multilingualism as an asset. It also demonstrates a deliberate strategy to use linguistic assets to decode vocabulary. Similar evidence is found in Unit P.2, Lesson 8, Teacher Edition, 3. Analyze and Interpret Data, where teachers are encouraged to help emergent multilingual learners connect the word "alluvial" to cognates in Romance languages like French, Spanish, and Portuguese.

Another example can be found in Unit P.2, Lesson 6, Teacher Edition, 8. Develop a Consensus Model About Movement in the Mantle Tank, under "Additional Guidance", teachers are prompted to highlight cognates for the term "buoyancy" in Spanish and French. While this guidance may help connect content vocabulary to student’s home language, they focus solely on implementing a specific linguistic strategy (cognates for vocabulary) rather than guiding teachers on how to collect this vital background information and then use it strategically in their instruction beyond isolated vocabulary connections.

Additionally, in the Unit Overview Materials for each unit, “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. 

This evidence demonstrates that the materials provide teacher guidance on connecting learning opportunities to students' home languages. However, the strategies are isolated and focused narrowly on decoding specific words rather than broadly facilitating comprehension or engagement with science content. Guidance is mainly provided for students who speak Spanish or French, limiting support for classrooms with more diverse linguistic backgrounds.

In select lessons and sidebars (e.g., "Attending to Equity" sections), the materials offer thoughtful strategies, such as:

• Encouraging the use of cognates to unlock academic vocabulary.

• Affirming the value of multilingual students' language skills.

• Prompting teachers to recognize multilingualism as an asset rather than a barrier.

These approaches align with the goal of helping students bring their full linguistic resources to science learning. However, there’s a missed opportunity to provide systematic guidance across all units and lessons.

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 Multilingual Learners (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.

The materials do not consistently support the use of home language for deeper conceptual understanding of science practices, primarily support students who speak French and Spanish, leaving gaps for students speaking other languages, and lack consistent strategies for gathering and using information about students' language backgrounds in instruction. Although the materials do not provide comprehensive support for leveraging all students' home languages across all science content, they include effective strategies like highlighting Latin roots and cognates in Romance languages in order to help multilingual learners connect prior language knowledge to new academic terms. These attempts demonstrate a thoughtful initial approach to addressing the importance of multilingualism in science learning and offer a foundation to build from in future revisions.

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.