Sentence Frames And Starters¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 2 claims (2 for) · 5 studies (2 causal, 2 review, 1 quant-synthesis), q2–q4 · 1 of 5 report an effect size

Description¶

Sentence frames are partially completed templates ("The evidence suggests that ___ because ___") that learners complete with their own ideas; sentence starters are opening phrases ("One way to interpret this data is…") that launch a response. Both externalize the syntactic and discourse structure of academic language so learners can focus on reasoning rather than constructing grammar from scratch.

Design Implications¶

Sentence frames act as a linguistic form of Chunking: by packaging recurring academic phrasings into ready-made units, they reduce the working-memory load of composing in a second language or in unfamiliar academic registers Chunking reduces the load language places on working memory. [+M]. This is especially consequential for English learners, who otherwise must simultaneously manage content reasoning and language production — a combination that degrades both Cognitive overload degrades learning outcomes. [+S]. Frames also make disciplinary discourse norms visible: the way scientists hedge claims or historians qualify evidence is embedded in the template itself, supporting Accessible Vocabulary & Syntax [+M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Frames matched to the actual discourse function of the task (compare, justify, summarize, hypothesize) — not generic fill-in-the-blank
• A word bank or Advance Organizers so learners have content to put in the frame
• A plan to fade frames as learners internalize the structures (Scaffolding)
• Oral as well as written use — frames work best when learners rehearse them in discussion before writing

Constraints¶

• Overused or permanent frames become a ceiling: learners produce formulaic, template-bound writing and never develop independent academic syntax [-M]
• Frames that do the intellectual work (e.g., pre-writing the conclusion) reduce the task to cloze completion and suppress reasoning [-M]
• Poorly matched frames — too complex for current proficiency or too simple for the content — add load rather than removing it [~M]
• Frames imposed without modeling how to use them are often ignored or misapplied [~W]

Implementation Variability¶

• Oral discussion frames ("I agree with ___ because…") structure collaborative talk in Collaborative Learning
• Writing starters open extended responses in disciplines (lab conclusions, argumentative essays)
• Differentiated frames: multiple versions of the same frame at different linguistic complexity, letting learners self-select
• Fading sequence: full frame → word-level starter → prompt only, mirroring gradual release

Target Learners¶

• English learners and multilingual learners acquiring academic language alongside content [+M]
• Students new to a discipline's discourse conventions (first-year writing, introductory lab sciences) [+M]
• Less necessary for learners already fluent in the academic register, for whom frames add little and may feel constraining [~W]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Academic language development: producing discipline-appropriate syntax and discourse moves
• Content learning: expressing reasoning that learners could not yet articulate unaided
• Participation: enabling full-class and small-group discussion from learners who would otherwise remain silent

Instructions¶

1. Identify the core discourse function of the task (e.g., citing evidence, comparing cases as in Comparing Cases).
2. Draft 2–4 frames that model authentic disciplinary language for that function.
3. Model completing a frame aloud, thinking through both the language and the content choice.
4. Have learners rehearse frames orally in pairs before independent writing.
5. Provide a word bank or Analogies to prior knowledge so the frame is filled with substantive content.
6. Fade: replace full frames with starters, then with a prompt, as learners produce the structures independently.

Related Strategies¶

• Accessible Syntax — the broader principle of simplifying sentence structures; frames are its most concrete implementation
• Activate Background Knowledge — frames are more effective when learners already hold the ideas they must express
• Think-Aloud Modeling — modeling frame use makes both the language and the reasoning visible
• Provide templates and publicly posted talk moves to scaffold discussion and lower cognitive load
• Offer generative formulaic expressions instead of rigid sentence starters
• Support English learners with sentence frames, graphic organizers, and word walls—but supplement frames with level-appropriate strategies because frames can limit the range of student responses
• Use a bilingual WebQuest with authentic materials on measurement to develop ideas of new length units and conversion ways

Examples¶

• QTEL (Quality Teaching for English Learners, WestEd) — uses structured sentence frames across curricular areas so multilingual learners engage grade-level intellectual work while developing academic English. https://qtel.wested.org
• WIDA — provides discipline-specific academic language frames and starter phrases aligned to English language development standards. https://wida.wisc.edu
• Claim-Evidence-Reasoning (CER) frameworks in science — "My claim is ___; my evidence is ___; this shows ___ because ___" structures lab conclusions in curricula such as OpenSciEd. https://www.openscied.org

Key Sources¶

• Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247–273. doi:10.2307/3588504
• Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159-180. doi:10.1080/13670050608668639
• de Oliveira, L. C. (2016). A language-based approach to content instruction (LACI) for English language learners. International Multilingual Research Journal, 10(3), 216–236. doi:10.1080/19313152.2016.1185911
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.