1024592

research-article2021
EDRXXX10.3102/0013189X211024592Feature ArticlesEducational Researcher

Feature Articles

Promoting Multilingual Students’ Disciplinary and

Language Learning Through the WIDA Framework
for Equitable Instruction
Daniella Molle1 and Jennifer Wilfrid1

This article explores the development of a guidance document titled the “Framework for Equitable Instruction” (Framework),
which aims to support multilingual students’ content-area learning and language development. The Framework was
developed by WIDA, a national consortium of states, as part of its system of language standards, assessments, and
professional learning. The article discusses the Framework using a protocol originally created for the alignment of content-
area and language standards. The protocol highlights the rigorous theoretical foundations of the Framework, the research-
based rationale behind its conceptualization of language trajectories, and the tight linkages between the Framework,
content-area standards, and classroom instruction. The systematic exploration of the Framework’s features in this article
can inform the future design of language standards and related documents and serve as a foundation for the constructive
critique of existing ones.

Keywords: instructional design/development; language comprehension/development; policy

Introduction and (c) the setting of normative expectations related to more for-
mal uses of a standardized language variety (Shohamy, 2011). On
Language proficiency or development standards (hereafter, lan-
the other hand, language standards must also support effective
guage standards) exist at the intersection of policy, instruction,
instruction for multilingual students and reflect the multimodal,
and assessment. This positioning is reinforced through legisla-
multilingual, and contextual nature of language use (Leung &
tion (e.g., the Every Student Succeeds Act—see U.S. Department
Valdés, 2019). They need to promote a view of language as a tool
of Education, 2015) and reflected in the scholarly literature
for sense making and position the “four skills” as inextricably
(e.g., Wolf et al., 2014). Poza and Valdés (2016) describe stan-
connected and interdependent (Lee et al., 2013). Effective
dards as “an essential and defining element” in the education of
instruction also has to endorse multilingual students’ dynamic
multilingual students1 (p. 2). Language standards are expected to
language practices, which involve fluid movement across multiple
support states and districts in both assessing multilingual stu-
named languages (Flores & Schissel, 2014).
dents’ language development and promoting their academic
One way to address the conflicting demands placed on lan-
achievement (Bailey & Huang, 2011).
guage standards is to design not a single standards document but
Language standards’ positioning at the intersection of policy,
a system of resources. This was the approach taken by WIDA, a
language instruction, and assessment creates an irreconcilable
national consortium of states,2 as it updated its English language
tension between conflicting ideologies. On one hand, language
development (ELD) standards. In addition to the WIDA ELD
standards need to define what language proficiency in a given
standards (WIDA, 2020 edition), WIDA developed the
language entails (Council of Chief State School Officers
“Framework for Equitable Instruction” (hereafter referred to as
[CCSSO], 2012). Accomplishing this task requires (a) a view of a
the “Framework”), to be published in the latter half of 2021.
language as an autonomous entity, pure and distinct from other
The updated WIDA ELD standards and the Framework have
languages (Kibler et al., 2014); (b) the separation of language use
into either the “four skills” (reading, writing, listening, and speak-
ing) or the receptive and productive domains (Cumming, 2008); 1
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI

Educational Researcher, Vol. 50 No. 9, pp. 585­–594

DOI: 10.3102/0013189X211024592
Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions
© 2021 AERA. https://journals.sagepub.com/home/edr
December 2021    585
 Figure 1. Structure and components of the WIDA Framework for Equitable Instruction.
certain common elements, including attention to language use
across the disciplines, interactional uses of language, and lan-
guage functions. At the same time, the two documents have dif-
ferent purposes. The ELD standards are a key instrument for
complying with federal requirements and therefore need to serve
as a foundation for the development of language benchmarks
and assessments for summative purposes. The Framework, on
the other hand, specifically focuses on classroom practice and
aims to guide teachers in supporting students’ equitable partici-
pation in disciplinary practices and discourses, creating opportu-
nities for student agency, and developing students’ metalinguistic
awareness.
This article addresses the development of the Framework. We
discuss the design of the Framework using a protocol for align-
ment between content-area and language standards published by
the CCSSO (2012). Even though the Framework is not a stan-
dards document, it is part of the WIDA system of standards,
assessments, and professional learning. The Framework also
plays an essential complementary role to language standards in
supporting instruction for multilingual students. For these two
reasons, the rigorous protocol for aligning language and content
is as relevant to the Framework as to language standards. The
alignment protocol has four components: theoretical founda-
tions, language progressions, standards match, and classroom
match. We address each component in turn as it relates to the
Framework and to current issues in the field of language educa-
tion. A visual representation of the content and organizational
structure of the Framework can be found in Figure 1.
The systematic exploration of the Framework presented here
makes an important contribution to academic discussions
about the representation of language and language develop-
ment in documents intended to support the instruction of
multilingual learners across states (many of these discussions
have taken place on the pages of this journal, e.g., Lee, 2019).
The Framework advances a view of language as a hybrid, multi-
modal social practice; places language learning in the context of
students’ meaningful participation in disciplinary practices and
discourses; and views language development as the expansion of
students’ linguistic repertoires and their development of meta-
linguistic awareness. This view positions language learners as
competent and strategic users of the rich language resources at
their disposal. We hope that the rigorous exploration of the
Framework and its design can inform the efforts of teacher edu-
cators, professional development facilitators, and instructional
586    EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER
resource designers who work with teachers of multilingual chil-
dren and youth.
Theoretical Foundations
The first component of the alignment protocol (CCSSO, 2012)
addresses the theoretical grounding of the Framework. In this
section, we illustrate how theories from different fields (psychol-
ogy, linguistic anthropology, second-language acquisition, and
genre studies) can be integrated to provide a robust foundation
for resources that focus on content and language integration. We
address two key questions: (1) What is language development?
and (2) How do students learn language in content-area class-
rooms? For clarity, we explore these questions in succession but
the close relationship between them is evident in the discussion
of each question.
What Is Language Development?
To answer this question, the Framework development team3
needed to address language and development both separately and
as a single construct. To theorize development (or learning), we
draw on cultural–historical activity theory (CHAT). Our theory
of language is based on William Hanks’s (1996) model of com-
municative practice. Our approach to language development is
consistent with an emerging consensus about language learning
in the field of English as an additional language (Hakuta &
Santos, 2012), and we conceptualize the process as the expan-
sion of students’ linguistic repertoires and their effectiveness as
communicators. We draw on genre studies to inform our under-
standing of how multilingual students develop language in the
context of disciplinary learning.
Learning as cultural–historical activity. CHAT is a theory of
learning and development that places individual learning in a
social and cultural context. One of the reasons for the theory’s
lasting relevance and appeal is that it “addresses the troubling
divides between individual and collective, material and mental,
biography and history, and praxis and theory” (Roth & Lee,
2007, p. 191). Two CHAT concepts are central to the Frame-
work: practice and appropriation. Practices are recurring and
recognizable ways in which participants in a collective activity
use tools for particular purposes. Through participation in and
observation of activities in communities, families, and class-

Theory of learning:
Cultural-historical activity theory
Key concepts: practice, appropriation
Implications: approach, language practices, teacher actions, student actions
Theory of language:
Language as communicative practice
Key concepts: ideology, formal structure, performance
Implications: approach, teacher actions, student actions, language trajectories
Conceptualization of
language development
Key concepts: expansion of linguistic repertoires, effectiveness
Implications: language trajectories
Figure 2. Theoretical foundations of the approach to language
development in the WIDA Framework for Equitable Instruction.
rooms, children and youth become apprenticed in different
practices over time. In and out of school, students expand their
repertoires of familiar practices as they engage in new activities
and participate in familiar activities in novel ways (Gutiérrez &
Rogoff, 2003). This expansion is not about transmission but
about appropriation. Rogoff (1995) defines appropriation as
“the process by which individuals transform their understand-
ing of and responsibility for activities through their own partici-
pation” and “become prepared to engage in subsequent similar
activities” (p. 150). The notion of appropriation highlights that
learning happens through situated, embodied experience that
entails transformation of people, tools, and practices and not
simply the accumulation of knowledge.
Implications.  CHAT served as a foundation for the approach
to equitable instruction in the Framework and influenced most
of the Framework’s components (see Figure 2). The approach
emphasizes that language learning happens in the context of
students’ participation in disciplinary practices and discourses
and that this participation involves a range of tools, including
students’ dynamic multilingual practices and multiple modali-
ties. CHAT’s notion of practice provided the theoretical ground-
ing for our conceptualization of language practices (see Figure
1; language practices are further discussed in later sections). A
CHAT perspective on classroom activity also made it necessary
for us to explore a range of factors that shape student partici-
pation in disciplinary practices and discourses. To reflect this
perspective, the Framework offers not only descriptions of how
language changes over time (language trajectories—see Figure
1) but also guidance on what teachers and students can do to
co-create learning environments that welcome varied forms of
participation and foster language growth (teacher and student
actions—see Figure 1). We designed teacher actions and stu-
dent actions that could support students’ equitable participa-
tion in meaning making, highlight opportunities for language
development in disciplinary learning, and develop students’
metacognitive awareness of how language works in different
contexts. The Framework includes cross-disciplinary teacher
actions (referred to as “foundations for equitable classroom
engagement”—see Figure 1) as well as discipline-specific ones
(see the online appendix [available on the journal website] for
examples from science).
Language as communicative practice. In accordance with
­cultural–historical perspectives on learning and recent shifts in
the field of language development (Heritage et al., 2015), we
view language not as a collection of forms, structures, or func-
tions but as a cultural tool for understanding and shaping the
world. More specifically, we draw on the work of William Hanks
(1996) and conceptualize language in use as communicative
practice. Hanks’s work is a powerful tool for theorizing language
because it is research based, assets based in its approach to the
language practices of different communities, and consistent with
CHAT in situating language in relation to human activity (e.g.,
classroom learning).
The notion of communicative practice both connects lan-
guage use with established patterns, norms, and values and high-
lights language users’ agency, creativity, and strategic decision
making. Hanks (1996) distinguishes between three interrelated
dimensions of communicative practice: ideology, formal struc-
ture, and activity. Ideology refers to the (conscious or uncon-
scious) judgment about what is going on in a particular situation
and what one needs to do in order to achieve one’s goals. We
draw on habitual perspectives about relevant behavior and effec-
tive communication “to orient [our]selves verbally, perceptually,
and physically to each other and to [our] social world” (p. 229).
Formal structure encompasses the patterns, rules, and norms of a
(social) language. Hanks stresses that the speakers of a named
language have access to somewhat overlapping but not identical
language resources. Hanks’s research suggests that to communi-
cate, shared knowledge of language forms is “neither necessary
nor sufficient” (p. 234). Grammar always contains a “degree of
indeterminacy” and requires context to make “a general meaning
specific” (p. 232). The third dimension of language as commu-
nicative practice is what Hanks terms activity and we refer to as
performance to avoid confusion with the CHAT notion of collec-
tive activity. Language as performance highlights the “emergent”
aspect of using language at a particular moment in time (p. 233)
and refers to the language choices a language user makes in a
specific context. Any act of using language involves drawing on
the linguistic schemas to which we have access and is guided by
our judgment of what is going on in a particular situation and
what we want to accomplish. Therefore, performance integrates
formal structure and ideology.
Even though the three dimensions of language come together
in the act of using language, they are important to distinguish
analytically. The distinctions enable us to better understand the
contribution of each dimension to students’ effectiveness as lan-
guage users so that we may better support their language devel-
opment and disciplinary learning.
Implications.  Similar to CHAT’s conceptualization of learn-
ing, Hanks’s view of language as communicative practice shaped
most of the Framework’s components. It provided the basis for
the Framework’s approach to language in use (see Figure 1). The
Framework emphasizes, for instance, that language is more than
December 2021    587
a formal structure and students learn language by engaging in How Do Students Learn Language in Content-Area
meaningful disciplinary activity. The Framework also recognizes Classrooms?
that students engage effectively in disciplinary activity with a
The Framework’s approach to equitable instruction for multilin-
range of linguistic resources. The view of language as communi-
gual youth emphasizes that students develop language through
cative practice shaped the design of the teacher actions, student
their participation in meaningful and authentic collective activ-
actions, and language trajectories (see Figure 2). We designed
ity. To unpack meaningful participation in authentic collective
teacher and student actions that emphasize (a) positioning stu-
activity in the context of schooling, we leverage two concepts:
dents’ full linguistic repertoires as forms of legitimate partici-
disciplinary practices and multimodal genre systems.
pation in disciplinary activity; (b) engaging students in critical
Disciplinary practices specify what it means to engage in dis-
discussions about the relationship between language choices, a
ciplinary activity. The authors of the Next Generation Science
situation, and audience responses; and (c) making visible to stu-
Standards (NGSS, n.d., Appendix F), for instance, state that the
dents the ways of acting, interacting, valuing, and using tools
learning of science concepts and ideas can only take place in the
privileged in disciplinary practices and discourses. The cross-
context of students’ participation in science practices. While dis-
disciplinary teacher actions (represented as “foundations for
ciplinary practices are associated with a discipline and have
equitable classroom engagement” in Figure 1), for instance,
­discipline-specific elements, they are by no means confined to
position the development of critical language awareness4 as one
that discipline. Students may engage in similar practices across
of the main goals of language instruction and include as a key
content areas (Córdova & Balcerzak, 2016) and out of school
principle “develop[ing] students’ awareness of how language
(Zimmerman, 2012). Moreover, disciplinary practices are
works in context.” Hanks’s model is also evident in the language
abstractions, enacted in local and emergent ways. Although we
features we included in the language trajectories. While some of
may be able to recognize when students are engaged in a practice
these features relate to language as formal structure (e.g., “use a
such as making sense of problems (Common Core State
range of phrases and connectors to show logical relationships”),
Standards [CCSS] for Mathematics, CCSSO, 2010), the tools
others relate to language as ideology (e.g., “soften the certainty of
available to students, the purpose of the activity, and the norms
claims to reflect degrees of certainty and/or make room for other
guiding it will likely vary across math classrooms and even within
ideas”). The latter features emphasize that students’ language
the same classroom over time.
performance depends on their familiarity (and comfort) with the
Our conceptualization of genre draws on North American
values and norms of disciplinary practices and discourses as they
genre theory (e.g., Johns, 2015). Genres are recognizable and
are enacted in particular classrooms.
repeated combinations of content, language features, function,
and situation (Prior, 2009). Genres mediate student learning
Language development as the expansion of students’ linguistic
because they (like practices) encourage certain ways of being,
­repertoires.  The approach to language development reflected in
thinking, valuing, and so on. This definition of genres goes
the Framework is consistent with a consensus that has emerged
beyond the notion of literary genres and includes written as well
over the past decade in the field of English as an additional lan-
as oral genres (e.g., small-group discussions). It acknowledges
guage (Hakuta & Santos, 2012). This consensus entails a num-
that the genres teachers and students use to engage with a disci-
ber of key shifts in the field’s understanding of language learning
pline and with each other may have some stable features across
(Heritage et al., 2015). The theory- and research-based prin-
time and space but are also constantly evolving (e.g., Ariely et al.,
ciples of second-language development behind the shifts have
2019). This view of genre also foregrounds the multimodal
been articulated elsewhere (CCSSO, 2012; Larsen-Freeman
nature of all genres, which rely on multiple sign systems (e.g.,
& Tedick, 2016) and for reasons of space cannot be described
symbols, gestures, and visual representations) to express mean-
in detail here. Drawing on the consensus and the theoretical
ing. Disciplinary activity gives meaning to genres and connects
foundations discussed so far, the Framework positions language
one genre to other genres. These connected genres form multi-
learning as a nonlinear, complex process that entails (a) the
modal genre systems (Bazerman, 1994; Molle & Prior, 2008).
appropriation of new tools (e.g., language forms and structures)
Understanding disciplinary activity through disciplinary
and (b) the expansion of what language users can do with the
practices and genres positions students’ participation in these
tools they have. Students’ growing range of linguistic tools and
practices and genres as the main vehicle for language develop-
their use of these tools contribute to their greater effectiveness as
ment. Not all types of participation are created equal, however.
language users and agents in the world.
Our definition of meaningful participation is informed by
Implications.  The view of language development as the expan-
equity-focused work on student learning in the disciplines,
sion of students’ linguistic repertoires and their effectiveness as
which argues that students need opportunities to (a) connect to
language users supported the overall assets-based positioning
the content through embodied experience, (b) co-construct
of multilingual youth in the Framework. It framed language
meaning with peers and teachers, and (c) have their ideas made
learning not as the correction of deficiencies in students but
visible to the classroom community and enrich the learning of
as an expansion of their repertoires of practice and metacogni-
others (Thompson et al., 2016).
tive awareness (Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003). The implications of
this approach are especially visible in our conceptualization of
language trajectories (see Figure 2) and are discussed in greater Implications. Conceptualizing language learning in terms of
detail in the section “Language Trajectories.” students’ meaningful participation in disciplinary practices and

588    EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER

genres had two major design implications for the Framework.
First, we had to abandon the traditional descriptions of lan-
guage use through the four skills of reading, writing, listening,
and speaking. We needed a concept that would more accurately
represent the complexity of language use in the context of dis-
ciplinary learning. Therefore, we selected the notion of language
practices as an organizing principle of the Framework and a key
component of its approach to promoting equitable instruction
for multilingual youth (see Figure 1). (The specific language
practices we designed are described in detail in the section “Stan-
dards Match.”)
Second, conceptualizing learning in terms of multimodal
genre systems enabled us to move toward a more robust integra-
tion of multimodality in the Framework. We adopt the perspec-
tive that encouraging students to interpret and represent
knowledge in modes other than language is not just an accom-
modation but an integral part of disciplinary practices and
genres. This view is reflected in the Framework’s approach
(which positions language as one semiotic resource among
many), teacher actions (e.g., “model ways to incorporate multi-
ple modalities in scientific argumentation”), student actions
(e.g., “use drawings, models, mathematical expressions, and
symbols [to capture ideas]”), and language functions (e.g.,
“effectively integrate verbal, visual, and other forms of commu-
nication”). The Framework thus takes the stance that modalities
other than language represent key resources through which all
students build and demonstrate understanding (Moschkovich,
2013).
Summary. The different theories the Framework leverages
converge on (a) situating learning in the context of collective
activity, (b) conceptualizing language development as the appro-
priation of new tools (e.g., language forms and structures) and
the expansion of students’ repertoires of practice, (c) defining
the language of school as hybrid and multimodal, and (d) fram-
ing language competence as situated and negotiated. Using this
theoretical anchoring, the Framework foregrounds the impor-
tance of developing students’ critical language awareness (Flores
& Rosa, 2015). It promotes a view of multilingual students as
meaning makers who can participate in disciplinary learning no
matter what their language competencies are (Lee et al., 2013).
The Framework pushes against oppressive monolingual ide-
ologies that view high English proficiency as a prerequisite for
student membership in the classroom community and position
appropriate uses of language as primary indicators of disciplin-
ary learning. The Framework privileges students’ effectiveness as
communicators over the perceived correctness of their language
and treats students’ imperfect language, multilingual language
practices (e.g., translanguaging), and everyday registers as legit-
imate uses of language in the context of disciplinary learning
(Gutiérrez et al., 2010).
The Framework’s approach to equitable instruction for multi-
lingual youth has important implications for the role of language
educators (e.g., teachers of English as an additional language,
bilingual teachers, and language resource specialists). The
emphasis on meaning making shifts the focus of language
instruction away from language as a curriculum (Kibler &
Valdés, 2016) and toward purposeful and critical engagement
with the language features of disciplinary practices and genres.
The centrality of disciplinary practices and genres to multilin-
gual students’ language development in turn necessitates a
reframing of the role of language educators as co-teachers and
close collaborators of content-area teachers (Lee, 2019).
Language Trajectories
The second component of the alignment protocol (CCSSO,
2012) addresses the representation of language growth in the
Framework. Language trajectories represent how multilingual
students develop their knowledge of language as a formal struc-
ture (see Figure 3). Such descriptors present a challenge for
developers because they need to illustrate how students’ compe-
tence in a named language develops and at the same time vali-
date students’ multilingual language practices (Cumming,
2008). One way to address this challenge is to design language
trajectories that describe not language development per se but
the type of scaffolding that students with dissimilar language
competencies may need to engage in disciplinary learning. This
is the approach taken by Flores and Schissel (2014) and the
authors of the Framework. The approach is not a silver bullet
and creates at least two tensions. First, the use of students’ mul-
tilingual language practices may be interpreted solely as scaffold-
ing rather than as a legitimate form of participation in learning
for multilingual individuals. Second, the trajectories may be seen
as centering “academic” language uses, which correspond to the
language practices of monolingual, White, middle-class lan-
guage users (Flores & Rosa, 2015).
As stated in the section “Language Development,” the
Framework views language learning as an expansion over time of
both the range of resources that students have at their disposal
and how students use these resources. With this definition as a
point of departure, we built language trajectories drawing on
consensus-based language descriptors (Cumming, 2008; see the
online appendix for examples). The trajectories in the Framework
are informed by the Common European Framework of Reference
(Council of Europe, 2001), the Reference Performance Level
Descriptors (Cook & MacDonald, 2016), and the performance-
level descriptors in the 2020 edition of the WIDA ELD stan-
dards (WIDA, 2020). The trajectories encompass language
features at the word and phrase level (e.g., use of specific and
technical language), clause level (e.g., detail or nuance expressed
in a statement), and discourse level (e.g., the length of text or
oral interaction students are expected to process). The trajecto-
ries reflect both pragmatic competencies (e.g., the use of dis-
course moves) and textual ones (e.g., the understanding and use
of an expanding range of grammatical structures).
We have already discussed several ways in which the Framework
supports multilingual students’ equitable participation in disci-
plinary learning. An additional example is that the Framework
has differentiated expectations for spoken-like and written-like
language (Gibbons, 1998). The language trajectories associated
with the interactive language practices do not refer to the com-
plexity or correctness of the language students use (see the online
appendix). This deliberate choice is intended to encourage
December 2021    589
 Dimension What the dimension encompasses What develops over time Goal of language instruction

Ideology individual judgments about the roles and strategic positioning of self, critical language awareness (i.e.,

expectations of actors in a particular situation; others, and ideas using increased capacity to recognize the

awareness of discipline-based ways of acting, language cultural aspects of disciplinary genres,

interacting, valuing, and using tools; awareness of and use language strategically to

how power relations shape and are shaped by accomplish one’s goals in specific

language use contexts)

Formal structure knowledge of language patterns and conventions knowledge of language as a expansion of linguistic repertoires

(phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, system through use in terms of quantity, accuracy

pragmatics) at word, sentence, and discourse (consistency and control),

dimensions that are specific to, cut across, variety, and complexity

and go beyond disciplines

Performance unique language choices in a certain rhetorical capacity to accomplish increase in the student’s capacity to

context that are informed by one’s judgement of the particular goals using respond effectively to an ever-

situation and knowledge of language patterns and language expanding range of disciplinary and

conventions; a rhetorical context includes the genre expectations

purpose for language use, audience expectations,

focus or topic, and any other social and political

forces that may shape the communicative situation

Figure 3. Language development over time.

educators to provide language support in the service of effective
communication and deeper exploration of disciplinary concepts
rather than language accuracy (Shohamy, 2011).
Standards Match
The standards match component of the alignment protocol asks
developers to connect the language expectations they design to
expectations for student language use in content-area standards
(CCSSO, 2012). The college and career readiness standards in
the United States do not adequately address how multilingual
students are expected to use language as they engage in
standards-based learning (Kibler et al., 2014). Therefore, a
­ Studies (National Council for the Social Studies, 2013).
national organization of educational leaders, the CCSSO, con-
vened a group of language experts to derive these expectations.
The outcome of this effort was the English Language Proficiency/
Development (ELPD) Framework (CCSSO, 2012). In this sec-
tion, we explain how the design of the WIDA Framework builds
on the ELPD framework and other literature on ensuring strong
linkages between language and content expectations.
The Framework uses four cross-disciplinary language prac-
tices as a key organizational feature. These four practices are
interpreting, expressing, co-constructing, and presenting disciplin-
ary meaning (see Figure 4). We identified the practices through
a three-step process. First, we created a list of standards-based,
discipline-specific analytical tasks. Analytical tasks “outline the
intellectual activities in which students engage” (CCSSO, 2012,
p. 12). They tend to synthesize the expectations for cognitive
engagement of related performance expectations in the content
standards. For the content areas of math and science, we lever-
aged the analytical tasks in the ELPD framework (CCSSO,
2012). For social studies and English language arts (ELA), we
referred to the ELPD framework and also analyzed the CCSS
for ELA (CCSSO, 2010) and the C3 Framework for Social
Example analytical tasks for ELA include the following: “com-
pare and contrast texts in the same genre” and “identify specific
ideas, events, or characters in text as support for a prediction,
interpretation, or inference.” Example analytical tasks for social
studies are “examine limitations of available data” and “explain
the roles and responsibilities of different actors, organizations,
and systems.”
Once we had a list of analytical tasks for each core content
area, we explored how we would expect students to use language

590    EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER

 Figure 4. Language practices in the WIDA Framework for Equitable Instruction.
as they engage in the tasks. This analysis was informed by the
language functions in the ELPD framework (CCSSO, 2012)
and led to the creation of Framework-specific language func-
tions for the four core content areas. The language functions in
the Framework differ from those in the ELPD framework pri-
marily in the level of abstraction. For example, while the ELPD
functions pay attention to genre (e.g., “comprehend the logic
and meaning of arguments”), the Framework language functions
apply across genres (e.g., “follow the line of reasoning in explana-
tions or arguments”). We designed language functions at a larger
grain size to limit their number and so make the Framework less
overwhelming for teachers.
The third step in connecting language expectations to
­content-area standards involved a search for a way to organize
the Framework’s language functions that would hold across dis-
ciplines and represent a productive way of thinking about
instruction for multilingual youth. This search led to the identi-
fication of the four cross-disciplinary language practices. The
practices represent what students may be expected to do with
language in the course of disciplinary learning. All the practices
integrate the four language domains and emphasize collaborative
meaning making (see Figure 4). Each practice includes a unique
set of language functions.
It is important to point out that our process of linking con-
tent and language followed recommendations in the literature
(Lee, 2018) and began with an exploration of disciplinary prac-
tices. We embarked on deriving expectations for language use
based on the practices in the NGSS (n.d.) and the CCSS for
math (CCSSO, 2010). We discovered, however, that each disci-
plinary practice encompasses a wide range of potential uses of
language. The disciplinary practices are intentionally general
enough to be applicable to many contexts and subdisciplines
(NGSS, n.d., Appendix F), but expectations for language use
need to be situated in particular learning activities. The disci-
plinary practices describe collective activity at the same level of
abstraction as language practices and could not serve as a foun-
dation for deriving language practices. We therefore turned to
analytical tasks as a more tangible representation of student
engagement in disciplinary learning and used them as a founda-
tion for deriving language functions and language practices.
Classroom Match
This component of the alignment protocol (CCSSO, 2012)
focuses on the extent to which the Framework can inform and
guide language use in content-area classrooms. Conceptually,
this component addresses how the Framework defines the lan-
guage of school. From a practical standpoint, the classroom
match component refers to the relevance of the Framework to
classroom practice.
In recent years, many scholars who draw on sociocultural
theory have argued that the language of school is not a mono-
lithic register but a hybrid (Martinez et al., 2017). Everyday reg-
isters and languages other than English play a key role in
deepening students’ engagement with disciplinary meanings and
practices (for research on the role of translanguaging in building
content understanding, see Hornberger & Link, 2012; for
research on everyday discourses as integral to disciplinary sense
making, see Gutiérrez et al., 2010). The coexistence of multiple
discourses within classrooms does not mean that there is no ten-
sion between them. On the contrary, some of the social lan-
guages used in school conflict sharply with students’ way of
knowing (Low, 2015) and engender a sense of loss in students
when they adopt them (Gee, 2005). The coexistence of social
languages means that there is a legitimate place for a wide range
of languages, dialects, and ways with words in classrooms (Leung
& Valdés, 2019).
The Framework acknowledges and supports the multivoiced-
ness of classroom discourse in several ways. First, the interactive
language practices of express and co-construct encourage educa-
tors to distinguish between students’ use of a formal register and
the quality of their reasoning (e.g., Otten et al., 2019) and to
recognize that students can engage in disciplinary sense making
through multiple languages, dialects, and modalities. Second,
the language practice of present positions formal registers as aris-
ing from and rooted in the use of students’ familiar registers. The
use of formal registers is an opportunity for students to re-­
present the ideas learned in the context of interactive (and uned-
ited), collaborative meaning making.
The classroom match component of the alignment protocol
(CCSSO, 2012) also encompasses evidence of how the
Framework may be used by practicing educators. In the course
December 2021    591
 Table 1
Instructional Practices Inspired by the Framework for Equitable Instruction
Pedagogical Practice
Support student learning and participation through language-related
scaffolding
Engage students in intellectually challenging work
Leverage students’ interests and experiences
Support and further develop student agency
Analyze the language students have opportunities to learn
Plan multiple opportunities for language development
Formatively assess language development
Choose and communicate to students a language focus
Develop students’ awareness of the use of language for a range of
purposes
of developing the Framework, WIDA engaged in a rigorous and
iterative process of feedback gathering and revision. This process
included multiple rounds of internal review, expert review, com-
mittee review, and teacher focus groups, as well as a public input
survey. Here, we report on the last round of feedback gathering
that was part of the Framework design process: a two-session
series of focus groups in the spring of 2019.
Before finalizing the content of the Framework, we wanted to
collect evidence about the potential of the Framework to both
accurately represent classroom discourses and support multilin-
gual students’ participation in these discourses. We designed a
focus group series that consisted of two sessions: an introductory
session and a feedback session. We conducted focus groups in
three WIDA states in different geographic regions (South,
Midwest, and West). The focus groups were district based. Two
of the districts were rural, and one was suburban. The sessions
lasted between 90 and 120 minutes. The time between sessions
ranged from 3 weeks to 2 months. The same WIDA staff mem-
ber conducted both sessions at each research site. The number of
participants ranged from seven to 11. By design, the participants
in the focus groups included elementary as well as secondary
educators, and content-area as well as language teachers. Teacher
leaders participated in two of the focus groups. Between the
introductory and feedback sessions, all the participants were
asked to post a classroom artifact online and explain how that
artifact illustrated the use of the Framework in their practice.
For reasons of space, we provide only a cursory description of
our findings. These findings are from the two focus groups in
rural districts (we were unable to record the focus group sessions
in the third, suburban district). Three main findings emerged
from the analysis of the recorded feedback sessions and the par-
ticipants’ postings online. First, both content-area and language
teachers perceived the Framework as educator friendly and ben-
eficial for instruction. Second, teachers used the Framework in
different ways and for different purposes. We were surprised to
discover that the participants’ use of the Framework did not cor-
relate with their role as a content-area or language educator.
Third, we found that the integration of the Framework in the
participants’ teaching both confirmed what they had already
perceived as appropriate instruction for multilingual youth and
592    EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER
Example Teacher Instructional Action
Teachers make visible important sections of the text through highlighting
Teachers expect students to provide details and connect ideas
Students choose what to read and write about
Teachers allow students to use PowerPoint slides not only to convey information but also
to support the delivery of their oral presentations
Teachers write texts that are accessible to students based on their language competencies
Teachers incorporate more discussion opportunities
Teachers determine where students are on the continuum of language development
Teachers model language and provide sentence starters for small-group work
Teachers make visible the connections between language use and rhetorical techniques
inspired changes in their practice. If participants’ practice shifted
in some way, these shifts seemed to expand their understanding
of the role of language scaffolding in setting up multilingual stu-
dents for success and supporting student engagement.
We provide examples of shifts in teacher practice inspired by
the Framework in Table 1. The table illustrates the mediating
effect of the Framework through research-based pedagogical
practices that support the learning of multilingual youth (e.g., de
Jong et al., 2013; Faltis et al., 2010). Table 1 offers one example
from the data per pedagogical practice. For many of the practices
listed in the table, however, we had multiple examples. The two
practices listed first were the ones that we encountered most fre-
quently in the data (we had eight examples of the first practice
and seven of the second).
The findings from the last focus group session, along with
other data sources, suggest that the Framework (a) represents the
language of school in a way that resonates with content-area and
language educators, and (b) can be a powerful tool for mediating
the instruction of multilingual youth. Our analyses also indicate
that it is particularly accessible to educators with a background
in language teaching and learning.
Conclusion
High-quality education for multilingual learners has remained an
elusive goal despite legal mandates and policy initiatives intended
to promote high-quality learning opportunities for all students.
This article makes the case that guidance documents specifically
focused on promoting equitable instructional practices for multi-
lingual youth are an important complement to language stan-
dards and should meet the same high expectations for rigor as
language standards. The article discusses one such guidance doc-
ument: the WIDA Framework for Equitable Instruction. We use
a robust protocol initially designed for aligning content-area and
language standards to describe the development of the Framework
and showcase the innovative nature of its design (CCSSO, 2012).
The alignment protocol has four components: theoretical foun-
dations, language trajectories, standards match, and classroom
match. The article highlights how sociocultural theories inspired
equity-focused and assets-based approaches to conceptualizing
and supporting ­content-area learning for multilingual youth.
Examples include representing language use in school through
four interconnected language practices and describing language
development in terms of ideology, formal structure, and perfor-
mance. The robust theoretical grounding ensured not only inter-
nal coherence in the guidance document but also strong linkages
to challenging content-area standards and real-world instruc-
tional practice. We hope that the discussion of the Framework
presented here can inform the future design of instruction-
focused resources for teachers of multilingual youth and serve as
a foundation for the constructive critique of existing ones.
Notes
1 language proficiency development standards corresponding to the
We use the term “multilingual learners” to encompass the diver-
sity of children and youth learning English in addition to other lan-
guages. Here, “multilingual” is intended to be synonymous to the use
of “plurilingual” in the Common European Framework of Reference
(Council of Europe, 2001) and refers to language users who draw on
multiple languages and cultural repertoires as they interact with one
another.
2 Cumming, A. (2008). Assessing oral and literate abilities. In E. Shohamy
WIDA is one of the two national consortia that provide English
language proficiency (ELP) assessments. The other is ELPA21. Some
states, like Texas and California, are not members of a consortium and
develop their own, state-specific ELP assessments.
3 de Jong, E., Harper, C., & Coady, M. (2013). Enhanced knowledge
The team responsible for the development of the Framework
included the two coauthors of the article as well as three other members,
listed here in alphabetical order by last name: Rita Macdonald, Amanda
Spalter, and Ruslana Westerlund. The project lead was Elizabeth
Cranley.
4 rhetorical-linguistic genre studies. Journal of English for Academic
The development of critical language awareness entails an increase
in a student’s capacity to use language strategically to accomplish his
or her goals in specific contexts. It includes an awareness of how lan-
guage is intertwined with power relations that privilege particular ways
of speaking and understanding the world (Alim, 2005). Critical lan-
guage awareness involves students’ ability to see the values, beliefs, and
assumptions behind disciplinary practices and genres, recognize that
disciplinary and genre conventions “come from and reinforce a com-
munity’s purposes, and consider alternatives to those conventions that
they might employ as needed for their unique situations and unique
identities” (Devitt, 2015, p. 46).
5 Envisioning a heteroglossic approach to standards-based reform.
We refer to the language descriptors in the Framework as trajecto-
ries rather than progressions because they are not connected to particu-
lar ELP levels (see the online appendix).
References
Alim, S. (2005). Critical language awareness in the United States:
Revisiting issues and revisiting pedagogies in a resegregated society.
Educational Researcher, 34(7), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.3102/00
13189X034007024
Ariely, M., Livnat, Z., & Yarden, A. (2019). Analyzing the language of
an adapted primary literature article. Science & Education, 28(63),
63–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00033-5
Bailey, A., & Huang, B. (2011). Do current English language develop-
ment/proficiency standards reflect the English needed for s­ uccess in
school? Language Testing, 28(3), 343–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0265532211404187
Bazerman, C. (1994). Systems of genres and the enactment of social
intentions. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the
new rhetoric (pp. 67–86). Taylor & Francis.
Cook, H. G., & MacDonald, R. (2016). Reference Performance Level
Descriptors: Outcome of a national working session on defining
an “English proficient” performance standard. In R. Linquanti,
H. G. Cook, A. Bailey, & R. MacDonald (Eds.), Moving toward
a more common definition of English learner: Collected guidance for
states and multi-state assessment consortia (pp. 73–84). Council of
Chief State School Officers. https://www.wested.org/resources/
common-definition-of-english-learner/#
Córdova, R. A., & Balcerzak, P. (2016). Co-constructing cultural
landscapes for disciplinary learning in and out of school: The next
generation science standards and learning progressions in action.
Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11(4), 1223–1242. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11422-015-9678-4
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state stan-
dards. http://www.corestandards.org/read-the-standards/
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2012). Framework for English
Common Core State Standards and the Next Generation Science
Standards. https://www.ccsso.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/ELP
D%20Framework%20Booklet-Final%20for%20web.pdf
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference
for Languages: Learning, teaching and assessment. https://www.coe
.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages
& N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and educa-
tion: Vol. 7. Language testing and assessment (2nd ed., pp. 3–17).
Springer.
and skills for elementary mainstream teachers of English language
learners. Theory Into Practice, 52(2), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.10
80/00405841.2013.770326
Devitt, A. (2015). Genre performances: John Swales’ genre analysis and
Purposes, 19, 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.05.008
Faltis, C., Arias, M. B., & Ramirez-Marin, F. (2010). Identifying rel-
evant competencies for secondary teachers of English learners.
Bilingual Research Journal, 33(3), 307–328. https://doi.org/10
.1080/15235882.2010.529350
Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic
ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational
Review, 85(2), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.17763/0017-8055.85
.2.149
Flores, N., & Schissel, J. L. (2014). Dynamic bilingualism as the norm:
TESOL Quarterly, 48(3), 454–479. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq
.182
Gee, J. (2005). Language in the science classroom: Academic social lan-
guages as the heart of school-based literacy. In R. Yerrick & W.-M.
Roth (Eds.), Establishing scientific classroom discourse communi-
ties: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research (pp. 19–37).
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gibbons, P. (1998). Classroom talk and the learning of new registers
in a second language. Language and Education, 12(2), 99–118.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500789808666742
Gutiérrez, K., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning:
Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher,
32(5), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032005019
Gutiérrez, K., Sengupta-Irving, T., & Dieckmann, J. (2010).
Developing a mathematical vision: Mathematics as a discursive and
embodied practice. In J. Moschkovich (Ed.), Language and math-
ematics education: Multiple perspectives and directions for research
(pp. 29–71). Information Age.
Hakuta, K., & Santos, M. (2012). Understanding language: Challenges
and opportunities for language learning in the context of Common Core
State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards [Conference
December 2021    593
 overview paper]. Stanford University. https://ell.stanford.edu/
publication/understanding-language-conference
Hanks, W. (1996). Language and communicative practices. Westview
Press.
Heritage, M., Walqui, A., & Linquanti, R. (2015). English language
learners and the new standards: Developing language, content knowl-
edge, and analytical practices in the classroom. Harvard Education
Press.
Hornberger, N. H., & Link, H. (2012). Translanguaging and trans-
national literacies in multilingual classrooms: A biliteracy lens.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3),
261–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2012.658016
Johns, A. (2015). Moving on from genre analysis: An update and tasks
for the transitional student. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,
19, 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.04.005
Kibler, A., & Valdés, G. (2016). Conceptualizing language learn-
ers: Socioinstitutional mechanisms and their consequences. The
Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 96–116. https://doi.org/
10.1111/modl.12310
Kibler, A., Valdés, G., & Walqui, A. (2014). What does standards-
based educational reform mean for English language learner popu-
lations in primary and secondary schools? TESOL Quarterly, 48(3),
433–453. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.183
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Tedick, D. (2016). Teaching world languages:
Thinking differently. In D. Gitomer & C. Bell (Eds.), AERA hand-
book of research on teaching (5th ed., pp. 1335–1388). American
Educational Research Association. https://doi.org/10.3102/978-0-
935302-48-6_22
Lee, O. (2018). English language proficiency standards aligned with
content standards. Educational Researcher, 47(5), 317–327. https://
doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18763775
Lee, O. (2019). Aligning English language proficiency standards with
content standards: Shared opportunity and responsibility across
English learner education and content areas. Educational Researcher,
48(8), 534–542. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19872497
Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for
English language learners in relation to Next Generation Science
Standards and with implications for Common Core State Standards
for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher,
42(4), 223–233. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13480524
Leung, C., & Valdés, G. (2019). Translanguaging and the transdisci-
plinary framework for language teaching and learning in a mul-
tilingual world. The Modern Language Journal, 103(2), 348–370.
https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12568
Low, M. (2015). In more than one tongue: Academic literacies at work
as living texts. In D. Molle, E. Sato, T. Boals, & C. Hedgspeth
(Eds.), Multilingual learners and academic literacies: Sociocultural
contexts of literacy development in adolescents (pp. 33–52). Routledge.
Martinez, D., Morales, P., & Aldana, U. (2017). Leveraging stu-
dents’ communicative repertoires as a tool for equitable learn-
ing. Review of Research in Education, 41(1), 477–499. https://doi
.org/10.3102/0091732X17691741
Molle, D., & Prior, P. (2008). Multimodal genre systems in EAP writing
pedagogy: Reflecting on a needs analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 42(4),
541–566. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00148.x
Moschkovich, J. (2013). Principles and guidelines for equitable math-
ematics teaching practices and materials for English language learn-
ers. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 6(1), 45–57.
National Council for the Social Studies. (2013). College, Career, and
Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards:
Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K–12 civics, economics, geogra-
phy, and history. https://www.socialstudies.org/standards/c3
594    EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER
Next Generation Science Standards. (n.d). Read the standards. https://
www.nextgenscience.org/search-standards
Otten, S., Keazer, L. M., & Karaman, R. (2019). Teachers’ talk about
the mathematical practice of attending to precision. Journal
of Mathematics Teacher Education, 22(1), 69–93. https://doi
.org/10.1007/s10857-017-9375-1
Poza, L. E., & Valdés, G. (2016). Assessing English language pro-
ficiency in the United States. In E. Shohamy, I. Or, & S. May
(Eds.), Language testing and assessment (Encyclopedia of Language
and Education book series; pp. 1–14). Springer. https://doi
.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02326-7_30-1
Prior, P. (2009). From speech genres to mediated multimodal genre
systems: Bakhtin, Voloshinov, and the question of writing. In
C. Bazerman, A. Bonini, & D. Figueiredo (Eds.), Genre in a
changing world (pp. 17–34). https://doi.org/10.37514/PER-B
.2009.2324.2.02
Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes:
Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprentice-
ship. In J. Wertsch, P. del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural
studies of mind (pp. 139–164). Cambridge University Press.
Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y.-J. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”:
Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research,
77(2), 186–232. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654306298273
Shohamy, E. (2011). Assessing multilingual competencies: Adopting
construct valid assessment policies. Modern Language Journal, 95(3),
418–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01210.x
Thompson, J., Hagenah, S., Kang, H., Stroupe, D., Braaten, M.,
Colley, C., & Windschitl, M. (2016). Rigor and responsiveness in
classroom activity. Teachers College Record, 118(5), 1–58.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act.
https://www.ed.gov/ESSA
WIDA. (2020). ELD standards framework: The 2020 edition. https://
wida.wisc.edu/teach/standards/eld/2020
Wolf, M. K., Wang, Y., Huang, B., & Blood, I. (2014). Investigating
the language demands in the Common Core State Standards for
English Language Learners: A comparison study of standards.
Middle Grades Research Journal, 9(1), 35–52.
Zimmerman, H. T. (2012). Participating in science at home: Recognition
work and learning in biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
49(5), 597–630. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21014
Authors
DANIELLA MOLLE, PhD, is a researcher at the Wisconsin Center for
Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1025 W.
Johnson Street, MD #23, Madison, WI 53706; daniella.molle@wisc.edu.
Her research focuses on professional learning for teachers of multilin-
gual youth.
JENNIFER WILFRID, MA, is a researcher at the Wisconsin Center
for Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1025 W.
Johnson Street, MD #23, Madison, WI 53706; jennifer.wilfrid@wisc
.edu. Her research focuses on supporting the equitable participation of
multilingual learners in science.
Manuscript received April 17, 2020
Revisions received July 30, 2020,
November 6, 2020, and May 11, 2021
Accepted May 18, 2021