Choose a language move for the content you are already teaching. This quick reference pairs research recommendations with teacher-ready routines, examples, and planning steps.
Keep the content task. Decide what students need to say or write to show their thinking, then choose a support you can check and gradually remove.
Look at the student work or listen to a short explanation. Select a response that addresses the barrier you actually see.
Check first: Can the student explain the idea with a picture, example, or familiar word but not the target term?
Choose words central to the task. Define, illustrate, compare examples and non-examples, and return to them across several days.
Try tomorrow: Ask partners to use compare and evidence while discussing two models.
Use the vocabulary routine →Check first: Did the student have a visible source, think time, and a clear question? Invite a sketch or private rehearsal before judging silence.
Anchor a question in a visual or demonstration. Model a response, give think time, then assign both partners a turn.
Try tomorrow: “Which model fits the data? Point to one number that supports your choice.”
Use the talk routine →Check first: Can the student explain orally but not yet connect the claim and evidence in writing?
Let students say the idea first. Show a brief model, have students write, then revise for one precise word or evidence link.
Try tomorrow: “My claim is ___. The observation ___ supports it because ___.”
Use the writing routine →Check first: Do several recent responses show the same specific need despite whole-class modeling?
Use a short diagnostic response to choose one shared literacy or language need. Model, practice, check, and regroup.
Try tomorrow: Pull students who can identify evidence but need help explaining how it supports a claim.
Use the group plan →The What Works Clearinghouse recommends intensive instruction for a selected set of academic words across multiple days and activities. Its instructional tips suggest selecting words central to meaning, teaching student-friendly definitions, and using examples, word parts, speaking, and writing. Read the recommendation ↗
For a unit, select a small set that unlocks the reading or task. Consider frequency, multiple meanings, word parts, and possible connections across languages.
Science example: variable, evidence, compare, conclude. A teacher might add control if it is central to the investigation.
Say and display the word, give a student-friendly definition, show an example and a non-example, then ask students to use it with the current data or text.
Example: A variable is something that can change in an investigation. “Amount of light” can be a variable; “the conclusion” is not a variable.
Define and connect to an image, data set, or passage.
Compare examples and non-examples; explain the choice.
Use the word to describe or question the content with a partner.
Use the word in a brief explanation; give specific feedback.
Recognize or use the word in a new text or problem.
The WWC recommends integrating oral and written English instruction into content teaching. Its teacher tips call for shared visuals, demonstrations, and multiple brief, structured opportunities to talk about content. California also recommends content and language goals, modeling, visuals, and purposeful scaffolds for integrated ELD. See classroom tips ↗
Say one complete example while pointing to the evidence. Display optional frames, then invite students to use their own wording when ready.
Listen for: both students speaking, reference to the source, and whether the target word communicates the intended meaning.
The WWC recommends regular structured writing opportunities but rates the evidence for this separate recommendation as minimal. Use it as a sensible instructional practice alongside the stronger content-language recommendation, and check the quality of students’ work rather than assuming a sentence frame alone improves learning. View evidence ratings ↗
Identify a content strength, then select one language move to improve. Avoid correcting every error at once.
Exit check: Collect the original and revision. Did the student add evidence or a clearer link, or only copy the frame?
WWC recommends small-group intervention for students struggling in literacy and English language development, with moderate evidence. This is a targeted response to observed need; a brief content discussion routine belongs in whole-class instruction too. Read the recommendation ↗
Review a short reading, oral explanation, or writing sample. Select one shared target such as finding a key detail, explaining a comparison, or using an evidence link.
Example: Four students identify the correct data point but cannot explain why it proves a proportional relationship.
3 min: Model one example and name the language move.
5 min: Students complete a parallel example with prompts and feedback.
5 min: Students try a fresh example with less support.
2 min: Record an independent response and next step.
Regroup when the evidence changes.
California expects English learners to receive integrated ELD across content areas and designated ELD as focused instruction. Use grade-level ELD standards and your school’s program to plan designated instruction; this quick reference does not replace that plan. See California guidance ↗
These examples apply the research recommendations to real content. They are original lesson ideas, not individually tested programs.
Content: Table A shows 2, 4, 6 tickets costing $6, $12, $18. Table B shows 2, 4, 6 tickets costing $8, $14, $20. Students decide which table is proportional and justify with unit rates. (A is $3 per ticket throughout; B is $4, $3.50, then about $3.33.)
Language: Compare rates and justify with two values.
Content: Students compare two plants grown with different light directions. Use actual class photos or a reliable set of observations; distinguish what is visible from a possible explanation.
Language: Describe an observation, then explain a claim using evidence.
Student question: Which table represents a proportional relationship? Find the cost per ticket in at least two rows of each table. Explain how those rates support your answer.
| Tickets | Cost |
|---|---|
| 2 | $6 |
| 4 | $12 |
| 6 | $18 |
| Tickets | Cost |
|---|---|
| 2 | $8 |
| 4 | $14 |
| 6 | $20 |
Model: “In A, 2 tickets cost $6, so one ticket costs $3. I divided the cost by the number of tickets.” Point to that row, then have students calculate a different row themselves. Explain unit rate as the cost for one ticket and constant as staying the same.
Partner prompt: “Find two unit rates in your assigned table. Are they the same? Show the rows you used.” Partner B asks, “Which numbers support your claim?” Switch so both students explain. Independent check: Each student writes which table is proportional and cites two rates; collect the response before discussing the answer.
Developing: “A is proportional because the numbers go up.” Feedback: “You chose a table. Calculate the cost for one ticket in two rows and tell me whether it stays the same.” Revised: “A is proportional because $6 ÷ 2 and $12 ÷ 4 are both $3 per ticket. In B, $8 ÷ 2 is $4, but $14 ÷ 4 is $3.50, so its unit rate changes.”
More access: Highlight one row, let students annotate the table or rehearse in a familiar language, and offer “___ dollars ÷ ___ tickets = ___ dollars per ticket.” Less support: Offer only “The unit rate ___ because ___.” Independent extension: Explain why adding $6 for every two tickets in B does not make B proportional. Check each student’s own explanation before changing the support.
Answer check: A has a constant $3 per ticket. B has rates of $4, $3.50, and $3.33… per ticket. B increases by $6 for every two additional tickets, but its unit rate is not constant.
Both belong in an English learner’s program. Plan them together, with different purposes.
Teach the grade-level math, science, or other content while making its language demands visible. Use a shared source, model the language action, give purposeful talk and writing practice, and check each student’s content understanding.
Example: In the ticket lesson, all students compare unit rates. Students rehearse a justification with a partner, then explain independently using two rows.
Use the grade-level California ELD standards and your school’s program to choose a focused language target. Teach and assess that target during the designated instructional time.
Example connection: If several students can calculate rates but struggle to express a comparison, coordinate a focused language lesson on comparing and justifying with evidence. The designated lesson needs its own standards-based plan; this example is a planning connection, not a replacement.
Four recommendations with evidence ratings for vocabulary, content language, writing, and targeted groups in elementary and middle school.
Full practice guide ↗Integrated ELD strategies, content and language goals, modeling, visuals, and links to the ELD standards.
Integrated ELD guidance ↗Research synthesis on English learners as capable participants in grade-level STEM, drawing on linguistic and cultural resources.
English Learners in STEM ↗WWC ratings describe the evidence behind a recommendation. The sample schedules, frames, and lesson tasks here are classroom adaptations; they have not been separately tested by WWC.
Check student understanding and language growth to decide whether to keep, change, or fade a support.