Analyzing Projects for ELL Support¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · no claims cited

Description¶

Analyzing projects for ELL support is a design-time audit in which educators examine a project-based learning (PBL) task through a language lens: identifying the academic vocabulary, language functions (e.g., justify, compare, explain), discourse demands, and speaking/listening requirements embedded in each task. The analysis then drives deliberate planning of vocabulary instruction and language scaffolds so that linguistic demands do not become a hidden barrier to content learning. It treats language not as a prerequisite to be waited for but as an outcome the project itself can develop Bunch's pedagogical language knowledge framework reframes content instruction as an opportunity for language development. [+M]

Design Implications¶

The strategy operationalizes the finding that content and language learning are mutually reinforcing when instruction makes academic language explicit and purposeful Integrating language and content objectives improves outcomes for English learners. [+M]. Analysis must occur before the project launches, because retrofitting language support mid-project typically arrives after students have already disengaged from inaccessible tasks.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A task-by-task map of the project identifying the language functions and discourse modes each product requires (oral presentation, written argument, data explanation)
• Knowledge of students' proficiency levels across the four language domains (reading, writing, speaking, listening)
• Planned accessible vocabulary and syntax instruction: tiered academic vocabulary, sentence frames, and morphology support
• Speaking and listening scaffolds such as structured discussion protocols, rehearsal time, and collaboration structures that pair ELLs with proficient peers

Constraints¶

• Analysis adds substantial design time; without institutional support, teachers frequently skip it and default to simplified content, which reduces rigor Reducing cognitive demand by simplifying content can deny English learners access to grade-level learning. [~M]
• Over-scaffolding vocabulary in isolation (pre-teaching word lists without meaningful use) produces shallow, non-transferable word knowledge [~M]
• Static analysis fails: language demands shift as projects evolve, so the analysis must be revisited at project milestones
• Teachers without pedagogical language knowledge tend to identify only surface vocabulary, missing discourse-level demands like argumentation structure [~M]

Implementation Variability¶

• SIOP-style lesson analysis: audit each project component against the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol's eight components (content and language objectives, comprehensible input, interaction, etc.)
• Language-function mapping: for each deliverable, name the target function ("students will justify a claim with evidence") and design sentence starters around it
• Co-design with ELL specialists or families: distributes the analysis across people who know the students' full linguistic repertoires
• Front-loaded vs. embedded vocabulary: pre-teaching key terms before launch versus teaching vocabulary in context at point of need; the latter better supports retention when words are encountered repeatedly in authentic use [~M]

Target Learners¶

• English Language Learners at intermediate proficiency, who have conversational fluency but lack academic language — the population most often underserved by both simplified and unmodified instruction [~M]
• Newcomers with limited English, for whom the analysis identifies which supports (first-language resources, visual models, reduced language load) are essential rather than optional
• The strategy is implemented by educators and curriculum designers, not by students directly

Target Learning Goals¶

• Academic language development: discipline-specific vocabulary, syntax, and discourse functions
• Content learning with simultaneous language growth, rather than content-first-then-language sequencing
• Communicative competence: participating in authentic discussion, critique, and presentation (Authentic Audiences & Purposes)

Instructions¶

1. Map the project's language demands. Walk through each task and product; list the language functions (describe, justify, compare, persuade) and discourse structures required. Use challenge identification to surface where language load is highest.
2. Set dual objectives. For each project phase, write both a content objective and a language objective, following the SIOP model.
3. Plan vocabulary instruction. Select tier-two and tier-three academic vocabulary; plan activating background knowledge activities that connect new terms to students' prior and home-language knowledge.
4. Design speaking and listening scaffolds. Build structured collaboration protocols, sentence frames, and rehearsal opportunities into the project timeline rather than adding them reactively.
5. Scaffold the products. Provide models, graphic organizers, and accessible syntax supports for written and oral deliverables, fading them as proficiency grows.
6. Check and adjust. Use formative assessment and check-ins at project milestones to verify that language supports are working, and revise the analysis where students still struggle.

Related Strategies¶

• Accessible Syntax — the sentence-level support that follows from the analysis
• Activating Background Knowledge — connects project content to ELLs' prior and cultural knowledge
• Address Literacy Demands — the broader literacy-audit approach this strategy specializes for PBL contexts
• Support community-connected project-based learning through PBL champions, collaboration time, and experience-tiered professional learning

Examples¶

• Genetics and traits project (PBLWorks model): analysis reveals students must justify conclusions with evidence; the teacher adds sentence starters ("My claim is… My evidence is…") and a structured peer-critique protocol before the final presentation.
• SIOP Model (Echevarría, Vogt, & Short): sheltered teachers audit every lesson for content and language objectives, comprehensible input, and interaction — the same audit logic applied at project scale. See https://www.pearson.com for the SIOP series.
• NGSS-aligned science units (Stanford SCALE): science curricula designed so ELLs learn disciplinary practices (arguing from evidence, constructing explanations) as language opportunities, per the framework in Lee, Quinn, & Valdés (2013).

Key Sources¶

• Bunch, G. C. (2013). Pedagogical language knowledge: Preparing mainstream teachers for English learners in the new standards era. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 298–341. doi:10.3102/0091732x12461772
• 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. doi:10.3102/0013189X13480524
• Echevarría, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2008). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model (3rd ed.). Pearson.
• Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Heinemann.