Supporting Participation in Literacy Activities for Multilingual Students Who Use AAC: Lessons From a School-Wide Professional Learning Community

Research Design

This project used a qualitative research design within the action research approach (e.g., Cohen et al., 2017; Mertler, 2024) to answer the research questions. A PLC was formed to address the participation needs of multilingual learners who use AAC in literacy activities. The PLC followed an action research approach which is characterized by iterative cycles of planning, action, observation, and reflection through which participants collaboratively address practical problems (Dickens & Watkins, 1999). In the planning phase, PLC participants identify the problem and develop actionable plans and strategies to address it. These strategies are implemented during the action phase, and their outcomes are systematically observed. Each implementation cycle ends with collective reflection, leading to revisions of the action plan for the next implementation cycle (e.g., Soto & Clarke, 2025).

The current study received approval from the Institutional Review Board at San Francisco State University (Study ID 2023-092-SFSU) and at Boston’s Public Schools. Information about the project, including its goals and how the findings would be shared, was provided to potential participants during an online meeting and through email. All the participants provided informed consent prior to participation in the study.

Participants

The PLC included 14 members of the same school team: five classroom teachers, three paraeducators, one parent liaison, one social worker, one bilingual SLP, one SLP with expertise in AAC, the school’s vice principal, and the school’s principal. They all worked at a charter public school that serves students with significant disabilities who rely on AAC to communicate. At the time of the study, the school had five classrooms that served only students in secondary education. There were 25 students at the school and seven were from homes where a language other than English was spoken. Home languages included Spanish, Cape Verdean Creole, Portuguese, Haitian Creole, and Arabic. The students used a variety of aided and unaided AAC systems, including communication boards, flipbooks, and speech-generating devices.

PLC Structure and Setting

In the year prior to forming the PLC, the school leadership team expressed concern about the limited participation of multilingual students in literacy activities and noted that these students consistently performed below their monolingual peers on school-wide literacy assessments. Traditional professional development efforts such as in-service trainings had not resulted in visible improved outcomes. Seeking a new approach to address this problem, the principal invited the university team, whose expertise included both PLC facilitation and AAC service delivery for multilingual learners, to collaborate in designing and supporting a school-based PLC. The PLC was convened by the school principal and vice principal, in collaboration with the university team, as a form of professional development with the goal of improving emergent literacy outcomes for their multilingual learners.

PLC participants met approximately once per month on seven occasions between September 2024 and May 2025. The meetings lasted approximately 1 hr and were conducted at school in person and attended virtually via Zoom by the university researchers. Before the first meeting, participants completed an online questionnaire to share their initial thoughts on the problems with current practice and desired changes. The questions were based on the model for improvement framework (Cohen et al., 2004) and included the following prompts: (a) What are you hoping to change in your practice to improve the literacy outcomes for your multilingual learners? (b) What factors may explain the current lower participation of your multilingual learners in literacy activities? (c) What changes will you need to make in your practice in order to support multilingual learners’ participation in literacy activities? and (d) How will you know those changes result in an improvement?

Results of the initial questionnaire were presented to the entire PLC during the first group meeting to begin the process of developing action plans for the initial implementation cycle. These action plans were developed collaboratively and addressed each classroom’s specific needs. The structure and focus of the PLC meetings evolved over time. The first two meetings were facilitated by the first author and were exploratory in nature, providing an open space for PLC participants to share their experiences, describe the challenges, and begin identifying actionable strategies to support their multilingual learners’ participation in literacy activities. In the third implementation cycle, the school’s leadership team (principal and vice principal) took primary responsibility for guiding the structure and facilitation of the PLC meetings.

Across all implementation cycles, and 1 week before each monthly meeting, participants completed an online questionnaire designed to support participants’ reflection on the prior month’s actions and outcomes. The questions were designed by the school’s leadership team and included the following prompts: (a) What was your goal for this month? What were you working on? (b) What concrete actions did you take toward this goal? (c) How did it go? (d) What is your next step? (e) Did you have an a-ha moment? and (f) Did anything surprise you? Reflection questionnaires were typically completed at the classroom level, with the lead teacher and the paraeducators submitting a single, collective response that reflected their shared efforts and experiences.

Data Collection

Data for this project were extracted from two primary sources: written reflections captured through the reflection questionnaires (n = 49) and transcripts of the seven PLC meetings conducted over the course of the school year. All PLC meetings were recorded in full. Zoom’s automatic transcription feature was used to generate verbatim transcripts of each meeting. The transcripts were carefully reviewed against the recordings by two trained research assistants and corrected if any transcription errors were detected. Anonymized and cleaned transcripts and questionnaire responses were then uploaded to Dedoose, a cloud-based qualitative analysis platform.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed through a collaborative, iterative process that drew on the principles and processes of reflexive thematic analysis that followed Braun and Clarke’s (2019) guidelines. The six-step analysis approach included (a) getting familiar with the data, (b) creating the initial codes, (c) identifying potential themes, (d) checking and refining those themes, (e) clearly defining each theme, and (f) writing up the findings.

The process blended both deductive and inductive strategies. To start, the first and last authors and two research assistants each reviewed the data independently and created initial codes. While several codes were constructed based on the research questions and prior evidence (deductive), many codes were constructed directly from the participants’ experiences (inductive). The research team met weekly to sort through the codes, compare coding decisions, resolve differences, and merge codes when excerpts could reasonably fit more than one category. The team began to group codes into categories and identify potential themes that reflected broader categories, with subthemes identified inductively within each theme (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2019). A theme tree was created and applied on new transcripts. The theme tree was adjusted as needed; some codes were combined, others were added. The theme tree included the codes and their working definitions.

After the fourth meeting, the research assistants went through the remaining data independently, adding new codes when something would not fit. Weekly check-ins with the faculty helped sort out any differences. If there was disagreement or confusion about where an excerpt belonged, the team talked it through until there was agreement, often tweaking the code descriptions for clarity. Eventually, the codes were reorganized under finalized themes, each with its own label and description. All the data were entered into Dedoose software to manage coding and organize the final set of themes. In addition to identifying themes in relation to the research questions, each code was also tagged to indicate the implementation cycle in which it appeared.

Shifts in Classroom Practices

In the initial meetings of the PLC, participants identified barriers to the participation of their multilingual learners in emergent literacy activities. Participants described uncertainty about how to incorporate students’ home language into literacy lessons, particularly when no one in the staff spoke their language or when students’ home languages used different alphabets. They noted the absence of adapted literacy curriculum resources for multilingual learners with disabilities and a lack of translated AAC materials. As one teacher noted,

Readtopia [a literacy instructional program designed for children with significant disabilities who use AAC] doesn’t quite have translated books yet . . . Another thought on my mind was just thinking about letters and sounds and such, like in Arabic, or Spanish? How are those letters pronounced or even read out loud when you’re saying the ABCs? So that’s something to plan for. (Teacher, Cycle 2)

Participants noted that the students’ AAC systems only supported English, preventing them from using their home languages or engaging fully in literacy instruction. As one staff member shared: “It’s hard because the device is in English, and the family speaks Cape Verdean Creole. There’s no bridge” (Family Liaison, Cycle 1).

Participants also described how the complexity of students’ needs and competing instructional demands made it difficult for them to prioritize and implement strategies tailored to their multilingual learners: “I think it’s hard because there’s just so much going on in a classroom with students who need so many different things” (Teacher, Cycle 1).

Despite these challenges, over the course of the year, participants reported a clear shift in practice. A pivotal moment came midway through the year, when the leadership team introduced a learning map as a planning tool. The learning map was designed by the leadership team to help educators make connections between new concepts introduced in the literacy lessons and the students’ sensory abilities, cultural knowledge, and personal interests (see Appendix). It responded to teachers’ early concerns that they needed support making instructional decisions that connected their literacy activities with the diverse cultural and linguistic profiles of their students.

The learning map was organized into three main sections. The first section, Experience and Learning Objective, helped teachers identify the specific concept being taught and articulate what they wanted their students to gain from the activity. The second section, Perceivable Factors, prompted teachers to examine how students might access the concept through different sensory channels (e.g., vision, hearing, touch, smell, and taste). For each of these factors, teachers brainstormed examples of how a student’s cultural experience and dominant language might shape their ability to notice, interpret, and respond to these sensory cues. This section included prompts for teachers to identify potential student memories and relevant past experiences that could support comprehension. The third section, Meaningful, asked teachers to locate or program any related vocabulary in the students’ communication systems (e.g., a core word, relevant vocabulary, a personalized phrase) and to connect the concept to the students’ languages, identity, and cultural background so that the instruction affirmed who the students are and what they brought to the learning situation. The final section, Motivating, prompted the teachers to think of ways to connect the concept to their student’s identity, personal interests, preferences, and cultural experiences to make the instructional activities more engaging and culturally relevant.

The introduction of the learning map prompted greater outreach to families, not just to inform them of upcoming literacy units, but to invite their input to support sensory-rich, culturally grounded instruction. For example, while completing a unit on Romeo and Juliet, teachers invited families to send the word “love” in their respective home languages and created posters with those words:

As a follow up activity in the classroom during speech, I helped lead a discussion about the translated word for love in the 3 languages represented in the classroom. Michelle and I then asked students if they would be interested in looking up another word in their home language, “poison” which was the key vocabulary word in the next chapter of Romeo and Juliet. All the students responded “yes” with their communication systems and were highly engaged as we Google translated “poison” to their home language. It felt good to acknowledge out loud that their home language is something to be celebrated, and that as an educator I can learn from my students. (SLP, Cycle 3)

Teachers progressively began designing lessons that integrated their students’ home languages and supported access through visual, tactile, and auditory means. Online translation tools became a key resource to support teachers’ efforts to use students’ home languages. One teacher described adapting shared reading routines by translating sentences into multiple languages:

So I have three multilingual learners in my classroom. So, I did the three different languages, and I just tried to, whenever we create sentences for our shared reading, I just . . . I’ll say it in English, and then I attempt to say it in their home language, too, with the help of Google Translate. (Teacher, Cycle 4)

The use of the learning map also fostered cross-classroom collaboration, as teachers began meeting to co-plan literacy activities and share strategies for integrating home language and culturally relevant materials in their instructional planning. Leadership team members modeled the use of the learning map during follow-up coaching sessions, helping staff translate planning into practice: “During coaching sessions, I worked with teachers to fill in a learning map for a lesson this week” (Vice Principal, Cycle 5).

In another instance, teachers asked families to send spices commonly used at home to establish the connection between a concept they were teaching and the students’ familiar sensory experiences: “We’ve really progressed with utilizing the learning maps to look at the ‘perceivability’ through all the senses and through the memories and motivation of our students to make the activities as engaging and relatable as possible” (Teacher, Cycle 5).

As the PLC went on, participants began to rely on multilingual members of the school community. Paraeducators who spoke students’ home languages became key linguistic and cultural brokers across instructional activities and informal moments:

We’re very fortunate to have our paraprofessional, who is able to supplement in different settings with Spanish. We primarily do English in class, just for the majority of staff. But she’s able to also do that [translate into Spanish] which is very helpful. (Teacher, Cycle 6)

As these practices became more intentional and regular, participants commented on observed changes in student participation. Teachers reported that students became more visibly engaged when their home language or cultural references were incorporated into instruction: “I observed a student smile and move her body when she heard music from her culture being played” (Teacher, Cycle 6). Another noted,

I have seen them perk up, right? Like, look, typically, you see the difference when you use home language. They’re like . . . zoned out, right? And then you see them like literally shake their heads and wake up like “Oh!” Like, they’re paying attention, right! (Teacher, Cycle 6)

Changes in Communication With Families About Curricular and AAC Content

At the beginning of the school year, most communication between teachers and families focused on logistical updates and care-related information such as changes in student schedules, updates about medical needs, and behavior support. Families were typically contacted to receive information, not to contribute to the curriculum; however, over the course of the year, educators began reaching out to families not only to inform them of upcoming instructional units but also to gather input that would help them adapt the content and classroom activities. Early examples included asking families about familiar sensory experiences, such as traditional spices or holiday traditions, and incorporating those into shared reading or thematic lessons. One teacher reflected: “I started trialing Spanish-spoken stories. I reached out to two families, asking them what are some spices that they cook with during the holidays, and I inquired about any special holiday music or traditions that their family engages in” (Teacher, Cycle 4). For example, during a lesson on the Three Kings holiday, a teacher explained: “For 3 Kings we spoke to all of our Latino parents and we shared how they celebrated that day” (Teacher, Cycle 4).

In addition to cultural sharing, families were invited to inform decisions about individualized instruction and AAC implementation. For instance, one teacher used a professional development session and an upcoming IEP meeting as a prompt to reconnect with a family about their child’s communication preferences: “I decided that I needed to reach out to the family and revisit a discussion I had with the student’s mother about the student’s preferences and reinforcement; what are enjoyable experiences she does with him at home” (Teacher, Cycle 2).

Initially, this shift required teachers to explain the purpose behind their new communication practices. Families, many of whom had not previously been asked to contribute to academic content or who had limited or disrupted experiences with formal schooling themselves, were initially surprised by these requests. Some had lived in refugee camps or had little experience navigating school systems that included family input in curriculum. As one teacher noted, engaging families around curricular themes prompted a reconsideration of what, how, and why they communicated: “We have included a section on our literacy instruction that includes our work with multilingual learners, and the core words we are using from families’ home language” (Teacher, Cycle 3).

Early efforts to bridge the gap between home and school content included sharing newsletters that explained instructional goals or vocabulary being taught and following up with individual phone calls to invite input from families about students’ home language experiences and cultural backgrounds. One teacher described: “My goal for the month was to identify the needs of my bilingual students by connecting literacy to their family dynamics” (Teacher, Cycle 2). Despite ongoing challenges, such as inconsistent responses or difficulties arranging translation, participants expressed surprise at the level of interest and enthusiasm families showed when invited to contribute to curricular content: “I think the engagement between our parents is what surprises me. How much they don’t mind being involved when they are asked” (Teacher, Cycle 4).

As the year went on, participants commented on how family engagement had increased. One teacher asked families to send poems from their cultural backgrounds to share during literacy lessons: “I’ve asked parents to find their favorite poem from their country to share with the classroom” (Teacher, Cycle 4). This collaborative approach was especially powerful in the context of AAC. Teachers began to acknowledge that communication systems, which were available in English only, needed to be adapted in collaboration with families to support communication at home. One teacher described working with a parent to translate a communication book: “Interviewed parent who speaks Amharic and translated the PODD book for her child to send it home” (SLP, Cycle 4). Another reflected on the challenges of selecting the right words for AAC systems and the value of consulting families to determine accurate translations and culturally appropriate terminology:

There were moments where I was stuck, and I would ask S, like, what’s this word? And to put it in their eye gaze, their device . . . How do we translate that into their language? I think those things were helpful as well, that they can go back and look at it themselves and bring up that memory that way. (Teacher, Cycle 6)

Participants reported feeling more confident and intentional in these practices, and as their confidence grew, they began to design entire units with family participation in mind. One teacher emphasized the importance of being proactive and intentional in this work:

I intentionally draw the parents in and say, like, when we did the Amanda [Gorman] unit, I asked parents to please share their poems from their country with us, so that we could incorporate it in our classroom. So just being intentional about those things. (Teacher, Cycle 6)

Participants described the experience of increased parent engagement as deeply rewarding. What initially felt uncertain or even daunting (inviting families to contribute to curriculum and AAC resources) ultimately became a source of connection and shared purpose. Teachers noted how much they gained from these exchanges, not only in terms of instructional relevance but also in building trust and partnership with families. As one participant reflected, the impact of including families and their home languages was transformative:

It was nice because we were including them and incorporating their home language. And it was like, Oh, we, I need to do more of this. We need to do more of this. So that in itself was rewarding, and it just opened doors to opportunities. (Teacher, Cycle 6)

Impact and Mindset Change

Across the PLC cycles, participants’ reflections revealed a notable shift in mindset regarding their roles, capabilities, and responsibilities in supporting multilingual learners with significant disabilities. Early reflections conveyed hesitancy, feelings of guilt about delayed action, and uncertainty about where to begin. As one participant shared, “Initially, it’s guilt. It’s like, well, why are we starting this now? But you have to start somewhere. You can only grow from where we are now. Right?” (Teacher, Cycle 5). Over time, that uncertainty gave way to increased confidence, ownership, and a deeper sense of professional accountability. By the later cycles, educators articulated a growing sense of agency in their planning and instructional decision-making: “I want to do the lesson and receive observation feedback . . . I then will reflect on their feedback as well as my own reflections and decide what edits or adjustments should be made” (Teacher, Cycle 5).

Over the course of the year, there was a marked shift in how participants understood and valued students’ home languages and cultural knowledge as essential assets for literacy development: “So we’re more mindful of our multilingual learners experience. Like we’re really thinking, how do we bring experience to them? How can they build that background knowledge, that would be number one” (Teacher, Cycle 5). Participants began to confront and move beyond their initial fears of doing things “wrong” when attempting to support students’ home languages, particularly in AAC contexts. One SLP reflected on her evolving approach:

In the past I was probably a little intimidated with the idea of trying to translate all the PODD books . . . making sure I didn’t offend anyone making mistakes and such. But I think I found this year, with this push and these meetings, and feeling accountable as the speech therapist . . . to go ahead and actually go for it and try it. Whether it was Google Translate or some of the resources you gave, like with Moroccan Arabic . . . I loved having a conversation with R’s dad at his IEP, and like handing him the PODD book that I tried to translate and saying, “Oh my God, I don’t think this is right, but please look at it.” (SLP, Cycle 5)

She went on to describe how this collaborative process shifted her understanding of family engagement:

I’ve done this with a couple of other parents in other languages . . . gave it to them and asked them to please look at it, edit it, and send it back. And you know, whether or not they did or not, I think this process . . . it acknowledges and validates their culture and their language. I found it as a way to say, I need you, parent, to be part of this.

This shift in mindset was reflected in other aspects of classroom practice. Teachers began noting that even small, consistent efforts to incorporate home language and cultural content had an observable impact on student participation and learning:

Yeah, I feel, like, I only have one multilingual learner, J, and she’s come a long way since September . . . I feel like that has to do with translating some of the terminology in her language, but also the PODD book, like having that translated as well, and a lot of our pre-teaching lessons and creating that background knowledge to kind of catch her up. I think it’s been really, really significant. (Teacher, Cycle 4)

The structure of the PLC itself played a crucial role in enabling this transformation. The iterative cycles of action and reflection created space for collaboration, exploration and risk taking, and peer learning. Participants increasingly drew on each other’s experiences to refine their own instructional design:

Yes! Even though each teacher used the same tool and are teaching the same chapter . . . they planned a uniquely engaging lesson that was specifically meaningful and perceivable for their multilingual learner. Feels so good to see the tool working effectively! (Vice Principal, Cycle 5)

Participants described the PLC as not just professional development, but a professional transformation:

They’ve been used to learning where, like, you go, it’s one hour, and you learn something. But this was more like professional development, like they were developing into professional learners . . . There was this really critical piece of accountability, and it moved . . . we are not the accountability enforcers anymore. (Principal, Cycle 5)

This deepened sense of responsibility and empowerment translated into instructional changes: “It went extremely well. Teachers were thoughtful and developed lessons that were each unique and meaningful for their student” (Vice Principal, Cycle 5). Another participant commented “Noting positive outcomes . . . seeing our student participating in lessons and feeling his access to communicating has increased” (Teacher, Cycle 6).

Implications for Practice

The findings of this study offer several important implications for practice in schools seeking to improve emergent literacy outcomes for multilingual learners with significant disabilities. The participants’ reported experiences speak to the value of sustained, iterative professional learning structures, such as PLCs, in supporting shifts toward culturally and linguistically responsive literacy instruction. While one-time workshops or isolated trainings may raise awareness, they are unlikely to foster the depth of reflection, experimentation, and ownership observed in this project (Clarke & Soto, 2025). Instead, educators need opportunities for ongoing inquiry and collaborative learning, where they can safely test new practices, share successes and challenges, and refine their approaches over time (Frates et al., 2022, 2024; Guiberson & Moore, 2025; Krishnan, 2021; Mauer, 2024).

The study also highlights the importance of providing practical tools, such as the learning map, that help educators translate abstract principles of cultural and linguistic responsiveness into concrete instructional actions. Contextually grounded tools that support this integration can make culturally sustaining pedagogy more accessible and actionable for educators across varied instructional contexts (Soto & Clarke, 2025). The findings point out the critical role of leadership in sustaining professional learning and driving school-wide change. As this project illustrates, when administrators and teacher leaders actively support inquiry cycles, provide coaching, and model culturally responsive practices, they help create the conditions necessary for ongoing growth and innovation (Broughton et al., 2023; Karvonen & Clark, 2019).

Finally, the study points to the importance of explicitly supporting educators in building reciprocal, trust-based partnerships with families. While many participants initially approached family engagement primarily as a form of information provision, their work within the PLC cycles helped shape an experience of families as partners in designing culturally and linguistically affirming literacy experiences. This shift is essential for fostering equitable outcomes for multilingual learners, and it suggests that professional development efforts should intentionally address both instructional practices and family engagement strategies.

Limitations and Future Research

While this study offers encouraging insights into the potential of PLCs to support culturally and linguistically responsive literacy practices, several limitations should be noted. The project took place in a single school context with a small and relatively cohesive staff group. The school’s leadership team had a strong existing commitment to culturally responsive practices, which was realized in a deep engagement with the PLC process and undoubtedly contributed to its success. The degree of engagement observed may not be easily replicated in more complex or fragmented educational settings. As such, the findings may not fully generalize to schools where leadership support is less robust or where staff cohesion is lower. Future research should examine how similar professional learning structures can be adapted and sustained in a wider range of educational contexts, including larger schools and districts. Such work could shed light on key structural and interactional conditions within which equity-driven practice can flourish.

Although the iterative planning-action-observation-reflection cycles captured shifts in educator practice and mindset, this study did not include systematic measures of student literacy outcomes. While participants reported observable changes in student engagement and communication, further research is needed to document the impact of these instructional changes on students’ emergent literacy development over time. Incorporating robust student data would strengthen the evidence base for this approach. The project relied on self-reported data from participants and qualitative analysis of meeting transcripts. These sources provided rich insights into the learning process but are also subject to potential biases. Triangulating these data with additional observational or artifact-based measures could provide a more comprehensive picture of how culturally and linguistically responsive practices are enacted in classrooms.

While the introduction of the learning map seemed to have supported increased engagement with families, building truly reciprocal partnerships remains an area for continued growth. Many participants expressed an interest in expanding these partnerships further, suggesting a need for additional professional development focused specifically on family engagement and co-design practices. Future research should explore how PLCs can be extended to include family members as active participants, and how collaborative inquiry processes might evolve when multiple forms of expertise, including family knowledge, are brought to the table. In addition, further investigation is needed to understand how to sustain and scale culturally responsive literacy practices across school systems serving diverse populations of multilingual learners with complex communication needs.