Foundational Literacy and ML's by Rizzo, Krista J (CCPS)

jordyn_shumaker — 2025-07-16 22:27:16 UTC

Of the 4 key areas for improving literacy instruction for MLs, I think the most crucial one is connecting to students' lived experiences. This component sets the foundation for a positive learning experience for MLs. When instruction is grounded on students' lived experiences, it creates familiarity and relevance to them, which makes it easier for students to comprehend and make connections. This strategy can help MLs combine what they already know with what they're learning. While all 4 components are important, this one stuck out to me as the most important.

jordyn_shumaker — 2025-07-16 22:48:46 UTC

One of the key findings that surprised me was that DLLs have two sound systems. It's surprising to me that they can distinguish and organize sounds by language at such a young age. Knowing two sound systems requires flexibility and attention to detail. Despite having differences in their first exposure to English, DLLs naturally catch up to monolinguals. This highlights resilience and adaptability!

serenaharris1 — 2025-07-17 00:18:13 UTC

I was genuinely pleased to see that our school is right on track when it comes to supporting our multilingual learners. We are fortunate to have an outstanding Director of Intervention who has consistently emphasized the importance of developing oral language, phonemic awareness, and systematic phonics instruction. She has also highlighted how essential it is to balance and connect phonics, vocabulary, and reading instruction in a meaningful way.

Long before "Science of Reading" became a widely recognized term, we were already implementing an explicit, systematic phonics program. We’ve complemented this with interactive read-alouds and thematic instruction designed to activate and expand students' prior knowledge, helping them make connections and deepen their understanding. It’s affirming to see our efforts align with best practices and current research.

serenaharris1 — 2025-07-17 00:29:45 UTC

I believe that connecting to a student’s lived experiences is one of the most important keys to improving literacy instruction for MLs. Children learn best through meaningful engagement and hands-on experiences. Their prior knowledge and personal backgrounds provide a vital foundation or scaffold that supports and deepens new learning. When instruction is rooted in what students already know and have experienced, it becomes more relevant, accessible, and powerful.

2025-07-17 01:51:30 UTC

I've been very interested in the science of reading since there has been a big shift towards SOR research in the last few years. I listened to a great podcast a few years back called "Sold a Story" about how educators, parents and policy stakeholders were sold the story that guided reading and using the cueing systems would create successful readers. Research over the years has proven that majority of children need explicit instruction in word recognition and language comprehension in order to be successful readers. I try to use a lot of science of reading practices when explicitly teaching phonics skills and systematically building on those skills. In Howard County we use Really Great Reading which has an explicit scope and sequence for teaching phonics skills that is connected with decodable readers. This curriculum isn't perfect but it is an approach in the right direction. I think the most important thing we can do as teachers is continue to grow our professional practice and continue to educate ourselves on the most current research regarding reading instruction.

2025-07-17 12:08:58 UTC

I believe that connecting to students' lived experiences and drawing on their existing language knowledge are both crucial for improving literacy instruction for multilingual learners. When students can relate new ideas to what they already know, whether through their home language, culture, or personal experiences, learning becomes more meaningful and easier to understand. This connection helps reduce confusion and supports deeper comprehension. Teachers can support this process by using familiar topics, examples, and words that reflect students' backgrounds. By building on what students already know, we not only make learning more accessible but also boost their confidence and help them grow as readers and writers in a new language.

shatuckecalvertnetk12mdus — 2025-07-17 15:06:50 UTC

I believe that the most important area for improving literacy instruction for MLs is to utilize their existing language knowledge. Students can use translanguaging to build upon the vocabulary they already know. Unfortunately, teachers often focus solely on English, the primary language of instruction, and overlook the importance of incorporating other languages into their lessons. A graphic organizer is a great tool for connecting the meanings of words across different languages. Teachers can alternate the order of translation at various times to help strengthen students' translation skills. Since most students speak their native language at home, completely excluding it from the classroom would not be appropriate.

shatuckecalvertnetk12mdus — 2025-07-17 15:23:06 UTC

I found the most surprising result from the study to be that a strong vocabulary in a home language can lead to weaker fast mapping abilities in English. I would assume that having a solid understanding of vocabulary in their native language would help students acquire English vocabulary. However, I can also see how strong knowledge in their home language might create a barrier to effective fast mapping in English. Achieving a level of proficiency in English that matches their dominant language will likely be a challenging process.

melissa_muul — 2025-07-17 18:27:56 UTC

The most crucial key area for improving literacy instruction is connecting to students lived experiences. By connecting to students lived experiences, the teacher is showing to their students that they care about them and are building a sense or trust and respect. This also allows for the students to build a love of literacy because the teacher is connecting to their past experiences to make the learning more relatable resulting in the students to be more engaged. In the video, the multilingual student explained that students come with prior knowledge that is important for the teacher to tap into so these students can make connections as readers. Teachers should also allow students to show their knowledge in their home language if they are literate in that language and struggle with speaking English.

melissa_muul — 2025-07-17 18:43:07 UTC

The key finding that I found most surprising about DLL's literacy and language development is that preschoolers have the ability to switch languages depending on their environment. Also, they are stronger at using tone to identify emotions than monolingual students at their age. I feel like teachers of this age do not realize the full potential of these multilingual learners. Teachers need to build connections with their students in order to realize what they already know and help them continue to grow in their learning.

2025-07-17 21:42:46 UTC

My students are pre-readers, but I still try to align my teaching with SOR because I agree that students need explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics to learn to read. I incorporate sound cards and talk about mouth movement/shape when teaching letter sounds. Since my students are in pre-k, a lot of our instruction, both for native English speakers and MLs, includes exposure to oral language, which is important for developing literacy skills in all children.

2025-07-17 21:47:36 UTC

I was surprised that DLLs show stronger grammatical awareness than monolingual children at age 5-6. I would have thought that learning multiple languages would make it harder to pin down the grammatical structures of each language, especially if the two languages have very different grammatical rules. I would expect that DLLs would have stronger grammatical awareness in one language over another and/or delayed grammatical awareness overall.

2025-07-17 23:47:36 UTC

My teaching style aligns with the science of teaching reading through a focus on explicit instruction, modeling, and scaffolding. I prioritize phonics, vocabulary, and comprehension strategies. However, I sometimes rely more on student-led discussions, which may differ from the structured, systematic approach emphasized in the science of reading.

2025-07-17 23:53:00 UTC

The area my school district could improve the most is specialized staffing and support capacity. In Howard County, we follow the Ready to Read Act, use universal screening (DIBELS 8th Edition) and evidence-based interventions in phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and phonemic awareness. However, staffing shortages—particularly among reading specialists, speech‑language pathologists, and special educators—limit the consistency of the intervention and its ability to function to its full potential (hcpss.org).

tnw1622 — 2025-07-18 02:56:19 UTC

I feel that the county is slowly moving towards a shift to the science of reading. I know that more schools are piloting HMH Structured Literacy that is based on the science of reading. Not all schools are there yet so there is a missed opportunity when older curriculum may not have more supportive components of science of reading. I think the biggest improvement could be the team aspect. Often schools focus on testing grades and miss the chance to support younger learners. I feel that if schools implement ways to communicate with each other, then more teachers could have better support for students. Teachers could better work together and be on the same page while tracking and discussing student data.

tnw1622 — 2025-07-18 03:15:26 UTC

As I continue to learn about the science of reading, I have noticed a shift in my teaching style. I try to be more intentional about having supports in place and having visual representation like hand motions or elkonin boxes. I try to model with I do, we do, you do. With that I try to give students more opportunities to have discussions with each other and have dialog. I always tell my ML's that if they are more comfortable to have discussions in their home languages, that they are allowed. While I model something, I often make intentional mistakes to show students that it is okay and normal to make mistakes. Even if it was not intentional, I will show students that everybody makes mistakes and we might need to go back and try again.

scarnes1_1 — 2025-07-18 19:01:46 UTC

I don't think any area is more important than the others. In many ways, they are interrelated and are based on valuing the whole child rather than just focusing on their academic achievement/abilities.

scarnes1_1 — 2025-07-18 19:07:19 UTC

Because my school is so firmly built around multilingual education, a lot of professional development is grounded in best practices for MLs. I use the gradual release model, picture supports, gestures, and make connections throughout the day. One area I would like to improve upon is use of culturally relevant texts for read alouds.