The Starting Point

 

Decades of interdisciplinary research support the conclusion that language development underpins literacy learning, including word reading. As the nation has shifted to embrace the Science of Reading, misconceptions and myths about its meaning often center on where the literacy journey is perceived to begin: word reading. However, this runs counter to what we know about the Science of Reading. 

And yet, the moment children enter kindergarten, interaction with print often begins without the emphasis on oral language. This is not accidental; it reflects years of poor nationwide literacy scores, curriculum demands, assessment pressures, and educators’ inadequate preparation to teach reading. 

These factors matter. These factors matter even more for historically marginalized populations and students of low socioeconomic backgrounds. So we have to pause and ask a more fundamental question: are we giving the same instructional “weight” to oral language as we give to print? 

When curriculum, assessments, and educator training in oral language are overlooked, we fall behind before we even start, because we begin without the language foundation that supports the learning that follows.

 

Step Back to Move Forward

 

First, let’s define language as it relates to this blog series. 

Language is how we communicate with one another through listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Listening and reading are receptive language competencies, whereas speaking and writing are expressive language competencies. To fully understand each language competency, it is important to recognize that receptive and expressive language are not isolated skills but an intricate, integrated system that supports communication, learning, and literacy development. Receptive language involves how children take in and make sense of information they hear or read, and requires several sub-skills such as sustaining attention, interpreting facial expressions and nonverbal cues, holding language in working memory, distinguishing sounds and word meanings, and ultimately organizing what they understand in preparation for a response. For multilingual learners (MLLs), receptive language skills often develop across languages and may appear stronger than expressive language skills as they acquire new vocabulary and navigate English syntax (Paradis, 2013). These skills allow children to follow directions, comprehend stories, and build meaning from spoken and written language. 

Expressive language reflects how children communicate their ideas, thoughts, and emotions to others. It includes selecting appropriate words, organizing sentences using foundational syntax, adjusting tone and pace, articulating clearly, and responding appropriately in social interactions. Expressive language may take many forms in and outside of the classroom. Some examples include speaking, signing, writing, or drawing. For multilingual learners, meaningful opportunities to practice and use language are crucial for the development of academic vocabulary and syntax (Paradis, 2017). All forms of expressive language skills heavily rely on the strength of underlying receptive skills. Together, receptive and expressive language form the foundation for effective communication and serve as critical building blocks for reading comprehension, written expression, and academic success.

12832

Figure 1. Language is not a single skill—it’s a connected system. Listening, speaking, reading, writing, memory, vocabulary, and social-emotional communication continuously reinforce one another, so growth (or gaps) in one area can quickly influence learning and participation across the day.

DeSantis, M. (2023a). All Roads Lead to Language. Left Side Strong LLC: Evidence Based Practice in Action. https://www.leftsidestrongllc.com/resources-for-educators

As educators, we can intentionally shift how students listen, speak, read, and write in our classrooms. Language complexity increases over time. The types of conversations and print students encounter in a third-grade science lesson will differ in complexity from those in an eighth-grade classroom; therefore, instruction must meet the rapidly increasing demands. For example, the Pre-K classroom environment that fosters curiosity and excitement through play leads to stronger language output. This same kind of environment should continue in elementary school and beyond in developmentally appropriate ways, such as through structured debates or project-based learning. As students grow older, the need for language-rich environments does not disappear. In contrast, the more our students engage in active learning, the more it fosters motivation to use language, thereby supporting a culture of safety and respect for all voices and perspectives.

 

Build a Culture around a Language-Rich Environment

 

The paragraphs that follow offer suggestions for inviting students to engage in content language that supports both whole- and small-group interactions. 

 

1. Establish an interactive culture through predictable conversational routines.

Create consistent structures that invite students to process language before producing it. For example, provide individual think time, sentence starters, visuals, or gestures before asking students to turn and talk. These routines reduce linguistic load while increasing participation and lowering speaking anxiety, especially for MLLs and students with language-based learning differences, who often need additional time to process and to organize expressive language (Justice et al., 2008; Snowling & Hulme, 2012).

2. Plan open, text-based questions that invite multiple interpretations.

Across subject areas, design questions that are centered on content texts and require explanation, reasoning, or perspective-taking rather than single correct answers. For example, instead of asking, “Why did Eva feel defeated?” ask, “What events in the text might explain Eva’s feelings, and which details support your thinking?” Open questions promote richer oral language, syntactic complexity, and academic vocabulary use while allowing diverse learners to contribute at different levels of language proficiency (Beck & McKeown, 2007; Filipenko et al., 2011).

3. Explicitly model language through think-alouds and revisit key words and sentence structures.

Intentionally highlight vocabulary, phrases, and sentence frames that students will need to feel comfortable participating in discussions and learning tasks, using modeling. For example, preview key academic language before a science investigation or model complex sentences during a think-aloud (“I want to break down this sentence because I am having trouble understanding it. First, I am going to …”). Making language explicit supports MLLs and students with language-based disabilities by reducing ambiguity and strengthening connections between oral language, meaning, and print (Kieffer & Lesaux, 2012; McGregor et al., 2013).

4. Embed structured, text-based academic discussion into daily instruction.

Plan opportunities for students to engage in sustained, scaffolded talk that requires them to explain ideas, reference text, and respond to peers. When academic language is modeled and supported through sentence frames and clear discussion expectations, students develop the language skills necessary for comprehension and content learning. (Kim et al., 2011).

 

Why These Practices Matter

 

Across grade levels, language grows through use, feedback, and meaningful interaction. When educators prioritize and facilitate intentional talk (supported by routines, questions, and explicit instruction), students are more likely to take linguistic risks, deepen comprehension, and develop the oral language systems that support reading, writing, and learning across disciplines (Catts & Kamhi, 2017; Hulme & Snowling, 2013).

 

How to Get Kids Talking when Talking about Texts

 

Before encountering complex language orally or in a text, prime students through content-related visuals to:

  • Activate background knowledge by explicitly connecting new learning to existing schemas.
  • Introduce or review key vocabulary and concepts using visuals, gestures, and student-friendly explanations.
  • Pose a debatable or curiosity-driven question to signal that language will be used for thinking, not just answering.

These practices are especially important for multilingual learners and students with language-based disabilities, who benefit from previewed language and explicit connections that support comprehension before demands increase.

During a complex language task: 

  • Present highly engaging, complex text that invites discussion rather than passive consumption. 
  • Embed high-level questions that require explanation, justification, and reference to text. For example, “Turn to your partner and explain why the character’s decision was reasonable, using evidence from the text. Reference our concept map for vocabulary support” (Kim, et al., al 2024). This is extremely important for multilingual learners to aid word recall and connect previously learned content.
  • Transition from whole-group discussion to structured small-group or partner protocols, using sentence frames and discussion roles to support equitable participation.

After students meet their learning targets, check and monitor their overall comprehension of big ideas and language by:

  • Assessing student understanding through formative checks that prioritize big ideas and evidence-based reasoning (oral or written).
  • Revisiting the unit’s overarching question and inviting students to refine their thinking using newly acquired language. This can also provide students with an opportunity to revisit their prior thoughts or to draw connections with their peers. 
  • Encouraging students to summarize, retell, or explain learning using academic vocabulary and complete sentences. Provide scaffolds such as visuals or sentence stems as necessary.

For students with language vulnerabilities, these opportunities reinforce language structures and make learning visible.

Click the Bookmark below to place into your teaching text!
DeSantis, M. (2023). Educators: Enhance teaching – empower students. Educator
Resources. https://www.leftsidestrongllc.com/resources-for-educators 

 

Moving Forward

 

Ensuring students can engage with a variety of complex texts is not an easy task, given the many language barriers they may encounter. When oral language instruction is intentionally embedded before, during, and after learning, it becomes a natural part of Structured Literacy rather than a competing priority. This approach ensures that students not only decode text accurately but also develop the language systems necessary to comprehend, discuss, and learn from what they read.

 

References

 

Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2007). Increasing young low-income children’s oral vocabulary 
repertoires through rich and focused instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 107(3), 
251–271. https://doi.org/10.1086/511706

 

Catts, H. W., & Kamhi, A. G. (2017). Language and reading disabilities (3rd ed.). 
Pearson.

 

Filipenko, M., McTavish, M., & Shapiro, J. (2011). Dialogic reading: Promoting early literacy 
learning. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 11(2), 157–182. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798411401863

 

Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2013). Learning to read: What we know and what we need to 
understand better. Child Development Perspectives, 7(1), 1–5. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12005

 

Justice, L. M., Mashburn, A., Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2008). Quality of language and literacy 
instruction in preschool classrooms serving at-risk pupils. Early Childhood Research 
Quarterly, 23(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.09.004

 

Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2012). Knowledge of words, knowledge about words: 
Dimensions of vocabulary in first and second language learners in sixth grade. Reading 
and Writing, 25(2), 347–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9272-9

 

Kim, J. S., Capotosto, L. C., Hartry, A., & Fitzgerald, R. (2011). Can a mixed-method literacy 
intervention improve the reading achievement of low-performing elementary school 
students in an after-school program? Results from a randomized controlled trial of 
READ 180 Enterprise. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(2), 183–201. 
https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373711399148

 

Kim J., Gilbert J. B., Relyea, J. E., Rich, P., Scherer, E., Burkhauser, M., & Tvedt,  J.N. (2024). 
Time to transfer: Long-term effects of a sustained and spiraled content literacy 
intervention in the elementary grades. Developmental Psychology, 60(7), 1279–1297. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001710 

 

McGregor, K. K., Oleson, J., Bahnsen, A., & Duff, D. (2013). Children with developmental 
language impairment have vocabulary deficits characterized by limited breadth and 
depth. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 48(3), 307–319. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12008

 

Paradis, J., & Jia, R. (2017). Bilingual children’s long-term outcomes in English as a second 
language: Language environment factors shape individual differences in catching up with  
monolinguals. Developmental Science, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12433 

 

Paradis, J., Schneider, P., & Sorenson Duncan, T. (2013). Discriminating children with language 
impairment among English language learners from diverse first language backgrounds. 
Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 56(3), 971–981. 
https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2012/12-0050) 

 

Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (2012). Interventions for children’s language and literacy 
difficulties. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 47(1), 27–34. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-6984.2011.00081.x