Discussion
354
TE A
C H
IN G
E xc
ep ti
o na
l C hi
ld re
n, V
o l.
54 , N
o . 5
, p p
. 3 54
–3 6
1. C
o p
yr ig
ht 2
0 21
T he
A ut
ho r(
s) . D
O I:
10 .11
77 /0
0 4
0 0
59 9
21 10
25 55
4
TCX
Inclusive Practices in Special Education
Language and Literacies Melissa L. McGraw , University of Washington, Seattle
355
M ay
/J un
e 20
22
Ms. Wilson is a White, monolingual
English-speaking special education teacher.
Her students speak a variety of languages at
home, including Arabic, Somali, Nepali,
Spanish, and English. Teaching in an
elementary school resource room, Ms. Wilson
spends part of her day co-teaching in general
education classrooms and part of her day
providing pull-out instruction, where she has
limited time with students to support their
literacy skills. She has noticed that her
instruction does not always seem to be
meaningful to her students, and she is
wondering how the curriculum is influencing
student engagement. As the learners in her
classroom have become more diverse, Ms.
Wilson has begun to notice that her students
are not reflected in the curriculum. In an effort
to improve learning experiences for her
students, Ms. Wilson is looking for strategies
to make her instruction more responsive to the
diverse languages and cultures represented in
her classroom while continuing to utilize the
curriculum mandated by her district.
Ms. Wilson’s experience is becoming more common in U.S. schools, with the number of emergent bilingual learners increasing and, based on 2015 data, about 14% of all emergent bilingual learners receiving special education services (U.S. Department of Education, 2017). Unfortunately, it has been found that emergent bilingual students who receive special education services have less access to bilingual programs than their general education peers, despite evidence that students with disabilities can communicate and learn bilingually (Martínez-Álvarez, 2019). The general lack of opportunity for emergent bilingual students to draw upon their full linguistic repertoires can have lasting harmful effects, as language is central to one’s identity (Bucholtz et al., 2017). In fact, many children who enter school as emergent bilinguals transition to using primarily or only English as a result of the constant privileging of English in schools (Wong Fillmore, 1991, 2000). This is unfortunate given the many known benefits to bilingualism. Barac and Bialystok (2012) found that bilingualism is associated with higher levels of executive function. Further, in a review of the literature, Cheatham et al. (2012) reported cross-language associations, indicating knowledge of one language has a positive impact on learning in an additional
language. Across studies, they also found that when emergent bilingual children labeled as disabled received intervention bilingually or in their home language alone, children achieved as well as or better than peers receiving second- language instruction alone. In a similar review, Lim et al. (2019) found that in general, emergent bilinguals with neurodevelopmental disorders who received intervention in their home language demonstrated a small positive effect on either language development or academic achievement. Though educators may not be able to provide intervention in each student’s home language, this article presents ways in which they can create opportunities for all students to draw upon their full linguistic repertoires during intervention. This is possible even when teachers themselves are not bilingual (Blair et al., 2018; Pacheco et al., 2015).
Although some efforts have been made to support bilingualism in schools, these typically treat bilingual education as a tool to support children in transitioning to English only or seek to help students to develop proficiency in two languages used in isolation (García & Torres-Guevara, 2010). However, this does not reflect the way emergent bilingual individuals naturally use their languages through the use of translanguaging (García, 2009). Translanguaging refers to the fluid use of language bilingual individuals use to make meaning and express themselves (García et al., 2017). It may include using more than one language in a conversation or even within a single sentence. Bringing translanguaging into special education settings provides an opportunity for emergent bilinguals labeled as disabled to access bilingual services.
Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy Increasing bilingual learning opportunities for emergent bilinguals labeled as disabled can be achieved through instructional practices that seek to sustain students’ culture and language. In the research community, there have been calls to go beyond providing culturally responsive instruction to work toward sustaining students’ linguistic and cultural practices (Machado, 2017; Paris & Alim, 2014; Waitoller & Thorius, 2016).
Culturally sustaining pedagogy (CSP) “seeks to perpetuate and foster—to sustain— linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism as part of the democratic project of schooling and as a needed response to demographic and social change” (Paris & Alim, 2014, p. 95). It is important to consider culture as dynamic, with students taking up traditional cultural practices while other practices evolve across time and space, varying from one community to another (Thorius et al., 2018). Maintaining this pedagogical stance allows educators to focus on creating learning environments in which students are able to develop their linguistic repertoires rather than using various languages as leverage to gain proficiency in English.
CSP extends asset pedagogies, including the notion of funds of knowledge, or “historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills” (Moll et al., 1992, p. 133). Accessing students’ funds of knowledge requires recognition that all students bring a wealth of resources with them to the classroom, especially historically accumulated cultural knowledge and knowledge gained through lived experiences (Moll & González, 1994). This includes linguistic practices as well as generalized knowledge and specific skills (e.g., trade skills, knowledge of and relationship to the environment). Regarding language, bilingualism is understood to develop within cultural communities, which informs classroom practice. This framing recognizes that emergent bilinguals often engage in translanguaging rather than engaging with language in the same way as monolingual individuals (García, 2009), making intentional decisions about their language use across interactions throughout the day (Lee & García, 2020). Given the disproportionate access to bilingual learning opportunities among emergent bilinguals labeled as disabled, special education teachers must be prepared to adopt CSP and translanguaging to ensure equitable learning opportunities for all learners. When teachers bring translanguaging into classrooms, they are intentional about drawing on students’ full linguistic repertoires while teaching to academic standards (García et al., 2017). How can educators create opportunities for students labeled as disabled to engage and
356
TE A
C H
IN G
E xc
ep ti
o na
l C hi
ld re
n, V
o l.
54 , N
o . 5
learn bilingually? This article outlines strategies special educators can use to create multilingual learning environments, leading to more equitable access to bilingual programming.
Instructional Practices to Consider In response to the need to bring CSP and students’ funds of knowledge into special education classrooms, I outline several considerations for special educators to reflect upon. These considerations can be found in Figure 1. Although examples are provided, teachers must consider the cultural and linguistic context for their own students, as differing practices will be observed within each community of learners.
Consideration 1: Provide Opportunities for Children to Use Multiple Languages in the Classroom
Special educators can better support learners across educational settings by creating learning environments in which students are able to engage using their full linguistic repertoires. One way of doing this is to promote the use of translanguaging among emergent bilingual learners. “Translanguaging is the act performed by bilinguals of accessing different linguistic features or various modes of what are described as autonomous languages, in order to
maximize communicative potential” (García, 2009, p. 140). In practice, this might mean individuals use a combination of languages in speech or writing, or they may apply grammatical rules from one language to another. Bilinguals often use each of their languages intentionally and with different purposes and may have more advanced literacy skills in a language compared with their oral language skills (Gort, 2019; Moll et al., 2001). Keeping these characteristics of language learning in mind can be helpful in planning meaningful instruction for emergent bilinguals. Additionally, consideration of these tendencies can allow for more accurate assessment, creating opportunities for students to more effectively communicate their knowledge (García, 2009).
When working with emergent bilingual learners, educators can encourage translanguaging and support the development of all languages by creating opportunities for children to use their full linguistic repertoires. This is intended to sustain students’ linguistic and cultural practices rather than strictly to support the development of English language proficiency (García & Torres- Guevara, 2010). Educators can do this in many ways. First, they might take advantage of students’ conceptual knowledge to engage in multilingual discourse as an opportunity for language transfer (Briceño, 2015). For example, if a student is able to discuss a concept in one
language, they may need to learn key vocabulary in an additional language, but the conceptual knowledge transfers and provides a foundation for learning additional vocabulary. Students with shared linguistic repertoires can engage in talk together to further support transfer. Classwide discourse in multiple languages can also support transfer, with discussion around key vocabulary and concepts (García et al., 2017). This type of learning can be supported by creating opportunities for students with shared linguistic resources to engage in activities or discussion together (García et al., 2017). For instance, a teacher might pose a question for students to discuss related to a shared reading and place students in groups based on the language(s) they speak. Once students have had the opportunity to discuss in their preferred language(s), the teacher may choose to facilitate a large group discussion primarily in English.
Ms. Wilson joins Mr. Graham in a fourth-
grade class to co-teach during writing. They
are teaching a unit on story writing. Together,
Ms. Wilson and Mr. Graham consider how
they might invite students to use their varied
linguistic knowledge to engage in the writing
process. They feel hesitant to invite students to
write in various languages given that they are
both monolingual speakers of English. Ms.
Wilson and Mr. Graham question whether
they would be able to read students’ writing
and offer meaningful feedback, as well as plan
Figure 1 Considerations for sustaining linguistic practices
Consideration 1: Provide opportunities for children to use multiple languages in the classroom.
Consideration 2: Make explicit connections across languages.
Consideration 3: Think expansively about literacy.
Consideration 4: Model the use of multiple languages and literacies.
Consideration 5: Be critical of the texts used in practice.
357
M ay
/J un
e 20
22
next steps for instruction, if students are
writing in different languages. However, they
decide to think more deeply about where
opportunities for multilingual engagement
might occur. They agree that their students
benefit from having opportunities to discuss
their ideas with a partner prior to writing.
This seems like a great place to start, so early
in the writing unit, Ms. Wilson and Mr.
Graham invite students to discuss their ideas
with a peer in a language of their choice.
Students choose their partners, and many
decide to work with a peer with shared
linguistic resources. Later in the unit, students
are able to write in a language of their choice
as they brainstorm ideas for their stories.
Students write their final stories in English,
although some choose to include key words
from other languages. When students publish
their writing, they share the meaning of these
words with the class. This opportunity allows
students to be positioned as language experts
and helps students become more engaged in
the writing process.
Consideration 2: Make Explicit Connections Across Languages
Research has shown that emergent bilinguals have greater metalinguistic awareness than their monolingual peers (Barac & Bialystok, 2012). When children have opportunities to use varied languages in a shared space, they are able to develop their metalinguistic awareness, comparing the syntax, organization, word choice, and vocabulary used across languages (García et al., 2017). For example, discussions of word meanings and sentence structure can help students understand how languages might be similar or different. Vocabulary in particular must be taught explicitly, with opportunities to discuss cognates and false cognates to support language learning and vocabulary transfer (García, 2009). Cognates are words that are similar in pronunciation and meaning across languages (García, 2009), whereas false cognates are words that sound similar but have different meanings. As emergent bilingual learners develop their skills across languages, they can develop more sophisticated patterns of language use. For example, when a word or concept does not translate directly across two languages, students are able to explore meaning more deeply as they engage in a multilingual discussion of a text (Pacheco et al., 2015). Teachers may ask students to
translate a small portion of a text that is essential for comprehension (Pacheco et al., 2015), paraphrase part of a text in another language, engage in discussion about how students use language differently depending on their audience, and encourage students to comment on cognates when they are recognized in a text (Martínez et al., 2008). All of these practices promote metalinguistic awareness, relate to translation, and position students as experts with rich linguistic knowledge. Further, these practices can support language and reading comprehension (Cisco & Padrón, 2012; Pacheco et al., 2015) as well as increase active participation and engagement (Blair et al., 2018).
While working with a small group of fifth
graders in the resource room, Ms. Wilson
decides to ask her students to work in
partners. Three students in the group speak
Spanish and English, and two students speak
Somali and English. The group is reading a
text together and Ms. Wilson wants to be sure
her students are understanding the internal
conflict the main character is facing. Ms.
Wilson chooses one sentence in the text that
she believes may be difficult for students to
comprehend, so she plans a group discussion
to unpack this part of the text. She asks
students to work together to translate the
sentence into either Spanish or Somali. This
leads to rich discussion of the meaning of the
sentence in which students recognize that
sometimes rather than translating word for
word, they must consider the idea behind a
word or phrase in order to capture the
meaning in a different language. Through
explicit discussions about language, Ms.
Wilson’s students also begin to recognize that
some words are very similar across languages.
They are recognizing cognates. For example,
they discuss the Spanish-English cognate
“miserable,” noting that although the
pronunciation is not exactly the same, the
words sound similar, are spelled the same,
and have the same meaning. When this comes
up in the group discussion, Ms. Wilson creates
a chart where the group begins to record
cognates and, later, false cognates they come
across in their reading. These activities help
strengthen students’ metalinguistic awareness
even as their reading comprehension
improves. This provides an opportunity for
the class to examine how languages are
similar and different and allows learners to
be positioned as experts in the classroom.
Consideration 3: Think Expansively About Literacy
What counts as literacy? When educators limit the definition of literacy to include only the formal book reading and writing emphasized in schools, they deny students the ability to draw on their full linguistic repertoires and ignore their funds of knowledge (Moll, 2015). When educators expand views of literacies to include formal and informal texts—those encountered in school as well as in other settings, such as text on the internet, audio and video text, music, art, oral traditions, and more—educators can better build upon students’ literate experiences (Piazza et al., 2015). Recognizing these various forms of literacy across languages allows students to share their full expertise in school settings. In one study, students engaged with digital literacy by developing bilingual PowerPoint presentations that included recorded interviews and voice recordings, images, and text (Pacheco & Smith, 2015). The authors reported that engagement with digital literacies in this project allowed emergent bilingual learners to reach multiple audiences, draw upon their full linguistic repertoires, and apply knowledge of various literacies, including image-based, text, and digital literacies. As different types of texts are explored, teachers might work with emergent bilingual learners to develop co-constructed charts or engage in discussions that highlight features of various genres, compare and contrast the purpose of various text genres and formats, and explore strategies to reach particular audiences, as Ms. Wilson demonstrates next.
In a reading group, Ms. Wilson is teaching her
students to use text features to navigate
nonfiction text. Initially, she is thinking about
using nonfiction texts in English. As she is
looking for resources online, she recognizes the
prevalence of text features on the internet. She
decides to introduce the lesson by showing her
students how she uses text features to navigate
the internet to find and read an article online.
Next, she does the same with a nonfiction
book. Students are then asked to think about
how and when they use text features to
navigate a text and to bring an example to
share with the class. Students are encouraged
to bring texts in a variety of formats and
languages. As a result, students bring in
358
TE A
C H
IN G
E xc
ep ti
o na
l C hi
ld re
n, V
o l.
54 , N
o . 5
newspapers and song lyrics printed in various
languages, bilingual books, magazines, and
bus schedules and share websites in English
and other languages. In this way, students
generalize their knowledge of text features
beyond those typically seen in books, leading
to a richer understanding of the usefulness of
text features. As students notice patterns in the
features used across texts, Ms. Wilson records
ideas on a chart, with students helping to
translate ideas into various languages for
future reference.
Consideration 4: Model the Use of Multiple Languages and Literacies
Modeling can be done in collaboration with community partners. It may be possible to invite multilingual community members into the classroom to facilitate and participate in multilingual discussion, modeling the natural use of various languages. Zapata and Laman (2016) describe examples in which parents were invited to the classroom and positioned as experts who speak multiple languages. In these classrooms, students were encouraged to use their multiple languages in writing, and a variety of text formats were used to allow students to draw upon their full linguistic repertoires for learning and communicating their understandings with one another and their teachers. When teachers position multilingual family and community members as leaders in the classroom, it is possible to draw on various funds of knowledge and bring a range of linguistic practices into the classroom, modeling sophisticated linguistic practices and placing value on multiple ways of knowing (Zapata & Laman, 2016). Along with partnerships in the community, special educators can provide additional modeling by creating opportunities for students to engage with bilingual videos and print or audio books related to content instruction (García et al., 2017).
Returning to Ms. Wilson’s co-teaching unit
with Mr. Graham, the students are now
engaged in planning their own stories. The
teachers agree that it would be helpful for
students to learn how narratives can be
organized in different ways, despite knowing
that one dominant form of narrative is
typically privileged in schools. Recognizing
their own limited knowledge of varied
narrative structures, Ms. Wilson and Mr.
Graham agree that they would benefit from
seeking input from the community. In their
effort to build on students’ existing knowledge
and sustain students’ linguistic practices, Ms.
Wilson and Mr. Graham invite two bilingual
parents to share stories and discuss narrative
structure in different languages. During
planning conversations with these parents, Ms.
Wilson and Mr. Graham learn that one
family has a rich history of oral narrative, so
this parent agrees to share a story orally
whereas the other parent plans to read a
storybook aloud. On separate days, each
parent shares a narrative with the class in
their primary language and then answers
questions from students. Ms. Wilson and Mr.
Graham also ask the parents and students to
discuss how the narrative structure in these
bilingual stories might be similar to or
different from what they already know about
organizing stories. Students are also able to
engage in partner talk to discuss their
thinking in whichever languages feel most
helpful for their learning. As she listens to
student dialogue, Ms. Wilson notices that
students often use multiple languages in a
single conversation, and sometimes within a
single utterance, allowing them to articulate
their full depth of knowledge around the
features they are noticing. The class then
contributes to creating a co-constructed chart to
share their observations of the different
narratives they have heard, a tool they can
refer to as they plan and write their own
stories. Later, as Ms. Wilson and Mr. Graham
examine students’ writing, they can see that
students are trying on the different narrative
features discussed in class.
Consideration 5: Be Critical of the Texts Used in Practice
Along with considerations for interaction, educators must ensure the texts used in classrooms reflect and engage students in meaningful ways. Braden and Rodriguez (2016) conducted a critical analysis of children’s picture books containing Latinx content. They found five themes across texts, including the privileging of English, the inclusion of superficial cultural references, a tendency toward traditional gender roles, and a representation of a utopian society. English can be privileged in a text when it is the dominant language, with few words presented in another
language. Additionally, English can be privileged in bilingual books when English text is presented more prominently throughout the book. In either case, these representations reinforce English as the language of power (Braden & Rodriguez, 2016). However, when multiple languages are used in intentional ways, authors can decenter monolingualism (Ghiso & Campano, 2013). When evaluating texts for use in the classroom, special educators must consider what assumptions an author may be making about a community and examine the portrayal of power dynamics related to language, class, race, gender, and ability. Meaningful and accurate portrayals of culture must be represented, as opposed to focusing on foods and other superficial representations as in a “tourist approach to culture” (Braden & Rodriguez, 2016, p. 65). As educators evaluate texts for classroom use, they are positioned to select texts that are meaningful and engaging for students rather than perpetuating systems of inequity. By carefully considering the messages conveyed about culture, language, class, and ability, educators can select texts that allow students to see their own identities reflected in authentic ways.
Ms. Wilson is selecting texts to use in an
upcoming writing unit on personal narratives.
She wants to provide students with several
examples to show how personal narratives
might be organized differently, make use of
language in different ways, and highlight
different kinds of events in individuals’ lives.
She decides to include examples of bilingual
personal narratives and those that include
individuals representing various identity
markers to share with her students. As she
explores her options, Ms. Wilson keeps the
following questions in mind: How are
languages represented in this text? Is it written
in English first, with a translation written
below, or are languages represented in a
balanced way? Are all of the examples
organized with a temporal sequence,
privileging dominant narrative structure, or
do some prioritize emotions experienced
during an event or another type of
organization? When the personal narrative is
describing cultural practices, are these
described by members of the cultural group, or
is the author presenting an outsider
perspective? These are some of the questions
359
M ay
/J un
e 20
22
Ms. Wilson keeps in mind in order to select
texts that will help her students understand
various aspects of personal narrative without
perpetuating dominant narratives around
language and race. By considering these
critical questions, Ms. Wilson identifies
several examples of personal narratives to
share with her students, with opportunities for
each of her students to see aspects of their own
linguistic, racial, and cultural identities
represented in authentic ways.
Closing Special educators, like Ms. Wilson, can more effectively and meaningfully engage emergent bilingual learners by working to sustain students’ cultural practices. One way of doing so is through sustaining students’ linguistic practices, which can also lead to increased metalinguistic awareness (Laurent & Martinot, 2009) and potentially improved academic outcomes (Cheatham et al., 2012). A summary of the considerations outlined in this article can be found in Table 1, and Figure 2 presents a checklist to help special
educators identify areas for implementation. Bringing CSP into special education classrooms is a powerful approach to resisting deficit narratives that are often told about emergent bilinguals labeled as disabled, positioning students as knowledgeable leaders within a learning community.
As Ms. Wilson continues to think about
sustaining her students’ cultural and linguistic
practices throughout the school day, she is
noticing her students becoming more engaged
in learning and developing more confidence
in approaching academic skills. She is also
noticing shifts in the way she thinks about
and positions her students, recognizing their
wealth of knowledge regarding a wide range
of topics. Ms. Wilson has realized that
incorporating opportunities for students to use
their full linguistic repertoires in the
classroom has led to rich learning
opportunities across academic areas. Her
instruction remains closely tied to students’
individualized education program goals as
well as the general education curriculum and
now extends students’ learning in meaningful
and engaging ways.
DECLArATIOn Of COnfLICTIng InTErESTS
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
fUnDIng
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
OrCID ID
Melissa L. McGraw https://orcid.org/ 0000-0003-3328-3492
Melissa L. Mcgraw, Doctoral Candidate, College of Education, University of Washington, Seattle.
Address correspondence concerning this article to Melissa L. McGraw, College of Education, University of Washington, 2012 Skagit Lane, Miller Hall, Seattle, WA 98105- 0005 (email: mcgram2@uw.edu).
rEfErEnCES
Barac, R., & Bialystok, E. (2012). Bilingual effects on cognitive and linguistic development: Role of language, cultural background,
Table 1 Considerations for Inclusive Linguistic Practices
Consideration Purpose Implementation
Consideration 1: Provide opportunities for children to use multiple languages in the classroom
Sustains students’ linguistic practices and positions students as competent language users
Encourage peer discussion or partner talk Assign written reflections Assign written reading responses Use flexible assessment (e.g., provide opportunities for students to create visual representations of their thinking)
Consideration 2: Make explicit connections across languages
Supports transfer across languages and positions students as experts in one or more languages
Include cognates and false cognates in explicit vocabulary instruction Discuss sentence structure when students translate text
Consideration 3: Think expansively about literacy
Creates a learning environment in which students’ home practices are valued
Invite oral storytelling, digital literacy, environmental print from the community, and more into the classroom Invite families to share what literacy looks like in their homes
Consideration 4: Model the use of multiple languages and literacies
Decenters the use of English in the classroom, communicating a message that all languages are valuable
Invite bi-/multilingual guests to lead read-alouds, model problem-solving strategies, or work with students in small groups
Consideration 5: Be critical of the texts used in practice
Ensures that all students are appropriately represented in classroom texts without misrepresenting cultural groups
Consider the messaging surrounding race and language use along with other aspects of culture and ability
360
TE A
C H
IN G
E xc
ep ti
o na
l C hi
ld re
n, V
o l.
54 , N
o . 5
and education. Child Development, 83(2), 413–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 8624.2011.01707.x
Blair, A., Haneda, M., & Bose, F. N. (2018). Reimagining English-medium instructional settings as sites of multilingual and multimodal meaning making. TESOL Quarterly, 52(3), 516–539. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/tesq.449
Braden, E. G., & Rodriguez, S. C. (2016). Beyond mirrors and windows: A critical content analysis of Latinx children’s books. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 12(2), 56–83.
Briceño, A. (2015). Vocabulary and sentence structure in emergent Spanish literacy. Reading Teacher, 69(6), 611–619. https://doi .org/10.1002/trtr.1417
Bucholtz, M., Casillas, D. I., & Lee, J. S. (2017). Language and culture as sustenance. In D. Paris & S. H. Alim (Eds.), Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world (pp. 43–59). Teachers College Press.
Cheatham, G. A., Santos, R. M., & Kerkutluoglu, A. (2012). Review of comparison studies
investigating bilingualism and bilingual instruction for students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 45(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.17161/fec .v45i3.6681
Cisco, B. K., & Padrón, Y. (2012). Investigating vocabulary and reading strategies with middle grades English language learners: A research synthesis. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 36(4), 1–23. https:// doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2012.11462097
García, O. (2009). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century: A global perspective. Wiley-Blackwell.
García, O., & Torres-Guevara, R. (2010). Monoglossic ideologies and language policies in the education of U.S. Latinas/os. In E. G. Murillo, S. Villenas, R. T. Galván, J. S. Muñoz, C. Martínez, & M. Machado-Casas (Eds.), Handbook of Latinos and education: Research, theory and practice (pp. 182–193). Routledge.
García, O., Johnson, S. I., & Seltzer, K. (2017). The translanguaging classroom: Leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Calson.
Ghiso, M. P., & Campano, G. (2013). Ideologies of language and identity in U.S. children’s literature. Bookbird: A Journal of International Children’s Literature, 51(3), 44–55. https:// doi.org/10.1353/bkb.2013.0057
Gort, M. (2019). Developing bilingualism and biliteracy in early and middle childhood. Language Arts, 96(4), 229–243.
Laurent, A., & Martinot, C. (2009). Bilingualism and phonological segmentation of speech: The case of English–French pre-schoolers. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 9(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1468798408101102
Lee, C., & García, G. E. (2020). Unpacking the oral translanguaging practices of Korean- American first graders. Bilingual Research Journal, 43(1), 32–49. https://doi.org/10 .1080/15235882.2019.1703844
Lim, N., O’Reilly, M. F., Sigafoos, J., Ledbetter- Cho, K., & Lancioni, G. E. (2019). Should heritage languages be incorporated into interventions for bilingual individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders? A systematic review. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Figure 2 Checklist for implementation
•My students have opportunities to speak in different languages during academic instruction through small group/partner talk if they feel it is beneficial for their learning. •Discuss a question with a partner/group •Share writing ideas with a partner/group •My students have opportunities to write in different languages if they feel
it is beneficial for their learning. •Writing assignments •Reading responses •Written reflections
Consideration 1: Provide opportunities for children to use multiple
languages in the classroom.
•My students have opportunities to consider how their languages are similar/different. •Cognates •Syntax •Punctuation •Orthography
Consideration 2: Make explicit connections
across languages.
•My students have varied opportunities to engage in literacy. •Digital texts, including audio and video media •Oral literacy •Arts as literacy
Consideration 3: Think expansively about literacy.
• I provide modeling and materials in different languages when possible. •Bilingual guests •Bilingual letters home •Books •Texts/media for independent/group reading •Environmental print in the classroom represents different languages spoken
by my students. •Objects in the classroom are labeled •Visual supports •Co-constructed charts
Consideration 4: Model the use of multiple
languages and literacies.
•Be critical of the texts used in practice. • I choose texts in which my students can see themselves reflected based on
language use and other aspects of identity. • I carefully analyze texts for messages related to language, race, class,
ability, and gender.
Consideration 5: Be critical of the texts used in
practice.
361
M ay
/J un
e 20
22
Disorders, 49, 887–912. https://doi.org/10 .1007/s10803-018-3790-8
Machado, E. (2017). Fostering and sustaining diverse literacy practices in the early childhood classroom: Reviewing the literature in three areas. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 66, 309–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336917718178
Martínez, R. A., Orellana, M. F., Pacheco, M., & Carbone, P. (2008). Found in translation: Connecting translating to academic writing. Language Arts, 85(6), 421–431.
Martínez-Álvarez, P. (2019). Dis/ability labels and emergent bilingual children: current research and biliterate learners. Race Ethnicity and Education, 22(2), 174–193. https://doi.org/10 .1080/13613324.2018.1538120
Moll, L. C. (2015) Tapping into the “hidden” home and community resources of students. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 51(3), 114–117. https://doi .org/10.1080/00228958.2015.1056661
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00405849209543534
Moll, L. C., & González, N. (1994). Lessons from research with language-minority children. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26(4), 439–456. https://doi.org/10 .1080/10862969409547862
Moll, L. C., Sáez, R., & Dworin, J. (2001). Exploring biliteracy: Two student case examples of writing as a social practice. Elementary School Journal, 101(4), 435–449.
Pacheco, M. B., David, S. S., & Jiménez, R. T. (2015). Translating pedagogies: Leveraging students’ heritage languages in the literacy classroom. Middle Grades Research Journal, 10(1), 49–63.
Pacheco, M. B., & Smith, B. E. (2015). Across languages, modes, and identities: Bilingual adolescents’ multimodal codemeshing in the literacy classroom. Bilingual Research Journal, 38, 292–312.
Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.17763/ haer.84.1.982l873k2ht16m77
Piazza, S. V., Rao, S., & Protacio, M. S. (2015). Converging recommendations for culturally responsive practices: Students with learning disabilities, English language learners, and socioculturally diverse learners. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 17(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v17i3.1023
Thorius, K. A. K., Waitoller, F. R., Canon, M. A., & Moore, T. S. (2018). Responsive to what? Conceptualizations of “culture” and “culturally responsive” in Multiple Voices. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse
Exceptional Learners, 18(1), 3–21. https://doi .org/10.5555/2158-396X.18.1.3
U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Our nation’s English learners. https://www2 .ed.gov/datastory/el-characteristics/index .html#intro
Waitoller, F. R., & Thorius, K. A. K. (2016). Cross- pollinating culturally sustaining pedagogy and universal design for learning: Toward an inclusive pedagogy that accounts for dis/ability. Harvard Educational Review, 86, 366–389. http://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045- 86.3.366
Wong Fillmore, L. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 323–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885- 2006(05)80059-6
Wong Fillmore, L. (2000). Loss of family languages: Should educators be concerned? Theory Into Practice, 39(4), 203–210. https://doi. org/10.1207/s15430421tip3904_3
Zapata, A., & Laman, T. T. (2016). “I write to show how beautiful my languages are”: Translingual writing instruction in English-dominant classrooms. Language Arts, 93(5), 366–378.
TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 54, No. 5, pp. 354–361. Copyright 2021 The Author(s).
sagepub.com/reviewerrewards
FIND OUT MORE
Peer Reviewers Thank you for your generously donated time and effort We appreciate your contribution and are grateful to you for helping authors develop their papers.
If you have reviewed for a SAGE journal you are entitled to:
• 60 days access to all SAGE journals
• 25% discount on SAGE books
Visit the Journal Reviewer Gateway to learn more about the benefits to reviewing for SAGE journals and how to become a reviewer.
Copyright of Teaching Exceptional Children is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.