This literature review examines the perceptions teachers, administrators, and students have about multilingualism in the classroom in a variety of settings ranging from mainstream classrooms to dual language programs.
Keywords: English learners, education, perception, home language
Classrooms in the U.S. are becoming increasingly more diverse both racially and linguistically. In 2015, the country had nearly 5 million English language learners (ELLs), which makes up about 9.5% of the nation’s school population (Bialik et al., 2018). While linguists view all languages as equally important, sociolinguists also study the concept of linguistic inequality, or the idea that particular languages hold more power than others (Wardhaugh & Fuller, 2015, p. 50). Classrooms in the U.S. demonstrate the power that English holds.
In our globalizing world, the benefits of bilingualism are apparent, yet our school system tells students that English is the language of the classroom while home languages do not belong. While the U.S. has no official language, there has been a push for exclusively English use in the classroom both historically and today. According to Wiley and García, “the ideology of English Only education as a principal tool of Americanization has had considerable influence on shaping school language policies, both in terms of the use of immigrant languages in schools and the emphases placed on foreign language education” (2016, p. 51). Using English as a “tool of Americanization” has put an emphasis on the assimilation of immigrants and multilingual learners when it is clear that we live in an era when multilingualism is beneficial.
For this literature review, I will focus on the perceptions of multilingualism in the classroom. I will explore studies that demonstrate mainstream teachers’ perceptions of multilingualism. I will also look at students’ perceptions of language use in three settings: the mainstream classroom, the English as a Second Language (ESL) classroom, and dual language programs.
When students feel that their home language is valued in the classroom, it can lead to a positive impact on students’ self-esteem, support their second language acquisition, and have positive impacts in terms of identity (Wiley & Bougie, 2007). Negative perceptions of home languages can also have an effect. In one study, Fuller found that Mexican American children living in rural southern Illinois were often hesitant to speak in their native indigenous languages from Mexico because they “were sometimes teased for their association with these languages” (Wardhaugh & Fuller, 2015, p. 84). Each of the following studies demonstrate the perceptions of multilingualism in the classroom. The classroom programs vary, reflecting the diverse classroom environments that students in the U.S. experience.
In a study at a Texas high school, Spanish-speaking immigrant students’ perceptions of their ESL classroom were compared to those of their mainstream classes. Researcher Curtin (2005) interviewed students, teachers, and administrators, and conducted classroom observations. Students reported feeling supported in their ESL classes, while feeling ignored in their mainstream classes. One factor that played a role in these feelings was the teachers’ perception of multilingualism. In ESL classes, students often worked through problems together in Spanish. However, in the mainstream classes, students were discouraged from using Spanish and were often separated if they did. Discussions with these teachers revealed that they felt it was “their responsibility to help ESL students ‘transition’ to English and that they did not encourage asking for assistance in Spanish from a classmate in class” (Curtin, 2005, p. 22). This study reveals the perception mainstream teachers had of students’ home languages as separate from their education.
Curtin’s observations of negative perceptions of home languages from mainstream teachers is similar to that which Rizzuto noted in her 2017 study at a school in the Northeast where over half of the students spoke Spanish at home. Through interviews and classroom observations, Rizzuto found that mainstream teachers had negative perceptions of ELLs. Teachers noted they were concerned about students’ use of Spanish in the classroom. Most teachers enforced English-only rules in the classroom and did not allow bilingual students to support ELLs in Spanish. Interestingly, when asked about their beliefs on Spanish in the classroom, teachers “indicated a high level of agreement with the prompts that measured openness to bilingual instruction and allowing students to use their language in school” (Rizzuto, 2017, p. 194). However, ultimately teachers’ negative perceptions of ELLs led to a monolingual classroom environment in which students were not supported and unable to meet learning objectives.
While the previous two studies discussed negative perceptions of multilingualism in mainstream classrooms, the following three studies demonstrate the positive perceptions of multilingualism in dual language programs. Studies of dual language approaches demonstrate higher levels of acceptance of the home language. De la Riva, a researcher at Hamline University, interviewed newcomer students at a dual language immersion middle school and those on the English-only track in order to compare their perceptions of membership according to the perception of Spanish in the school, academic participation, and peer acceptance. In interviews with students, de la Riva (2015) asked about the desirability of speaking Spanish and answers varied depending on students’ program and their language proficiency. Newcomers in the English-only track felt that they had to learn English before gaining full membership into the community and without it they felt they were “not even like a legitimate peripheral participant of the community” (de la Riva, 2015, p. 50). In the dual language immersion program, students also felt language acquisition was important in order to feel fully accepted; however, in this program the language was Spanish. The article concluded that students in the English-only track who were only proficient in Spanish felt excluded while those who were bilingual felt a sense of belonging.
Lindholm-Leary (2016) also conducted a study in a dual language setting, which demonstrated the support for bilingualism students felt in this environment. This school had both a Mandarin-English and a Spanish-English dual immersion program. Students were asked to create an advertisement for bilingualism, indicating that students had learned the benefits of bilingualism. Students’ answers ranged from cognitive benefits, to professional and academic success, to being able to connect with family. It is clear that this dual immersion program not only taught bilingualism, but promoted it as beneficial for students. Lindholm-Leary found that ELLs were successful in these programs, stating that ELLs who were reclassified as English proficient had “the highest ratings of bilingualism provided by teachers and themselves, and they are even more confident of their bilingualism than their peers who continue to be ELLs” (Lindholm-Leary, 2016, p. 65). The study demonstrates the effects of bilingualism being promoted as beneficial. Students held positive perceptions of both English and Spanish/Mandarin, allowing ELLs to thrive.
Another study that emphasizes the effects of promoting bilingualism was conducted by Butvilofsky and Gumina (2020). They researched students’ perceptions of their bilingualism at a school that emphasized bicultural and bilingual education in Arizona. Mexicayotl Academy is a charter school for students in K-8 and located on the U.S.-Mexico border in Nogales, Arizona. The bilingual school focused on the importance of bilingualism both in terms of language and culture. Students expressed positive perceptions of their bilingualism, noting that it led to “high self-esteem, pride, and higher status” (Butvilofsky & Gumina, 2020, p. 203). Butvilofsky and Gumina concluded that students valued their bilingualism and viewed both languages as essential in their identity.
In summary, the first two studies demonstrate that in many mainstream classrooms, multilingual students are being pushed to operate only in English, which often reflects teachers’ perceptions of ELLs as deficient in language. The final three studies demonstrate the positive perceptions of multilingualism that are present in dual language programs and the effects they can have on students. Students in these studies expressed higher levels of language proficiency and positive perceptions of multilingualism.
The studies above indicate classroom strategies that teachers can practice to support ELLs and encourage multilingualism. According to student interviews conducted by Curtin (2005), Lindholm-Leary (2016), and Butvilofsky and Gumina (2020), students felt more supported in classes in which teachers allowed the use of home languages. Teachers can better support emergent bilingual students by offering a space in which all languages are accepted and valued. This can be practiced through displaying posters, artwork, signs, and so on that show multilingualism as well as using texts and materials that include multilingual speakers.
Another area teachers can support ELLs is through educating colleagues about the importance of multilingualism and promoting it as a “resource rather than as a deficit” (Rizzuto, 2017, p.195). Rizzuto’s study shows the negative effects teachers with negative perceptions of multilingualism can have on ELLs’ education. As teachers, it is important that we advocate for our students through teaching the positive benefits of multilingualism.
Finally, the literature suggests the success of dual language immersion programs in not only supporting language development, but also in promoting positive perceptions of multilingualism. While working at a mainstream school, some practices can be adopted from these programs. For example, encouraging multilingual students to take language classes in their first language. This demonstrates to students the value of being multilingual.
The literature shows that mainstream teachers often have negative perceptions of languages other than English being spoken in the classroom. They often have English-only approaches and rarely incorporate home languages into their curriculum. In Curtin’s (2005) study, students noted that this lack of support for their home language was a reason they did not feel successful in mainstream classrooms. On the other hand, the literature shows that in bilingual classrooms, there were often positive perceptions of languages other than English and teachers emphasized the importance of bilingualism.
While there is ample research about effective teaching strategies for multilingual learners, there is very limited research about students’ perceptions of their home language. An area for further research is what factors lead to students’ perceptions of their home language.
Bialik, K., Scheller, A., & Walker, K. (2018). 6 Facts about English language learners in U.S. public schools. Pew Research Center. Accessed 16 November 2021 at www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/25/6-facts-about-english-language-learners-in-u-s-public-schools/
Butvilofsky, S. A., & Gumina, D. (2020). The possibilities of bilingualism: Perceptions of bilingual learners in Arizona. Bilingual Research Journal, 43(2), 196-211. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2020.1781295
Rizzuto, K. C. (2017). Teachers’ perceptions of ELL students: Do their attitudes shape their instruction? The Teacher Educator, 52(3), 182-202. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2017.1296912
Curtin, E. (2005). Teaching practices for ESL students. Multicultural Education, 12(3), 22-27.
de la Riva, J. L. (2015). Newcomer perceptions of identity and school membership: Program comparisons between English only and dual language immersion tracks [unpublished master’s qualifying paper]. School of Education, Hamline University, St. Paul, MN.
Lindholm-Leary, K. (2016). Students’ perceptions of bilingualism in Spanish and Mandarin dual language programs. International Multilingual Research Journal, 10(1), 59-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2016.1118671
Wardhaugh, R., & Fuller, J. M. (2015). An introduction to sociolinguistics (7th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Wiley, T. G., & García, O. (2016). Language policy and planning in language education: Legacies, consequences, and possibilities. The Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 48-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12303
Wright, S. C., & Bougie, É. (2007). Intergroup contact and minority-language education: Reducing language-based discrimination and its negative impact. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26(2), 157-181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X07300078
The following work builds an argument for translanguaging by looking at two key academic benefits for supporting translanguaging use in the classroom. Firstly, translanguaging helped multilingual learners comprehend and communicate about subject area content and, secondly, it improved their English proficiency by enabling them to make connections between their home language(s) and English. The purpose of this writing is to make a compelling case for allowing and encouraging multiple language use in the classroom and to change monoglossic ideology in schools where it is prevalent.
Keywords: teacher education, multilingual learners, translanguaging, ESL strategies, emergent bilinguals
Throughout history, teachers in U.S. America have employed a monolinguistic approach to developing a student’s English proficiency. I am an emergent bilingual teacher who believed that the best strategy to help students become more proficient in general American English (GAE) was to limit their home language use in the classroom and to provide a full immersion into the target language. After an introduction to a process called translanguaging, I realized that when I speak Spanish or German (my 2nd and 3rd languages, respectively), I draw from what I know in English, my 1st language, to help me comprehend or communicate in that other language. The prohibition of that practice would make it virtually impossible for me to communicate in Spanish or German. This realization led to several discussions with peers and an extant literature review on translanguaging which convinced me that multilingual students also use their entire language repertoire to make sense of their lives, including their classroom.
The question which guided this review, What are some ways translanguaging can be academically beneficial for students?, revealed two main academic benefits of translanguaging in the classroom. Firstly, translanguaging helped students to improve comprehension of subject area content. Secondly, translanguaging enabled students to draw parallels between their home language(s) and English. Translanguaging helped to expand their comprehension and understanding of language features, thus improving their language proficiency. This literature review was important because translanguaging was found to be a successful academic tool leveraged by teachers to help emergent bilinguals increase academic performance and improve GAE proficiency.
The following technical terms are used throughout this literature review and are defined to aid in its comprehension.
General American English is the variety of English that is encountered in reading, writing, television, educational contexts, and commerce (Washington & Seidenberg, 2021). Standard English, academic language, or English are other terms used when referring to the language variety of GAE.
Monoglossic ideology refers to an individual, group, segment of society, school, or an organization’s belief that languages should be kept separate from one another in their use in the classroom. Researchers Wardhaugh and Fuller (2015) define monoglossic ideology as “the idea that languages are distinct entities and should be kept strictly separate in their use” (Wardhaugh & Fuller, 2015 p. 411).
Translanguaging refers to a persons’ use of their entire language repertoire in the act of discourse. The repertoire includes all elements of language, such as varieties, registers, and styles (Wardhaugh & Fuller, 2015). Researcher García (2013) described translanguaging as the use of two or more language varieties in a flexible way—not separated—to make sense of their lives (García, 2013).
Improving multilingual learners’ comprehension of general education content was the first academic benefit revealed when exploring the research question: What are some ways translanguaging can be academically beneficial for students? Researchers Washington and Seidenberg (2021) stated in an article that academic content is challenging for students under the best of circumstances and adds a layer of complexity when that content is being delivered in a language other than the student’s home language or language variety. The research below postulated that natural and intentional translanguaging practices in the classroom enabled students to comprehend and engage with content more fully.
Researchers Daniel and Pacheco (2016) conducted a study of four multilingual students to observe how they naturally use their linguistic resources to make sense of the content area classrooms. One of the questions they asked to guide their study was “how do multilingual students use [languages other than English] LOTEs to support meaning making?” (Daniel & Pacheco, 2016, p. 654). Their study revealed that multilingual students use several strategies drawing from all the languages that a student knows. For example, one student would write down notes in her native language and then translate it into GAE. Another student would ask for peer assistance in their native language when they were struggling with content. At other times during the observation, researchers Daniel and Pacheco (2016) found that students co-constructed and negotiate meaning by sharing language knowledge with each other. The concluding thoughts of the study emphasized that, “teachers must begin to implement translanguaging pedagogies that encourage the development of the full range of the students’ linguistic resources” (Daniel & Pacheco, 2016, p. 661). The observations showed that even when translanguaging activities were not embedded into the lesson, multilingual students naturally used their entire language repertoire fluidly to make meaning of the content.
An example of intentional translanguaging in the classroom was provided in a guide called Translanguaging: A CUNY-NYSIEB Guide for Educators (Celic et al., 2013). The program was implemented in eight New York schools by teachers who received professional development to use the strategies as outlined in the guide. Researcher García (2013, p. 2) stated in the first section of the guide that by using pedagogical translanguaging strategies, teachers were able to provide both rigorous content and academic language support simultaneously. In their work, Celic et al. (2013) found that these strategies helped emergent bilinguals achieve Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The guide itemized the CCSS alongside each strategy to ensure that the activity or strategy would meet the standard expectation. Examples of authentic student work were included in the guide itself as evidence of strategy and activity successes as it aligned to different standards. One student example showed how emergent bilinguals wrote and used science vocabulary and target language features to describe the solar system after only a few months following their arrival into the country (Celic et al., 2013, p. 47). This evidence was just one of many samples in the guide highlighting that emergent bilinguals were able to access rigorous content and meet CCSS through translanguaging.
In support of the CUNY-NYSIEB guide’s claim of effectiveness, Menken and Sánchez (2019) interviewed participants of the program created by Celic et al. (2013). This qualitative research found that students who participated in classrooms that used translanguaging strategies were more engaged in the lesson and participated more. Teachers also reported that when they provided students with translanguaging activities and incorporated home language use in their instruction, students had more access to the content being taught (Menken & Sánchez, 2019). By using intentional translanguaging strategies, teachers were equipped to help students utilize their entire linguistic repertoire to better understand complex concepts taught in core classes.
The second academic benefit for translanguaging found in the review was the improvement students amassed in their GAE proficiency. While exploring the guiding question, What are some ways translanguaging can be academically beneficial for students?, it was found that researchers agreed that translanguaging activities and pedagogical strategies enhanced students’ GAE proficiency.
Bilingual students’ English proficiency improved when teachers intentionally provided activities that encouraged translanguaging. Researchers found that by using translanguaging activities, students developed language skills in English by connecting knowledge about language features and vocabulary in their LOTEs to those of the target language (Celic et al., 2013; Guzman-Orth et al., 2019). Researchers Menken and Sánchez (2019) confirmed these claims stating that by using translanguaging pedagogy in a strategic and flexible manner, teachers enabled students to access content and build on GAE language skills. The students’ discoveries of similarities and differences between languages was facilitated by the translanguaging activities provided by the teachers.
Translanguaging activities provide practice of language skills to create automaticity between students’ home knowledge and that of the target language. Researcher García (2013) wrote that, “Just as a Major League baseball pitcher develops his expert pitching form through practice, language users must develop their forms through practice” (García, 2013, p. 2). She stated that translanguaging provided students with the opportunity to practice GAE language forms and features alongside and with the support of the home language leading to the eventual appropriate use of GAE language forms (García, 2013, p. 3). Translanguaging activities provided by the teacher helped emergent bilinguals make connections between languages and improved their English proficiency.
Two notable programs which provide teachers with specific translanguaging strategies discovered in this literature review were the Teaching Reading and New Strategic Language Approaches to English (TRANSLATE) and the Language Ambassador (LA) Program.
The translanguaging instruction strategy TRANSLATE was found to be effective in helping students deepen their reading comprehension by shifting students’ ability from word-level to a more comprehensive understanding at the sentence-level (Jiménez et al., 2015a, 2015b). TRANSLATE encouraged students to talk aloud while reading text which Jiménez et al. found to make language and content more salient to students. This strategy allowed students to show their thinking with a partner or small group while they unpacked text. This helped students understand complex text and enabled them to use each other as resources to draw connections between their home language(s) and GAE, thus improving their proficiency in English.
A second strategy found effective for improving GAE proficiency involved training teachers to lead discursive based activities. The LA Program was implemented in a bilingual school. In her study, Martin-Beltrán (2014) examined the relationship between translanguaging activities in the classroom and students’ GAE proficiency. She found that through the LA activities, students had an opportunity to use their language dexterity to talk about language function, express their understanding, and co-construct a language product (such as a piece of writing) (Martin-Beltrán, 2014). The findings from her study confirmed that the students engaged in cognitively advanced levels to unpack sophisticated literature and grapple with complex linguistic features (Martin-Beltrán, 2014). This equipped students to make direct connections between language features in their own language(s) and English.
In conclusion, the literature review examined the guiding question: What are some ways translanguaging can be beneficial for academic success? As stated in the introduction, this review builds an argument by looking at two key academic benefits for supporting translanguaging in the classroom. Firstly, translanguaging better positioned students for academic success, and, secondly, students improved their GAE proficiency. Teachers need to be aware of and respect students’ home language(s) as tools for success in their communities and in school (Fillmore & Snow, 2000). Understanding that emergent bilinguals come with their own personal language repertoire was key for these teachers as they strived to help students access rigorous content, improve GAE proficiency, and achieve academic success. The literature confirmed that students already used translanguaging in their daily lives and this ability could and should be leveraged to maximize student learning by providing activities and using strategies that encouraged translanguaging.
This literature review by itself is insufficient for changing monoglossic ideology in schools and classrooms. For policy and practice change, administrators and staff need professional development. Researchers (Menken & Sánchez, 2019) found that through professional development, attitudes about translanguaging shifted and its use increased in the classroom. In addition, professional development led to policy, pedagogical, and practice shift from a monoglossic approach to a more cross-cultural and translanguaging approach both in the classroom and school-wide (Menken & Sánchez, 2019). Although this shift required a tremendous amount of effort, the benefits for students whose home language is other than GAE is essential for their academic success and GAE proficiency.
Beyond the guiding question of What are some ways translanguaging can be beneficial for academic success? were broader concepts to be explored. Topics including the student’s social emotional wellbeing of using their home language in school, personal identity to language and culture, and the inherent inequalities associated with a dominant language such as GAE left me with many unanswered questions. Evident to me was that the relationship between translanguaging, the school, and the student is complex. Each one of these topics was beyond the scope of what this literature review could explore, however, each was equally important to students whose home language was other than GAE.
Celic, C., Seltzer, K., Garicía, O., & Ascenzi-Moreno, L. (2013). Translanguaging: A CUNY-NYSIEB guide for educators (2nd ed.). The Graduate Center at The City University of New York. Retrievable from https://www.cuny-nysieb.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Translanguaging-Guide-March-2013.pdf
Daniel, S. M., & Pacheco, M. B. (2016). Translanguaging practices and perspectives of four multilingual teens. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(6), 653-663. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.500
Fillmore, L. W., & Snow, C. E. (2000). What teachers need to know about language. Center for Applied Linguistics.
García, O. (2013). Theorizing translanguaging for educators. In C. Celic, K. Seltzer, & L. Ascenzi-Moreno (Eds.), Translanguaging: A CUNY-NYSIEB guide for educators (2nd ed.) (pp. 1-6). The Graduate Center at The City University of New York
Guzman-Orth, D., Lopez, A. A., & Tolentino, F. (2019). Exploring the use of a dual language assessment task to assess young English learners. Language Assessment Quarterly, 16(4-5), 447-463. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2019.1674314
Jiménez, R. T., David, S., Fagan, K., Risko, V. J., Pacheco, M., Pray, L., & Gonzales, M. (2015a). Using translation to drive conceptual development for students becoming literate in english as an additional language. Research in the Teaching of English, 49(3), 248-271.
Jiménez, R.,T., David, S., Pacheco, M., Risko, V. J., Pray, L., Fagan, K., & Gonzales, M. (2015b). Supporting teachers of english learners by leveraging students’ linguistic strengths. The Reading Teacher, 68(6), 406-412. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1289
Martin-Beltrán, M. (2014). “What do you want to say?”: How adolescents use translanguaging to expand learning opportunities. International Multilingual Research Journal, 8(3), 208-230. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2014.914372
Menken, K., & Sánchez, M. T. (2019). Translanguaging in English-only schools: From pedagogy to stance in the disruption of monolingual policies and practices. TESOL Quarterly, 53(3), 741-767. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.513
Wardhaugh, R., & Fuller, J. M. (2015). An introduction to sociolinguistics (7th ed.). Wiley.
Washington, J., & Seidenberg, M. (2021). Teaching reading to African American children: When home and school language differs. American Educator, 45(2), 26-33. Retrievable from https://www.aft.org/ae/summer2021/washington_seidenberg
The WIDA English Language Development (ELD) Standards Framework, 2020 Edition, offers a more clearly organized framework to represent content-driven language learning. Grade-level cluster resources include Language Expectations to create unit-level language goals for all multilingual learners as well as Proficiency Level Descriptors for measuring individual student language growth. Portions of this article contain excerpts from the WIDA English Language Development Standards Framework, 2020 Edition: Kindergarten-Grade 12 (WIDA, 2020), Wisconsin Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, on behalf of WIDA.
Keywords: elementary, middle School, secondary, teacher education
The WIDA English Language Development (ELD) Standards Framework, 2020 Edition: Kindergarten-Grade 12 [2020 ELD Standards Framework] (WIDA, 2020) provides both content and language educators with a clearly-defined, user-friendly set of resources to support content-driven language learning. The updates to the 2020 ELD Standards Framework respond to federal legislative requirements (such as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015), evolving academic content standards, the latest developments in scholarly literature, and a deepened commitment to equity and social justice for multilingual learners and other minoritized students.
|Visit the WIDA ELD Standards Framework Webpage as well as your state education agency website for resources to support your local conversations and implementation plan. These resources include an introductory video, Q&A webinar recordings and transcripts, PowerPoint slides, FAQ series, and information on professional learning opportunities.|
This article provides a high-level comparison of the 20121 and 2020 ELD Standards Frameworks, targeting those educators who are already familiar with its 2012 precursor (WIDA, 2012). Figure 1 provides a comparison of the components in the 2012 and 2020 ELD Standards Frameworks.
In particular, this article unpacks the resources available within the grade-level cluster Language Expectations. Complementing this article, MinneTESOL Journal volume 37 issue 1 contains two companion articles: “Putting discourse first” (Lundgren & Shafer Willner, 2021), which examines how a focus beyond the word or sentence level can support the development of multilingual learners’ expressive language (speaking, writing, and representing) and “Making language visible in content area classrooms using the  WIDA ELD Standards Framework” (Westerlund & Besser, 2021), which provides an overview of discipline-specific resources available to content area teachers.
Since its inception in 2003, WIDA has tailored its approach to standards to support and sustain students’ unique cultural and linguistic experiences, assets, interests, and potential (González et al., 2005; Paris, 2012). WIDA’s Can Do Philosophy (last updated in 2019; WIDA, 2019a) has served as the foundation for four editions of English Language Development Standards—released in 2004, 2007, 2012, and now 2020. This philosophy is also represented in the recently-updated Guiding Principles of Language Development (WIDA, 2019b).
|Putting the Big Ideas into Action
For more information on the Big Ideas, see Section 1 in the 2020 Edition.
In keeping with an assets-based philosophy, WIDA now refers to students identified as English learners (ELs) as multilingual learners. Multilingual learners are not “failed” native English speakers (Kibler & Valdés, 2016; May, 2014), but have a range of assets to call upon when engaging in learning, such as knowledge of multiple languages, varying representation of ideas, metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness, and varied life and educational experiences.
Language learners who regularly come into contact with and/or interact in languages in addition to English. Multilingual learners include English language learners, dual-language learners, newcomers, students with interrupted formal schooling, long-term English learners, English learners with disabilities, gifted and talented English learners, heritage language learners, student with English as an additional language, and students who speak varieties of English or indigenous languages
Definition excerpted from 2020 ELD Standards Framework Glossary (p. 255)
In addition to the foundational Can Do Philosophy and Guiding Principles, the 2020 ELD Standards Framework has four interwoven Big Ideas. Like the Can Do Philosophy, the Big Ideas support the design of standards-aligned educational experiences that are student-centered, culturally and linguistically sustaining, and responsive to multilingual learners’ strengths and needs. These Big Ideas offer strategic foci for addressing systemic challenges in the current educational landscape:
The Big Ideas anchor and are interwoven throughout the components of the 2020 ELD Standards Framework.
The abstract nature of the five WIDA Standards Statements (see Figure 2) has at times led to confusion as to what WIDA means by standards. In a needs assessment conducted prior to the initiation of development work, educators requested a more streamlined set of standards with clearly-defined purposes (Kray, 2020; Shafer Willner & Castro, 2017).
The 2020 Edition clarifies that the WIDA Standards Statements [italics added for emphasis] are the first of four, equally important components that comprise the 2020 ELD Standards Framework [italics added for emphasis]. Working together, these four nested components provide a comprehensive picture of language development within and across academic content areas. A primary purpose of the 2020 ELD Standards Framework is to make visible the language that students need to engage in the disciplines, in particular, language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. In turn, educators can plan together to simultaneously develop content and language in systematic ways. In the sections that follow, we explore each of the four components of the updated 2020 ELD Standards Framework.
Historically, WIDA has been intentional in presenting its ELD standards not as “junior English Language Arts (ELA)” standards, but as standards that address the language of both sociocultural and disciplinary contexts of schooling. Therefore, the five standards statements have always been positioned in relation to social and instructional language as well as disciplinary language. In comparison, other ELD standards in the U.S. have been framed as a subset of ELA standards (Shafer Willner et al., 2021).
To hone their focus, the five standards statements now employ new abbreviations, moving beyond the language of a content area (as if it were a finite, external, or static) to emphasize the use of language for thinking and acting in the world (Grant, 2012; Leont’ev, 1978; Vygotsky, 1978). The updated abbreviations of the standards statements are:
|Teaching Language for Learning
For more information about the Big Ideas, see Section 1 in the 2020 Edition.
The 2012 Edition envisioned WIDA Standard 1 as working in conjunction with Standards 2-5. However, some educators interpreted Social and Instructional Language as functioning as a precursor to academic language or as used primarily by young children, newcomers, and students with limited or interrupted formal education (SLIFE) (Shafer Willner & Castro, 2017).
These misconceptions are rectified in the 2020 ELD Standards Framework. Here, everyday language is viewed as a legitimate contributor to academic language development (May, 2014) and as part of the continuum of choices students make in order to most effectively meet an activity’s purpose and other contextual variables (Derewianka & Jones, 2016; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014). As a result, the 2020 ELD Standards Framework contributes to the movement to broaden the more traditional definition of academic language to include social language, approximations, and translanguaging (Canagarajah, 1999; García et al., 2017).
|Enhancing Multilingual Learner Participation in Classroom Discussions
For more information on Standard 1, see Section 1 in the 2020 Edition.
As in 2012, WIDA Standard 1 continues to connect the personal to the academic, conveying sociocultural influences on language: As students develop their identities as learners, their language use reflects their personal interests and needs, experiences, cultural and linguistic resources, social-emotional development, and family and community ways of knowing (Esteban-Guitart & Moll, 2014; Gándara, 2015). The positioning of Standard 1 in relation to Standards 2-5 is intentionally designed to send a message: The full range of students’ linguistic and cultural resources should be integrated with the language for making meaning in school (see Figure 3).
Key Language Uses, the second component nested within the 2020 ELD Standards Framework, offers an update to the Key Uses of Academic Language [Key Uses]: Recount, Explain, Argue, and Discuss (and described in Wright & Musser, 2014). To support educator and family interpretation of ACCESS for ELLs test scores, the Key Uses had been incorporated into the Can Do Descriptors, Key Uses Edition (WIDA, 2016).
For the 2020 ELD Standards Framework, the WIDA Standards Team conducted a review of current academic content standards for ELA/literacy, mathematics, science, and social studies, disciplinary practices, and related research literature (e.g., Brisk, 2014; de Oliveira et al., 2019).
When changing the name from Key Uses to Key Language Uses, the team connected with existing concepts of genre and purpose for language use (Hyland, 2007) and the notion of four broad genre families (Rose & Martin, 2012). The updated Key Language Uses represent those genre families prominently presented in all grade levels and content areas: Narrate, Inform, Explain, and Argue. They are defined in Table 1.
As commonly seen on a daily basis, the four Key Language Uses are not “boxes” for language to fit within, but can intersect, blend, and build on each other. For example, an argument may also contain narratives (anecdotes or stories), informational texts (which name, define, describe, compare or contrast something), and/or explanations (about the how or why of a concept).
The update from Key Uses to Key Language Uses represents a theoretical and linguistic refinement allowing greater clarity of terms. By splitting Recount into Narrate and Inform, there could be greater differentiation among the wide variety of genres within these two genre families. Since Discuss is not technically a genre family, it is no longer named a Key Language Use, but rather embedded within Standard 1 and still found across all Key Language Uses.
Table 1. Definitions of the 2020 Key Language Uses
Key Language Uses position multilingual learners not just as learners of language, but as language users who adapt their use of language in ways that are appropriate to context (Cook, 2003). Language users actively adapt language by topic, purpose, audience, and situation (Derewianka & Jones, 2016). This focus on the context for language use and the adaptability of language moves beyond a single, generic, one-size-fits-all Standard English and into an awareness of the dynamic varieties of English used by different communities (Pennycook, 2010). It opens spaces for students to have multiple and equally valid ways of using language to engage with the curriculum—ways that value who students are and what they bring to the classroom.
|Making Prominent the Language Uses of Each Content Area
See the introduction to Key Language Uses in Section 2 of the standards book. For a deeper dive, check out “Key Language Uses: A Closer Look” in Section 4, or the “Theoretical Foundations” in Appendix F.
In the 2012 Edition, the Model Performance Indicators (MPIs) played a central role. They offered a generative process for creating task-level performance descriptions that, for each proficiency level, combined a language function, content stem, and support for an example topic or theme. (See Figure 4.)
Even as the generative process for building MPIs was a step forward in creating examples of language differentiation for students, many educators still found this process to be too complicated and time-consuming (Kray, 2020; Shafer Willner & Castro, 2017). Lee (2018) also voiced concerns about MPIs, observing, “The Language Functions themselves imply varying degrees of cognitive demand, thereby altering the Cognitive Function of the task for students at different proficiency levels [especially for students at lower proficiency levels]” (p. 322).
Language Expectations, the third component of the 2020 ELD Standards Framework, focus on goals for content-driven language learning for multilingual learners at all levels of proficiency. While consistent with the focus of the MPIs, they offer a more stable, ready-made representation of content-driven language learning. Language Expectations are designed to be used in coordination with Proficiency Level Descriptors, which in turn, take into account the English proficiency levels of individual students.
Supporting conversations with content area educators, the Language Expectations have been written to be most similar to what educators generally find in academic content standards. As shown in Figure 5, they include reference codes that indicate the WIDA ELD Standard Statement, grade-level cluster, Key Language Use, and communication mode [ELD-SS.6-8.Explain.Expressive].
Language Expectations reflect the high-priority language students need for engaging in disciplinary learning. This is important since research has shown that explicitly teaching the language for learning the content has a strong, positive impact on multilingual learner academic performance in grade-level curriculum, instruction, and assessment (Aguirre-Muñoz & Ambiasca, 2010).
|Integrating Language Expectations into Local Curriculum Maps
See the introduction to Language Expectations in Section 2 of the standards book. Language Expectations for each grade-level cluster appear in Section 3. Additional resources:
The 2020 Language Expectations have been written to convey both the broad similarities and the unique distinctions in how a Key Language Use might be interpreted or expressed according to its disciplinary context. For example, across disciplines, a bedrock of middle school argumentation is the triumvirate of claims-evidence-reasoning. Yet, social studies discussions of evidence emphasize use of multiple sources (Swan et al., 2013), while science discussions of evidence emphasize use of evidence, data, and/or a model about issues related to the natural and designed world(s) (Next Generation Science Standards Lead States, 2013). As shown in Table 2, Language Expectations are designed to convey the fundamental differences in “how knowledge is constructed, represented, and communicated” in each discipline (echoing the idea expressed in Goldman et al., 2016, p. 4).
Table 2. Grades 6-8 Expressive Language Expectations for Argue for the Five Standards Statements2
Language Expectations can support systematic, explicit, and sustained language development in all program models (such as bilingual or sheltered immersion) and classroom settings, such as those driven by content learning (such as math or social studies), by language learning (such as English as a Second Language), or for integrated purposes. When collaborating with content area teachers, Language Expectations can be used to identify unit-level goals as destination points on a map. As teachers design varying and responsive scaffolding approaches, students may take different routes to reach these language destination points.
|Scaffolding Learning for Multilingual Learners
Multilingual learners’ language grows over time through real engagement with a challenging curriculum.
The resources found within the Language Expectations also use a nested design. Embedded within the Language Expectations are sets of Language Functions which describe what the students do with (and through) language to accomplish the purposes identified in the Key Language Use. However, in the 2020 ELD Standards Framework, the Language Functions unfold the Key Language Uses in commonly recurring configurations or stages (Martin, 2009). In other words, there is not one single Language Function per Key Language Use, but multiple Language Functions that might be used to work through and realize the most prominent Key Language Uses for each WIDA Standard Statement and grade-level cluster.
In the 2020 ELD Standards Framework, the grain size of a Language Function is broader than used with the previous MPI process. Here, the 2020 Language Functions are contextualized through a particular Key Language Use, grade-level cluster, and discipline. In other words, the 2020 Language Functions are broader than the initial “action verbs” (e.g., interpret, describe, evaluate, select, organize) often associated with Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) since the information that comes after the initial language function verb can be just as important (e.g., character, concept, phenomenon, or evidence) in defining the genre. There are even instances where the same initial language function “verb” might be utilized in different Key Language Uses—e.g., compare or contrast concepts or entities in an informational text, compare and contrast objects or concepts, or compare reasoning and claims based on evidence from two arguments on the same topic.
At this point, educators who wish to dive deeper into explicit language instruction can use the associated Language Features. Consistent with the Big Idea of a Functional Approach to Language, language is defined as a resource for making meaning (italics added for emphasis) rather than as a set of rules for ordering isolated grammatical structures (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014). Language offers a dynamic set of tools that can be used in the service of learning disciplinary concepts and practices (Schleppegrell, 2013).
Examples of Language Features (which help to carry out Expressive Language Functions) are shown in the clear sub-bullets in Table 3. In this table, the discipline (Science vs. Social Studies) informs the sampling of Language Functions and Language Features shown. (Please note that the Language Functions and Functions in Table 3 were extracted from Table 2.)
Table 3. Grades 6-8 Science and Social Studies Examples of Language Features3
Whereas the 2012 edition used the terms Receptive and Productive communication modes, the 2020 Language Expectations and Proficiency Level Descriptors are organized by Interpretive and Expressive Modes of Communication (see Figure 6). The two updated communication modes encompass the four language domains (speaking, listening, reading, and writing), as outlined in federal requirements for language proficiency standards.
The two communication modes spotlight the multimodal nature of both language development and content area learning (Choi & Yi, 2015; Cope & Kalantzis, 2015). They also position language as being more tightly integrated with other semiotic resources (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001).
Enhancing the four language domains (listening, reading, speaking and writing) by including viewing and representing creates a natural connection to the principles of Universal Design for Learning. The result—expanded communication modes—invites multiple means of engagement, representation, and action and expression (CAST, 2015), thereby extending accessibility principles to all multilingual learners, including those with more intensive learning needs.
As a reminder, the 2020 ELD Standards Framework separates Language Expectations from Proficiency Level Descriptors. This separation is important because multilingual learners do not need to first acquire “enough” English before being taught the content area curriculum. Multilingual learners in the early phases of English language development can still interpret and express grade-level concepts and skills, especially when appropriately supported through scaffolding that is inclusive of multilingual and multimodal means.
Similar to the 2012 K-12 Performance Definitions, the 2020 Grade-Level Cluster Proficiency Level Descriptors use three dimensions to conceptualize the linguistic system within a sociocultural context (illustrated in Figure 7). Consistent with the Big Idea of a Functional Approach to Language, language users are seen as simultaneously making choices in all three dimensions of language which contributes to how a text is purposely constructed and has a desired effect on its intended audience(s).
The 2020 Proficiency Level Descriptors bring an intensified focus to the discourse dimension of language use: whereas the discourse dimension has three criteria (organization, cohesion, and density of language), the sentence and word/phrase dimensions have only one criterion each: grammatical complexity of language for sentence and precision of language for word/phrase. (A companion article, Putting discourse first” [Lundgren & Shafer Willner, 2021], explores this concept in greater detail.)
Both 2012 Performance Definitions and the 2020 Proficiency Level Descriptors provide descriptions of a typical trajectory of linguistic growth for multilingual learners along continua that extend over many years. In its 2020 Edition, WIDA offers an additional proficiency level. Level 6 is open-ended as language development continues for both monolingual and multilingual students throughout life.
To avoid taking a deficit perspective about a multilingual learner’s “lack” of English, both the Performance Definitions and the Proficiency Level Descriptors were designed to help teachers identify language features that a student at each proficiency level might typically be able to use and what the student might be working toward in the next proficiency level. As a reminder: Descriptors for the end of any proficiency level include those of the previous levels. For example, Proficiency Level 4 (PL4) = End of [PL1 + PL2 + PL3 + PL4].
The 2020 Proficiency Level Descriptors are designed to be more developmentally appropriate for multilingual learners within six grade-level clusters (K, 1, 2-3, 4-5, 6-8, and 9-12). In contrast, the 2012 K-12 Performance Definitions offer a single continuum of English language proficiency descriptors. Having a single set of K-12 descriptors for the earlier standards edition meant different interpretations needed to be created for different grade-level clusters. For the most part, educators were left to create these interpretations on their own. However, one sample, yet somewhat confusing interpretation was placed in the 2016 Can Do Descriptors, Key Uses Edition:
For example, in level 5 [in the K-12 Performance Definitions], extended oral or written discourse would probably be indicated by a 1st grade student’s ability to orally retell a story in a series of sentences using simple transition words. However, a middle school student might be expected to exhibit linguistic complexity at [same] level 5 by incorporating a variety of sentence structures in an essay several paragraphs in length (WIDA, 2016, p. 3).
|Using Proficiency Level Descriptors in coordination with the other 2020 ELD Standards Framework components
See Section 2 for an introduction to the Dimensions of Language Use and the five PLD criteria. See how the PLDs appear in grade-level cluster materials in Section 3. Appendix D offers a compilation of all PLDs, K-12.
The 2020 Proficiency Level Descriptors have been carefully designed to maintain consistent criteria and equivalent levels of difficulty with those stipulated in the 2012 Performance Definitions, while also offering educators actual interpretations used with each grade-level cluster. As shown in Table 4, the 2012 and 2020 Editions use consistent criteria in the discourse, sentence, and word/phrase dimensions.
Table 4. Comparison of Criteria in 2012 Features of Academic Language Chart and 2020 Dimensions of Language Table (WIDA, 2020, Appendix D Excerpt)4
Learning the ways of acting, interacting, valuing, and using tools in the disciplinary practices used by particular communities is an integral part of language learning (Gee, 2004). The 2020 ELD Standards Framework offers new opportunities for educators and policy makers to ensure access to rigorous instruction for multilingual learners. It can serve as a foundation for designing curriculum and instruction, as an advocacy tool, as well as a collaboration resource.
Educators can use standards in a variety of ways as they work with students and families. For language and content teachers, the 2020 ELD Standards Framework opens the door to address the needs of multilingual learners wherever they may be in their language development journey, helping them engage and interact meaningfully in the classroom and beyond.
Pauline Gibbons’ (2015) Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning and Maria Brisk’s (2014) Engaging Student in Academic Literacies provide user-friendly introductions to the functional approach to language development. Consider exploring one or both books with your local professional development community.
Another complementary article, “The WIDA ELD Standards Framework, 2020 Edition” (Kray, Gottlieb, & Shafer Willner, 2021), appears in the Spring/Summer 2021 issue of MATSOL Currents, highlighting the main architecture and offering suggestions for deeper explorations of the 2020 Edition through selected topics in a weekly a Professional Learning Community, along with potential action steps for integrating the updated ELD Standards Framework into local curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Allyn & Bacon.
Aguirre-Muñoz, Z., & Ambiasca, A. (2010). Defining opportunity to learn for English language learners: Linguistic and cultural dimensions of ELLs’ instructional contexts. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 15(3), 259-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2010.495691
Brisk, M. (2014). Engaging students in academic literacies: Genre-based pedagogies for K-5 classrooms. Routledge.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Interrogating the “native speaker fallacy”: Non-linguistic roots, non- pedagogical results. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English language teaching (pp. 77–92). L. Erlbaum Associates.
CAST. (2015). About universal design for learning. http://www.cast.org/our-work/about-udl.html#.WWO7IYTyuUk
Choi, J., & Yi, Y. (2016). Teachers’ integration of multimodality into classroom practices for English language learners. TESOL Journal, 7(2), 304-327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tesj.204
Cook, V. J. (2003). Effects of the second language on the first. Multilingual Matters.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2015). Assessment and pedagogy in the era of machine-mediated learning. In T. Dragonas, K. J. Gergen, S. McNamee, & E. Tseliou (Eds.), Education as Social Construction: Contributions to Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 350-374). Taos Institute Publications/WorldShare Books.
de Oliveira, L. C., Jones, L., & Smith, S. L. (2019). Genre-based pedagogy as an approach to second language writing. In L. Alatriste, & C. Crosby (Eds.), Second language writing across PK16 contexts: Intersections of teaching, learning, and development. University of Michigan Press.
Derewianka, B., & Jones, P. (2016). Teaching language in context (2nd ed.). Oxford.
Esteban-Guitart, M., & Moll, L. C. (2014). Funds of identity: A new concept based on the funds of knowledge approach. Culture & Psychology, 20(1), 31-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1354067X13515934
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015-2016).
Gándara, P. (2015). The implications of deeper learning for adolescent immigrants and English language learners. Students at the Center: Deeper Learning Research Series. Jobs for the Future.
García, O., Johnson, S. I., & Seltzer, K. (2017). The translanguaging classroom: Leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Caslon.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated Language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. Routledge.
Gibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching English language learners in the mainstream classroom. Heinemann.
Goldman, S., Britt, M.A., Brown, W., Cribb, G., George, M., Greenleaf, C., Lee, C., Shanahan, C., & Project READI (2016). Disciplinary literacies and learning to read for understanding: A conceptual framework for disciplinary literacy. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 1-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1168741
González, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households and classrooms. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Grant, C. A. (2012). Cultivating flourishing lives: A robust social justice vision of education. American Education Research Journal, 49(5), 910-934. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831212447977
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed). Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 148-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.005
Kibler, A., & Valdés, G. (2016). Conceptualizing language learners: Socioinstitutional mechanisms and their consequences. The Modern Languages Journal, 100(S1), 97-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/modl.12310
Kray, F. M. (2020). Educators Bailan with Policy et le Pouvoir in the Educação of Multicultural and Multilingual Learners (WIDA ELD Standards and the Education of English Learners) [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Boston]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/pqdtglobal/docview/2417053345/abstract/F9616A00D0504192PQ/1
Kray, F., Gottlieb, M., & Shafer-Willner, L. (2021). The WIDA ELD Standards Framework, 2020 Edition. MATSOL Currents, 44(1), 22-29. Retrievable from https://www.matsol.org/matsol-currents
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. Arnold Publishers.
Lee, O. (2018). English language proficiency standards aligned with content standards. Educational Research, 47(5), 317-327. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18763775
Leont’ev, A. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Lundgren, C., & Shafer Willner, L. (2021). Putting discourse first. MinneTESOL Journal, 37(1). https://minnetesoljournal.org/current-issue/peer-reviewed-article/putting-discourse-first/
Martin, J. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education, 20(1), 10-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2009.01.003
May, S. (2014). Disciplinary divides, knowledge construction, and the multilingual turn. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp. 7-31). Routledge.
Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12441244
Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a local practice. Routledge.
Rose, D., & Martin, J. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney school. Equinox Publishing Ltd.
Schleppegrell, M. (2013). The role of metalanguage in supporting academic language development. Language Learning, 63(1), 153-170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00742.x
Shafer Willner, L., & Castro, M. (2017). Standards Refresh Needs Assessment Report [Internal report created for WIDA]. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.
Shafer Willner, L., Percy Calaff, K., Gottlieb, M., & Kray, F. (2021). Transitioning from the ELPA21 English Language Proficiency Standards to the WIDA English Language Development Standards Framework. WAESOL Educator, 46(1), 4–12. Retrievable from https://waesol.org/publications/we/
Swan, K., Barton, K. C., Buckles, S., Burke, F., Charkins, J., Grant, S. G., Hardwick, S., Lee, J., Levine, P., & Levinson, M. (2013). The college, career, and civic life (C3) framework for social studies state standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K-12 civics, economics, geography, and history. National Council for the Social Studies.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Westerlund, R., & Besser, S. (2021). Making language visible in content area classrooms using the WIDA English Language Development Standards Framework. MinneTESOL Journal, 37(1). https://minnetesoljournal.org/current-issue/article/making-language-visible-in-content-area-classrooms-using-the-wida-english-language-development-standards-framework/
WIDA (2004). English language proficiency standards, Kindergarten through grade 12. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.
WIDA. (2007). English language proficiency standards for English language learners in pre-kindergarten through Grade 12. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.
WIDA. (2012). Amplification of the English language development standards. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.
WIDA. (2016). Can do descriptors, key uses edition. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.
WIDA. (2019a). WIDA can do philosophy. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. https://wida.wisc.edu/resources/can-do-philosophy
WIDA. (2019b). Guiding principles of language development. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. https://wida.wisc.edu/resources/guiding-principles-language-development
WIDA. (2020). WIDA English language development standards framework, 2020 edition: Kindergarten-grade 12. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. https://wida.wisc.edu/teach/standards/eld
Wright, L. & Musser, S. (2014). Operationalizing Key Uses of Academic Language for Test Development [Internal report prepared for WIDA]. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.