by Paul Bloomberg & Core Collaborative Learning Lab

The shift toward Structured Literacy, grounded in the Science of Reading, has transformed how educators approach reading instruction. While this evidence-based model effectively supports foundational skills like phonemic awareness and phonics, it requires intentional adaptations to ensure English Language Learners (ELLs) are not just decoding words but also developing language and comprehension. Without intentional adaptations, Structured Literacy risks being reduced to a rigid focus on phonics and decoding at the expense of comprehension, language development, and cultural responsiveness, leaving ELLs at a disadvantage (Kapoyannis, 2021; Wolfe, 2010; Peercy, 2011).

 

How can educators balance explicit literacy instruction with strategies that foster language acquisition and equitable access?

 

This article explores key shifts that make Structured Literacy truly work for multilingual learners.

What Is Structured Literacy?

Structured Literacy is an explicit, systematic approach to teaching reading that encompasses phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. It is especially beneficial for students who struggle with reading, including those with dyslexia (Wolfe, 2010; Greenfader & Brouillette, 2017). However, for ELLs, decoding alone is insufficient; without meaning-making, reading becomes a mechanical process rather than a tool for thinking and learning (Naqvi et al., 2012; Stahl, 2015). This highlights the need for an instructional model that integrates both language and literacy development simultaneously, as research indicates that ELLs require explicit instruction in academic language, syntax, and morphology to bridge their understanding of how English functions (Uchikoshi & Maniates, 2010; Li & Sun, 2023).

The Challenges for ELLs in a Traditional Structured Literacy Model

ELLs enter classrooms with diverse linguistic backgrounds and varying levels of proficiency in English. A strictly phonics-driven model can present several challenges for ELLs, including:

  1. Limited Opportunities for Meaning-Making: Structured Literacy often emphasizes decoding first, with comprehension introduced later. However, ELLs need access to meaning from the outset to facilitate their understanding (Hendricks, 2014; Morita‐Mullaney et al., 2023).
  2. Lack of Oral Language Integration: ELLs require opportunities to develop and utilize oral language to support their reading and writing. Engaging in meaningful conversations is foundational for children’s literacy development (Cabell & Zucker, 2023; Murry & Herrera, 2010).
  3. Minimal Connections to Students’ Linguistic and Cultural Backgrounds: If not intentionally adapted, Structured Literacy can be disconnected from students’ lived experiences, making reading feel irrelevant. Research suggests that culturally relevant instruction significantly enhances literacy outcomes for ELLs (Beneville & Li, 2018; Roessingh, 2011).
  4. Insufficient Focus on Language Structures: ELLs need explicit instruction in academic language, syntax, and morphology to effectively navigate English literacy (Farrington et al., 2015; Li et al., 2023).

Shifts Needed to Ensure Meaning-Making for English Language Learners

To make Structured Literacy effective for ELLs, educators must incorporate strategic shifts that center on meaning-making while maintaining explicit instruction. Key shifts include:

  1. Integrating Oral Language Development Throughout Instruction: Prioritize collaborative conversations and structured discourse that allow ELLs to use oral language as a bridge to literacy. This can be achieved through language routines such as sentence frames and partner discussions (Castro et al., 2011; Murry & Herrera, 2010).
  2. Teaching Language and Literacy Simultaneously: Incorporate explicit instruction in morphology (roots, prefixes, suffixes) to support vocabulary development. Additionally, scaffold text complexity by providing supports like bilingual glossaries and visual aids (Schonewise & Klingner, 2012; Gillon, 2023).
  3. Embedding Comprehension from the Start: Teach decoding and meaning-making concurrently by using texts that connect with ELLs’ background knowledge and interests. A balanced literacy approach that includes read-alouds and shared reading can help build comprehension while developing decoding skills (Kapoyannis, 2019; Howard et al., 2014).
  4. Making Texts Relevant and Culturally Responsive: Select multicultural texts that reflect the diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds of ELLs. Incorporating translanguaging practices allows students to use their home language as a resource for learning (Beneville & Li, 2018; Roessingh, 2011).
  5. Using Formative Assessment to Guide Instruction: Move beyond traditional phonics assessments to measure oral language proficiency, comprehension, and writing development. Dynamic assessment methods, such as think-alouds and student discussions, can provide real-time insights into student understanding.

Moving Forward: Structured Literacy for All

Structured Literacy provides a robust foundation for all learners, but it must be adapted to ensure that ELLs do not become trapped in a cycle of isolated phonics instruction without opportunities to make meaning. By integrating oral language, embedding comprehension from the start, and embracing students’ linguistic and cultural assets, educators can transform Structured Literacy into an inclusive and effective model for multilingual learners. This shift is not about abandoning Structured Literacy; rather, it is about expanding and enriching it to reflect the ways language and literacy develop for diverse learners. When these shifts are made, classrooms can become environments where every student, regardless of their language background, can develop the literacy skills necessary to thrive.

 

Works Cited:

  • Beneville, B., & Li, D. (2018). Evidence-based literacy interventions for East/Southeast Asian English language learners. *Journal for Multicultural Education*, 12(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1108/jme-12-2016-0061
  • Cabell, S. Q., & Zucker, T. A. (2023). Using Strive-for-Five conversations to strengthen language comprehension in preschool through grade one. *The Reading Teacher*, 76(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2266
  • Castro, D. C., et al. (2011). Promoting language and literacy in young dual language learners: Research, practice, and policy. *Child Development Perspectives*, 5(1), 15-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2010.00142.x
  • Farrington, C. A., et al. (2015). Evaluation of the utility of the Revised Get Ready to Read! for Spanish-speaking English-language learners through differential item functioning analysis. *Assessment for Effective Intervention*, 40(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/153450841557746
  • Gillon, G. T. (2023). Supporting children who are English language learners succeed in their early literacy development. *Folia Phoniatrica Et Logopaedica*, 75(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1159/000531407
  • Greenfader, C. M., & Brouillette, L. (2017). The arts, the common core, and English language development in the primary grades. *Teachers College Record*, 119(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811711900806
  • Hendricks, C. (2014). Digital technology for elementary English language learning (ELL) students. *Mount Royal Undergraduate Education Review*, 1(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.29173/mruer167
  • Howard, E. R., et al. (2014). The importance of SES, home and school language and literacy practices, and oral vocabulary in bilingual children’s English reading development. *Bilingual Research Journal*, 37(2), 121-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2014.934485
  • Kapoyannis, K. (2019). Literacy engagement in multilingual and multicultural learning spaces. *TESL Canada Journal*, 36(2), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v36i2.1298
  • Li, D., & Sun, Y. (2023). Literacy instruction for English language learners in Indiana elementary schools before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. *OSF Preprints*. https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/hgbzd
  • Li, D., et al. (2023). “COVID has brought us closer”: A proleptic approach to understanding ESL teachers’ practices in supporting ELLs in and after the pandemic. *Language and Literacy*, 25(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.20360/langandlit29654
  • Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Vagh, S. B. (2013). The role of vocabulary in the reading development of English language learners: A review of the literature. *Educational Psychology Review*, 25(3), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9231-6
  • Morita-Mullaney, T., et al. (2023). When literacy ate language: An analysis of a research-based literacy intervention for designated English learners. *TESOL Journal*, 14(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.718
  • Murry, K. and Herrera, S. (2010). Collaborative inquiry groups: empowering teachers to work with english language learners. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.22329/jtl.v7i1.517
  • Naqvi, R., et al. (2012). Dual-language books as an emergent-literacy resource: Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching and learning. *Journal of Early Childhood Literacy*, 12(3), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798412442886
  • Peercy, M. M. (2011). Preparing English language learners for the mainstream: Academic language and literacy practices in two junior high school ESL classrooms. *Reading & Writing Quarterly*, 27(3), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2011.596105
  • Roessingh, H. (2011). Family treasures: A dual-language book project for negotiating language, literacy, culture, and identity. *Canadian Modern Language Review*, 67(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.67.1.123
  • Schonewise, E. A., & Klingner, J. K. (2012). Linguistic and cultural issues in developing disciplinary literacy for adolescent English language learners. *Topics in Language Disorders*, 32(3), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1097/tld.0b013e3182474c33
  • Stahl, S. A. (2015). Digital technology: Supporting the language and literacy development of ELLs. *Mount Royal Undergraduate Education Review*, 1(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.29173/mruer313
  • Uchikoshi, Y., & Maniates, H. (2010). How does bilingual instruction enhance English achievement? A mixed-methods study of Cantonese-speaking and Spanish-speaking bilingual classrooms. *Bilingual Research Journal*, 33(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2010.525294
  • Wolfe, P. (2010). Transmediation as a tool for English language learners to access academic discourse. *Teachers College Record*, 112(3), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811011201407

 

Learn more about how our network advances agency for ELLs here!
H'ELLs Yeah