# data[].attributes.headline
Curriculum Evaluation (see specific elements for MLLs tied to research screenshot in other sections)

# data[].attributes.subject
Curriculum Evaluation (see specific elements for MLLs tied to research screenshot in other sections)

# data[].attributes.headline
School Culture Around Translanguaging Scales

# data[].attributes.subject
School Culture Around Translanguaging Scales

# data[].attributes.body
Multilingual Ecology
Multilingualism as a Resource

both adapted from CUNY NYSEIB's Leadership doc

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Translanguaging Comprehension & Writing Planning Template

# data[].attributes.body
Lean on ChatGPT and Difference or Disorder by Kester to support!

# data[].attributes.headline
Can We Really Teach Prosody and Why Would We Want To?

# data[].attributes.subject
Can We Really Teach Prosody and Why Would We Want To?

# data[].attributes.body
"Remember, the point of all of this is to make the reading sound meaningful. If students can convert the words on the page into sentences that sound meaningful, they will then be on their way to fuller comprehension and better reading."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Teacher question

How expressive should young children's reading be? We are told that oral reading fluency consists of accuracy, rate, and prosody, but our monitoring tests only consider accuracy and rate. Does prosody matter in first and second grade and if it does how do we measure it?

Shanahan's response

Experts have long accepted the idea that oral reading fluency (ORF) or, these days, "text reading fluency", improves simultaneously with reading development. As readers progress, they can read more words accurately, they are able to do this with less conscious effort (automaticity), and their prosody gets better, too.

The funny thing is that no one questions whether those accuracy or automaticity gains are central to reading development. The benefits of teaching kids to recognize words proficiently seems obvious to everyone.

But the role of prosody is not as well accepted.

Some experts view prosody as no more than a positive side effect. These experts believe that when students can read with comprehension, they'll automatically make the text sound meaningful. Their advice to teachers? Don't sweat the prosody!

While other authorities believe prosody is just like accuracy and automaticity - if prosody doesn't improve, then reading can't get better either. According to this view, teachers should try to teach prosody.

My sense is that more and more, the evidence is coming down on the "prosody matters" side.

So, what is prosody?

The National Reading Panel described prosody rather straightforwardly as "proper expression." I wrote that definition myself, but when I talk to teachers (and kids) I tend to offer an even more down to earth explanation ... it just means "making the text sound like spoken language." (Don't take me too literally on that... when I read silently, I want the text in my head to sound like spoken language, too.)

For a more scholarly definition, I turn to Melanie Kuhn and her colleagues: Prosody is "appropriate expression or intonation coupled with phrasing that allows for maintenance of meaning" (Kuhn, Schwanenflugel, & Meisinger, 2010). This, they clarify, includes variations in frequency or pitch, duration of vowels, stress on syllables, and pausing. They believe that these prosodic features are used to break up or parse text into meaningful units, to manage the information included in the syntax of the sentences and the discourse properties of the text (Miller & Schwanenflugel, 2006, 2008).

Given that definition, then text reading fluency is about both decoding and comprehending. That's why, in the Active Model of Reading (Duke & Cartwright, 2021), fluency is included in the "Bridging Variables" category - the place for variables that are both fish and fowl.

The earliest conjectures on the value of fluency instruction focused on decoding alone: fluency practice increases sight vocabulary (Rashotte & Torgesen, 1985), enhances the ability to apply phonics skills (Chomsky, 1978), and supports automaticity development (Samuels, 1979). Each of these claims, hypothesizes fluency to be about better decoding, which in turn might enable better comprehension. Fluency practice, then, was not expected to have any direct impact on understanding.

Accordingly, it shouldn't be surprising that most studies of fluency teaching have focused either on beginning readers or struggling readers (National Reading Panel, 2000), those students most likely to need attention to their decoding skills.

But more recent research shows that text reading fluency is more closely related to reading comprehension than is word reading fluency (Kim, 2015; Wise, et al., 2010). You wouldn't expect to see that kind of difference if text fluency was nothing more than decoding. If word reading fluency and text reading fluency were the same, they'd have a similar relationship with comprehension. But that's not the case. Something else is evidently going on in text reading that doesn't happen in word reading, and it appears that this difference is bound up in the prosody part of fluency.

Recent research shows there to be a significant, though moderate relationship between prosody and comprehension (Wolters, Kim, & Szura, 2022). I don't think we should expect more than that from prosody since other factors that play a role in comprehension, too.

Complicating matters here is the fact that prosody is a complex variable with multiple parts, and - at this point - with unclear connections among those parts. Scientists are still trying to figure out the best way to measure each of those parts.

In any event, the durations and frequencies of pausing, intonation, expressiveness, smoothness, and pitch are complicated things to measure, especially in the varying contexts that different texts present.

The reading of more difficult text leads to less prosodic reading and no one knows what reader-text match is most appropriate for estimating prosody properly. Perhaps the best estimate would come not from the reading of a single text or even from an average of multiple readings of texts at a given level. Maybe it would entail multiple readings of different levels of text or some kind of improvement score based upon rereading.

An important finding that Wolters and company (2022) reported was that, at this point, the prosody rating scales do better than the more technical spectrogram assessments that more precisely measure sound waves to the milliseconds. That's good to know. It suggests that teachers can monitor prosody sufficiently by listening to students' oral reading and rating its quality.

My favorite among the rating schemes?

For classroom use, I prefer the simplest one. I think teachers would be most able and willing to use the National Assessment's scale (Daane, Campbell, Grigg, Goodman, & Oranje, 2005). I've used it myself in many schools and have found it to be satisfactory.

The NAEP measure one is a 4-point-scale and it focuses mainly on pausing, a variable with a clear relationship to reading comprehension. Rather than trying to quantify expressiveness (since our goal isn't to get kids to deliver lines like Jack Nicholson or Meryl Streep), this approach emphasizes how the words are grouped by the students.

If a text is read choppily word by word, it is rated a 1.

If the pauses usually come every second or third word but without attention to the grammar or punctuation, that reading gets a 2.

Both of those scores show disfluency that would be expected to undermine or interfere with comprehension.

Threes and 4s reflect pauses between multiword segments, but most importantly, these pauses reflect the punctuation and grammar of the sentences. The text so read will sound meaningful.

If you listen to that kind of reading, you can grasp the meaning by ear without having the text before you. It's hard to do that when the pausing merits lower ratings.

Obviously, there is more to prosody than pausing. But pausing seems to be a powerful proxy for the whole thing. Kids who aren't pausing in appropriate places probably aren't doing much else to make the text meaningful.

Here's a sentence that I have taken from a fourth-grade reading textbook: Good business is not always about the bottom line.

Here are four ways this text may be read. The slashing lines show the pauses, and the numbers indicate their ratings.

1. Good // business // is not // always // about the // bottom // line.

2. Good // business is // not always // about the // bottom// line.

3. Good business // is not // always about the // bottom line.

4. Good business // is not always about // the bottom line.

The differences may not seem especially great when considering only one 9-word sentence, but now imagine that you are reading (or listening to) an entire passage presented in those ways - along with the word reading errors, repetitions, and intonation problems that are also likely to accompany these pausing patterns.

You ask how expressive your students should be?

My response is that their oral reading should suggest that they are understanding what they are reading. These renditions should be adequate to support a listener's comprehension as well. If it doesn't sound like the student understands the text, then it lacks sufficient prosody.

Teachers should listen for those kinds of weaknesses and should provide students with instruction aimed at helping them to do better.

One instructional approach found to improve the prosody of early readers is repeated reading (Logan, 1997; Stoddard, Valcante, Sindelar, O'Shea, & et al., 1993). Having students read texts aloud that they cannot already read well - and doing so two or three times to try to read it better can have positive effects on accuracy, automaticity, and prosody. One small study found that having the kids work on their expressiveness during repeated reading improved comprehension (Calet, Pérez-Morenilla, & De los Santos-Roig, 2019). Such rereading practice may include encouraging kids to make questions sound like questions or using their voice to allow a listener to distinguish narration from dialogue.

Another successful approach is to provide guidance in how to group words within sentences.

One of my favorite studies of all time administered standardized reading comprehension tests to students. The test passages were either parsed for the students - marking where the pauses should go - or they weren't. The kids who had the parsed texts outscored the others by a full grade level (Stevens, 1981)! Knowing where the pauses went had a powerful impact on these students' abilities to answer questions about the text.

Studies have shown - though usually with older students - that we can teach students to chunk sentences into their meaningful parts (O'Shea & Sindelar, 1983). Do guided practice with that, help students to figure out where to pause, and how to recognize prepositional phrases (and other kinds of phrases). As with other kinds of teaching, your lessen the guidance as students gain proficiency.

I would do such work with texts that the class would otherwise be working with - such as this week's reading selection or the chapter in our social studies book.

I know there are materials aimed at giving kids practice reading phrases. I know of no research into the effectiveness of such practice, though as students gain reading proficiency, the amount of time between the words in high frequency phrases declines. In other words, those phrases stat to become identifiable as phrases - and this occurs as early as Grade 1. That could mean that such phrase reading practice deserves some attention.

Also, there has been a good deal of work into sentence comprehension, and I suspect that, too, would help with prosody development. Here is a link to a recent blog I wrote on that subject: W hat Teachers Need to Know about Sentence Comprehension.

Remember, the point of all of this is to make the reading sound meaningful. If students can convert the words on the page into sentences that sound meaningful, they will then be on their way to fuller comprehension and better reading.

References

Calet, N., Pérez-Morenilla, M. C., & De los Santos-Roig, M. (2019). Overcoming reading comprehension difficulties through a prosodic reading intervention: A single-case study. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 35(1), 75-88. doi.org/10.1177/0265659019826252

Chomsky, C. (1978). When you still can't read in third grade: After decoding, what? In S. J. Samuels (Ed)., What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 13-30). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Daane, M.C., Campbell, J.R., Grigg, W.S., Goodman, M.J., & Oranje, A. (2005). Fourth-grade students reading aloud: NAEP 2002 special study of oral reading (NCES 2006-469). U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Duke, N.K., & Cartwright, K.B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the simple view of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1),

S25-S44. doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411

Kim, Y. G. (2015). Developmental, component?based model of reading fluency: An investigation of predictors of word?reading fluency, text?reading fluency, and reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(4), 459-481. doi.org/10.1002/rrq.107

Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Meisinger, E. B. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 230-251. doi:https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.2.4

Logan, G.D. (1997) Automaticity and Reading: Perspectives from the Instance Theory of Automatization. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 13, 123-147. doi.org/10.1080/1057356970130203

Miller, J., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2006). Prosody of syntactically complex sentences in the oral reading of young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4). doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.839

Miller, J., & Schwanenflugel, P.J. (2008). A longitudinal study of the development of reading prosody as a dimension of oral reading fluency in early elementary schoolchildren. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(4), 336-354. Doi: 10.1598/RRQ.43.4.2

National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

O'Shea, L. J., & Sindelar, P. T. (1983). The effects of segmenting written discourse on the reading comprehension of low- and high-performance readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 458-465.

Rashotte, C. A., & Torgesen, J. K. (1985). Repeated reading and reading fluency in learning disabled children. Reading Research Quarterly, 20 (2), 180-188. doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.20.2.4

Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated reading. Reading Teacher, 32(4), 403-408.

Stevens, K. (1981). Chunking material as an aid to reading comprehension. Journal of Reading, 25, 126-129.

Stoddard, K., Valcante, G., Sindelar, P., O'Shea, L., & et al. (1993). Increasing reading rate and comprehension: The effects of repeated readings, sentence segmentation, and intonation training. Reading Research and Instruction, 32(4), 53-65. doi.org/10.1080/19388079309558133

Wise, J. C., Sevcik, R. A., Morris, R. D., Lovett, M. W., Wolf, M., Kuhn, M., ... Schwanenflugel, P. (2010). The relationship between different measures of oral reading fluency and reading comprehension in second-grade students who evidence different oral reading fluency difficulties. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41(3), 340-348. doi:https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0093)

Wolters, A., Kim, Y.G., & Szura, J.W. (2022). Is reading prosody related to reading comprehension? A meta-analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 26( 1), 1-20.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Can We Really Teach Prosody and Why Would We Want To?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How expressive should young children's reading be? We are told that oral reading fluency consists of accuracy, rate, and prosody, but our monitoring tests only consider accuracy and rate. Does prosody matter in first and second grade and if it does how do we measure it?

# data[].attributes.headline
Current Assessment & MLL Intervention Evaluation Tool

# data[].attributes.subject
Current Assessment & MLL Intervention Evaluation Tool

# data[].attributes.headline
Reading League's EL/EB Resources--a treasure trove to help get started!

# data[].attributes.subject
Reading League's EL/EB Resources--a treasure trove to help get started!

# data[].attributes.body
It is, however, widely understood that skilled reading requires both word recognition and language comprehension for all students, with additional English language development to support comprehension for our EL/EB students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
History and Finding Alignment

Historically, there have been divergent viewpoints between experts in the science of reading field and some experts who support English Learner/Emergent Bilingual(EL/EB) students. However, it is important to recognize that the shared objective among all stakeholders is to facilitate positive literacy outcomes for all students, ultimately aiming for proficient reading and writing skills.

Despite a broad consensus on numerous topics, such as the importance of building language and knowledge, having high expectations for students, and the important role of foundational reading skills, there have been instances when presentations and papers have perpetuated a narrative of disconnection between these groups. For instance, in 2022, the National Committee for Effective Literacy (NCEL) published a White Paper that extensively discredited practices associated with the "science of reading" approach. Interestingly, the frustrations expressed by the EL/EB community, which led to the development of this paper, often stemmed from practices that deviated from the scientifically supported evidence on how students acquire reading skills. These practices were implemented in schools where administrators mistakenly believed they were aligned with the science of reading. One notable example is the excessive emphasis on phonemic awareness or phonics instruction, with daily instruction lasting 90 minutes, at the expense of other critical literacy areas such as oral language development, vocabulary, and language comprehension. It is crucial to note that such practices are not congruent with the principles of the science of reading.

Overall, it will be important to draw upon our understanding of what the science of reading is, and what it is not, and proceed with a united message that evidence-aligned instruction must address all components of language comprehension, writing, word recognition and, for EL/EB students, English language development.

A response to the NCEL White Paper was drafted by Goldenberg et al. (2022) in an effort to find common ground. Following this response, The Reading League assembled a group of stakeholders to discuss some of the most critical points of contention in a series of meetings. The intent was to listen, learn, and build trust. This group knew that in order to truly unpack this disconnect, collaborative conversations had to occur that began from a place of mutual respect and understanding.

In March 2022 at the first virtual convening, the group of stakeholders agreed that proponents of the science of reading do not always place enough intentional emphasis on supporting the language needs of ELs/EBs. They also worked to dispel myths often perpetuated by many referring to the science of reading as a one-size fits all approach, a program of instruction, phonics-only, or any number of misinformed beliefs that describe anything other than what the science of reading is-a body of knowledge derived from decades of scientifically-based reading research.

The group convened multiple times from spring to fall in 2022 with the objective of addressing significant topics, fostering clarity, and establishing trust. Through these discussions, several essential areas of agreement emerged, while other important questions surfaced that required further exploration. These shared alignments and questions served as the foundation for more in-depth discussions during the in-person gathering held in March, The Reading League Summit.

During these discussions, another group of EL/EB and science of reading experts had been meeting and discussing concrete alignments in California. This group developed an excellent resource that can serve as a foundation for conversations based in collaboration.
Pivot Learning published their final conclusions in a report linked below:
The Reading League Summit, Joint Statement, and Report

In 2022-2023, efforts to bridge the disconnect between proponents of the science of reading and experts supporting the needs of EL/EBs led to the belief that the various stakeholder groups can move forward together. Continued conversations between The Reading League and friends and NCEL and friends led to an historic one-day Summit in Las Vegas on March 25, 2023.

The Summit featured four moderated panel discussions on a variety of topics. A video archive of the 2023 Summit is available here:

Register for the second annual The Reading League Summit 2024 on April 27, 2024, in San Diego, CA.
Joint Statement:
Following the Summit, panelists and moderators reconvened to address growing misconceptions about the science of reading. The following statement was drafted in order to continue the work of advancing literacy outcomes for all students, together.
Report:
Dr. Tanji Reed Marshall, director of P-12 Practice at The Education Trust, recounts the day's events in the following report.

Research
Is there scientifically-based research that helps us understand how to meet the literacy needs of ELs/EBs?
There is a claim made by certain individuals suggesting that all research conducted within the realm of the science of reading solely pertains to monolingual contexts. However, it is important to emphasize that all scientifically grounded research aimed at comprehending the process of reading acquisition-including studies explicitly addressing questions related to EL/EB students-falls within the scope of the science of reading. Although further research is warranted to gain a comprehensive understanding of effective support for EL/EB students, it is categorically incorrect to assert that no research exists regarding optimal strategies for assisting this particular student population.
There are multiple, reliable resources that have summarized research and lifted up best practices for EL/EB students including the following:

The Reading League has purchased the digital rights with a limited number of permitted downloads of the Developing Literacy in Second Language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth (Executive Summary). We welcome you to download the PDF of this resource for future use while it is available.

Additionally, because our nation's classrooms have a growing number of EL/EB students, they have been participants in much of the research that is part of the body of knowledge known as the science of reading. For example, the initial 1990 study validating the Simple View of Reading was conducted on students along the Texas/Mexico border who spoke multiple languages.

There are also many scientifically-based research studies that help us understand how to meet the needs of ELs/EBs specifically. Unfortunately, many of them remain behind a paywall, but interested readers can contact the authors directly to request access. A sampling of just a handful of the studies that specifically address EL/EB students includes:

Curriculum and Instruction

Learning to read in a language you are learning is similar, but not identical, to learning to read in a language that is new to you. - Dr. Claude Goldenberg

One of the areas of continued discussion revolves around foundational skills. These are skills such as phoneme awareness, letter knowledge, phonics, phonic decoding, and encoding, that must be developed to automaticity in order to support accurate and automatic word recognition and spelling.

An element of instruction that is a frequent point of contention is the use of context cues when teaching reading. Emily Hanford's Sold a Story podcast explains the faulty logic and lack of research for relying on cues to decode words. An important distinction to understand is that cueing as a strategy to develop word recognition is not supported by research, but using cues to confirm the meaning of words once they have been read accurately can be beneficial for students, including ELs/EBs.
This article by Dr. Louise Spear-Swerling clarifies this distinction: Dr. Linnea Ehri and Dr. Susan Brady discuss the role of meaning:
For readers, our brains have three separate kinds of representations for words in different areas of the brain that make up words' lexical representations: 1) a phonological representation of how the word is pronounced; 2) a semantic representation that encompasses the word's meaning attributes, including how the word is used in different contexts and connects to the meanings of other words that have related meanings; 3) and an orthographic map that specifies the spelling of the word. The orthographic map results from code-based grapheme-phoneme mapping when a reader encounters a word in print and decodes it, or when the reader spells the word. Once an orthographic map is well-established for a word, the reader no longer needs to decode that word but automatically accesses the map when reading or spelling, and even just when hearing the word. The different kinds of representations become more strongly neurologically connected as the learner has experience with the word in language and in print. Thus when reading a known word, the semantic and phonological representations are activated as well as the orthographic map. For words to fully exist in our 'sight word' memory, they must have these other forms of representation well connected with the orthographic map. Research also indicates that connections with the motor region of the brain that controls handwriting are also activated when a word is used. Educational practices that integrate all aspects of word knowledge strengthen the connections, supporting automaticity of word recognition and comprehension.

Research on both monolingual and bilingual students has documented that explicit and systematic instruction in phoneme awareness and decoding are essential for orthographic mapping, however these skills are not sufficient to develop skilled reading if the other forms of representation are not established as well. If students are taught to decode the words, but do not know the meanings of the words they are reading, comprehension will not occur. Thus, ensuring that students know the meanings of words they are decoding is necessary, too. In short, EL/EB students need rich instruction in English oral language to build their second language expertise, supporting both their oral language use and providing necessary phonological and semantic representations for English words they are seeing in print.
According to Dr. Linnea Ehri in an interview for The Reading League Compass:
To be fully mapped and exist as a sight word in memory, the meaning must be connected to the spelling and pronunciation. Also the syntactic identity of the word needs to become connected to the other identities, that is, its function in sentences-especially if its meaning is only activated in sentences (e.g., function words like was, from, if, and with, and irregular past tense verbs that sound like nonsense words when produced in isolation like held, took, gave, and wrote). This would be especially important for EL students. These words need to be read in meaningful contexts in order for the connection forming processes to become complete and to establish high quality lexical representations of sight words in memory. A word isn't a word without meaning.

Thus, it is essential to undergird lessons whenever possible with meaningful vocabulary, language, and English language support is essential for EL/EB students.
Resources to further understanding
The Reading League's Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines (CEGs) include "red flags" (instructional practices that do not align with the science of reading) as well as aligned practices that support both word recognition and language comprehension. The CEGs also include specific, evidence-aligned components to support EL/EB students. Many of the evidence-aligned language comprehension components of the CEGs align directly with the WIDA English Language Development Standards (2020). Developing understanding of grammar, cohesive devices, syntax, and text structure is supported by the science of reading and advocated by those supporting EL/EBs. Understanding these connections and emphasizing these similarities will help us all move forward together to support all learners. Additionally, New Mexico's Structured Literacy and English Learners page provides helpful information on instruction and resources such as walkthrough tools and lesson templates.

The following excerpts from California's ELD Standards Publication are also helpful in thinking through the evidence-aligned needs of ELs/EBs.
English learners benefit from Reading Foundational Skills instruction.
Research Findings: Instruction in the components of reading foundational skills-such as phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension (NICHD 2000)-benefits ELs.
Implications: Instruction in foundational literacy skills is essential for ELs. However, the instruction should be adjusted based on students' spoken English proficiency (they may or may not be familiar with the English sound system) and native language or English literacy proficiency (they may or may not be familiar with any type of writing system or with the Latin alphabet writing system in particular). Note that some ELs at any age may not be literate in any language when they arrive in the U.S. school system; their native language may not have a written form, or they may not have had opportunities to develop literacy in their native language or in a local language of wider communication.
Oral English language proficiency is crucial for English literacy learning.
Research Findings: Oral proficiency in English (including oral vocabulary, grammar, and listening comprehension) is critical for ELs to develop proficiency in text-level English reading comprehension. Word-identification skills are necessary, but not sufficient. Students who have learning disabilities (as diagnosed separately from their EL designation)-or whose literacy skills in either their native language or English remain below grade level after intensive and extensive instruction-may need specialized literacy intervention services.
Implications: Instruction for ELs in oral language knowledge, skills, and abilities must be explicit, intensive, and extensive. In order to be successful in reading English, ELs must develop proficiency in listening and speaking skills in English-depth and breadth of vocabulary, as well as grammatical structures-at the same time that they are developing foundational skills in reading and writing English.
Native language literacy skills facilitate English literacy learning.
Research Findings: ELs' native language literacy skills can help them learn English foundational literacy skills.
Implications: Instruction for ELs will need to vary based on variations among ELs' native language writing systems, as well as ELs' experiences with literacy in their native language. For example, students who are literate in a language that uses the Latin alphabet (such as Spanish) will be able to transfer decoding and writing skills more easily than a student who is literate in a language with a non-Latin alphabet (such as Arabic, Korean, or Russian) or a language with a symbol-based writing system (such as Chinese). Similarly, students who are literate in a language related to English (such as Spanish) will be able to use knowledge of cognates (words with similar meaning and spelling in both languages), whereas students who are literate in unrelated languages (such as Arabic, Chinese, or Korean) will not.

Multilingualism as an Asset

In our increasingly multilingual and multicultural society, it is important to consider the impact of bilingualism on the development of language, and how exposure to more than one language from a young age might shape an individual's brain both structurally and functionally. In the recent past, bilingualism was thought to impede cognitive and linguistic development, effectively 'confusing' the child's brain with multiple languages. We now know that this is NOT the case. (Arredondo et al, 2018)

A point that was universally agreed-upon at The Reading League Summit is that from a cultural, cognitive, and an academic perspective, multilingualism is an asset. For students, learning vocabulary and background knowledge in their home language can lead to positive transfer of this knowledge when learning the language of instruction, which supports comprehension. Dual language instruction is an optimal setting for this.

The reality, however, is that most EL/EB students are not afforded the opportunity to learn in a dual language setting that instructs, at least part time, in their home language. Thus, students must learn to read in a language they are learning to understand. Even in English-only settings, educators can still capitalize on the asset of a student's home language by leveraging cognates, or words in different languages that have a similar phonological, orthographic, and semantic form. Educators can also use a student's home language to highlight similar elements of phonology, orthography, morphology, syntax, and grammar and lessen the cognitive load of new learning by engaging in contrastive analysis, or the comparing of two languages to determine the similarities and differences of specific elements of the language. Teachers can also support better comprehension skills when they are able to choose texts that relate to children's previous experiences and world knowledge. In this way teachers can provide culturally relevant content that is more likely to be familiar to children and therefore more likely to be understood.

In this Edsource article (2023), Tim Shanahan states:
There are things that, depending on the language, might overlap with English and that the children might already know, in which case, those don't necessarily need to be retaught or certainly not to the same extent as with a first language student. For example, a lot of the sound letter matches are identical across Spanish and English, so if the child already knows how to read in Spanish, the classroom instructor wouldn't need to put a lot of time into teaching those things. On the other hand, there definitely are sounds that we have in English that don't exist in Spanish. And studies have found that it's useful to teach those quite explicitly and thoroughly. These resources are useful in helping educators understand elements of language that may be similar or different across languages:
Assessment

Dr. Lilian Duran of the University of Oregon offers the following advice for The Reading League Compass on assessment for ELs/EBs:

When planning assessment to learn more about the reading abilities of English Learners, it is important to understand their word recognition abilities, but one must also understand the role of language proficiency in both the child's home language(s) and English. Assessing literacy development in multilingual children requires attention to the child's level of proficiency in all of the languages that they have been regularly exposed to and how they will interact with the child's performance on the assessments administered.

In the context of the United States, most reading assessments are conducted only in English. Many children enter US schools speaking languages other than English at home and in their communities and are in the process of acquiring English. It is mandated that all children whose parents identify that a language other than English is spoken in the home are administered an English proficiency test with the goal of more effectively providing appropriate support for learning in predominantly English instructional environments.

Language is the foundation of literacy, and for EL students, measuring language development is critical to understanding the foundation they are bringing to the task of learning to read in English. Assessment in a child's home language is also important to provide a window into their ability to learn in general. Most children in the U.S. will be exposed to English-only instruction, but prior to school entry all of their learning, their concept knowledge, and their communication abilities are simply stored in a different language. Measuring vocabulary, semantic, and morphosyntactic development provides the teacher with more awareness of the student's strengths, abilities, and learning potential.

In addition to attending to the level of language development of students, it is also important to consider the language or languages of instruction. If children are only taught how to read in English, you cannot assume that the child will have reading skills in Spanish. However, if a child is in a dual language program that systematically teaches reading in both English and Spanish, then reading assessment in both languages is important and a better reflection of their overall ability level.

The main take-away for assessing reading skills for ELs is as follows: teachers must take a nuanced approach that strategically considers the quantity and quality of a child's exposure to their home language(s) and English and how this interacts with the language of their reading instruction. There is not a one-size-fits-all approach, but rather a decision-making process that should be undertaken to choose the appropriate assessments in the appropriate language that are most likely to capture the child's overall language and reading ability.
For more information on this topic:
Resources

These additional resources are helpful to understand research as it relates to supporting English Learners and Emergent Bilinguals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
English Learners / Emergent Bilinguals and the Science of Reading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn more about how to teach English Learners/Emergent Bilinguals to read thanks to the science of reading.

# data[].attributes.body
If you have staff members who can assess the student in their home language AND you don't have a formal assessment tool for word recognition, language, or reading comprehension in the home language:

look at student's ability to fluently decode texts in L1

assess listening comprehension of a text, their vocabulary use, and verbal reasoning in conversational turn-taking

If you don't have staff members who can assess the student in their home language:

ask the student's caregiver(s) about the above skills

possibly coach the caregiver to:

listen to the student read and ask them if reading is fluent (accurate, good rate, prosodic for that language)

read a passage aloud to the student in the home language and then have a conversation asking the student to summarize, discuss vocabulary, and predict or ask questions of the text to show verbal reasoning

Use this data to inform whether the student will need more support with TRANSFER from the home language or EXPLICIT NEW TEACHING in English in the subskills of the reading rope depending on their current levels in their home language

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mirrors, Windows and Sliding Glass Doors

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Claude Goldenberg - Literacy for English Learners: What's "Reading Science" Got to Do With It?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Elsa Cardenas Hagan: Making Connections for Structured Literacy Instruction Among English Learners

# data[].attributes.headline
"You can't intervene your way out of a tier 1 problem"

# data[].attributes.subject
"You can't intervene your way out of a tier 1 problem"

# data[].attributes.body
If the core instructional resources don't support the learning and progress of the majority of students (including but not limited to our multilingual learners), interventions will not remove the barrier. Change must happen at the tier 1 level in order for EAL support and tiers 2 & 3 to have the intended impact!

# data[].attributes.body
Fast Phrase
Phrase Haste
Fleeting Phrases
Phrasing Progression

# data[].attributes.headline
Claude Goldenberg's Evaluation of the UoS for EL Suppports

# data[].attributes.subject
Claude Goldenberg's Evaluation of the UoS for EL Suppports

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Do you count on EdSource? If so, please make your donation today.

Este artículo está disponible en Español. Léelo en español.

Low statewide reading scores have sparked many advocates to call for California to adopt a so-called structured literacy curriculum that emphasizes phonics and follows the science of reading.

English learner advocates have raised concerns that districts may focus too much on phonics and other foundational skills and ignore other important skills that English learners need.

So what does the research say about what English learners need when learning to read?

Tim Shanahan, distinguished professor emeritus of the University of Illinois at Chicago, is known for helping to lead the National Reading Panel, convened at the request of Congress to evaluate reading research.

He also chaired the National Literacy Panel for Language Minority Children and Youth and co-edited the resulting 2006 report on teaching reading and writing to students who are learning English as a second language, "Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners."

The report was not published by the Department of Education, so the panel published it privately. As a result, it is available only by purchase or in libraries and is lesser known than the report of the National Reading Panel.

This interview was condensed for brevity and clarity.
What are some main takeaways from the report "Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners"?
Shanahan: Skills that are important to teach in reading, like phonics, or comprehension strategies, work with native English speakers. And the research is very clear: Those benefit second language learners too. But what I think people don't often pay attention to is that the payoff is smaller with second language learners.

Phonics or comprehension strategies enable you to apply your language skills. But they can only help to the point that you have sufficient English to be able to use them.
That's why English learners need oral language development, right? Can you describe that?
Shanahan: In far too many programs, folks have gone, 'Well, we've got the kids integrated, they're in classes with other children who know English, they're going to be hearing the lessons in English, and the kids will be talking on the playground, and these kids will pick up English just like that.' And they will pick up conversational English to some extent, just like that, some much better than others, unfortunately. But they won't necessarily pick up academic English; they're not going to necessarily learn to create sentences that are like the sentences in a book or in a news article or something like that. You actually have to have some dedicated lessons that give them a real chance to catch up.
What are some of the other things English learners need in addition to oral language development?
Shanahan: There are things that, depending on the language, might overlap with English and that the children might already know, in which case, those don't necessarily need to be retaught or certainly not to the same extent as with a first language student. For example, a lot of the sound letter matches are identical across Spanish and English, so if the child already knows how to read in Spanish, the classroom instructor wouldn't need to put a lot of time into teaching those things. On the other hand, there definitely are sounds that we have in English that don't exist in Spanish. And studies have found that it's useful to teach those quite explicitly and thoroughly.

Another example: How do we teach reading comprehension? With native English speakers, I would have them read and I'd ask them questions, get their answers, we'd talk about it. With a second language student, I could do exactly the same thing, and the kids would sit there and not participate at all.

So one little change to that lesson - what if I allow the kids, when I ask my question, to discuss it with each other in Spanish before answering me in English? And the lesson comes alive. The kids participate, give answers in English now that they've had a chance to try them out in their own language. Those tiny little things make the kids feel welcomed or give them sufficient support that they can participate.
Is writing important for English learners?
Shanahan: There is a bunch of literacy research showing that writing and learning to write can have wonderfully productive feedback on learning to read. For example, working on spelling has a positive impact. Likewise, writing about the texts that you read increases comprehension and knowledge.

Even English learners who become quite proficient with oral English and reading comprehension tend to lag in writing. Writing demands a high level of understanding of a language. Not providing adequate instruction is problematic because of the importance of writing in advanced educational opportunities.
Does teaching in children's home language help?
Shanahan: Overwhelmingly, the body of research says yes, kids benefit when you spend some time teaching them in their home language.

It's important that schools are accepting and welcoming to children of different cultures, that children feel safe and welcomed and that their language is acceptable. You see better results when schools manage to convey that kind of acceptance to the children and to the families. So that's not an unimportant idea, and it's one that's unfortunately not always honored.
There's some concern from English learner advocates in California that a push to do more phonics will leave out other important skills, including oral language and cross-language connections. What is your perspective?
Shanahan: It gets very tricky when you talk about any aspect of reading, if you say, we need to do this, without any kind of attention to how much time we are talking about. I get emails from people saying, 'They expect me to do 90 minutes a day of phonics.' Well, I can't imagine what idiot is asking for that, because the research doesn't say anything like that. [After looking at the studies on phonics instruction,] thirty minutes to me seems pretty reasonable, recognizing some kids might not need all of that and some kids might need more.

If all you do is tell people that they have to do a particular thing and that's what matters and that's what you're going to be paying attention to, everybody is going to try to do that. And sometimes they're going to overdo it. In this case, you'll probably end up doing more foundational work than language work, with a group that probably needs either greater balance or more language attention than foundational skills attention.

Making sure that everybody is doing everything that kids need, not just parts of it, is really important. I understand when people get worried that somebody's going to overdo it, because I've seen people overdo it. But it goes both ways. The analogy I use is from Chicago history. There was a ship in our river, and at some point, the boat started to lean one way and so everybody did the thing you'd expect - they ran to the other side, it tipped over and drowned like 900 people. It is absolutely legitimate to say, let's not all run to the other side, let's do this in a wise way. That notion of, gee, we're not doing enough phonics, we can fix it if we only do phonics, doesn't make any sense at all. But you can do exactly the same thing with, boy, these second language kids aren't getting enough English, therefore let's take away all the foundational stuff and we'll build these kids' language. You're going to tip the ship over.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Q&A: What research says on teaching English learners to read

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tim Shanahan chaired the National Literacy Panel for Language Minority Children and Youth and co-edited the resulting 2006 report.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Screen for reading problems and monitor progress (using same measures as mononlingual peers, should also assess in home language—see note under assessment column)

2. Provide intensive small group reading interventions

3. Provide extensive and varied vocabulary instruction

4. Develop academic English

5. Schedule regular peer-assisted learning opportunities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The target audience for this guide is a broad spectrum of school practitioners such as administrators, curriculum specialists, coaches, staff development specialists and teachers who face the challenge of providing effective literacy instruction for English language learners in the elementary grades. The guide also aims to reach district-level administrators who develop practice and policy options for their schools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
ies effective literacy and english language instruction for english learners in the elementary grades: a practice guide english language learners tutoring after school

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
WWC | Effective Literacy and English Language Instruction for English Learners in the Elementary Grades

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The target audience for this guide is a broad spectrum of school practitioners such as administrators, curriculum specialists, coaches, staff development specialists and teachers who face the challenge of providing effective literacy instruction for English language learners in the elementary grades.

# data[].attributes.body
especially this one!

# data[].attributes.body
-explain decodable vocab/dictation words in the moment:

quick, kid-friendly definition

connect to a picture/gesture when possible

connect to home language when possible

quick turn-and-talk to try using if the word will come up again

move on!

# data[].attributes.body
Walks In the Park
A Day at the Zoo
Stew's Ready
Harry's Hiccups + Cooking Up Trouble
Sam's Day Outside + Feline Flees (students mark chunks/phrases)

# data[].attributes.body
"These criterion-related validity studies are particularly important because another set of studies has investigated whether English learners can attain rates of reading growth comparable with those of their monolingual peers. These studies have demonstrated that English learners can learn to read in English at the same rate as their peers in the primary grades (K-2)."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: AERA Publications.

Arab-Moghaddam, N., & Sénéchal, M. (2001). Orthographic and phonological processing skills in reading and spelling in Persian/English bilinguals. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 140-147.

August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Baker, S. (2006, March). English language learners and reading first: Some preliminary evidence of effectiveness. Paper presented at the CORE Literacy Leadership Summit, San Francisco, CA.

Baker, S., Gersten, R., Haager, D., & Dingle, M. (2006). Teaching practice and the reading growth of first-grade English learners: Validation of an observation instrument. Elementary School Journal, 107, 199-219.

Baker, S. K., & Good, R. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement for English reading with bilingual Hispanic students: A validation study with second-grade students. School Psychology Review, 24, 561-578.

Bialystok, E., & Herman, J. (1999). Does bilingualism matter for early literacy? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2, 35-44.

Chiappe, P., Glaeser, B., & Ferko, D. (2007). Speech perception, vocabulary and the development of reading skills in English among Korean- and English-speaking children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 154-166.

Chiappe, P., & Siegel, L. S. (1999). Phonological awareness and reading acquisition in English- and Punjabi-speaking Canadian children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 20-28.

Chiappe, P., & Siegel, L. S. (2006). A longitudinal study of reading development of Canadian children from diverse linguistic backgrounds. Elementary School Journal, 107, 135-152.

Chiappe, P., Siegel, L. S., & Gottardo, A. (2002). Reading-related skills in kindergartners from diverse linguistic backgrounds. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 95-116.

Chiappe, P., Siegel, L., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2002). Linguistic diversity and the development of reading skills: A longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 369-400.

Cisero, C. A., & Royer, J. M. (1995). The development and cross-language transfer of phonological awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 275-303.

Dominguez de Ramirez, R., & Shapiro, E. S. (2006). Curriculum-based measurement and the evaluation of reading skills of Spanish-speaking English language learners in bilingual education classrooms. School Psychology Review, 35, 356-369.

Fitzgerald, J. (1995). English-as-a-second-language learners' cognitive reading processes: A review of research in the United States. Review of Educational Research, 65, 145-190.

Geva, E., & Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z. (2006). Reading efficiency in native English-speaking and English-as-a-second-language children: The role of oral proficiency and underlying cognitive-linguistic processes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 31-57.

Geva, E., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Schuster, B. (2000). Part IV: Reading and foreign language learning: Understanding individual differences in word recognition skills of ESL children. Annals of Dyslexia, 50, 121-154.

Gottardo, A. (2002). The relationship between language and reading skills in bilingual Spanish-English speakers. Topics in Language Disorders, 22, 46-70.

Hsia, S. (1992). Developmental knowledge of inter- and intraword boundries: Evidence from American and Mandarin Chinese speaking beginning readers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 341-372.

Lafrance, A., & Gottardo, A. (2005). A longitudinal study of phonological processing skills and reading in bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 559-578.

Leafstedt, J. M., Richards, C. R., & Gerber, M. M. (2004). Effectiveness of explicit phonological-awareness instruction for at-risk English learners. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 19, 252-261.

Lesaux, N., & Siegel, L. (2003). The development of reading in children who speak English as a second language. Developmental Psychology, 39, 1005-1019.

Limbos, M. (2006). Early identification of second language students at risk for reading disability. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66 (10-A), 3566A.

Limbos, M., & Geva, E. (2001). Accuracy of teacher assessments of second-language students at risk for reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 136-151.

Manis, F. R., Lindsey, K. A., & Bailey, C. E. (2004). Development of reading in grades K-2 in Spanish-speaking English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 214-224.

Miller, J. F., Heilmann, J., Nockerts, A., Iglesias, A., Fabiano, L., & Francis, D. J. (2006). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21, 30-43.

Mumtaz, S., & Humphreys, G. W. (2001). The effects of bilingualism on learning to read English: Evidence from the contrast between Urdu-English bilingual and English monolingual children. Journal of Research in Reading, 24, 113-134.

Proctor, C. P., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 246-256.

Quiroga, T., Lemos-Britton, Z., Mostafapour, E., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (2002). Phonological awareness and beginning reading in Spanish-speaking ESL first graders: Research into practice. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 85-111.

Swanson, H. L., Sáez, L., & Gerber, M. (2004). Do phonological and executive processes in English learners at risk for reading disabilities in grade 1 predict performance in grade 2? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 225-238.

Townsend, D., Lee, E., & Chiappe, P. (2006). English or Spanish? The efficacy of assessing Latino/a children in Spanish for risk of reading disabilities. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Verhoeven, L. (1990). Acquisition of reading in a second language. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 90-114.

Verhoeven, L. T. (2000). Components in early second language reading and spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4, 313-330.

Wang, M., & Geva, E. (2003). Spelling acquisition of novel English phonemes in Chinese children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 325-348.

Wiley, H. I., & Deno, S. L. (2005). Oral reading and maze measures as predictors of success for English learners on a state standards assessment. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 207-214.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Studies show that screening English language learners for abilities in phonological processing, letter knowledge, and word and text reading will help identify those who are progressing well and/or who require additional instructional support.

# data[].attributes.body
"Depending on resources, districts should consider collecting progress monitoring data more than three times a year for English learners at risk for reading problems. The severity of the problem should dictate how often progress is monitored - weekly or biweekly for students at high risk of reading problems."

# data[].attributes.body
differentiated, high-quality language and literacy instruction with varying levels of intensity;

a focus on social (BICS) and academic language development (CALP)

educator knowledge of the second-language acquisition process and the role of native and English language proficiency in reading achievement

data-informed, appropriate instructional adjustments

# data[].attributes.body
(would need to incorporate more translanguaging opportunities--multilingual objectives/review, vocab in home language possibly in semantic web, turn and talks in home language)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Syntax, Sentence Level Translanguaging Pedagogy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2022, a group of teachers and school leaders from 17 different primary schools across Australia participated in The Syntax Project, facilitated by Stephanie Le Lievre from Serpentine Primary School (WA).

Teachers were accepted into the project if they had experience with an explicit-instruction model and could demonstrate an understanding/experience with syntax level instruction.

All Lesson objectives were allocated to individuals based on experience/expertise and the grade they were currently teaching.

All lessons submitted went through a review process by one of our project moderators:

All lessons were created in teachers' own time. They are being shared freely to encourage professional collaboration amongst teachers and schools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Syntax Project - The Grammar Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2022, a group of teachers and school leaders from 17 different primary schools across Australia participated in The Syntax Project, facilitated by Stephanie Le Lievre from Serpentine Primary School (WA). Teachers were accepted into the project if they had experience with an explicit-instruction model and could demonstrate an understanding/experience with syntax level instruction.

# data[].attributes.body
ELLs may be able to read the words but it doesn't mean they will understand the text. They may not be aware of information that the author left unsaid; the information that "everyone knows." (global inferences)

This requires intentional instruction and support.

# data[].attributes.body
Type student names in boxes at the top

# data[].attributes.headline
Translanguaging for Educators, Q&A w/ Dr. Garcia

# data[].attributes.subject
Translanguaging for Educators, Q&A w/ Dr. Garcia

# data[].attributes.headline
Consider vocabulary work, lang structure/syntax, and multilingual graphic organizers as well

# data[].attributes.subject
Consider vocabulary work, lang structure/syntax, and multilingual graphic organizers as well

# data[].attributes.headline
Specific Article Re: UoS Writing for MLLs

# data[].attributes.subject
Specific Article Re: UoS Writing for MLLs

# data[].attributes.headline
An AMAZING Webinar about Teaching Word Recognition in a Bilingual Context

# data[].attributes.subject
An AMAZING Webinar about Teaching Word Recognition in a Bilingual Context

# data[].attributes.body
Though it says Spanish literacy, this is a must-watch for anyone hoping to promote biliteracy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Structure YOUR Spanish Literacy Block Inciarte & Bain, 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cohesive ties include 'anaphors', which connect sentences without the use of repetition. Anaphors include pronouns and ellipses. For example, instead of writing 'Zoe and Lyla were great playmates. Zoe and Lyla played together every day', an author might write, 'Zoe and Lyla were great playmates. They played together every day'.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Translanguaging Comprehension & Writing Planning Template

# data[].attributes.headline
Adapted PLUSS Framework for MLL Planning

# data[].attributes.subject
Adapted PLUSS Framework for MLL Planning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Languages across the world have unique phonemic systems. For individuals learning English as a second language, it is common for the phonemic system of their first language to influence the production of sounds in English.

Resources listed below are intended to contribute to foundational awareness of potential cultural and linguistic influences. There are variations within cultures, and regional and dialectal variances exist in all languages. Therefore, a single chart/page on cultural and/or linguistic features is not meant to provide a comprehensive overview. Clinical judgment, client/patient/student and caregiver input, and additional research are needed to ensure culturally responsive services.

How Can I Use This Information?

Speech-language pathologists can use this information to:

Identify sounds in a client's phonological system for languages other than English.

Determine phonemic influences of a client's native language on English.

Identify sounds from the client's first language that may not exist in English or identify sounds in English that do not exist in someone's native language.

Recognize that even if there are similar sounds across two languages, they may not be used the same way. For example, in some languages a sound may only be used at the ends of words and not as a word-initial sound.

Audiologists can use this information to:

Correlate the client's audiogram and the sounds of the client's language(s).

Recognize and respond to amplification needs.

Identify the effect of the individual's phonemic system on speech audiometry assessment.

Modify materials and procedures during speech audiometry assessment.

Phonemic Inventories and Cultural and Linguistic Information

ASHA has compiled resources on the phonemic systems for the following languages:

Amharic

Arabic

Bosnian

Burmese

Chinese

English

English Phonemic Inventory [PDF]
Dialect
Haitian Creole

Hindi/Urdu

Hmong

Japanese

Korean

Navajo

Pashto and Persian

Polish

Russian

Spanish

Somali

Somali (Portland State University)

Tagalog

Vietnamese

Refugee Profiles/Information
ASHA's policy documents state that SLPs and audiologists must consider the sound systems of all the languages used by a client in order to provide appropriate assessment and treatment services.
Websites with Phonemic Inventories

If you have any questions, please contact ASHA's Office of Multicultural Affairs at multicultural@asha.org.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Phonemic Inventories and Cultural and Linguistic Information Across Languages

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A list of phonemic inventories across multiple languages

# data[].attributes.body
from this incredibly useful PDF from my home state!

# data[].attributes.body
Multilingual Ecology Scales

# data[].attributes.body
The Brain Dictionary