Migration Narratives: Analyzing How Common Narratives Shape Immigration Stories

Opening: Creating Our Learning Community (10 minutes)

“Today we’re analyzing how immigration stories get told. This topic touches many of us personally—some have recent migration stories, some from generations ago. This diversity strengthens our learning. Our goal is understanding how narrative frameworks work, not debating who’s ‘right.'”

Co-create norms:

• Focus on analyzing media, not debating people’s worth
• Listen to understand, not just respond
• Ask genuine questions when confused
• All humans deserve dignity—non-negotiable
• Notice discomfort and stay curious

---

Building the Framework Together: Mapping Immigration Narratives (25 minutes)

Collaborative Gallery Build

Divide into 6 groups. Each gets chart paper with one framework:

1. Threat/Security
2. Economic Competition
3. Cultural Threat
4. Human Interest/Struggle
5. Contribution
6. Migration as Universal Experience

Task (10 minutes): On your chart, record:

• What this framework emphasizes
• Language/phrases that signal it
• Whose voices you’d expect to hear
• Examples you’ve encountered

Gallery Walk (10 minutes): Rotate, read others’ charts. Add:

• ? next to confusing points
• ★ next to surprises
• One example they missed

Synthesis (5 minutes): Each group shares one key insight (30 seconds).

Teacher note: “These frameworks shape meaning. Even factually accurate journalism within a framework leads readers to different conclusions than the same facts in a different framework. Now we’ll analyze how this works in real coverage.”

---

Analyzing Real Journalism (45 minutes)

Setup: Provide 8-10 curated articles representing different frameworks, OR let students find their own.

Phase 1: Individual Selection (5 minutes) Choose one article. Jot notes:

• What catches your attention?
• What narrative framework seems to be operating?

Phase 2: Framework Groups (25 minutes)

Group with others who identified the same framework (3-4 per group).

Analysis Using “By Whom, About Whom, For Whom?”

Select ONE article to analyze together:

BY WHOM? Who created this? When/where? What does this tell you?

ABOUT WHOM? Who’s depicted? How? Are they shown as experts, struggling individuals, threats, contributors? How much space do immigrant voices get?

FOR WHOM? Who’s the assumed audience? What are they asked to think/feel?

WHO ELSE? Whose perspectives are missing? Who would you interview to add to this story?

Plus: Evaluate Quality

• Facts checkable?
• Multiple sources?
• Complexity acknowledged?

Phase 3: Cross-Framework Dialogue (10 minutes)

Jigsaw: Form new groups with one person from each framework group.

Each shares:

• Their framework
• One key finding
• How the framework shaped the coverage

Discuss: How do different frameworks lead to different conclusions from similar facts?

Challenge Narratives (5 minutes)

Briefly show 1-2 examples of journalism that challenges dominant frameworks. Quick discussion: What makes this different?

---

Personal Stories: Resisting Simple Narratives (15 minutes)

Provide 3-4 diverse personal migration stories (written/video/audio).

Students choose one story and one response mode:

Option A: Use “By Whom, About Whom, For Whom?” Write: How does this resist simple frameworks?

Option B: Small group discussion—What does this reveal that framework-driven journalism misses?

Option C: Creative response—What would you want readers to understand that usually gets omitted?

Brief share (5 minutes): Volunteers share one insight.

---

Closing Circle (5 minutes)

Stand/sit in circle. Complete ONE sentence stem (your choice):

• “Something I’ll pay attention to now…”
• “A question I’m still thinking about…”
• “Something that challenged my thinking…”
• “One way I want to use these tools…”

Understanding Narrative Frameworks

Even careful, ethical journalists operate within narrative frameworks—often unconscious patterns that shape what questions get asked, whose voices are heard as authoritative, what angles feel “natural.” Recognizing these narratives doesn’t mean dismissing journalism as “biased” or equivalent to propaganda. It means becoming sophisticated readers who can both evaluate factual accuracy AND understand how framing shapes meaning.

What Research Shows

Media framing powerfully shapes immigration attitudes. Vaquera et al. (2022) demonstrate that predominantly negative media framing, even in otherwise credible journalism, shapes public perceptions. Fox (2018) notes how the prevalence of certain news frames creates specific narratives around immigration that shape how communities perceive newcomers.

Political discussions significantly amplify these effects. Terlizzi (2021) explains that how immigration is framed in political discourse has real consequences for policies and public opinions. When political narratives emphasize immigrants’ economic contributions, public attitudes tend to be more positive. When the focus is on security threats, this can lead to restrictive immigration laws (Hussein, 2024).

Personal stories of immigrants bring essential counternarratives. Gómez-Estern and Mata (2013) emphasize that people relate to stories that resonate with their own experiences, creating opportunities for genuine understanding. Stories of immigrant families navigating life in the U.S. often resist simple narrative frameworks while promoting empathy (Vesely et al., 2018).

Why This Matters

Migration narratives are powerful tools. They can promote understanding and belonging or contribute to prejudice and exclusion. By teaching students to recognize narrative frameworks and evaluate journalistic quality, we prepare them for informed democratic participation.

This lesson is particularly important because:

• 26% of U.S. K-12 students are immigrant-origin
• Immigration narratives shape real policies affecting real people
• Students encounter immigration discourse daily without tools to analyze it critically
• Understanding frameworks helps students distinguish between quality journalism and propaganda without falling into “all media is biased” cynicism

Preparation Tips

Before teaching:

1. Read “Understanding Anti-Immigrant Prejudice: A Guide for Educators” (linked below) for context on how media narratives function as prejudice mechanisms
2. Curate 8-10 news articles representing different frameworks, or prepare guidelines for students to find their own
3. Select 3-4 diverse personal migration stories (ensure they’re age-appropriate and represent varied experiences)
4. Prepare chart paper with framework names for gallery activity
5. Post “By Whom, About Whom, For Whom?” visibly in classroom
6. Review the six narrative frameworks yourself—practice identifying them in current coverage

Materials to gather:

• News articles (digital or print) from credible sources representing different frameworks
• Personal migration stories (video, audio, or written)
• Chart paper and markers
• Reference framework poster to post in room

Adapt for your context:

• For younger students (grades 6-8): Use shorter articles, provide more scaffolding for analysis
• For older students (grades 10-12): Add complexity by comparing international coverage or analyzing social media
• For shorter time blocks: Focus on just 3-4 frameworks instead of all 6
• For classes with many immigrant-origin students: Be especially attentive to safety; consider letting students opt into extensions rather than doing personal story analysis in class

Connection to “Understanding Anti-Immigrant Prejudice”

This lesson applies concepts from our educator guide “Understanding Anti-Immigrant Prejudice: A Guide for Educators.” That resource provides foundational knowledge about:

• How media framing functions as a prejudice mechanism
• Why economic scapegoating and cultural threat narratives persist
• The role of contact and segregation in shaping attitudes
• Historical patterns showing these narratives recycle across immigrant groups

We recommend reading that guide before teaching this lesson to understand the broader context of how prejudice develops and what role media plays in either reinforcing or challenging it.

Understanding Narrative Frameworks

This lesson applies concepts from the FrameWorks Institute, a leading research organization that studies how framing shapes public understanding of social issues. Their Strategic Frame Analysis® methodology has demonstrated that the way issues are framed—what gets emphasized, what gets omitted, whose voices are centered—profoundly shapes public attitudes and policy support.

FrameWorks defines frames as guides that “direct people where to look, but more importantly, help them interpret what they see.”

Creating Safety and Belonging

Remember: 26% of students are immigrant-origin. These students shouldn’t have to educate classmates or defend their families. Frame work as analyzing media structures, not debating people’s worth. Dignity is non-negotiable.

Watch for students who:

• Withdraw or become defensive during discussions
• Are put on the spot to share “their” perspective
• Have their personal experiences generalized

Strategies:

• Offer alternative participation modes (writing, small group, one-on-one)
• Make personal story engagement optional
• Check in privately with students who seem uncomfortable
• Model: “We’re analyzing how media works, not evaluating whether immigration is ‘good’ or ‘bad'”

How Frames Can “Trap” Discourse

FrameWorks Institute research on immigration demonstrates how certain frames create traps that limit productive conversation. For example, when immigration is discussed through a legal/enforcement frame, Americans’ “Law = Criminal Law” mindset automatically directs thinking toward punishment and enforcement rather than policy design or humanitarian concerns. This happens even among people who support more humane policies.

This is why you’ll see students (and adults) struggle when trying to critique enforcement policies—they get stuck in “but shouldn’t we enforce the law?” thinking. The frame itself narrows what seems like reasonable discussion.

Teaching implication: When students analyze articles using the Threat/Security framework, help them notice not just THAT this frame is being used, but HOW it limits the conversation. What questions become hard to ask within this frame? What solutions become unthinkable?

---

Facilitating Dialogue Across Differences

When students express conflicting views:

• Return to analytical framework: “What narrative framework is that claim using?”
• Ask for evidence: “Where did you encounter that? How was it framed?”
• Redirect to missing voices: “Whose perspective aren’t we hearing?”
• Model: “I hear you thinking about [economic security]. Let’s examine what the data actually shows…”

Don’t: Shut down conversation, shame students, allow personal attacks

Do: Create space for genuine questions while maintaining dignity for all

---

Building on Student Thinking

• Use “Build on, Question, Connect” protocol: Students respond to each other with “I want to build on what [name] said…” or “I have a question about…” or “This connects to…”
• Make thinking visible: Chart student observations and refer back to them
• Credit student insights: “As [name] noticed earlier…”
• Ask “What do YOU think?” not “What do you think the right answer is?”

---

Promoting Equity in Group Work

• Use structured protocols (timed turns, specific roles, sentence stems)
• Monitor group dynamics—intervene if some students dominate
• Explicitly teach collaborative skills: “Today we’re practicing building on each other’s ideas”
• Mix grouping strategies: interest-based, framework-based, jigsaw
• Ensure all students have roles that play to their strengths

---

Differentiation for English Learners

This lesson is designed to support multilingual learners through multiple access points. Here are specific strategies for different proficiency levels:

Visual and Multimodal Supports:

• Post the six narrative frameworks with visual icons/symbols
• Use color-coding for different frameworks on gallery walk charts
• Provide articles with images, infographics, or video components
• Display “By Whom, About Whom, For Whom?” as a visual graphic, not just text
• Allow students to annotate articles with highlighters, sticky notes, symbols

Language Scaffolds:

For Framework Mapping Activity: Provide sentence frames:

• “This framework emphasizes ___________”
• “Signal words include: ___________, ___________, ___________”
• “We would expect to hear voices from ___________”
• “An example I’ve seen is ___________”

For Group Analysis: Provide structured discussion stems:

• “I think this article uses ___________ framework because ___________”
• “The journalist is ___________. This tells me ___________”
• “The article shows immigrants as ___________. I notice ___________”
• “A missing perspective is ___________”

For Closing Circle: Offer multiple sentence stem options at varying complexity:

• Emerging: “I notice ___________ now”
• Developing: “Now I will pay attention to ___________ because ___________”
• Expanding/Bridging: “Something that challenged my thinking was ___________ because ___________”

Strategic Grouping:

• Pair emerging ELs with bilingual peers who share their home language when possible
• In framework groups, ensure ELs are with supportive peers who will clarify without dominating
• For jigsaw, place ELs in groups where they’ll hear models before having to report out
• Consider giving ELs slightly more prep time before group shares

Pre-Teaching Key Vocabulary: Before the lesson, introduce and practice:

• Core concepts: narrative, framework, perspective, depict, source, credibility
• Analysis terms: emphasize, omit, center, missing voices, audience
• Framework names: Have students create a personal glossary with definitions and examples in their own words

Modified Texts:

• Provide shorter articles or excerpts for close analysis
• Pre-highlight key passages students should focus on
• Offer articles with Newsela or similar text-leveling tools
• Include articles with strong visual components (photos, charts, infographics)

Alternative Response Modes:

• Allow ELs to complete analysis using graphic organizers rather than extended writing
• Permit responses in home language first, then English
• Offer choice of verbal response, written response, or visual representation
• Use think-pair-share to give processing time before whole group sharing

Leveraging Multilingual Resources:

• If students have encountered immigration coverage in their home language, invite them to analyze those sources
• Acknowledge that narrative frameworks operate across languages and cultures
• Value students’ ability to code-switch and navigate multiple cultural contexts as an analytical strength
• If students or their families have been subjects of news coverage, honor that expertise while not requiring them to share

During Gallery Walk:

• Give ELs sticky notes to add questions/comments in writing rather than speaking aloud
• Allow more time at each station
• Pair with a peer who can clarify vocabulary or content
• Provide guiding questions written on cards they can carry

Assessment Accommodations:

• Allow extended time for written analysis
• Accept shorter responses that demonstrate understanding (quality over quantity)
• Provide word banks for key vocabulary
• Use portfolio assessment showing growth over time rather than single-point assessment
• Offer option to record oral responses rather than write

Connection to WIDA Standards: This lesson addresses multiple language functions (analyzing, comparing, evaluating, explaining) across grade-level content. Support ELs by:

• Making language demands explicit (“Today we’re using words like ‘framework’ and ‘perspective'”)
• Modeling academic language in context
• Providing multiple exposures to key terms through different modalities
• Creating low-risk practice opportunities before high-stakes sharing

---

Common Challenges

“It’s all biased”: “Let’s be specific. What narrative framework is operating? Does this meet professional journalism standards? Recognizing frameworks doesn’t mean dismissing all journalism—it means we’re sophisticated readers who understand how framing works. There’s a difference between journalism working within a framework and deliberate misinformation.”

“Why does this matter?”: “These narratives shape real policies affecting real people. When you can recognize frameworks, you can ask better questions: Is this based on evidence? Whose voice is missing? Am I being asked to feel something rather than think critically?”

Student brings up propaganda they’ve encountered: Use as teachable moment without showing it to class: “Let’s apply our framework. What narrative was it using? How could you tell it wasn’t quality journalism? What voices were missing?”

---

Post This Framework Visibly

When you encounter immigration coverage, ask:

1. What narrative framework is operating?
2. By whom, about whom, for whom, who else?
3. Is this quality journalism? (checkable facts, multiple sources, complexity acknowledged)

---

Assessment

Students demonstrate understanding by:

• Identifying frameworks with specific textual evidence
• Using “By Whom, About Whom, For Whom?” to analyze power and voice
• Recognizing whose perspectives are centered or omitted
• Evaluating journalistic quality using concrete criteria
• Understanding how frameworks shape meaning even when facts are accurate
• Engaging respectfully across different perspectives
• Applying analytical framework independently to new examples

Learning Objectives:

Students will:

• Identify common narrative frameworks in immigration discourse
• Recognize how even quality journalism operates within narrative frameworks
• Evaluate journalistic quality: sourcing, fact-checking, transparency, corrections
• Understand how narrative frameworks shape what gets covered and whose voices are heard
• Analyze power dynamics in media using “By Whom, About Whom, For Whom?” routine
• Recognize patterns in how different immigrant groups have been portrayed historically
• Build empathy through engagement with personal migration stories that resist simple framing
• Engage in respectful dialogue across different perspectives

Connects to Re-Imagining Migration Dispositions:

• Disposition 1: Understand and value diverse perspectives
• Disposition 2: Inquire about migration with care and nuance
• Disposition 4: Recognize power and inequities in human experiences and migration

---

Standards Alignment:

Common Core State Standards – English Language Arts:

Reading Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies:

• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.6-8.6 / RH.9-10.6 / RH.11-12.6: Identify aspects of a text that reveal an author’s point of view or purpose in a text and explain how it is conveyed/analyze how rhetoric advances point of view
• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.6-8.8 / RH.9-10.8 / RH.11-12.8: Distinguish among fact, opinion, and reasoned judgment in a text / Assess the extent to which reasoning and evidence support claims
• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.9 / RH.11-12.9: Compare and contrast treatments of the same topic in several primary and secondary sources

Reading Standards for Informational Text:

• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RI.9-10.6 / RI.11-12.6: Determine an author’s point of view or purpose in a text and analyze how an author uses rhetoric to advance that point of view or purpose
• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RI.9-10.7 / RI.11-12.7: Analyze various accounts of a subject told in different mediums / Integrate and evaluate multiple sources of information presented in different media or formats

Speaking and Listening Standards:

• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.6-8.1 / SL.9-10.1 / SL.11-12.1: Engage effectively in a range of collaborative discussions, building on others’ ideas and expressing their own clearly and persuasively
• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.9-10.2 / SL.11-12.2: Integrate multiple sources of information presented in diverse media or formats, evaluating the credibility and accuracy of each source

C3 Framework for Social Studies State Standards:

Dimension 2 – Civics:

• D2.Civ.10.6-8 / D2.Civ.10.9-12: Explain the relevance of personal interests and perspectives, civic virtues, and democratic principles when people address issues and problems in government and civil society

Dimension 2 – History:

• D2.His.4.6-8 / D2.His.4.9-12: Analyze multiple and complex causes and effects of events in the past
• D2.His.5.6-8 / D2.His.5.9-12: Analyze how historical contexts shaped and continue to shape people’s perspectives
• D2.His.10.6-8 / D2.His.10.9-12: Detect possible limitations in various kinds of historical evidence and differing secondary interpretations
• D2.His.16.6-8 / D2.His.16.9-12: Integrate evidence from multiple relevant historical sources and interpretations into a reasoned argument about the past

Dimension 3 – Evaluating Sources and Using Evidence:

• D3.1.6-8 / D3.1.9-12: Gather relevant information from multiple sources while using the origin, authority, structure, context, and corroborative value of the sources to guide the selection
• D3.2.6-8 / D3.2.9-12: Evaluate the credibility of a source by determining its relevance and intended use

Dimension 4 – Communicating Conclusions:

• D4.1.6-8 / D4.1.9-12: Construct arguments using precise and knowledgeable claims, with evidence from multiple sources, while acknowledging counterclaims and evidentiary weaknesses
• D4.3.6-8 / D4.3.9-12: Present adaptations of arguments and explanations that feature evocative ideas and perspectives on issues and topics to reach a range of audiences and venues

WIDA English Language Development Standards:

• WIDA ELD Standard 2 (Language Arts): English language learners communicate information, ideas, and concepts necessary for academic success in the content area of Language Arts
  • Application: Analyzing narrative frameworks, evaluating sources, discussing media literacy
• WIDA ELD Standard 5 (Social Studies): English language learners communicate information, ideas, and concepts necessary for academic success in the content area of Social Studies
  • Application: Understanding historical patterns, analyzing perspectives, examining civic issues
• WIDA ELD Standard 1 (Social and Instructional Language): English language learners communicate for social, intercultural, and instructional purposes within the school setting
  • Application: Collaborative discussions, respectful dialogue across differences, group analysis

Language Functions Addressed:

• Analyzing (narrative frameworks, sourcing, historical patterns)
• Comparing/Contrasting (different frameworks, coverage across sources)
• Evaluating (journalistic quality, credibility)
• Explaining (how frameworks shape coverage)
• Arguing (evidence-based claims about media framing)

AASL Standards Framework for Learners:

• I.A.2: Display curiosity and initiative by formulating questions about a personal interest or a curricular topic
• I.D.1: Articulate and question an emotional response to an information resource or learning experience
• II.A.2: Organize information by priority, topic, or other systematic scheme
• V.A.3: Contribute to conversations and dialogues in an effort to arrive at shared purposes and goals in both physical and virtual environments
• VI.D.1: Independently use criteria to evaluate information for personal, educational, and professional uses

National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) Standards:

• NCTE Standard 1: Students read a wide range of texts to build understanding of texts, themselves, and the cultures of the United States and the world
• NCTE Standard 7: Students conduct research by gathering, evaluating, and synthesizing data from a variety of sources to communicate discoveries
• NCTE Standard 8: Students use a variety of technological and information resources to gather and synthesize information and to create and communicate knowledge

Extensions & Follow-Up Lessons

Extension Options (Student Choice)

1. Historical Narrative Patterns Analyze historical primary sources (political cartoons, newspaper articles, or speeches) about past immigrant groups (Irish, Italian, Chinese, Jewish immigrants). Use “By Whom, About Whom, For Whom?” to analyze each source.

• Which narrative frameworks were operating?
• What specific fears or claims were expressed?
• What actually happened? Were the fears justified?
• Can you find similar language in current immigration coverage?

Create a visual timeline or chart showing how the same narrative frameworks have been applied to different immigrant groups across 150+ years. Present your findings: What does this pattern tell us? When you see threat narrative language, how can you tell if it’s based on evidence about THIS group, or following a historical pattern?

2. Track Across Sources Follow one story across 3-4 outlets for a week. Compare frameworks and framing. Create a presentation showing how the same events get covered differently.

3. Interview & Reflect Interview someone about family migration (recent or generations ago). Use “By Whom, About Whom, For Whom?” to reflect on how you’re hearing and telling the story. What frameworks would miss this complexity? How would you tell this story to honor its complexity?

4. Framework Experiment Take one immigration news story. Rewrite the headline and first three paragraphs using three different narrative frameworks. Show how framing changes meaning using the same facts.

5. Missing Voices Investigation Track current policy coverage across 5+ sources. Report on whose voices dominate vs. who’s missing. What questions aren’t being asked? If you were a journalist, whom would you seek out?

6. Create Counter-Narrative Working alone or with others, create a podcast episode, video, article, or social media series challenging dominant frameworks. Use “By Whom, About Whom, For Whom?” to plan your approach.

Suggested Follow-Up Lessons

This lesson focuses on RECOGNITION. Follow with:

Lesson 2: Impact of Narratives How do these frameworks shape attitudes, behaviors, and policies? Examine research on media effects, analyze policy debates shaped by different frameworks.

Lesson 3: Creating Counter-Narratives How do we tell immigration stories differently? Students create their own media that challenges dominant frameworks and centers missing voices.

Lesson 4: Journalism Standards What does responsible immigration journalism look like? Interview journalists, analyze solutions journalism, create guidelines for ethical coverage.

Lesson 5: Algorithms and Narratives How do platforms shape which narratives we encounter? Examine filter bubbles, recommendation algorithms, and echo chambers.