# data[].attributes.body
1. What words and language structures do your students need to be successful with the task?
2. In what ways are you reinforcing the key vocabulary?

3. What opportunities did the students have to practice the vocabulary and use language?

4. In what ways are the language and content objectives supported throughout your lesson?

# data[].attributes.body
Collaborative / Academic  Conversations

Annotated videos- all grades and all subjects

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Language Acquisition Through Art and Nature in Preschool _ Edutopia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Classroom Protocols in Action: Using an Interactive Word Wall

# data[].attributes.body
Print out your bookmark!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Language Rich Lessons for Multilingual Students 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Early reading is an important indicator of future academic success, and early reading development has been well studied, demonstrating the importance of early reading growth for reading performance in later grades. Despite such research efforts, results from the recent national reading assessments show that more than one-third of the nation's fourth graders do not have sufficient reading skills.

By utilizing two nationally representative datasets (Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010-11 [ECLS-K:2011] and NAEP 2015 grade 4 reading assessment data), this study replicates and expands the early reading growth research to generate empirical evidence that can be generalized at the national level.

The primary objectives of this study are to

1. Examine the unique development patterns of early reading skills;

2. Identify the reading skill profiles of students who are struggling or at-risk for reading difficulties in fourth grade; and

3. Examine the relationship between early reading development patterns and NAEP grade 4 reading performance.

Key Findings and Analysis

Results from the latent growth curve model analysis of overall reading performance show that students demonstrated the most growth from kindergarten through first grade, and the growth slowed during the second grade and slowed down even further during third grade. Moreover, results from the growth mixture mode analysis suggest five groups of students with distinct early reading development patterns, characterized as

High Performers (5 percent of students representing high reading skills at the beginning of kindergarten and maintaining high reading skills);

Early Boosters (20 percent of students representing rapid growth between kindergarten and grade 1);

Average Learners (52 percent of students representing average initial reading skills and average reading growth);

Steady but Slow Learners (20 percent of students representing average initial reading skills but slow reading growth between kindergarten and grade 1); and

Struggling Learners (3 percent of students representing low initial reading skills and inadequate reading growth during the first 4 years of school).

Further analysis of the item-level data shows the importance of foundational reading skills, suggesting that starting kindergarten without mastery of the alphabetic principle and finishing first grade without mastery of phonological awareness is highly correlated with later performance below the NAEP Basic achievement level on the fourth grade NAEP reading assessment.

Findings from this study suggest three important practices to support students' adequate reading growth in early grades and prevent students from falling behind:

1. Providing high-quality early literacy instruction prior to kindergarten to help students master basic reading skills,

2. Monitoring the development progress of all foundational reading skills such as phonological awareness, even in kindergarten and first grade, and

3. Providing focused, evidence-based instructions to students as early as possible.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Early Reading Skill Development and Characteristics of Reading Skill Profiles: Analysis of Early Childhood Longitudinal Study | American Institutes for Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Early reading is an important indicator of future academic success, but results from the recent national reading assessments show that more than one-third of the nation's fourth graders do not have sufficient reading skills. By utilizing two nationally representative datasets, this study replicates and expands the early reading growth research to generate empirical evidence that can be generalized at the national level.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kidsongs – Award Winning Children’s Music

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Literacy has two beginnings: one, in the world, the other, in each person who learns to read and write."-Margaret Meek
This quote has continued to rewind and repeat in my mind as a more than 50-year research "war" re-emerges to declare to the educational world that science has definitely and universally revealed how all children learn to read. Yes, all children... But what the science of reading hasn't revealed is that the studies only represented "typical classroom teachers" and "typical American or English-speaking students" (National Reading Panel U.S. and National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). Leaving out the details of where this research world begins, and ends, is a matter of equity and access to accurate knowledge, resources, and educational approaches that have been confirmed in their truth around the world.

It is an omission that withholds undeniable science about how dual language students learn to read in two languages and how best to teach them. More tangibly, the exclusion of key information in the science-of reading-narrative has condemned many dual language educators to an impossible ultimatum-either conform to this approach or be labeled as defiant to research-based practices. And therein lies the problem. Emergent bilinguals and dual language students learn how to read differently than monolingual, English-speaking students, and there's decades of research to prove it. So, what has research revealed about the science of reading for dual language programs that's been excluded from the reading wars?

The Reading Wars

Let's start with a quick version of what the reading wars, or the sciences of reading, are. While there are many different scientific models for how children learn to read, there are only two views that have claimed center stage in the debate. There is the simple view of reading (Gough and Tunmer, 1986; Hoover and Gough, 1990), which says that reading comprehension is the result of decoding and linguistic comprehension, or D x C = R. Then there is whole language or the three cuing view of reading (Goodman, 1967), which says that reading in English is as natural a human process as learning to speak-a process that should emphasize making meaning and expressing meaning in reading and writing.
These two views were positioned as each other's rivals, and the monolingual world was forced to choose-explicit phonics or whole language. Meanwhile, in the world of second-language acquisition and dual language (particularly in the vast majority of programs that leverage Spanish and English as partner languages), this war seemed founded on a common understanding of reading, language, learning, and teaching that was fundamentally flawed (Pennycook, 2001). Dual language programs draw from an immense body of research and system of beliefs that assume the benefit and utility of each language (DeMatthews et al., 2017) and that cannot be separated from literacy in that language, texts that reflect the cultures that speak that language, distinct pedagogies, and instructional practices that stem from an understanding of the way in which that language works.

In short, the war appeared to use language in a way that manipulated and undermined the validity of a third view of reading that has also been systematically built. It is a view of learning to read in two languages that requires meaning making and reading words, efficiency of practice, and focus on purpose, all while systematically leveraging the most useful aspects of each language. In the world of dual language, an equally substantial body of research has found that neither decoding ability nor the ability to use the three cues can exist without the other if children are to receive instruction that provides any benefit in reading in two languages while becoming proficient in both. While the evidence abounds, looking at the phonics debate alone provides more than enough.

The Science of Decoding in Dual Language

Let's take, as an example, the part of the formula for the simple view of reading that is decoding, which includes phonics and phonemic awareness.

The way we define decoding is the same in Spanish and English. Phonics is the ability to recognize and accurately match graphemes, or letters, to the phonemes, or the sounds, they make. Phonemic awareness, on the other hand, is the ability to focus on and manipulate the phonemes of a word. If students know what to do with each part of a word, they can read the whole word. As all students build confidence and competence in decoding, they begin something called orthographic mapping, which is basically the brain's muscle memory for identifying similar parts in new words. Once children understand a phonemic pattern (like the -ght in light), they use it like a map or a fingerprint to read other words with the same pattern. That pattern then gets used to read more words automatically (Kilpatrick, 2015).

But here is where the monolingual and dual language worlds diverge. English is highly irregular, which means there are many more parts to identify and manipulate. Spanish is not. In the most widely cited meta-analysis to date, the importance of the English language's orthographic structure is brought into question: "if children were taught only the 44 letter-sound correspondences, they would be able to read any word they encountered, and there would be no reading problems (Aukerman, 1981; Popp, 1975)" (National Reading Panel U.S. and National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000).

Why is this point critical? Well, it helps educators understand that each word part children have to decode is governed by orthography, or the structure of a language itself. There are 26 letters in the English alphabet. However, as noted in the report, there are 44 possible phonemes (25 consonant correspondences and 19 possible vowel correspondences). This is because English is considered a language that is highly irregular, deep (or inconsistent), and full of pronunciation deviations. Just because students hear a sound doesn't mean that they can always predict the letter or letter combination that produced that sound, which is why explicit instruction in phonics and phonemic awareness is needed.

This instruction then must include strategies that are designed to help students learn how to manipulate, delete, blend, etc. However, this is not the case for all languages. In the case of Spanish, which is taught in the greatest number of dual language programs in the country, there is a much different orthography. There are 27 letters but only 22-24 phonemes. This is because Spanish is considered a very consistent, shallow, and ideally phonemic language, where the spelling of a word is the most transparent indicator of how to pronounce the word. What you see is what you almost always get, and if you can see it, you can say it, and then you can read it. The fact that Spanish is one of the most transparent languages in the world is the anti-reason for an equivalent length and intensity of explicit instruction in phonics and phonemic awareness. And here is where orthographic mapping re-emerges and gets really interesting. For dual language and emergent bilingual children, there isn't an actual linguistic or cognitive wall between their two languages. The two literacy and language systems dynamically flow through a corriente of linguistic resources and codes (Garcia et al., 2017). Research has shown that bilingual/biliterate students are able to use the same orthographic mapping process but with their full linguistic resources and codes within and across languages (Van Hell and Dijkstra, 2002; Dijksra et al., 1998). Program models might separate the languages of instruction, but linguistic resources and codes will continue to seek connections.

What's most interesting for Spanish-English dual language children is how few linguistic resources from the corriente are needed for decoding in Spanish, and so all those resources are redirected to play a larger role for processing words in English (Harm and Seidenberg, 2004). And this is where dual language education is uniquely situated to disrupt the reading wars. What's collectively known about learning to read while learning a language across the hundreds of languages that define and unite people is that semantic and syntactic information, better known as MSV, and decoding of words are interrelated and codependent processes. Dual language students deserve access to all research that will accelerate how they break the code, understand the code, and deposit the code into the corriente for continued use in both languages. That means that biliteracy will require linguistic comprehension and explicit phonics instruction in English for skills that are untransferable and more ambiguous (Gottlob et al., 1999).

Science-Based Recommendations

Any pedagogical recommendation should include investigating, discovering, confirming, and sharing out any and all methods, strategies, or "approaches that have been found, through research, to give kids a learning advantage in reading" (Shanahan, T., 2018). This requires shared responsibility between dual language and literacy departments to scrutinize research's limitations (Kubotra, 2004), collective inquiry into and understanding of the science behind program models, and implementation of language-specific reading processes that may be different but no less valid. Through this collective inquiry, programs can focus resources and energies to create:

A coherent definition of biliteracy (not literacy) that balances analytical and synthetic methods and aligns to the three goals;

Shared responsibility and knowledge of research-confirmed methods, strategies, and approaches that are accurately matched to each program language;

Authentic and systematic processes for assessing, monitoring, and supporting a language-specific sequence of skills;

Collaboration and focus on actionable steps informed by valid assessments;

Texts, tools, and talk that are authentic, identity affirming, motivating to students, and allow the application of reading skills when it matters most-in the act of reading.

In short, it goes back to what Margaret Meek says. Developing biliteracy really does have two beginnings, one designed for the typical classroom and another designed to be so much more-designed to give dual language learners access to the promise of dual language education itself. So, there can be no reading war for dual language educators. The only way to attain biliteracy and bilingualism is to leave the typical formula for reading as decoding and linguistic comprehension, or D x C = R, for the formula for developing biliteracy as oracy + decoding + linguistic comprehension + transfer, or O x C x D x T = R2.

References available at www.languagemagazine.com/references-the-science-of-reading-in-dual-language.

Alexandra Guilamo is a dual language expert, author, keynote speaker, and chief equity and achievement officer at TaJu Educational Solutions, a company dedicated to professional development, coaching, and technical support for dual language and bilingual programs.
Visit www.tajulearning.com or follow Alexandra @TajuLearning on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Science of Reading in Dual Language - Language Magazine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Literacy has two beginnings: one, in the world, the other, in each person who learns to read and write."-Margaret MeekThis quote has continued to rewind and repeat in my mind as a more than 50-year research "war" re-emerges to declare to the educational world that science has definitely and universally revealed how all children learn [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Standards in this strand:

Print Concepts:

Phonological Awareness:

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.2.d
Isolate and pronounce the initial, medial vowel, and final sounds (phonemes) in three-phoneme (consonant-vowel-consonant, or CVC) words. ¹ (This does not include CVCs ending with /l/, /r/, or /x/.)

Phonics and Word Recognition:

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3.a
Demonstrate basic knowledge of one-to-one letter-sound correspondences by producing the primary sound or many of the most frequent sounds for each consonant.

Fluency:

¹ Words, syllables, or phonemes written in /slashes/refer to their pronunciations or phonology. Thus,/CVC/ is a word with three phonemes regardless of the number of letters in the spelling of the word.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
English Language Arts Standards " Reading: Foundational Skills " Kindergarten

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Print Concepts: Phonological Awareness: CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.2.d Isolate and pronounce the initial, medial vowel, and final sounds (phonemes) in three-phoneme (consonant-vowel-consonant, or CVC) words. 1 (This does not include CVCs ending with /l/, /r/, or /x/.) Phonics and Word Recognition: CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.3.a Demonstrate basic knowledge of one-to-one letter-sound correspondences by producing the primary sound or many of the most frequent sounds for each consonant.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
English Language Arts Standards » Speaking & Listening » Kindergarten | Common Core State Standards Initiative

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.K.1Participate in collaborative conversations with diverse partners about kindergarten topics and texts with peers and adults in small and larger groups.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.K.1
Demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English grammar and usage when writing or speaking.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.K.2
Demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English capitalization, punctuation, and spelling when writing.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.K.4
Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple-meaning words and phrases based on kindergarten reading and content.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.K.4.a
Identify new meanings for familiar words and apply them accurately (e.g., knowing duck is a bird and learning the verb to duck).

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.K.5
With guidance and support from adults, explore word relationships and nuances in word meanings.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.K.5.a
Sort common objects into categories (e.g., shapes, foods) to gain a sense of the concepts the categories represent.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.K.5.b
Demonstrate understanding of frequently occurring verbs and adjectives by relating them to their opposites (antonyms).

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.K.5.c
Identify real-life connections between words and their use (e.g., note places at school that are colorful).

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.K.6
Use words and phrases acquired through conversations, reading and being read to, and responding to texts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
English Language Arts Standards » Language » Kindergarten | Common Core State Standards Initiative

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.K.1Demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English grammar and usage when writing or speaking.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The number of gaps depends of the selected game mode or exercise.

The video will stop till all the gaps in the line are filled in.

If the video stops your life will go down, when your life runs out the game ends.

To listen to a line again, press the button or the "backspace" key. You can also drag to the left over the lyrics.

To skip a word, press the button or the "tab" key. You can also drag to the right over the lyrics.

Be aware: both things are penalized with some life.

When you fill in the gaps you get points.

If you make mistakes, you will lose points, live and bonus.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pharrell Williams - Happy | Music Video, Song Lyrics and Karaoke

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn English in a fun way with the music video and the lyrics of the song "Happy" of Pharrell Williams

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to teach English to very young children with songs - Super Safari

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ice-Breakers for ESL - Clap, Clap Name // Kids English Theatre

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Five Perfect Pumpkins by Stephanie Leavell | A fall song for kids! | Music For Kiddos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Watermelon, Watermelon by Stephanie Leavell | Body Percussion Play Along | Music For Kiddos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Peel Banana - Warm Up  for your Class or Home - ESL Teaching Tips - Mike's Home

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BMFConnect Game: Rhythm Song Clap Back Level 1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
A*List! English Learning Videos for Kids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Go Bananas! | Camp Song | Scratch Garden

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Playway Teacher training films - Part 2: Multi-sensory vocabulary drilling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Total Physical Response (TPR) - Teacher Training film no. 8

# data[].attributes.body
Here is an entire edition dedicated to different aspects of oral language. Pick the ones that most interest you.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to interactive presentation, created with Publuu. Enjoy the reading!

# data[].attributes.headline
How to write effective language objectives...

# data[].attributes.subject
How to write effective language objectives...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Reflections on Teaching Multilingual Learners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Writing language objectives can be hard!

Teachers are generally comfortable writing content objectives because those are based on content standards that teachers are familiar with and are sometimes stated right in curricular materials, e.g., In this unit students will.....

Language objectives, not so much.

Including a language objective in every lesson was popularized by the SIOP Model beginning in 2000 and is now a widely accepted practice. After nearly twenty years, it is the feature about which we continue to receive the most questions, bar none.

In short, content objectives (CO) are related to the key concept of the lesson. Although language objectives (LO) connect to the lesson's topic or activities, their purpose is to promote student academic language growth in reading, writing, speaking and listening. Writing a LO isn't always as straightforward as a CO because it is based on an aspect of language that students need to learn. It typically takes more thought and preparation. Fortunately, there are ELL/ELD standards to help guide you in writing language objectives.

In our book, Developing Academic Language, Deborah Short and I provide guidelines for identifying objectives and incorporating them into lessons. These guidelines include determining what we want students to learn (CO) and then considering the language needed to accomplish those objectives (LO). It is important that active, measurable verbs are used in objectives so that learning can be assessed. Students are more likely to take responsibility for their own learning when measurable objectives allow them to gauge their progress. Avoid verbs such as learn, understand, become aware of since these cannot be measured.

In a lesson from a unit on the Lewis and Clark expedition, the unit's guiding standard is, Explain events, ideas, or concepts in a historical, scientific, or technical text, including what happened and why, based on specific information in the text. A content objective for the lesson might be: Students will identify and describe the main events on the Lewis and Clark expedition.

Language objectives might be: Students will describe the main events using past tense verbs, and Students will categorize vocabulary terms using a List-Group-Label activity.

We promote the practice of posting and discussing objectives with students. An agenda, commonly written by teachers on the board, is a list of activities and is not the same as objectives. Objectives focus on an outcome, not an activity. They are the content-based learning targets students need to be able to accomplish the activities. Remember, objectives are what you want students to know or be able to do by the end of the lesson, so instruction needs to address what you've set out to do.

When writing language objectives we suggest that teachers:

Have a consistent introduction that students recognize. Pick whichever one will resonate with your students: SWBAT (students will be able to), SW (students will), We will, Today I will and so forth.

State the outcome using active, measurable verbs. SIOPer @carlota_holder created this graphic to illustrate some active verbs that may be used across the four domains.. The lists aren't exhaustive but are a handy reminder of verbs to use. Some, of course, fit in multiple categories. Compare works in writing and speaking as does persuade.

In the listening domain above, the objective would need to include an observable, measurable action such as, Students will listen for details and raise a hand when a key detail is mentioned, or Students will pay attention to the presentation and take notes on the outline provided.

Focus on the aspect of language students will learn or practice in the lesson. The language feature may need to be explicitly taught or refined and practiced.

So, here's how a language objective is constructed:
Students will describe the main events using past tense verbs. Introduction - Active, measurable verb - Language to be learned or practiced
Additional information may be part of the objective, if desired for clarity:
Students will categorize vocabulary terms using a List-Group-Label activity. Introduction - Active verb - Language learned - Activity
To see objectives in action in a social studies classroom, click here.

One thing is certain, the more you practice writing language objectives, the easier it becomes. Keep in mind a quote from SIOP expert Andrea Rients (@RientsAndrea), "Nobody dies from writing a bad language objective" to which another veteran SIOPer Ana Segulin (@asegulin) replied, "A bad language objective is better than NO language objective."

Touché!

Post based on : Short, D. & Echevarria, J. (2016). Developing Academic Language Using the SIOP Model. Boston: Pearson.

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M.E. & Short, D. (2017). Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners: The SIOP® Model, Fifth Edition. Boston: Pearson.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Writing language objectives can be hard! Teachers are generally comfortable writing content objectives because those are based on content standards that teachers are familiar with and are sometimes...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How can we attune our instruction to support the reading development of multilingual students? This complex question has become even more tricky given the current thrust of media messages about the "best way" about how reading should be taught. The Science of Reading (SOR) movement has been highly successful in messaging teachers, administrators, and the public about the need for specific components of foundational reading and corresponding instructional moves to support early readers. But do all students, including multilingual students, need the same reading instructional techniques to become successful readers? If not, what kind of adjustments to foundational reading instruction need to be considered for multilingual students?

Let's start by clarifying what I refer to reading in this short piece. I refer to reading as the complex orchestration of reading words, understanding their meanings, and understanding the meaning of words in relation to larger pieces of texts. This is a departure from how reading is commonly currently conveyed by SOR advocates. In the current discourse word reading or decoding is commonly the only portion of the entire reading puzzle being referenced. Decoding is the ability to use knowledge about letters and their sounds to read a word and is, undoubtedly, a foundational aspect of reading. However, for multilingual students decoding a word does not necessarily mean that they "read it." In other words, while multilingual students may have the knowledge of sound-letter relationships to sound out a word, decoding does not mean that multilingual students can understand the word on its own or in relation to the words around it. Clarity about what educators mean when we refer to reading is always essential because it impacts what instructional practices educators design and how much time we dedicate to the instructional practices we choose to employ.

For multilingual students learning to read, phonemic awareness exercises can have an extra layer of complexity. Phonemic awareness is the ability to play with sounds of a word and to manipulate them. It is considered one of the cornerstones of early reading abilities. Ideally young readers should engage in short, intentional, and powerful instruction to support students' acquisition of phonemic awareness. For young children who are asked, "if I say seat, change the s to a ch," and who have ample experience with English, the exercise can target their phonemic awareness. But for multilingual students, it's not that simple. Did the teacher say, "ch" or "sh?" And what do these words mean?

These layers of complexity are consistently present throughout a range of different foundational reading experiences for multilingual students. Take for instance the following anecdote: in a first grade classroom, teachers are working with multilingual students through foundational skills curriculum. Students are instructed to pick out the word that is different from the others. They are given the following three words: "pepper, letter, and perfect." While for many students, it is clear that the word, "letter" is different from the others because it starts with the letter, "l," for many multilingual students there are a range of confounding factors that may make this simple exercise much more than identifying an initial letter sound. For example, when the teacher says to identify something different about one word, what kind of difference is he/she referring to? Students may be confused if they should identify a difference in letters at the beginning or the end? They may think, should I look for which word means something different? Exercises like this are meant to be fast paced, yet, multilingual learners may still be processing what is exactly required of them, thus not actually engaged in the targeted skill that these exercises intend for students to practice.

In another instance, the teacher sends students to a table to work in a small group reading nonsense words like, "puk, jaf, kuf." Before starting the activity, one of the students, a Latinx boy, asks the teacher, "can we use sounds in Spanish?" This example demonstrates that for many multilingual students, they may have knowledge of letter sounds across the languages that they use daily. In the case of nonsense words, it's important for students to know if the teachers want them to employ all of their knowledge of sounds, even if it goes beyond English, or do they need to keep within the confines of English sounds?

As these types of foundational exercises have become increasingly popular and even mandated by law for students, it is important for educators who work with multilingual students to be reminded that their professional expertise is fundamental to "skillful implementation" (professional communication, Melissa Lambert, 2/1/23) of these foundational instructional techniques for multilingual readers. These proceeding anecdotes demonstrate that multilingual learners approach tasks that are meant to target foundational reading skills in a way that differs from monolingual students. Assuming that the same instructional tasks will activate the same type of learning for all students including multilingual students is reflective of the monolingual bias in activities such as these (Ascenzi-Moreno, unpublished manuscript).

The vast research on bilingualism and reading indicates that there are differences between monolingual and multilingual students as they develop to be readers (Reyes, 2012). It is critical that research on biliteracy sits alongside and on equal ground with research promoted by SOR advocates. While SOR advocates argue for universality or of the claim that all readers need the same instructional techniques regardless of their profiles, it is clear that multilingual students need something different in developing to be successful readers.

What exactly do we know about how multilingual students and monolingual students differ in how they learn to read? While there are many ways that multilingual students' reading development differ from monolingual students, in this short piece, two ways in which they differ will be highlighted. First, language and literacy are intertwined (Razfar & Rumenapp, 2014). For multilingual students this means that while we may try to isolate reading skills from language, this only works for students who already are quite adept in knowing the meaning of words. For multilingual students, the danger when we engage in these types of practices is that we are missing an opportunity for language development. Secondly, multilingual students operate across named languages or use their translanguaging abilities - meaning that they have knowledge about different components of reading in two or more named languages. Therefore, they may know a variety of sounds associated with a given letter in more than one named language. They may also have knowledge of words and texts in languages in addition to English. Therefore, the need for students to understand their resources cross-linguistically becomes critically important (Cárdenas-Hagan, 2020). For example, multilingual students may benefit from discussing and practicing similarities and differences between sounds in the named languages that they use.

So what does a multilingual approach to teaching early reading looks like? Because language and reading are intertwined for multilingual students there are a couple of shifts that can take place for multilingual students to account for their rich linguistic and cultural resources. Reading is both cumulative and componential (Lesaux, 2015). For multilingual students, this means that not only do multiple experiences need to add up to continually develop a thoughtful and skillful reader, but also that the skills need to relate to each other. One of the first things that teachers can consider is how foundational exercises are related to meaning? For multilingual students when meaning is not integrated into learning, there is a lost opportunity for language development. When reading skills are compartmentalized, then multilingual students' overall comprehension may be impacted in the long run, because the relationship between word reading and language is not made over time.

For example, before asking students if they know the sound the word starts with, it's important that students know what the word means. This can be accomplished by asking students what the word means in the languages that they use or even by showing visuals, if applicable. A second way to support multilingual students' acquisition of foundational skills is to integrate a space within foundational reading skills to explore the ways in which their named language works - the similarities and the differences - between the languages that they use. This means that students have the opportunity to hear how the "th" sounds in English and compare it, let's say for a Spanish speaker, to how the medial "d" sounds, "media" (or sock), which has similarities. The vast body of biliteracy research emphasizes the importance of metalinguistic awareness in the development of biliteracy for multilingual students (Reyes, 2012).

Calls for universality in the teaching of foundational skills makes a complex instructional landscape for multilingual students invisible. When the actual learning of multilingual students is not perceived, then their needs cannot be attended to adequately, and in the end multilingual students will lose out on crucial reading instruction that is attuned to their profiles. An overemphasis on word work unconnected to meaning, in the long run may cumulatively lead to weaknesses in meaning-based reading abilities. Of course, multilingual students need foundational skills - all students do - however, the ways that word reading and meaning come together for multilingual students during foundational skills development deserves both dedicated attention and a different approach that matches the research base on multilingual students. Educators will need to advocate for multilingual students by exercising their professional expertise to adapt foundational skills based on what research says about how multilingual students learn.
References
Ascenzi-Moreno, L. (Unpublished Manuscript). Bilinguifying reading instruction through a translanguaging perspective on reading and readers.

Cárdenas-Hagan, E. (2020). Literacy foundations for English learners: A comprehensive guide to evidence-based instruction. Brookes.

Lesaux, N. (2015). Cultivating knowledge, building language: Literacy instruction for English learners in elementary school. Heinneman.

Razar, A. & Rumenapp, J. (2014). Applying linguistics in the classroom: A Sociocultural approach. Routledge.

Reyes, I. (2012). Biliteracy among children and youths. Reading Research Quarterly, 47( 3), 307-327.
Dr. Laura Ascenzi-Moreno is a professor of bilingual education and bilingual program coordinator at Brooklyn College, CUNY. Brooklyn, NY, USA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How can we attune our instruction to support the reading development of multilingual students? This complex question has become even more tricky given the current thrust of media messages about the "best way" about how reading should be taught.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dual Language

Spanish

Multilingual

View this classroom demonstration video to learn how to use our award-winning Sentence Patterning Chart (SPC) in Spanish! This strategy provides the opportunity to practice oral language in Spanish in a fun, engaging way.

El Diagrama de Patrones Gramaticales (video)

Inspirational Certified Be GLAD Coordinator Christine D'Aquanni models our official SPC

El objetivo del Diagrama de Patrones Gramaticales es formar un conocimiento básico de oraciones simples, especialmente a los alumnos que el español no es su lengua materna. La actividad ofrece al alumno la oportunidad de practicar el lenguaje en un entorno agradable que facilita el aprendizaje. En este video, la maestra guía a una clase de doble-inmersión inglés/español de 4º y 5º grado en como crear el Diagrama de Patrones Gramaticales y finalmente cantarán el contenido creado.

The objective of the Sentence Patterning Chart is to build basic understanding of sentence syntax, particularly among language learners. The activity provides the opportunity to practice oral language with a low affective filter in a fun, engaging way. In this video, the teacher leads a combination class of 4th and 5th grade two-way language immersion students in creating and singing the Sentence Patterning Chart in Spanish.

English Syntax with adverb and verb conjugation added

Suggested Next Post

Read Post

Start Your Training Today

Sign up for one of our 6-day training sessions and start teaching at the core.

View Training Sessions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GLAD Strategies in Spanish: El Diagrama de Patrones Gramaticales | Be GLAD

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dual Language Spanish Multilingual View this classroom demonstration video to learn how to use our award-winning Sentence Patterning Chart (SPC) in Spanish! This strategy provides the opportunity to practice oral language in Spanish in a fun, engaging way.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Scaffolds & Strategies for Building Oral Language [Dr. Noël]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scaffolds & Strategies for Building Oral Language

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scaffolding for Developing Oral Language

# data[].attributes.headline
How might we help our students transfer learning across both languages?

# data[].attributes.subject
How might we help our students transfer learning across both languages?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How might we help our students leverage learning through two languages?

# data[].attributes.headline
Reclassification Patterns Among LatinoEnglish Learner Students in Bilingual, DualImmersion, and English ImmersionClassrooms

# data[].attributes.subject
Reclassification Patterns Among LatinoEnglish Learner Students in Bilingual, DualImmersion, and English ImmersionClassrooms

# data[].attributes.headline
Supporting Emergent Writing with Oral Storytelling Strategies

# data[].attributes.subject
Supporting Emergent Writing with Oral Storytelling Strategies

# data[].attributes.headline
Prioritizing Purposeful and Playful Language Learning in Pre-K

# data[].attributes.subject
Prioritizing Purposeful and Playful Language Learning in Pre-K

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Aouad, J. and Savage, R. (2009). The component structure of preliteracy skills: Further evidence for the simple view of reading. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 24 (2), 183-200.

Catts, H., Adlof, S., and Weismer, S. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 278-293.

Gough, P., Hoover, W., and Patterson, C. (1996). Some observations on a simple view of reading. In C. Cornoldi and J. Oakhill (eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 1-13). Mahway, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

*Gough, P. and Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10.

Hoover, W. and Gough, P. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127-160.

*Kamhi, A. (2007). Knowledge deficits: the true crisis in education. ASHA Leader, 12 (7), 28-29.

*These articles are short and easy to read.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Simple View of Reading is a formula demonstrating the widely accepted view that reading has two basic components: word recognition (decoding) and language comprehension. Research studies show that a student's reading comprehension score can be predicted if decoding skills and language comprehension abilities are known.

# data[].attributes.headline
Story Talk: Using Strategies from an Evidence-Based Program to Improve Young Children’s Vocabulary

# data[].attributes.subject
Story Talk: Using Strategies from an Evidence-Based Program to Improve Young Children’s Vocabulary

# data[].attributes.headline
Supporting the Writing Development of Emergent Bilingual Children

# data[].attributes.subject
Supporting the Writing Development of Emergent Bilingual Children

# data[].attributes.headline
Recognizing the Richness of Bi/Multilingual Students’ Linguistic Repertoires

# data[].attributes.subject
Recognizing the Richness of Bi/Multilingual Students’ Linguistic Repertoires

# data[].attributes.headline
Culturally Sustaining and Translingual Approaches to Teaching Bi/Multilingual Writers

# data[].attributes.subject
Culturally Sustaining and Translingual Approaches to Teaching Bi/Multilingual Writers

# data[].attributes.headline
Multiliteracies Classroom Ecology for Elementary Bilingual Language Learners

# data[].attributes.subject
Multiliteracies Classroom Ecology for Elementary Bilingual Language Learners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Building Oral Language in Bilingual Kindergarten: Lessons from Implementation

By: Luisa Cuesta, Picio Muñoz, Matt Hajdun

As an international and bilingual school with a population primarily of heritage Spanish speakers, The Columbus School (TCS) has always used a variety of approaches in our two instructional languages, English and Spanish. The main objective has been to help students become competent in listening, speaking, reading, and writing in both languages, but there was a perception in the community that English instruction and learning was more valued. Two and a half years ago, TCS started to adapt its approach after understanding that strengthening oral language is a more natural approach that will help students feel and sound successful compared to the traditional reading and writing structures used at the time. Before that shift, we were using a more workshop-aligned approach. The focus then was on traditional reading and writing skills before students had the necessary oral skills and vocabulary to thrive as readers, authors and illustrators. Also, most teachers used to teach high-frequency words and other critical concepts in isolation, and there was limited alignment between language programs and subjects. Our school, understanding the importance of delivering engaging and relevant content to students, started implementing biliteracy units that integrated not only the two languages but also content-area learning.

We knew that oral language was an important part of literacy development for our young learners, but we needed to step back and consider what this looked like for our students and step back even further to consider the reality of our emergent bilinguals. When monolingual learners enter kindergarten, they start with between 5,000-7,000 words in their heritage language - that's an asset we needed to harness as most students at TCS were coming in with around just 100 words in English. Previously, we jumped too fast from "beginning English language learner" to "student learning to read in English". Our students' early literacy skills were developing in two languages, but one language, Spanish, had a significant head start with oracy and the vocabulary students were bringing from home. A shift to a deeper focus on English oral language is giving us that bridge, helping students to expand their vocabulary in English before advancing to traditional reading in English.

Escamilla et al (2022) state, "As students learn to speak the new language, they are expanding the repertoire of vocabulary that gives literacy meaning and internalizing the sounds of the new language that will be represented in print (NCEL, 2022)." Now, additional practice in English oral language serves as a foundation on which our students can stand - giving them not only vocabulary but also the confidence to see themselves as bilingual readers when they pick up familiar texts and read independently after LOTS of practice. "Children's oral language skills serve as the foundation for both aspects of reading ability- word reading and language comprehension (Shanahan & Lonigan, 2015)." By focusing on oral language, students began to use a balance of phonics paired with meaning. With a foundation in oral language, a student could now ask, "Does this make sense?" and link the science of reading approaches with the three cueing systems - the perfect balance for emergent bilinguals!

Another shift, beyond the greater emphasis on oral language, was connecting with greater purpose and intentionality to students' Spanish assets. We are now experimenting by beginning units practicing language frames in Spanish first or even diving into initial content understanding in our students' heritage language. Therefore, students have to spend less time making meaning of grammar, usage, and mechanics but can see the connections to what they already know. As a unit progresses, we move from Spanish, to English, quickly working on the word level with the most essential vocabulary. Then, we embed that new vocabulary into the sentence level, working with question-and-answer pairings so that students have ample practice in question formation and providing complete responses. We turn these language frames into familiar texts for students to read, days after they have practiced orally. Students reinforce these language skills in stations with Reader's Theater scripts of repeated texts, labeling pictures, orally and in writing by completing sentence frames, or working on phonological awareness or phonics activities. Some of these foundational skills opportunities involve contrastive analysis like counting syllables and looking for patterns in content area words (plant/planta, sun/sol, animal/animal) or comparing and contrasting hard c and soft c at the beginning of words - which is similar in English and Spanish.

After exposing students for five weeks to the intentional and rigorously planned biliteracy unit "Looking Closely at Living Things" - a unit that integrates NGSS standards, Common Core Language standards in both languages, specific vocabulary, and different skills such as writing, reading, speaking, investigating, and acting- Kinder students were able to verbalize, read, and write simple and compound sentences using correct grammatical structures. The engagement rate was high, and our emergent bilingual students were able to interpret and produce specific content vocabulary such as: survive, environment, grow, seeds, shelter, etc. An aspect that really helped was that Spanish and English teachers were aligned by supporting students and using in both classes what they knew in each language to synch their knowledge. Students felt successful after being able to read and write books about the unit, and teachers witnessed their growth. Through Seesaw ( see sample end-of-unit oral language assessment video), we were able to create a window to our classrooms and families were delighted to see all of the speaking and reading their children were doing. These successes have inspired us to make additional adjustments and we will be engaging in action research on this approach in our third trimester!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Building Oral Language in Bilingual Kindergarten: Lessons from Implementation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
News Posts - Tri-Association - Central, Latin and South America

# data[].attributes.headline
Preview - View - Review (Checklist & Planner)

# data[].attributes.subject
Preview - View - Review (Checklist & Planner)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tri-copy Preview- View - Review Checklist [Dr. Noël]

# data[].attributes.headline
Biliteracy. Language Arts Lesson Template

# data[].attributes.subject
Biliteracy. Language Arts Lesson Template

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Biliteracy. Language Arts Lesson Template

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Participant Agenda: Nourishing the Bilingual Brain through Oral Language Development

# data[].attributes.body
Please click here 👉 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScxILep85FKFGZ6oV2MWbHnaxjF2TgjCZg2PnwroHfDWA6wKw/viewform?usp=sf_link

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rúbrica para volver a contar (Ficción e Informativo)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
 Retelling Rubric (Fiction & Informational)

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Interactive Reading: PEER and Leveled Questions

# data[].attributes.body
Share your important ideas and links to resources.

# data[].attributes.body
Share your own important thoughts and links to resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Science of the Bilingual Reading Brain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AI (Artificial Intelligence) concept. “We are plural. The I is an illusion: bilinguals know this, they are hybrid like the words inside them, surprised halfway on the translation path.” (Jurgenson, 2014, p. 115). Yes, we have always been and will always be plural. That is, until we are taught to div…

# data[].attributes.headline
How are other international schools working with bilingual super powers?

# data[].attributes.subject
How are other international schools working with bilingual super powers?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unleashing the creative potential of home languages in the classroom p.16.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Conversation Stations: Add your own ideas and links.

# data[].attributes.headline
Conversation Stations - (add your ideas!)

# data[].attributes.subject
Conversation Stations - (add your ideas!)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An area is set up in the class, where the teacher has an opportunity to have a one-on-one conversation with four or five children each day, with a particular topic in mind. Pupils have the opportunity to talk, to have language modelled for them and to get feedback on their conversation/ language. The conversation station can be used with any age group as an effective activity to promote vocabulary and language development in the classroom.

The area may have posters, flashcards, other resources to stimulate conversation, as well as prompts such as rules about good conversation, listening skills, etc.

We use conversation stations in our school but as we are a small school we can't get having a conversation with 4 or 5 pupils each day ...so we adjust to suit. It works very well with team teaching also.

The video below is excellent and will explain the conversation stations in more detail.

More videos are available at PDST Literacy - Primary. Good luck!

Conversation stations with junior classes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An area is set up in the class, where the teacher has an opportunity to have a one-on-one conversation with four or five children each day, with a particular topic in mind. Pupils have the opportunity to talk, to have language modelled for them and to get feedback on their conversation/ language.

# data[].attributes.body
Add your own important ideas and links.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tri-Conference. Introduction to PVR [Dr. Noel]

# data[].attributes.headline
Early Childhood Education in English for Speakers ofOther Languages

# data[].attributes.subject
Early Childhood Education in English for Speakers ofOther Languages

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Preview-View-Review in Dual Language: Vocabulary Development - Part 1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teaching for Cross-Language Transfer in Dual Language Education- Possibilities and Pitfalls Jim Cummins.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
ILA Position Paper on the Role of Bilingualism in Literacy

# data[].attributes.subject
ILA Position Paper on the Role of Bilingualism in Literacy

# data[].attributes.body
Taking 10 minutes to conduct a read-aloud can have huge effects on language development. As a choice activity - you can have your kiddos 'read' the parts they remember to a puppet.

Here are samples and steps!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Repeated interactive read alouds, a systematic method of reading aloud, allow teachers to scaffold children's understanding of the book being read, model strategies for making inferences and explanations, and teach vocabulary and concepts. A storybook is read three times in slightly different ways in order to increase the amount and quality of children's analytical talk as they answer carefully crafted questions. During the first reading, teachers introduce the story's problem, insert comments, ask a few key questions, and finally ask a "why" question calling for extended explanation. This is accompanied by elaborations on a few key vocabulary words. Second reads capitalize on children's growing comprehension of the story by providing enriched vocabulary explanations and asking additional inference and explanation questions. Third reads consist of guided reconstruction of the story in which children recount information as well as provide explanations and commentary.

These techniques have shown to be effective in increasing children's engagement, understanding, and appreciation of literature in preschool and kindergarten settings.

Introduction

Research is mixed on the value of reading aloud to children aged 3 to 6. On one hand, researchers have validated that reading aloud affects vocabulary development (Robbins & Ehri, 1994; Whitehurst et al., 1999), acquisition of literary syntax and vocabulary (Purcell-Gates, McIntyre, & Freppon, 1995), story recall (Morrow & Smith, 1990), and sensitivity to the linguistic and organizational structures of narrative and informational text (Duke & Kays, 1998). Studies have shown that preschoolers make gains in expressive language even when the duration of story reading interventions are short (e.g., Hargrave & Sénéchal, 2000). In contrast, researchers have found only a modest relationship between the frequency and quality of parent-child read alouds during preschool and later first-grade reading achievement (Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994). Researchers have also found a negative relationship between the amount of time teachers spend reading aloud in kindergarten and children's decoding skills (Meyer, Wardrop, Stahl, & Linn, 1994). These studies suggest that merely reading books aloud is not sufficient for accelerating children's oral vocabulary development and listening comprehension. Instead, the way books are shared with children matters.

Effective read aloud techniques

Research has demonstrated that the most effective read alouds are those in which children are actively involved asking and answering questions and making predictions rather than passively listening (Dickinson, 2001). These read alouds are called interactive or dialogic and result in gains in vocabulary (Hargrave & Sénéchal, 2000), comprehension strategies and story schema (Van den Broek, 2001), and concept development (Wasik & Bond, 2001). Merely inviting children to talk during interactive read alouds, however, is not sufficient to accelerate their literacy development. Instead, growth is related to how frequently they engage in analytic talk (Dickinson & Smith, 1994). Analytic talk involves making predictions or inferences that explain a character's motivation or connect events from different parts of the story. Teachers prompt children to engage in analytical thinking by making comments that model such thinking and then asking thoughtful questions.

Other activities boost the value of reading aloud to young children. For example, research has demonstrated that the following activities increase comprehension and language development: inviting preschoolers and kindergartners to retell or dramatize stories (Cornell, Sénéchal, & Brodo, 1988; Pellegrini & Galda, 1982); reading several books on a similar topic and inviting children to play with objects related to the concepts or characters introduced in these books (Rowe, 1998; Wasik & Bond, 2001); reading a book repeatedly (Crago & Crago, 1976); inserting short definitions for some words while reading aloud (Collins, 2004; Elley, 1989); and encouraging children to use these same words when they answer questions, discuss book events, (Hargrave & Sénéchal, 2000; Robbins & Ehri, 1994), or describe illustrations (Reese & Cox, 1999). Thus, effective interactive read alouds include a systematic approach that incorporates teachers' modeling of higher-level thinking, asking thoughtful questions calling for analytic talk, prompting children to recall a story in some way within a reasonable time frame, reading a single book repeatedly, and reading books related by topic. It also involves a systematic approach to developing children's understanding of vocabulary, such as inserting short definitions of words and phrases during reading.

Two recent methods for reading aloud to children aged 3 to 6 include many of these research-based techniques. Klesius and Griffith (1996) described a technique for reading aloud to small groups of at-risk kindergartners that they claimed extended children's talk about books. Using interactive read alouds, teachers point to details in illustrations and ask questions about vocabulary words as they read. They extend children's responses by asking them to clarify and explain. After reading, children recall a portion of, or the entire, story. Beck and McKeown (2001) developed a similar technique, called Text Talk, to help kindergarten and primary-grade children expand vocabulary. As teachers read, they draw attention to a few vocabulary words by inserting short definitions. They also ask open-ended questions in which children must provide explanations rather than one-or two-word responses. After reading, teachers discuss vocabulary words in the context of the story and in other contexts.

Our experiences with effective read aloud practices

As researchers and practitioners of early literacy development, we have demonstrated and observed teachers reading aloud in hundreds of preschool and kindergarten classrooms over the last three decades. Despite the wealth of research on effective read alouds and practical models for such approaches, we have noticed that fewer teachers seem to be attempting to read what we consider sophisticated stories and nonfiction books in preschool and kindergarten in favor of reading easier, predictable, and concept books (often in Big Book format), especially in classrooms with high percentages of at-risk children. Sophisticated picture books include, for example, stories in which readers must infer characters' motivations and thoughts and connect them to actions (i.e., causes and effects). These books have a rich repertoire of vocabulary. Examples include Henny Penny (Galdone, 1968), Oonga Boonga (Wishinsky, 2001), and Owl Moon (Yolen, 1987). These books can be contrasted with predictable books in which readers do not need to infer character motivation, feelings, or thoughts in order to enjoy the repeated words and actions. Examples include Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See? (Martin, 1967) or Over in the Meadow (Wadsworth, 1992). While predictable books have a role in preschool and kindergarten literacy programs, sophisticated picture books play an additional role of expanding vocabulary and enhancing oral comprehension.

Because we were aware that fewer teachers seemed to be reading sophisticated picture books as a daily part of their early literacy programs, we worried that many children were not engaging in analytic talk. As we wondered how we could help teachers systematically promote this kind of talk, we considered Cochran-Smith's (1984) argument that effective teachers model the role of ideal reader as they read aloud. An ideal reader is one who intuitively and unconsciously makes appropriate inferences and predictions and constantly rethinks current events in a story in relation to past events. Thus, effective teachers model what ideal readers do by explicitly talking aloud as they read, making children aware that they are predicting, making an inference, or changing their ideas about what is happening in a story. While thinking aloud is a frequently used technique to help children interpret literature in the elementary grades (e.g., Keene & Zimmerman, 1997; Miller, 2002), we wanted to adapt this technique for much younger children. We wanted teachers to model making comments that would reveal implicit information that preschool and kindergarten children would not likely be able to produce on their own. Therefore, we crafted an approach to reading aloud to reflect insights drawn from current research and theories of an ideal reader as well as our own experiences. The purpose of this article is to describe what we call repeated interactive read alouds using sophisticated storybooks.

Repeated interactive read alouds: first reading of a picture storybook

The first read aloud includes four components: book introduction, vocabulary support techniques, analytical comments and questions, and an after-reading "why" question. These techniques have been carefully selected to help children build a stronger first understanding of the story, including some of its vocabulary.

Book introductions

Research has shown that effective readers quickly begin to infer story problems and use their tentative ideas about problems to process story information (Van den Broek, 2001). However, problems present challenges for young children: They are often not directly stated in the text (Paris & Paris, 2003; Stein & Glenn, 1979), and young children are relatively insensitive to problems and goals compared to characters and actions (Benson, 1997; Stein & Glenn). Because young children are not likely to focus on the story problem, we craft book introductions to make the problem explicit.

For example, Henny Penny (Galdone, 1968) is about a hen who mistakenly believes that a piece of sky has fallen on her head. She is so upset by this event that she acts foolishly and rushes to tell the king about this occurrence. She does not recognize the danger posed by the fox when he invites her and her friends to take a short cut right into his cave (the actual problem of the story, which only readers and not the characters realize). In order to construct a three- or four-sentence introduction we either explicitly state or strongly imply the main problem of the story. For example, to introduce Henny Penny we might say,

In this story you are going to meet a silly, foolish hen who makes a big mistake. She thinks a catastrophe, a really bad disaster, is about to happen and runs to tell the king about it. A lot of her friends believe her mistake, and they all get in trouble because they are so silly.

As we give the book introduction, we show the front cover and sometimes the back cover or end papers and the title page (rather than all the illustrations as is done in a picture walk). For example, the front cover of Henny Penny illustrates the main character and the end papers depict Henny Penny running up a hill toward a castle. As we show these pages we complete the book introduction:

Here is Henny Penny running to tell the king about the catastrophe. But I have to warn you, she never makes it to the castle. Let's find out what happens to her on the way to tell the king about the catastrophe.

We do not recommend that, during a first read, teachers have children identify book parts such as the front and back cover or top and bottom of the page, tell what the author or illustrator does, or discuss the dedication page. We have found that these activities divert children's attention away from the main goal of a first read aloud-to enjoy a good story by focusing on its meaning. As we read a book during a first read, we use expression, gestures and dramatic pauses, variations in the pace of reading, and plenty of eye contact. We have found these techniques highly effective at capturing and maintaining children's interest and enjoyment, even when reading longer and more sophisticated books.

Inserting vocabulary support

Before reading the book aloud, we select 5 to 10 vocabulary words or phrases from the book that we will highlight or define during reading. These words are critical to understanding the story and are likely to be encountered in other books or useful in nonbook contexts (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002). Sometimes the book does not include specific vocabulary that ideal readers would use in their analytical thinking about this particular book, so we insert these additional vocabulary words into the book introduction and our comments as we read aloud. For example, we would insert the words mistake, catastrophe, disaster, and foolish while reading Henny Penny because these words are critical for analyzing the problem in relationship to the main character's motivations and traits. Once we select vocabulary words and phrases, we highlight the words or enhance word and phrase meanings in one or more of five ways:

1. We insert a short phrase or sentence that defines or explains a word, such as saying "Feast, that's a really big dinner."

2. We point to salient parts of the illustration that help clarify a word or phrase meaning, such as pointing to the illustration of an acorn as we read the word in the text.

3. We use dramatic gestures, such as demonstrating the meaning of shrugged by shrugging our shoulders as we read.

4. We use voice, such as making clear the fox's sly intentions by reading the text with a droll voice.

5. We vary the pacing with which we read words or phrases, such as reading more quickly what Henny Penny says to demonstrate her foolish rush.

It only takes a few moments to plan how to support children's understanding of each word, but the most effective read alouds are ones in which we actually decide which of the vocabulary enhancers we will use for each vocabulary word. For words that are to be clarified verbally, we plan short explanations that are "slipped" into the story reading so the definitions are part of the actual story without interrupting the flow of reading.

Comments and questions to support and extend comprehension

During reading we make comments that demonstrate analytic thinking at three or four junctures in which ideal readers would make inferences about a character's thoughts, feelings, or motivations, or we predict upcoming events. When we comment about the story, we often use language to signal our mental activity by using the phrase "I'm thinking." For example, in the scene where Henny Penny exclaims, "The sky is falling. I must go and tell the king" (unpaged), we may comment, "I'm thinking this is where the hen is doing something really foolish. She isn't even looking down to try and find out what really hit her. I think she is looking up instead of down." Then we would go on to ask, "Why does the hen think a piece of the sky has fallen on her head?" We have found that children's answers to questions following our analytical comments are more likely to be related to the story. This teaching sequence provides a deliberate and systematic approach toward expanding children's comprehension. We have noticed that most young children are not yet capable of engaging in analytic thinking and talking without teacher modeling or questioning.

After-reading questions

After reading the entire book, we ask a "why" question requiring children to make inferences about and explain several story events. Then we use follow-up probing questions to support children's ability to answer broader explanation questions. For example, after a first reading of Henny Penny, we might ask the explanation question "Why didn't Foxy Loxy just jump up and eat those silly birds? Why did he lead them into his cave?" In order to help children answer this question we might comment, "I'm thinking that even though the fox is strong and has big teeth, there are a lot of birds. How many friends were with Henny Penny?" Recalling the number of birds will help children infer that the fox may have only been able to catch and eat one of the birds and the others might have escaped. We also help children consider this question by using illustrations to support their thinking. In this version of the story, the last illustration shows Foxy Loxy and Mrs. Loxy and their seven children peering out from the cave. We turn to this illustration and say, "You know I'm remembering this illustration right here. This might give me a hint about why the fox led the birds into the cave. What is the hint?" This comment might help children infer that Foxy led the birds into the cave so that his children would also have a dinner, and his wife could help catch the birds.

Second interactive read aloud

Second read alouds occur a day or two after first reads. The purpose is to enrich children's comprehension of the story and provide further opportunities for children to engage in analytic talk. During second book introductions, we remind children that they have read this book before and that they will remember some things from the book; for example, we might say,

We read this book yesterday, and you probably remember that it is about a hen who misinterprets something that happened to her. Who can remember what she thought happened to her? What was the catastrophe, and what did she decide to do about it?

We continue to highlight the same vocabulary; however, in a second read we verbally define more words. For example, during a first read of Owl Moon, in which a father and a child go owling in the woods late one night, we might simply dramatize how the owl pumped his wings. During the second read, we would dramatize pumped and insert a verbal explanation (e.g., "That means he flapped his wings up and down very hard").

During the second read, we continue modeling analytic comments, but we ask more frequent questions that help children make additional inferences. In the first read, our comments focus on getting children to infer what the main character is thinking and feeling or to connect main events with their causes. Thus, our comments and questions during the second read might focus on the other characters' motivations or thoughts. Just as in a first read, we prepare children to answer analytical questions by first modeling analytic comments that make explicit some, but not all, of the information needed to adequately answer the question. For example, in Henny Penny, after Cocky Locky asks to join Henny Penny on her way to tell the king that the sky is falling, we might comment, "I'm thinking that Cocky Locky believes that a piece of the sky really did fall on Henny Penny's head." Later, when Ducky Lucky joins Henny Penny and Cocky Locky, we comment, "Henny Penny has now convinced two other birds that the sky is falling." Then we could ask, "If they had been with Henny Penny when the acorn fell on her head, what do you think they would have said when she shouted, 'Oh, my, the sky is falling, we must go and tell the king'?"

Like first reads, we end second reads by asking another explanation question. Sometimes we ask children about something that might happen beyond the story. For example, we might ask, "What do you think the king would have done if Henny Penny had managed to get to the castle and told him the sky was falling?"

Third interactive read aloud

Third reads occur a few days after the second read when the story is still fresh in children's minds but when they must remember information across some time. This close repetition is also important for reinforcing vocabulary carefully developed during the first and second read. Third interactive read alouds differ from first and second read alouds because they integrate a guided reconstruction of the story with the teacher's reading of some of the story text. Reconstructions are retellings of story events along with explanations about what caused those events and what characters are thinking during the events. Therefore, guided reconstructions are more effective than mere retellings because children use analytical talk to explain why events occurred.

In third read aloud book introductions, we again acknowledge that children are familiar with the book and its content and ask questions about the title or characters, such as "We've read this book two times before, so I know you know its title. What is it?" We usually allow children to respond together to this easily answered question. We might continue to prompt children to reconstruct information by asking, "What other details do we see on the cover that we know are important for the story?" (e.g., prompting children to notice the acorn on the front cover of Henny Penny). We continue to focus on the story problem by asking, "We all remember Henny Penny's problem, don't we? Who would like to share that with us?" We are very careful with the number of questions we ask both during book introductions and during guided reconstruction. We have found that third read alouds can become deadly when teachers overwhelm students with a barrage of questions.

We use two general prompts in guiding reconstruction of texts. Before reading some pages of the story, we point to the illustration and ask, "What's happening here?" We use this prompt as we show a double-spread illustration. Sometimes we use the second question "Do you remember what will happen next?" before turning to the next illustration. We only use this question when the next event is causally related to the event the children have just recalled. For example, in Owl Moon after reconstructing the event in which the characters hear the owl hoot in response to the dad's call, we might ask, "Do you remember what happens next?" because this scene provides a connection to the next event: seeing the owl.

After children reconstruct the events on one double spread, we might read the text. On longer books, we reread many pages of the text and have children reconstruct only a few pages; on shorter books, we allow children to reconstruct more of the story and read only a few pages of the text. The length of the book and children's responses guide our decisions of whether to read more or engage children in more reconstruction.

In third reads, teachers continue to insert verbal explanations of words, point to illustrations, and make dramatic motions. To further emphasize vocabulary in a third read, teachers extend some word meanings to a familiar context but not one included in the story. For example, to extend children's understanding of the word pumped in Owl Moon, we might say, Sometimes, when you are on the swings outside and want help we tell you to "pump your legs," and you move them back and forth to make yourself go up and back on the swing. The owl was moving his wings-pumping them up and down to fly through the sky.

Thus, each day of the repeated interactive read aloud systematically builds and extends children's awareness and understanding of vocabulary. Table 1 presents an overview of the components for the three days of repeated interactive read alouds.

First read aloud

Second read aloud

Third read aloud: Guided reconstruction

Book introduction
Give a few sentences introducing the main character and central problem. Use illustrations on the book cover, back, and title page as needed.

Remind children that they know the characters and some things the character does. Ask questions about the characters and problem.

Invite children to identify the problem and describe the solution. Have children recall the title of the book.

Book reading
Insert vocabulary enhancements for 5-10 vocabulary words by pointing to illustrations, gesturing dramatically, or inserting a few definitions. Make comments that reveal what the main character is thinking or feeling. Ask a few follow-up analytical questions based on your comments.

Insert vocabulary enhancements for the same vocabulary, including more verbal definitions. Make comments that reveal what other characters are thinking or feeling. Ask more analytical follow-up questions.

Before reading a double page, show the illustration and ask, "What is happening here?" Follow up children's comments by extending comments or asking for clarification. Read some of the pages of text. When appropriate, before turning to the next page, ask, "Who remembers what will happen next?" Call attention to some vocabulary in different contexts.

After-reading discussion
Ask a "why" question that calls for explanation. Use follow-up questions to prompt answers. Demonstrate how to answer the question by saying, "I'm thinking...."

Ask another "why" question or ask, "What would have happened if...?" Use follow-up questions to prompt children's thinking.

Ask another "why" question or ask, "What would have happened if...?"

Repeated interactive read alouds in action

Across three days of reading the same book, the strategies used in repeated interactive read alouds provide children with an opportunity to engage more actively in the reading experience. During a first read, teachers take a more active role by reading the text and making comments; children are actively listening and sometimes comment or answer questions. During a second read, children participate more verbally by answering questions and commenting more frequently. In the third read aloud, children take a highly active role as they reconstruct the story with teacher guidance. The following excerpts are taken from book introductions in a first, second, and third read of a story. They demonstrate how children's participation changes across time.

First read aloud: Book introduction

In the story Oonga Boonga, no one can quiet Baby Louise who is crying so loudly that pictures fall off walls, neighborhood animals flee, and neighbors come calling to help. Despite attempts by every family member, only Louise's brother Daniel can soothe her. We read this book three times to a group of 4-year-olds in a Head Start center.

Teacher:

Today I'm going to read you a book called Oonga Boonga, and this story is about Baby Louise (points to front cover with illustration of Baby Louise and Daniel smiling at one another, then turns to the back cover and points to illustration of Baby Louise crying). Baby Louise is unhappy. She's crying and crying, and no one can stop her. I know one reason why babies cry; they cry because they're hungry. They cry when they're bored and want to see something funny. We're going to find out why Baby Louise is crying and what will help her stop crying. (Turns back to front cover) Here is Baby Louise and she's not crying is she? This might give us a hint about what stops her from crying.

In this book introduction, Lea (first author) provided reasons why babies might cry and hinted strongly at what would make Baby Louise stop crying by showing the front illustration of Daniel and Louise. She did all the talking while the children were actively listening.

Second read aloud: Book introduction

The following day Lea read the book a second time to the children. She prompted the children to take a more active role in constructing the book introduction.

The second book introduction was jointly constructed by Lea and the children. Lea allowed and encouraged spontaneous comments and prompted the children to recall what they knew about the story.

Third read aloud: Guided reconstruction book introduction

In the book introduction for the third read, Lea again prompted children's active engagement by asking them to reconstruct more of the story. The children remembered much of the discussion they had during the second read aloud and included speculations of what might have happened if Daniel had tried alternative ways to quiet Baby Louise.

Thus, across these three introductions, it is clear that the children are building a richer, more detailed understanding of the story. By the third read, the children are clearly using analytic talk to move beyond what actually happened in the story to what might have happened.

Analytic talk in first and third read "why" questions

In the next section, we show how children's ability to use analytic talk increases from a first to a third interactive read aloud. Here is their response to a "why" question during the first read:

The children were able to make explicit that Baby Louise was crying because she wanted her brother. They were beginning to grasp that the silly words her brother said had nothing to do with Louise stopping crying; it was her brother she wanted. Lea continued to explore this inference in both the second and third read with different "why" questions. By the third read, most children engaged in a more extended analytic discussion.

While Lea's original "why" question seemed beyond the children's understanding, turning to specific illustrations and posing alternative questions allowed children to be more successful in both understanding the questions and making the inferences needed to answer them. Most children realized that Daniel, not the silly words, was the key to getting Baby Louise to stop crying.

As shown in the excerpts from the three repeated readings of Oonga Boonga, our experiences suggest it is a powerful technique for extending children's vocabulary, their use of comprehension strategies, and their engagement with literature. We are consultants and directors of several Early Reading First grants currently using a repeated interactive read aloud approach. While repeated interactive story reading is certainly not the only strategy used to enhance vocabulary and comprehension in these programs, it is the most systematic approach. The repeated interactive read aloud approach requires that teachers study closely each book they read. They must craft effective comments and questions and be able to respond on the spot to children's answers, which often indicate misinterpretations and misunderstandings. However, it is critical that teachers use these strategies so that children engage in analytical thinking. We recommend that teachers read aloud a sophisticated picture book daily, along with many other kinds of books, including predictable books. Teachers with whom we have worked include repeated interactive read alouds of a sophisticated storybook or nonfiction as a part of their daily whole-group literacy instruction.

Final thoughts

We have shown that the repeated interactive read aloud technique is a research-based approach to comprehension and vocabulary development in preschool and kindergarten. We developed this approach to help teachers share picture books with young children, especially children with few home literary experiences, in ways that will allow them to enjoy our most sophisticated literature. It challenges both teachers and children to extend their thinking and their literary understanding in analytic discussions.

About the authors

McGee teaches at The Ohio State University (Ramseyer Hall, 29 W. Woodruff Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA). E-mail [email protected] Schickedanz teaches at Boston University in Massachusetts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Repeated Interactive Read Alouds in Preschool and Kindergarten

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Research has demonstrated that the most effective read alouds are those where children are actively involved asking and answering questions and making predictions, rather than passively listening. This article describes in detail a technique for a three-step interactive read aloud using sophisticated storybooks.

# data[].attributes.body
A teacher blog in a Biliteracy program

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
LITERACY. It doesn't mean just reading. Or writing. It also includes listening and speaking. Did I mention that it is an essential piece to ALL content areas? And human interaction in general? Plus it is what separates us from other life forms! The capacity for literacy is what makes humans unique, and - quite frankly - naturally brilliant.

So what about BILITERACY? Is it different? Is it even more special? Does it encompass more? It is. It does. And as a teacher of English in a biliteracy program, I had (and am still continuing) to come to terms with changing how I teach literacy to embrace teaching for BI- literacy.

In fact, teaching for biliteracy has improved my literacy instruction.

I could write about this for days. Turns out I did.

In fact, I started to write this blog on all the different ways biliteracy has improved my literacy instruction, but it became pages and pages and pages long! So I'm going to break it up for you. You're welcome. 🙂

My literacy improvement series blogs will post about every two weeks as follows:

1. Oracy Development: The Foundation (see below!)

2. Vocabulary: When and How

3. Phonics: Dictado and the Bridge

4. The myth of the "Literacy Block"

5. Language Experience Approach: Empowering our Writers and Readers

Oracy Development: The Foundation
Experts from across the fields (my most influential being literacy guru Marie Clay) will agree that oral language is the foundation to our literacy instruction. Oral language/oracy is the receptive and productive language that our learners develop as the basis of literacy development. It is the listening and speaking part of literacy and communication.

As I first began to shift my mindset regarding teaching for biliteracy (see 2/17/17 blog titled The Shift), there were some tweaks that I made to my students' oral language experiences that enhanced their language production.

Oral language flows in my classroom. Not without hiccups, mind you, but it is expected and it flows like water from a spout - and sometimes like a gushing fire hose! Want to know why?

It all began with sentence prompts: for ! This has been the single most influential change in my oracy development instruction. I have long used sentence prompts for writing, but only since teaching for biliteracy did I see the value of prompts for speaking, besides those used in Accountable Talk and other social-emotional learning situations.

I am constantly helping my students form sentences to solve interpersonal conflicts.

"I feel _______ when you _____."

"Please stop ______ because ______."

I model and coach and role-play and model again. But I had never thought about using simple sentence frames for my academic TALK until I began to teach for biliteracy.

The beauty of this enlightening shift from monoliteracy to biliteracy for me has been that much of what and how I teach now is beneficial to ALL learners, regardless of their home language or future languages. Best practices have a tendency to work for most learners, right? Otherwise they wouldn't earn the term Best Practices!

The SIMPLE, yet effective, use of sentence prompts for oral language has turned partner talk into productive conversation, dramatic play into content application and reenactment, and text connections into solid comprehension. I am AMAZED at the oral language my 5-7 year olds are using in the classroom simply by the effective modeling and use of oral sentence prompts.

With whom we talk also makes a difference. Our classrooms are the 50/50 TWI model, so about half of my students speak English at home and about half of my students speak Spanish at home. Because of this, partnering for oral language is a key component for oral language success. I consider it my monthly puzzle! How will I distribute my students at the carpet and at their tables (tables, not desks, to promote conversation) in two different partnerships (carpet Thinking Partner is different than table group Thinking Partner) while attending to priority seating, partnerships to avoid for social reasons, language proficiency, and overall academic proficiency? VERY CAREFULLY!

I mix it up, sometimes putting more emphasis on one criterion than another. But I always consider language proficiency, making sure one partner is stronger in English to model for and help the other partner in any oracy production opportunity.

As Marie Clay wrote in Talking, Reading, and Writing, teachers of language and literacy must "understand that children learn language easily through conversation." She challenges us to ask ourselves, "In what ways does your program create conversations with children that allow [oral language development] to happen?" (2004, p. 10)

To Ms. Clay I respectfully reply:

Assigned Thinking Partners with respect to language proficiency (partnerships designed to promote linguistic collaboration and cooperation)

Sentence prompts for speaking

Modeling of language and sentence prompts

Additional structured talk opportunities through dramatic play (and sometimes unstructured dramatic play opportunities for the development of social language)

Book talks with significant pictorial and vocabulary support

Help from language proficient peers through modeling and echoing

Gradual release of responsibility of content vocabulary through Total Physical Response (more in a future blog!)

How about you? How would you answer Marie Clay with respect also to teaching for biliteracy?

Oracy development: Key to ANY program, whether bilingual or not, that is on the path to literacy.

Next up, how I improved my literacy instruction through vocabulary. One hint: Timing is everything! Come back and read more at the beginning of April!
References
Beeman, K. & Urow, C. (2013). Teaching for Biliteracy: Strengthening Bridges between Languages. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon Publishing.

Clay, M. M. (2004). Talking, reading, and writing. Journal of Reading Recovery, spring, 1-15.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Literacy Improvement Series: Oracy Development | Teaching For Biliteracy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
LITERACY. It doesn't mean just reading. Or writing. It also includes listening and speaking. Did I mention that it is an essential piece to ALL content areas? And human interaction in general? Plus it is what separates us from other life forms! The capacity for literacy is what makes humans unique, and - quite frankly - naturally brilliant.

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
One of my amazing co-teachers paired the vocab words I made w/a play center that had polar bears, ice, and fur to touch followed by a writing center. Check out that writing! I love this so much. Kids need more chances to learn & demonstrate knowledge through play!

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
One of my amazing co-teachers paired the vocab words I made w/a play center that had polar bears, ice, and fur to touch followed by a writing center. Check out that writing! I love this so much. Kids need more chances to learn & demonstrate knowledge through play! https://t.co/R8pYs7xqkv

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
One of my amazing co-teachers paired the vocab words I made w/a play center that had polar bears, ice, and fur to touch followed by a writing center. Check out that writing! I love this so much. Kids need more chances to learn & demonstrate knowledge through play! pic.twitter.com/R8pYs7xqkv
— Dr. Katie Toppel (she/her) (@KatieToppel) December 8, 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
One of my amazing co-teachers paired the vocab words I made w/a play center that had polar bears, ice, and fur to touch followed by a writing center. Check out that writing! I love this so much. Kids need more chances to learn & demonstrate knowledge through play! https://t.co/R8pYs7xqkv

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
One of my amazing co-teachers paired the vocab words I made w/a play center that had polar bears, ice, and fur to touch followed by a writing center. Check out that writing! I love this so much. Kids need more chances to learn & demonstrate knowledge through play! https://t.co/R8pYs7xqkv

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
One of my amazing co-teachers paired the vocab words I made w/a play center that had polar bears, ice, and fur to touch followed by a writing center. Check out that writing! I love this so much. Kids need more chances to learn & demonstrate knowledge through play!

# data[].attributes.body
Students can listen to a story like Sneezy the Snowman (on Youtube). Then use a mat with the chart. Sort pictures from the story. Then write a sentence below. Click on the slide to see it all.

# data[].attributes.headline
Use a workstation for building sentences based on your unit theme.

# data[].attributes.subject
Use a workstation for building sentences based on your unit theme.

# data[].attributes.body
See this site for lots of ideas.https://www.twinkl.com/resource/t-e-190-sentence-building-cards-eal

# data[].attributes.headline
Turning PWIM into Sentence Pattern Charts

# data[].attributes.subject
Turning PWIM into Sentence Pattern Charts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to use Picture Word Inductive Model & Sentence Patterning Charts in a Distance Learning Setting

# data[].attributes.body
You can do this with letters, sounds, words, and sentences. See how fun it can be.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Quiz Quiz Trade - Kindergarten whole class

# data[].attributes.headline
En Español. Animal Sentence Pattern Chart

# data[].attributes.subject
En Español. Animal Sentence Pattern Chart

# data[].attributes.body
J

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
K4 Copy of Sentence Pattern Chart - Google Jamboard

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser. Dismiss

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Language Rich Activities [Dr. Barbara Noel]

# data[].attributes.headline
Translated English copy FROM BILITERACY TO MULTILITERACY: SOME CONCEPTUAL  ADVANCES IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF READING AND  WRITING SYSTEMATIZING PROCESSES BY MULTI  /BILINGUAL CHILDREN 

# data[].attributes.subject
Translated English copy FROM BILITERACY TO MULTILITERACY: SOME CONCEPTUAL  ADVANCES IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF READING AND  WRITING SYSTEMATIZING PROCESSES BY MULTI  /BILINGUAL CHILDREN 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Translated copy of Do Biletramento aos Pluriletramentos (2)

# data[].attributes.headline
Question Cards for Interactive Read Alouds

# data[].attributes.subject
Question Cards for Interactive Read Alouds

# data[].attributes.body
Adapted from WIDA Consortium, 2007

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What role does oral language play in reading comprehension?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Responses to Feedback Nourishing the Bilingual Brain through Oral Language Development