Blog Viewer

Navigating the ESL Maze: Finding the Right Approach for Multilingual Learners

By Daniel Malakowsky

Back To School 

Imagine it's your first week of school. You've greeted your students, gathered assessment data, and now face the challenge of meeting the diverse literacy needs of students. Among your students are multilingual learners (MLLs) who come to schools with multiple languages, and the question arises: How do you support them effectively? This article explores support models for MLLs—guiding educators in choosing the right approach.

Of course, culturally appropriate Tier 1 support must be provided to MLL students (Klingner & Edwards, 2006). Tier 1 refers to core, universal instruction that all students receive. Class size and group composition will inevitably present challenges as instruction begins to be differentiated. Support for MLLs should be embedded within the curriculum, with both formative and summative evaluations used to determine whether all learners are being reached. When gaps in learning are identified, thoughtful planning for MLL support, Tier 2 services, and targeted literacy interventions becomes necessary. Questions will likely arise—such as, “What is the ideal group size for literacy intervention?”—with answers depending on student needs and school context. Ideally, support from a licensed English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher is available; however, more than 40% of ESL teachers in the United States are not certified (Diaz-Rico, 2020). When available, a certified ESL teacher can assist in implementing a model of support. One of the key early decisions involves choosing between push-in, pull-out, or a hybrid support model. 

Before choosing a model, you must examine your systems (Senge 2006) in your school environment. How many students do you have, what space is available, what languages do your students speak, and how much support can be provided. It is also important that the classroom teacher and ESL teacher collaborate to understand language acquisition, Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) structures, and available intervention pathways so decisions are grounded in students’ needs. 

Students Acquire English in Different Ways  

It is important to acknowledge that MLL students acquire English in different ways. Some respond well to a communicative approach, a structured grammar approach, a naturalistic approach, or a combination of different frameworks. MLL students can benefit from multimodality instruction. That is, educators can teach a concept through visual, auditory, reading, writing, speaking and kinesthetic methods. Getting to know your students—their strengths, backgrounds, and learning preferences—will help you identify the approach that works best for them. Varied, responsive instruction is key. 

Different Types of Interventions and Literacy Skills 

There are different types of interventions, and there are different types of skills. Within these interventions, educators must decide on what type of skills to concentrate upon. Literacy interventions typically focus on two skill types: constrained and unconstrained skills (Snow and Matthews 2016). Examples of constrained skills would be letter recognition, writing one’s name, reciting the alphabet, rhyming, and segmenting phonemes. Examples of unconstrained skills would be vocabulary, story structures, telling narratives, requesting information, giving directions, and engaging in pretend play.  Constrained skills have a ceiling, and unconstrained skills do not. Thus, it is important to distinguish what type of intervention you feel would be helpful and what type of skills you will be working upon. There are two primary literacy supports or literacy opportunities for MLL students. These include structured literacy interventions and ELD. Before we compare these two major supports for MLLs, we must acknowledge a common misconception in the ESL or MLL world.  

Misconception: Multilingual Learner Instruction is Considered an Intervention or Part of Tier 2 Instruction  

As the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (2019, p. 17) shared:  

In the Massachusetts Tiered System of Support, Tier 1 or Core Instruction represents culturally responsive, quality instruction that all students receive. For ELs [English Learners], Tier 1 includes English language development, like ESL [English Second Language], delivered by qualified teachers (WIDA, 2013). As the National Center on Response to Intervention notes, instruction within these settings would not be viewed as an intervention (Tiers 2 or 3), but rather part of the ELs’ core instruction (National Center on Response to Intervention 2011). On the other hand, since ESL instruction is not an intervention, ELs who need additional instructional support for content area learning should have access to appropriate interventions in addition to ESL instruction.  

Thus, states vary in how they defined intervention, but ESL/ELD itself is not a Tier 2 service. 

Literacy Support: Structured Focus 

Structured literacy support will focus on a constrained skills approach. Most often in elementary schools we will see literacy interventions with a strong phonics skills component. Students take an assessment or universal screener and are grouped by phonics and reading ability. Most often this approach contains a linear script. The script will assist teachers with the correct verbiage of the phonics curriculum. The teacher uses direct explicit instruction with this model and fidelity is important. 

English Language Development Approaches 

Many Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) professionals use a social constructivist, cognitive, communicative approach, or combination when teaching multilingual students. A social constructivist approach focuses on encouraging students to have interactions with their peers and teachers. A cognitive approach will emphasize and encourage students to make connections between ideas and concepts, and in communicative teaching, the learner is provided simulated learning situations in and outside the classroom.  

Unlike the narrow focus of structured literacy models, TESOL professionals use three perspectives to help students acquire language and literacy: linguistic, psychological, and social perspectives (Saville-Troike and Barto 2017). These perspectives underpin a holistic approach to ELD. Importantly, TESOL professionals do not focus on student deficits. Instead, TESOL professionals concentrate on students’ funds of knowledge (Diaz-Rico, 2020). 

Comparing Support Models for Multilingual Learners  

 
Each instructional support model—whether structured literacy interventions or ELD—has its strengths and challenges. Structured literacy interventions often emphasize constrained skills like phonics and decoding. These are useful for targeting foundational reading deficits and tend to be delivered in small groups using a scripted curriculum. ELD models, often guided by TESOL professionals, prioritize unconstrained skills—such as academic vocabulary, discourse, and language fluency—using social, cognitive, and linguistic approaches. These models tend to focus on language development holistically rather than remediating isolated deficits. 

  
In many classrooms today, student trauma is visible and affects behavior, engagement, and learning outcomes (Williams & Marcus 2021). MLL students may face additional layers of stress, such as navigating a new language, adapting to unfamiliar cultural norms, or managing interrupted schooling due to displacement or immigration. As a result, many are relearning the pragmatics of school—from raising hands and taking turns to collaborating with peers and interpreting feedback. These foundational skills, often taken for granted, must sometimes be explicitly taught or reinforced. Unfortunately, school counselors and mental health professionals are often overburdened and understaffed, leaving teachers to support the emotional and social needs of culturally and linguistically diverse students (Williams & Marcus 2021). 
 
TESOL professionals are uniquely positioned to help. They not only address academic language needs but also create safe, low-anxiety environments that reduce affective filters (Krashen 1982). By connecting language instruction to students’ lived experiences and emotional well-being, they serve as both linguistic educators and cultural mediators.  

  
Pull-out instruction offers significant benefits for language acquisition, particularly when implemented thoughtfully and with consistency. One of its primary strengths is the dedicated time and space for explicit language instruction, away from the distractions of the general education classroom. In smaller, focused groups, multilingual learners can practice academic language in a more comfortable setting, engage in meaningful dialogue, and receive individualized feedback. Pull-out models support the development of both BICS (Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills) and CALP (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency) by providing students with structured opportunities to build vocabulary, refine grammar, and develop oral and written expression (See Cummins, 1981). 
 
Moreover, pull-out instruction can be tailored to students’ specific language proficiency levels, allowing educators to scaffold instruction appropriately using tools like the WIDA Can Do Descriptors (WIDA 2020). This intentional focus on language development, removed from the fast pace of whole-class instruction, gives multilingual learners the space they need to internalize complex academic language and practice using it authentically. 

Each instructional model has its strengths. Teachers benefit from structure over their class (structured framework), teachers must make students feel comfortable at school, allow interaction (social constructivist) and encourage translanguaging, make connections (cognitive framework) and help make content comprehensible. Within both supports, educators examine data closely, and students are grouped according to literacy ability, area of need, or language ability. Constrained skills will be the primary focus of the structured framework, and unconstrained skills will be emphasized in the social constructivist, cognitive, and communicative ELD methodologies. Not all literacy interventions are based on structured (behaviorist) theory. Occasionally, an interventionist will play an educational game and go rogue (off the script). However, when this is done, you now have an issue with fidelity. A TESOL professional might also use a structural view depending on students’ first language and age.  

Push-In or Pull-Out? 

One of the primary questions which will guide your intervention or ELD choice will be the type of ESL service. Will the TESOL professional assist students in the mainstream classroom or outside the classroom? In some cases, it might be possible to do both. More specifically, will you use a direct service model, an indirect service model, or an integrated approach? A direct service model focuses on explicit targeted academic language support independent of the general education classroom. This would be the pull-out model. An indirect service model focuses on explicit targeted academic language instruction in all general education lessons. In this model, TESOL professionals co-plan with mainstream teachers and give advice or coach teachers. An integrated service delivery model uses explicit targeted academic language support in the general education classroom or while using general education content. An example of this would be pushing into a classroom and co-teaching with a teacher.   

Push-In 

A popular choice by educators is push-in support. Push-in support could be connected to an integrated service model. Push-in support can look different depending on the grade. For example, at the secondary level, TESOL professionals might utilize a co-teaching model. Content instructors will teach alongside TESOL instructors. At the elementary level, push-in support might resemble the secondary model; however, the role of the TESOL professional might shift from teacher to facilitator. TESOL professionals might assist certain students with a lesson taught by the classroom teacher using the WIDA standards and Can-Do-Descriptors (WIDA 2020) to help make content comprehensible. Many educators prefer the push-in model. In this model, students do not miss out on content, and content teachers know exactly what the TESOL professional is teaching. 

Pull-Out 

The second choice is pull-out support for MLL students. This would be a direct service model. Implementing pull-out instruction requires available classroom space, which can be a challenge in overcrowded schools. Many schools struggle with space constraints. Personally, I have taught in traditional classrooms, hallways, small office spaces, a custodian closet, and a Parent Teacher Organization (PTO) supply room adjacent to the gymnasium. Throughout the day, students would throw balls against the wall. This was a difficult teaching environment. In addition, the supply room had no heat, air conditioning, internet, phone, and the lighting was subpar.  

The pull-out model should allow TESOL professionals to work with MLL students in a quieter, more focused setting outside the general classroom. Many students thrive in smaller instructional groups, and research such as the Tennessee Study confirms that class size has a significant impact on learning outcomes (Mosteller, 1997). In pull-out settings, targeted language instruction can be delivered with fewer distractions and greater intensity. This model becomes particularly advantageous during staffing shortages, a growing issue across the country. In these circumstances, pull-out instruction offers a more stable and controlled environment for language development. 

Conclusion 

Educators face complex decisions when choosing how best to support MLLs—but the effort is well worth it. This manuscript has focused specifically on instructional models and literacy supports, emphasizing the need for collaboration, knowledge of language development, and a clear understanding of Tiered Systems of Support. 
 
By unpacking structured literacy and ELD approaches, and comparing push-in and pull-out models, it empowers educators to make informed decisions rooted in both research and reflection. The goal is not simply compliance with standards, but the creation of classrooms where MLLs can thrive academically, socially, and emotionally. In the end, when educators prioritize equity, reflection, and meaningful collaboration, they position themselves- and their students- for lasting success.  
Educators must take time to find the right support model for each learner. Whenever possible, it is advisable to consult with your ESL teacher for assistance. Having knowledge of language acquisition, intervention types, and available support structures ensures more equitable and effective instruction for our MLLs. 

References