Why the Science of Reading Needs a Multilingual Lens
Across the U.S., the Science of Reading (SoR) has become a major driver of literacy policy, curriculum adoption, and professional learning. At its core, SoR refers to a body of research describing how children develop reading and writing skills—especially the processes involved in decoding print and comprehending text.
But as the New York State Education Department’s Office of Bilingual Education and World Languages (OBEWL) emphasizes, we should be cautious about applying SoR as a one-size-fits-all solution. Much of the most-cited research base and many commercially produced curricula were designed around assumptions tied to monolingual, middle-class, native English speakers. That matters because English Language Learners (ELLs) and Multilingual Learners (MLs) bring different language histories, different distributions of vocabulary across languages, and different pathways for connecting sounds, words, and meaning.
For schools, the goal is not to abandon SoR. The goal is to implement SoR in ways that provide MLs maximal—not conditional—access to literacy instruction and rich engagement with text. That requires instruction that is explicit and systematic, while also being culturally and linguistically responsive.
The “Big 6” Still Matter—With Key Differences for MLs
SoR-aligned instruction often highlights six essential areas of reading development (sometimes called the “Big 6”):
- Phonological awareness
- Phonics
- Vocabulary
- Fluency
- Comprehension
- Oral language
Research reviews that included language-minority children concluded these areas are also important for ELLs and MLs, but the “how” looks different. Below are practical, classroom-friendly considerations and strategies drawn from the NYSED brief.
1) Phonological Awareness: Don’t Assume Sounds Automatically Carry Meaning
In monolingual English instruction, phonological awareness activities (blending, segmenting, manipulating sounds) are sometimes taught as if meaning will “snap into place” once decoding improves. For many MLs, that snap connection is not automatic—especially when the word being practiced isn’t already known.
If a student hears a string of sounds that doesn’t map to a familiar word, it may sit briefly in short-term memory and disappear. This can make phonological tasks look harder than they truly are, simply because the word is unfamiliar.
Practical strategy: Build a “known word” bank first
- Quickly present pictures (like a simple picture deck) and note the words the student spontaneously uses to label them.
- Use those known words (in the student’s home language or English) for blending and sound manipulation tasks.
- By anchoring phonological practice to words the student already owns, you reduce cognitive load and get a clearer read on skill.
2) Phonics: Connect Graphemes to Sounds Without Forcing “New Word + New Code” at the Same Time
Traditional phonics routines often pair a letter with a keyword and picture (for example, “A is for apple”). For MLs, that can unintentionally double the demand: they may be learning the English word and the sound-symbol relationship simultaneously.
Additionally, bilingual students often activate both languages at the phonemic level. When shown an apple, a student might think of the word in their home language first, which can shift the sound they associate with the picture.
Decodable texts can be useful for practicing targeted patterns, but for MLs they may provide limited context and unnatural syntax—sometimes encouraging “word calling” without meaning-making.
Practical strategies: Invite multilingual connections and protect meaning
- Ask families and students for examples of words that start with the target sound (in any language).
- Have students draw or bring pictures that match the sound target.
- Use those student-owned referents to reinforce English grapheme-pattern learning.
- When using decodables, add quick meaning checks (retell, point to pictures, act it out) so decoding practice stays connected to comprehension.
3) Vocabulary: Treat Multilingual Vocabulary as an Asset, Not a Deficit
Vocabulary is often measured using assessments normed on monolingual English speakers. That can undercount what MLs know because their vocabulary is distributed across languages and contexts. Early on, children learning two or more languages may avoid redundancy—knowing a concept in one language but not the other.
If schools interpret lower English-only vocabulary scores as a broad deficit, students may be placed into overly restricted programming that reduces exposure to rich language and grade-level ideas—exactly what they need to grow.
Practical strategies: Activate knowledge across languages
- Assume students’ vocabulary assets exist across languages and experiences.
- Before reading, ask students to share (say, draw, or gesture) associations they have with key ideas in the text.
- Use students’ background knowledge as “Velcro hooks” to attach new English words and concepts.
4) Fluency: Rate Is Not the Goal—Understanding Is
Fluency is often treated as a bridge to comprehension, and it is. But for MLs, decoding accurately does not always trigger meaning efficiently. Students may be translating, holding phrases in working memory, or navigating unfamiliar grammar structures while reading.
When schools emphasize words-correct-per-minute benchmarks without equal emphasis on comprehension, MLs can be unintentionally trained to read faster than their optimal comprehension rate.
Practical strategies: Pair fluency with comprehension monitoring
- Always correlate fluency practice with quick checks for understanding.
- Teach students that “good fluency” means reading with understanding, not just speed.
- Add self-ratings: “Did that make sense?” “How sure am I?”
- Model slowing down, rereading, and adjusting prosody when comprehension drops.
5) Comprehension: Avoid Systems That Reduce Access to Rich Oral Language
In many settings, MLs experience skills-driven instruction, structured teaching of select words, and fewer opportunities for meaningful interaction with language. Ironically, these patterns can reduce access to the robust oral language that students need for grade-level comprehension.
Comprehension is not only a “later” skill. It must be built from the beginning—through interaction, discussion, and multiple ways to show understanding.
Practical strategies: Expand ways students can demonstrate meaning
- Allow students to show comprehension by drawing, pointing, reenacting, or sequencing pictures.
- Use games that require careful attention to language (e.g., Guess Who, Battleship, Twenty Questions).
- Have students act as “illustrators” for a passage they hear or read.
- Match sentences to peer-created pictures to practice sentence-level meaning.
6) Oral Language: Build It On Purpose, Not by Accident
Oral language is foundational to reading, but MLs’ oral language development may not resemble monolingual development patterns on screeners that assume single-language exposure. Misinterpreting oral language data can lead to placements that further reduce oral language opportunities.
Practical strategies: Embed expressive language into authentic tasks
- Use barrier games to practice clarification strategies.
- Use structured routines for elaboration (students add details, explain why, compare/contrast).
- Build narrative and expository language through journalism, storytelling, “explain how,” and “tell about” tasks.
Learning to Read and Reading to Learn: A False Choice for Multilingual Learners
A key message from the NYSED brief is that “learning to read” and “reading to learn” should be reciprocal. When programs treat decoding as a prerequisite to meaning, students may appear to be progressing (they can decode) but later struggle with comprehension—especially in secondary grades where texts become more complex and language demands rise.
The brief illustrates this with two students who share a home language but experience different instructional approaches. One student grows with meaning connected throughout literacy development; the other receives heavy decoding emphasis and later faces comprehension barriers that affect academic trajectories.
What This Means for School and District Leaders
For administrators and instructional leaders, multilingual SoR implementation is not just a classroom issue—it’s a systems issue. Screeners, intervention models, and program structures can either support or constrain MLs’ access to grade-level literacy.
- Use multiple measures to understand what MLs know (not just English-only screeners).
- Check whether intervention has become a “track” rather than a responsive, fluid support.
- Look for early warning signs: decoding gains that don’t translate into comprehension, or benchmark delays that reflect program mismatch rather than student potential.
Where TinyEYE Fits: Supporting Language, Literacy, and Access
Because TinyEYE provides online therapy services to schools, we often see how language and literacy needs intersect—especially for multilingual students whose skills may be unevenly distributed across languages. Effective support starts with careful interpretation of data and an asset-based view of multilingual development.
In practice, school teams benefit when speech-language services, literacy instruction, and classroom routines align around shared goals:
- Protecting meaning while building foundational skills
- Strengthening oral language as a driver of reading comprehension
- Using culturally and linguistically responsive strategies that leverage what students already know
For more information, please follow this link.
