Dr. Jasmin (Bey) Cowin, an Associate Professor at Touro University, received the 2024 Touro University CETL Faculty Fellowship for Excellence in Teaching and the Rockefeller Institute of Government awarded her the prestigious Richard P. Nathan Public Policy Fellowship (2024-2025). As a Fulbright Scholar and SIT Graduate, she was selected to be a U.S. Department of State English Language Specialist. Her expertise in AI in education is underscored by her role as an AI trainer and former Education Policy Fellow (EPFP™) at Columbia University's Teachers College. As a columnist for Stankevicius, she explores Nicomachean Ethics at the intersection of AI and education. She has contributed to initiatives like Computers for Schools Burundi, served as a resource specialist for Amity University in Uttar Pradesh, India, and participated in TESOL "Train the Trainer" programs in Yemen and Morocco. Her research interests include simulations and metaverse for educators-in-training, AI applications in education and language acquisition and teaching, and distributed ledger technologies, with a focus on her 'Education for 2060' theme.
In conclusion, my commitment extends beyond transactional interactions, focusing instead on utilizing my skills and privileges to make a positive, enduring impact on the world.
The Touro University TESOL EDDN 637 fieldwork experience is an essential component of TESOL preparation because it requires candidates to connect course theory with authentic instructional practice. Through focused observations, candidates examine how teachers support multilingual learners through comprehensible input, academic language development, differentiation, culturally responsive practices, technology, SIOP, and Science of Reading strategies. Rather than simply identifying instructional techniques, candidates must analyze how and why particular practices support, or fail to support, the linguistic, literacy, and academic development of multilingual learners.
This fieldwork also aligns with AAQEP expectations for high-quality educator preparation. AAQEP emphasizes candidate knowledge and skills, professional growth, responsiveness to diverse learners, evidence-based decision-making, and meaningful clinical experiences. The EDDN 637 fieldwork provides candidates with opportunities to demonstrate these expectations by observing instruction, documenting evidence, analyzing teacher and student interactions, and connecting observations to professional standards and course scholarship. The assignment therefore serves as more than a required number of field hours. It provides evidence that candidates can apply professional knowledge to the complex realities of TESOL practice.
Fieldwork as an AI-Resistant Assignment
This fieldwork is intentionally designed to require sustained, authentic engagement that cannot be replaced by AI. AI may assist with editing or organization, but it cannot complete the observation experience for the candidate. Candidates must closely examine actual teaching, maintain detailed field logs, document specific instructional events, include transcripts, and connect particular moments from lessons to SIOP, Science of Reading principles, course readings, and the needs of multilingual learners. Successful completion therefore depends on the candidate’s own observation, interpretation, and professional judgment.
The assignment also emphasizes the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Candidates move beyond remembering and understanding course concepts to applying them to real instructional situations, analyzing relationships among teaching practices and student responses, and evaluating the effectiveness of instruction for multilingual learners. Candidates also engage in creating as they synthesize observations, transcripts, course scholarship, and professional reflection into a coherent analysis and propose ways instruction could be strengthened. In this way, the fieldwork assesses not only what our Touro University TESOL candidates know, but how effectively they can think, reason, and make evidence-based professional decisions.
Yeimy Alvarado is a graduate student at Touro University completing an Advanced Certificate in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). She is passionate about literacy and finding ways to support all students through effective and meaningful teaching practices. The summer 2026 semester at Touro has helped her to see the importance of the SIOP model and the Science of Reading and how she can use both to create a classroom where every student feels included, supported, and confident in their ability to learn and grow.
I have learned that teaching is not just about what we teach, but also about making sure students can understand and access the content. The Science of Reading has taught me the importance of explicit instruction, while SIOP has shown me how important it is to provide multilingual learners with the right language support, background knowledge, and opportunities to participate and learn. As an educator, these strategies have strengthened my understanding that making content comprehensible does not mean making the academic task easier, but rather providing students of all levels with the support they need to access challenging content and be successful.
Yeimy Alvarado, Touro University Advanced Certificate in Teaching English Candidate
Education for 2060: A New Chapter of Cooperation with Burundi
I am very pleased to share my appointment asVisiting Professor for AI and Pedagogy during August 2026, at Université Lumière de Bujumbura in Burundi.The appointment brings together several areas that have shaped my work for many years: education, artificial intelligence, international cooperation, institutional development, and the question of how we prepare learners for a future that is already beginning to take shape.
Université Lumière de Bujumbura is a recognized higher education institution accredited by Burundi’s Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research. With campuses in Mutanga Nord, Kinindo, Kajaga, and the Kubumenyi Compound in Bujumbura, the university offers a broad range of undergraduate and graduate programs, including communication sciences, law, management and administration, computer sciences, theology, clinical psychology, and political science and international relations. Its graduate offerings include areas such as business administration, corporate law, development management, organizational leadership, and IT management. The university also supports flexible access to higher education through traditional in-person teaching as well as online and distance-learning formats.
For me, this work is closely connected to the idea ofEducation for 2060. The year 2060 may seem far away, yet many of the students entering classrooms and universities today will still be active in their professions and communities at that time. Some will lead institutions, shape public policy, conduct research, establish businesses, educate future generations, and make decisions in environments that will look very different from those we know today. The educational choices being made now will influence how confidently and responsibly they can participate in that future.
Artificial intelligence is already changing the ways in which people search for information, communicate, conduct research, create knowledge, teach, and learn. Over the coming decades, these developments will become deeply embedded in educational and professional environments. This makes the role of education increasingly significant. Learners will require sound disciplinary knowledge alongside critical judgment, creativity, adaptability, ethical awareness, and the ability to evaluate information carefully. They will need the confidence to work with intelligent systems while understanding their limitations and recognizing the importance of human responsibility.
My cooperation with colleagues in Burundi provides an important setting in which to explore these questions. At Université Lumière de Bujumbura, I am interacting, discussing, exploring and collaborating with university leadership such as Dr. Bizimana Jean de Dieu, Deputy Vice- Chancellor – Global Partnerships, faculty, administrators, and educational partners through professional development and capacity-building activities focused on artificial intelligence, innovative pedagogy, educational transformation, and the responsible integration of AI into higher education. The university’s invitation places particular emphasis on the effective and ethical use of AI in teaching, learning, leadership, and institutional governance.
I am also particularly pleased that this work involves cooperation with Computers for Schools Burundi and the dynamic CEO and founder Emmanuel Ngendakuriyo. Educational transformation depends on strong relationships between institutions, educators, technology initiatives, and the communities they serve. Digital access, professional development, institutional capacity, and informed leadership all contribute to the conditions in which meaningful innovation can take place. Cooperation across these areas creates opportunities for knowledge to circulate and for ideas to develop within the realities of a particular educational environment. Discussions about the future of education and artificial intelligence gain strength through the participation of universities and educators from different regions of the world. Each educational context brings its own experience, knowledge, priorities, and questions. International cooperation creates a space in which these perspectives can meet, and this exchange can lead to research collaborations, new educational approaches, professional networks, and lasting institutional relationships.
Thinking about Education for 2060 also requires us to consider the future role of universities. Universities prepare people whose work will shape societies for decades. They are places of research, intellectual exchange, professional formation, and institutional leadership. As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly capable, universities will need to make thoughtful decisions about teaching, assessment, academic integrity, research, governance, and the preparation of graduates for changing professional environments. These decisions require informed leadership and sustained dialogue across the university community.
Teachers will remain central to this future. Artificial intelligence will provide increasingly sophisticated support for research, translation, content creation, feedback, and personalized learning. The educational relationship itself will continue to depend on human judgment, trust, encouragement, cultural understanding, and the ability to recognize the development of an individual learner. Preparing for 2060 therefore includes investing in educators and giving them meaningful opportunities to understand emerging technologies, experiment with new pedagogical approaches, and contribute to decisions about their use.
AI literacy will also become a fundamental part of education. Understanding artificial intelligence involves much more than knowing how to operate a particular tool. It requires an ability to assess the quality of AI-generated information, recognize uncertainty and bias, verify sources, understand questions of privacy and governance, and decide when human expertise must guide the process. These capabilities will become increasingly important for students, educators, researchers, and institutional leaders.
My appointment at Université Lumière de Bujumbura gives me the opportunity to connect these long-term questions with practical educational work. It creates a space for professional exchange, shared learning, and discussion about how institutions can develop their capacity for a future in which AI will be part of everyday academic life. I am especially interested in the knowledge that can emerge through dialogue with colleagues in Burundi and in the possibilities for future collaboration that may grow from this work.
Education for 2060 begins long before 2060 arrives. It is being shaped in today’s classrooms, universities, professional development programs, institutional strategies, and international partnerships. Looking several decades ahead encourages us to consider the kind of educational environments we want to create and the kind of human capacities we want to strengthen.
This comprehensive course builds upon the foundation of curriculum development and classroom management in the context of teaching English language learners. Expanding its horizons to embrace the digital age, the course adeptly weaves innovative technology integration into the domain of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). Crafted to empower prospective TESOL/BLE educators, the course hones in on fostering competence in designing, implementing, assessing, and reflecting within diverse language learning environments, all while capitalizing on the potentials of cutting-edge technology. With a strong focus on practical application and discerning appraisal of technological tools, this course primes upcoming educators to excel amidst the ever-evolving educational landscape. Includes 10 hours of field work.
Angelina Libardi is a special education teacher in the Central Islip School District and a graduate student in the M.S. in TESOL program at Touro University. She is passionate about creating inclusive, engaging learning environments that support multilingual learners and students with diverse learning needs. Through her graduate studies, she has strengthened her commitment to culturally responsive teaching and lifelong professional growth.
My journey at Touro has strengthened my confidence as an educator, challenged me to think more deeply about equitable instruction, and inspired me to become a stronger advocate for multilingual learners and all students.
Angelina Libardi, M.S. in TESOL Program Candidate at Touro University
This Curriculum Mapping for English Language Learners assignment is an important anchor for the Touro University TESOL Development and Classroom Management in the Technology Era – EDDN 635 curriculum course because it moves candidates beyond simply identifying standards toward critically examining how curriculum decisions affect multilingual learners’ access, participation, and academic achievement. By using and populating a curriculum map template, candidates learn to evaluate alignment among standards, learning objectives, instructional strategies, assessments, academic language demands, and appropriate scaffolds. The reflection process also requires candidates to justify what they retained, revised, or added after verifying AI-generated suggestions against NYSED standards, district documents, and established ESOL practices.
Working with the Touro University approved Microsoft Copilot AI provides an added professional benefit by helping candidates harness artificial intelligence for practical curriculum work. Candidates use carefully designed prompts to organize alignment checks, identify possible gaps, generate initial evidence statements, and consider accommodations for multilingual learners. However, they must also evaluate, verify, and revise Copilot’s output rather than accepting it uncritically. This process develops AI literacy alongside curriculum-design expertise and prepares candidates to use emerging technologies responsibly, efficiently, and thoughtfully in educational settings.
Jacqueline Shaffer is a 34‑year‑old educator with eleven years of teaching experience. She currently teaches middle school Spanish in Brooklyn. Jacqueline is dedicated to supporting diverse learners and creating an engaging, culturally responsive classroom environment.
Through this assignment, I learned how important it is to design a curriculum that includes clear supports for multilingual learners, so they can access grade‑level content, participate in discussions, and show their understanding through reading and writing. I realized that scaffolds like visuals, sentence frames, and bilingual resources aren’t optional, they’re essential for equity. This process helped me see how thoughtful planning can make learning more inclusive and meaningful for all students.
Jacqueline Shaffer, M.S. Candidate, TESOL, Touro University
New article published: The Compliance Clock Strikes: Brussels Begins Enforcing the AI Act, and Transatlantic University Partnerships Must Answer As of yesterday, August 2, 2026, the European Commission’s AI Office and national market surveillance authorities hold the power to investigate, sanction, and compel compliance under the EU Artificial Intelligence Act. The framework that took effect in August 2024 has moved from legislative architecture to active enforcement. ⏰ The timeline has been running for some time. Prohibited practices became enforceable in February 2025. Technical documentation for newly placed general-purpose models came due in August 2025. Conformity assessments for high-risk systems reached their deadline this summer. What changed on August 2 is that the oversight machinery moved from preparation to practice. 🗞️ For universities, the question is no longer whether the Act applies but in what capacity. My article works through four scenarios that determine whether an institution carries provider obligations, deployer obligations, or both. 📖 Read the full piece in The Government View https://lnkd.in/emyExZaW
Teaching the Teachers of 2060: The Embodied Method Simulation
Since the arrival of Large Language Models (LLMs) I experimented and worked on designing what I consider AI-proof assignments: tasks where candidates must demonstrate their understanding of theory through practical application, which no chatbot can do for them. The Embodied Method Simulation is a prime example. Each Touro University TESOL course participant selects a single language teaching method from our course readings, such as Total Physical Response, Suggestopedia, the Silent Way, or Communicative Language Teaching, and performs it in its pure, original form. In a 6 to 7-minute video, they teach an imaginary group of multilingual learners as if the class were real: on camera, in a physical space, surrounded by realia, using their voice, gestures, and movement to bring a method’s theory to life.
The assignment asks for an embodied demonstration of pedagogy. Candidates show how a method actually works when they stand in a room with (imaginary) learners, handling materials, and moving through space. Theory earns its value there, in the moment of embodied instruction.
Why Copilot?
Alongside the performance, candidates co-create their teaching scripts with the Touro-approved Microsoft Copilot. Beginning with a person-centered, spatially grounded prompt, they engage in an iterative dialogue with AI, refining teacher talk, rehearsing simulated learner responses, and interrogating how their bodies and materials express the method’s principles. They then write a reflection analyzing what they accepted, adapted, or rejected from the AI’s suggestions.
Why build AI into an AI-proof assignment? Because the educators we certify today will still be teaching in 2060. They will spend their entire careers alongside artificial intelligence, and the essential career skill is directing these tools with professional judgment. When a candidate pushes back on Copilot’s suggestion because it violates the logic of TPR, or expands an AI-generated dialogue to better serve a newcomer learner, they are practicing exactly that skill: keeping the human teacher at the center while using AI as a thinking partner.
Kalee Fan is an early childhood special education teacher in a NYCPS. She is currently pursuing a Bilingual Education Extension to better support multilingual learners and create more equitable learning opportunities for all students. She is passionate about fostering an inclusive classroom where every child feels valued, confident, and empowered to succeed.
Quote about the Science of Reading:
“One of my biggest takeaways from studying the Science of Reading is that strong literacy instruction is both evidence-based and responsive to students’ individual needs. It has reinforced the importance of intentionally developing oral language alongside foundational reading skills so that multilingual learners can thrive academically.” Kalee Fan, Touro University TESOL Candidate
I used a few materials to support my mini-lesson recording
A Chair:
Cat Plushies:
Vocabulary Cards:
Sentence frame:
Part 3: Written Analysis and Copilot Co-Creation Reflection
Method Analysis
As an early childhood educator, I selected Total Physical Response (TPR) for my mini lesson because it aligns with the developmental needs of my kindergarten ENL students, who benefit from movement, hands-on experiences, and concrete language instruction. Developed by James Asher in the 1970s, TPR is based on the idea that language learning should resemble first language acquisition, in which children listen and respond physically long before they are expected to speak. The method creates a low-stress learning environment where learners develop comprehension through listening and movement. In a TPR classroom, the teacher gives commands and models actions while students demonstrate understanding through physical responses. The main principles of TPR include listening comprehension, physical movement, repetition, and delayed speech production. By connecting language to actions and engaging visual, auditory, and kinesthetic senses, learners gradually build understanding and confidence before producing language independently (Helbling English, n.d.).
TPR has several strengths. It lowers learners’ anxiety, increases engagement, and makes language comprehensible through concrete actions and real objects. These characteristics make it particularly effective for beginning English learners and young children (Cowin, n.d.). However, TPR also has limitations. As learners become more proficient, the method becomes less distinctive because advanced language functions and abstract concepts cannot always be represented through physical actions. In addition, reading and writing activities are often limited extensions of the oral activities in the classroom (Cowin, n.d.).
I selected TPR for my mini lesson on positional words as this topic is part of my school’s kindergarten math curriculum and provides a meaningful opportunity to connect language learning with content instruction. Positional words can be abstract for young English learners, but using TPR allows students to visualize and understand these concepts through physical movement and hands-on experiences. TPR emphasizes connecting language with actions and providing opportunities for learners to develop comprehension before producing language (Celce-Murcia et al., 2014). In my lesson, students first demonstrated their understanding by moving their bodies and a toy cat to different positions around a chair. After students had multiple opportunities to practice through physical responses, I incorporated a sentence frame, “The cat is _____ the chair,” to support oral language production. I selected a chair, cat plushies, vocabulary cards, and a sentence frame since these materials are concrete, visually accessible, and easy for young learners to manipulate. This lesson reflects the core principles of TPR by using repeated actions, multisensory experiences, and gradual language production to build students’ confidence and create an engaging, low-anxiety learning environment (Helbling English, n.d.).
Copilot Co-Creation Reflection
Before I began recording my videotaped mini lesson, I entered my initial prompt into Copilot to refine the structure and delivery of a six‑minute Total Physical Response lesson designed for Kindergarten ENL learners in a 12:1:1 bilingual special education setting. My prompt described the instructional context, the linguistic profiles of the students, and my goal of teaching spatial vocabulary using realia such as a chair and a cat plushie. Copilot generated a first draft that offered a clear introduction, a well‑sequenced modeling phase for positional vocabulary, and a strong closing routine. This initial script aligned closely with my own vision, and it helped me see how my ideas could be organized into a coherent, embodied lesson that foregrounded movement, gesture, and predictable routines. The process of reviewing this draft made me more aware of how intentional teacher talk and physical demonstration work together to support comprehension for Entering and Emerging learners.
As I continued refining the lesson, I entered a second prompt asking how to shift the rapid TPR practice from simple mimicry to a more hands‑on, high‑engagement activity. I asked whether providing each student with a miniature cat plushie and toy chair would be appropriate and how to transition them smoothly into this active phase. Copilot responded with a detailed one‑minute transition script that emphasized slow pacing, clear gestures, and explicit modeling of how students should manipulate their objects. This suggestion helped me clarify my embodied role in the method. I realized that TPR is not only about demonstrating vocabulary with my own body but also about orchestrating students’ physical responses in ways that reduce cognitive load and increase autonomy. I adapted Copilot’s script by simplifying some of the language and adjusting the pacing to fit the realities of a rug‑seated Kindergarten group. I kept the core idea of using manipulatives because it aligned with my professional judgment about sensory engagement and accessibility for multilingual learners.
My next prompt focused on the Checking for Understanding phase, where I planned to introduce the sentence starter “The cat is ___ the chair” to support expressive language production. I asked Copilot whether this was appropriate for students at Entering and Emerging proficiency levels and how to introduce the sentence frame smoothly within the TPR method. Copilot affirmed the approach and provided a scaffolded routine that paired each chunk of the sentence with a gesture, ensuring that the language remained grounded in physical action. This helped me better understand how my embodied role could support early expressive language without overwhelming students. I adjusted the script by reducing the verbal load even further and by ensuring that students demonstrated comprehension physically before attempting any spoken output. This adaptation reflected my professional judgment about developmental readiness and the importance of maintaining TPR principles even when introducing language frames.
Finally, I asked Copilot about an assessment idea involving vocabulary cards that students would place into the blank space of the sentence starter. I wanted to know whether this was feasible within the six‑to‑seven‑minute time limit and appropriate for a 12:1:1 Kindergarten group. Copilot explained that the idea could work only in a highly simplified form and recommended a tighter, more TPR‑aligned alternative that removed unnecessary cognitive steps. This feedback prompted me to reconsider the assessment entirely. I rejected the original card‑search idea because it introduced too many demands for this age group and time frame. Instead, I adopted the “Touch and Tell” approach, where students physically position their mini cat and chair and then echo the sentence starter. This alternative preserved the embodied nature of TPR, respected the developmental needs of my learners, and fit smoothly within the lesson’s pacing.
Through this process, I learned how valuable it is to refine instructional decisions through cycles of questioning, reflection, and revision. Copilot helped me clarify the embodied dimensions of TPR, especially the ways teacher movement, gesture clarity, and pacing shape multilingual learners’ access to meaning. At the same time, I exercised professional judgment by adapting suggestions to fit the specific needs of my classroom, rejecting ideas that were too complex, and expanding others to strengthen linguistic accessibility. This experience reinforced the importance of designing lessons that are intentional, responsive, and grounded in both pedagogical theory and the lived realities of young ENL learners.
References:
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Snow, M. A. (Eds.). (2014). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed.). Heinle ELT.
Cowin, J. B. (n.d.). Methods and techniques in teaching ENL: Total Physical Response.
Helbling English. (n.d.). Total Physical Response [Video]. YouTube.
Microsoft Copilot. (2026). Responses generated for lesson‑planning refinement. Microsoft.https://copilot.microsoft.com
The Professional PPS Resource for Parents assignment is important because it requires candidates to translate their specialized knowledge into clear, practical, and culturally responsive guidance for bilingual families. Rather than demonstrating competence only through case reports, evaluations, or reflective essays, candidates must consider how parents understand school procedures, student needs, available services, and their own rights and responsibilities. Creating the brochure bilingually also reinforces that equitable family engagement depends on meaningful language access, not simply the translation of isolated information.
The assignment directly supports the goals of PSGN 698 Field Experiences in Bilingual Pupil Personnel Services by connecting professional experience with consultation, advocacy, and community communication. It demonstrates whether candidates can identify barriers faced by bilingual students and families, select relevant information, and present it in an accessible format that parents can use when making decisions or collaborating with school personnel. The brochure therefore becomes both evidence of professional growth and a usable resource that can strengthen trust, participation, and culturally responsive service delivery.
PSGN 698 Field Experiences in Bilingual Pupil Personnel Services
Course Description Since students in the program are certified professionals, their work experience (no less than one academic year) will be considered as fulfillment of the field experience requirement, along with attendance at three field experience seminars and submission of a portfolio which synthesizes their experience and understanding of effective services for bilingual population. The portfolio will include: samples of professional work with bilingual students, including case histories, evaluation reports, progress notes, and IEPs; a written essay presenting the student’s professional philosophy, a discussion of issues involved in providing bilingual services in the New York area, and a description of the student’s professional growth in the Bilingual Advanced Certificate Program.
Bilingual Education – Pupil Personnel (Certificate), Touro University Graduate School of Education – Online Length of Program 12 credits Student teaching is in New York State. You’ll need access to a school with a bilingual population and a mentor PPS who is certified in bilingual education in order to complete the field experience course
Dr. Raphael Reichel is a New York State Certified School Psychologist. His professional interests include psychoeducational assessment, PBIS, bilingual service delivery, and improving educational outcomes for students with extensive support needs. He enjoys translating research into practical strategies that educators, school psychologists, and families can apply in everyday practice.
One of the most valuable lessons I’ve learned in Touro University’s PPS program is that culturally responsive practice is about more than speaking a family’s language. It’s about helping families understand the process so they can confidently participate in their child’s education. Dr. Raphael Reichel
This assignment for Curriculum Development and Classroom Management in the Technology Era prepares TESOL candidates to become informed curriculum designers who can select and use technology purposefully rather than treating digital tools as instructional add-ons. By researching each tool, evaluating its functions, and connecting it to language objectives, standards, learner needs, and curriculum goals, candidates develop the professional judgment required to determine when technology strengthens curriculum design and when it does not. The assignment therefore emphasizes technological competence as the ability to make evidence-informed, context-sensitive decisions.
The digital portfolio also requires candidates to use technology to organize, synthesize, and present their research in a professional and shareable format. Candidates are not only studying technology but also using it to communicate their findings through embedded resources, visuals, links, and candidate-created artifacts. This prepares them to create curriculum resources that can be reviewed, adapted, and shared with colleagues, families, and professional communities.
Shobha Kunjbeharry: I am a graduate student in the TESOL program at Touro University, committed to creating equitable and engaging learning experiences for multilingual learners. I am passionate about integrating educational technology, culturally responsive teaching, and family partnerships to support students’ language development and academic success. My work focuses on designing inclusive learning environments where multilingual students can thrive through meaningful communication, collaboration, and authentic learning experiences.
“Creating this Padlet helped me realize that technology is most powerful when it is intentionally selected to remove language barriers, amplify student voice, and strengthen partnerships between schools and multilingual families. I learned that digital tools should enhance and not replace high-quality teaching while creating more equitable opportunities for every learner.” Shobha Kunjbeharry, Touro University TESOL Candidate
Crystal Ching: I am a student at Touro University pursuing my childhood dream of becoming a teacher. Through my studies, the Science of Reading has shown me that intentional, explicit, and evidence-based strategies move students towards success. I strive to create an inclusive, welcoming, and supportive environment where all students will grow and thrive. Outside of work and school, I enjoy spending time outdoors with my friends and family, trying new food spots and playing sports!
This course provides an historical overview of second language acquisition theories and teaching methods. Students learn how to apply current approaches, methods and techniques, with attention to the effective use of materials, in teaching English as a second language. Students will engage in the planning and implementation of standards-based ENL instruction which includes differentiated learning experiences geared to students’ needs. Emphasis is placed on creating culturally responsive learning environments. The course also analyzes the applicability of applied linguistic studies to such teaching and the appropriateness of various methods and techniques to different developmental and skill levels. Special attention is given to curriculum development, planning and executing instructional activities. Additional emphasis is given to the selection of materials and the design of evaluation instruments for measuring cognitive development if the core subject areas. Includes 15 hours of fieldwork.3 credit hours
Prompt Engineering with Co-Pilot for Teacher Candidates
I use pre-created prompts to help my candidates develop rubrics with AI because this approach combines instructional scaffolding with professional judgment. By designing the prompts in advance, I can guide candidates toward course objectives, sound assessment principles, and program expectations while reducing the likelihood that AI will generate vague, misaligned, or inappropriate criteria.
I also see this process as a way to make rubric construction more transparent. Teacher candidates can examine how learning objectives are translated into assessment criteria, performance levels, and descriptors. I do not expect my candidates to accept an AI-generated rubric as a finished product. Instead, I ask them to evaluate, revise, and justify the rubric. This process supports assessment literacy, critical AI literacy, and reflective teaching.
Crystal Ching’s Insights: From Reading and Discourse to Prompt Engineering – Constructing Culturally Responsive Rubrics
Culture is prevalent and relevant in all aspects of learning, especially across all subjects and content areas for students. When teachers fail to understand a student’s first linguistic and cultural proficiency, it can be damaging their learning process. The role of linguistic and cultural proficiency in ESL/EFL reading and writing is to gauge what they know, understand patterns and how to proceed with support and instruction. As teachers, we can not assume that all students will know the rules of school, what sound a letter makes, or how to read and write the “proper way.” That “proper way” is how the Western culture reads and writes, but other cultures read and write another way. As Celce-Murica et al. (2013) note, “On the whole, to become proficient and effective communicators, learners need to attain L2 sociocultural competence” (p. 395). For example, the Western culture reads and writes from left to right. However, in other cultures, they read from right to left. As teachers, we can not assume that a child is confused or does not understand how to read and write. Instead, we need to understand the why, and that is due to their own culture and backgrounds. In addition, our Western culture in schools have certain rules. For example, lining up and walking together as a class to their next class. In other countries, students head to their next classes independently. These differences are not because a child is not following or respecting the rules of the classroom, but rather because this was their cultural routine and custom. Knowing a student’s L1 literacy is essential because it gives us teachers an understanding of what a student knows, literacy patterns they use, and how we can use their L1 as a foundation for their learning. When recognizing and identifying certain patterns of an L1, we can see the function of how a certain group uses language (Celce-Murica et al., 2013). Teachers can plan their future instruction based on a student’s L1 literacy, linguistic and cultural proficiency. We can build off what they know through existing patterns, or explicitly teach, model and integrate supports for these new skills and concepts. Without understanding a student’s culture and language, it only opens the gap for assumptions, confusion and frustration.
Chapter 21 has explored the use of assessment for formative purposes as well as for summative ones. Review the use of assessments in your classroom setting. What purposes do they serve? How are learners involved in learning and assessment? What external factors (e.g., NYS guidelines or state-mandated assessments) impact your choices about assessment? Celce-Murcia, Marianne; Brinton, Donna M.; Snow, Marguerite Ann. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (p. 335). Heinle ELT. Kindle Edition.
In my classroom, students take assessments to see if they understood the topic or skill. I find that assessments are the most important part to a lesson because this proves how much students comprehended the lesson, and allows me to identify any shortcomings of my lesson. As Celce-Murica et al., (2013) states, “Effective teachers use classroom assessment for multiple purposes, such as determining their students’ learning needs, diagnosing specific learning challenges, monitoring the development of students’ skills and engaging students in their own learning processes” (p. 321). I implement formal, informal and summative assessments. Informal assessments help me monitor if students are understanding the topic in the moment. For example, I observe think-pair-shares, thumbs up or down and prompt comprehension questions to see if students need more support. When doing these informal assessments, it allows me to be flexible and adjust my instruction towards their learning needs. As for formative assessments, I use exit tickets/quick checks and quizzes. Exit tickets and quick checks are after my lessons, and only about one to two questions. These questions show what the students understood about the lesson, and what resources are needed to better understand, or if I need to reteach the lesson. The last assessment is a summative assessment. I use projects, and end of unit assessments. These come after the lessons to asses their understanding of the unit. Students are involved in their own learning because they are able to learn from each other through discussions as well as understanding where they may need additional support in. Through assessment, students are given feedback on their work, and this provides expectations from them and their work. Some external factors that can impact my choices in assessments are their own learning goals (RTI), district benchmarks/assessments or personal needs from a student. I had one student in RTI, and her assessments differed from the class because she needed support and growth towards her own goals. Her own goals were different from the class, and I provided the supports to ensure she met her own personal goals. In addition, my school has students take a district assessment, and this assessment compares grades throughout our district to assess the progress of the lesson and program (HMH). Lastly, I have given some personalized assessments for students because their families were concerned about their learning. I accommodated and differentiated certain assessments to elicit growth from my student, before transitioning them to other assessments. Overall, assessments are just as important as a lesson, and should always be valid, accurate and flexible.
For this part, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO use MICROSOFT COPILOT ONLY. Run the following prompt for assessment – you need to use the complete prompt and individualize by completing the [brackets].
Domain
Highly Effective (H)
Effective (E)
Developing (D)
Ineffective (I)
Content Knowledge Teacher understanding of OG principles & vowel‑r concepts
Demonstrates expert command of OG routines and ir/ur/er concepts; provides precise explanations of r‑controlled vowels; anticipates misconceptions and uses multiple examples (e.g., bird, fern, curl).
Demonstrates solid understanding of OG routines and vowel‑r concepts; explanations are accurate and grade‑appropriate; provides several correct examples.
Demonstrates partial understanding; explanations sometimes lack clarity or precision; examples may be limited or occasionally inaccurate.
Demonstrates insufficient understanding; explanations are unclear or incorrect; examples are missing or inaccurate.
Organization of Lesson Structure, pacing, and sequence
Lesson follows OG’s structured, cumulative sequence flawlessly; pacing is responsive; transitions between multisensory components are seamless; materials are fully prepared.
Lesson follows OG sequence with minor inconsistencies; pacing is appropriate; transitions are generally smooth; materials are ready.
Lesson shows inconsistent structure; pacing is uneven; transitions may cause confusion; materials sometimes missing or disorganized.
Lesson lacks OG structure; pacing is inappropriate; transitions are disjointed; materials are unprepared.
Provides clear, concise modeling of decoding/encoding ir/ur/er; uses multisensory routines (skywriting, tapping, blending) with precision; articulation of r‑controlled vowels is crisp and consistent.
Provides clear modeling; uses multisensory routines correctly; articulation is generally accurate.
Modeling is sometimes unclear; multisensory routines are inconsistently applied; articulation errors occasionally occur.
Modeling is unclear or incorrect; multisensory routines are absent or misused; articulation errors interfere with learning.
Students are highly engaged; all participate in decoding, encoding, and multisensory tasks; students eagerly generate examples (e.g., “*I can spell her, fur, sir!”).
Students are consistently engaged; most participate in multisensory tasks and respond to prompts.
Engagement is inconsistent; some students participate minimally; multisensory tasks do not fully involve the group.
Students are disengaged; few participate; multisensory routines are ineffective or unused.
Pronunciation & Phonemic Accuracy Teacher modeling & student production
Teacher models precise r‑controlled vowel sounds; students consistently produce accurate pronunciations; teacher corrects errors immediately with OG language (“Listen to the vowel sound before the r”).
Teacher models accurate sounds; students generally pronounce correctly; teacher corrects most errors.
Teacher modeling is inconsistent; students show frequent pronunciation errors; corrections are sporadic.
Teacher modeling is inaccurate; students consistently mispronounce; errors go uncorrected.
Decoding Skills Reading words with ir/ur/er
Students decode ir/ur/er words fluently and accurately in isolation and connected text; self‑correct using OG strategies (tapping, chunking).
Students decode most ir/ur/er words accurately; occasional errors corrected with prompting.
Students decode with frequent errors; require repeated prompting; limited use of OG strategies.
Students cannot decode ir/ur/er words; do not use OG strategies; errors persist.
Encoding/Spelling Skills Writing words with ir/ur/er
Students spell ir/ur/er words consistently and accurately; apply generalizations (e.g., er most common at end of words); use tapping and dictation routines independently.
Students spell most ir/ur/er words correctly; apply routines with minimal prompting.
Students spell with inconsistent accuracy; rely heavily on teacher support; routines applied inconsistently.
Students cannot spell ir/ur/er words; routines not used; errors show no understanding of patterns.
Error Correction & Feedback Use of OG‑aligned corrective feedback
Provides immediate, specific, OG‑aligned feedback (“Let’s tap it out together… what vowel sound do you hear before the r?”); students revise accurately.
Provides timely, accurate feedback; students correct most errors.
Feedback is inconsistent or vague; students correct some errors but misunderstandings persist.
Feedback is absent or incorrect; students do not correct errors.
Student Independence & Transfer Application beyond the lesson
Students independently apply ir/ur/er knowledge in reading, writing, and unfamiliar contexts; demonstrate metacognitive awareness (“I know it’s er because it’s at the end”).
Students apply skills in familiar contexts; some transfer to new tasks with prompting.
Students apply skills only during guided practice; limited transfer to new tasks.
Students do not apply skills; no evidence of transfer.
What did you learn using this prompt?
For my school, we use Orton-Gillingham (OG) as a program to help students learn to read, “The Science of Reading”. Most teachers are trained for this program and is used for small groups, pull-out programs and with the entire class. My school implements this program and we found it with the use of data, that students were able to read and write more fluently. Many of the ELL students at my school work either one to one, or in a small group once a day, or depending on their placement. I utilize OG in my classroom and I also work with a OG mentor. After looking at this chart, it has made me realize that there are many components to this program for both students, and for me as a teacher. I like that I also have a rubric and checklist to follow so that this ensures that my students are always being supported in their learning needs. I like that this chart broke down each category from decoding, encoding, error correction to student independence. I will be using this rubric and chart because these components dive deeper than just learning the concept and skill. It also accounts for application and transfer of this beyond the lesson.
Reference:
Celce-Murcia, M. (2013). Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. Fourth Edition.
Peer Responses:
Hi S.!
I enjoyed reading your discussion and agree with your points! I liked when you mentioned, “In other words, cultural proficiency supports linguistic proficiency being used appropriately within L2 sociocultural norms.” I agree with this because in order for students to communicate effectively, students need to understand why they are using the language. From the textbook, Celce-Murcia mentioned an example that reminded me of your post! She noted that a simple “thank you” can just be said, but if a speaker does not know the complexities behind that phrase, it is not communicated effectively. As teachers, we need to ensure that students know how to read and write, but also the “why.” We need to use what they already know and possess as a foundation to their learning. Our Western culture can be vastly different or similar to the students, and we can not assume. We need to provide the proper supports that ensure students have a strong understanding of both their own and new cultural and linguistic concepts.
Hi M!
I enjoyed reading your discussion! I also read your thoughts about the AI prompt and wanted to share what I learned! At my school, we have PDs that use AI, and I found this tip to be helpful! When you noted, “I had some difficulty filling the prompt but found that the specific wording within the prompt was helpful in creating specific elements of the generation” it made me reflect on when I first started using AI too. It is hard and sometimes a bit frustrating to get a specific answer. I use the AIM METHOD:
1. Actor (Who is the AI supposed to be?)
Assign a specific role/person
Example: “Act as a 2nd grade teacher of 20 students, ranging in different math proficiencies”
2. Input (What is the Context?)
Provide background information the AI needs to complete the task.
Example:Students are having difficulty with adding up to 20, using the number line.
3. Mission (What is the Goal?)
State exactly what you want the AI to do, including all the specifics you want
Example: Create a worksheet that reteaches the skill of adding up to 20 using the number line.
I hope that helps!
Hi D.!
I liked reading your discussion and agree with your points! I liked when you noted, “I try to involve students by having them complete self-assessments, reflect on their work, and use teacher feedback to improve over time rather than focusing only on a final grade.” Sometimes I catch myself providing ample feedback to students towards the end of the lesson. I find that that this is not as effective as giving them feedback during the lesson. It makes me think, “What is the point in providing support once the assessment and lesson is completed?” Yes, feedback is important, but it is also important for students to be given support overtime. This way, students can fix and learn from their errors in the moment rather than giving a low grade and not understanding their errors.
By Dr. Jasmin Cowin: Discussion boards are an effective starting point for a sequential introduction to the Science of Reading because they give candidates a low-stakes, asynchronous space to work through foundational constructs, such as vocabulary’s role within the Big 6, while grounding their analysis in authentic texts. As Jeannine Pepe’s Science of Reading Insights for One Well: The Story of Water on Earth by Rochelle Strauss demonstrates, candidates can practice applying frameworks like brick-and-mortar words, cite course readings, and articulate instructional moves in writing, which makes their conceptual understanding visible to the instructor while giving candidates choices in choosing their own texts.
In addition, the required peer responses build a professional learning community as candidates refine or even revise their thinking (e.g., reconsidering whether brick-or-mortar words pose greater challenges for multilingual learners) through dialogue with colleagues. This written, iterative format is ideal early in the semester because it requires careful reading, evidence-based reasoning, and academic language development before candidates are asked to perform pedagogically. Later in the semester, short video demonstrations are folded in because they require candidates to transfer theoretical knowledge into observable practice, such as explicitly teaching Tier 2 vocabulary in context, modeling phoneme-grapheme mapping, or demonstrating a decoding routine as they would with real learners.. This sequence from written analysis to recorded enactment ensures that candidates’ SoR knowledge is not merely theoretical but demonstrably applicable, mirroring the transfer from declarative to procedural knowledge that we expect them to foster in their own students.
Bio: My name is Jeannine Pepe, and I am a 48-year-old educator with 26 years of teaching experience. For over 20 years, I have worked in ENL classroom settings, developing a strong commitment to supporting multilingual learners. Through my continued work with this population, I recognized the importance of further formalizing my training and expanding my instructional strategies. This led me to pursue advanced study, and I found my way to Touro University, whose TESOL program aligns closely with my professional goals and passion for supporting English language learners.
I have learned through my coursework, that the Science of Reading is a research-based approach to how students learn to read. Reading instruction should be explicit, systematic, and include phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, background knowledge, and comprehension. I also learned that oral language is especially important for multilingual learners because students need to understand and use language in order to make meaning from text.
Jeannine Pepe, Touro University TESOL Candidate
DB Question: Vocabulary — The Fourth Pillar of the Big 6
Select a short text from your text analysis. Analyze its vocabulary complexity by identifying the following: brick words and mortar words. Your post should include:
Your text excerpt, cited with author, title, and page number – you must use text you will be using for your text analysis assignment next week. A list of the brick words you identified and a brief explanation of why each is essential for comprehension of this text. A list of the mortar words you identified and the comprehension or reasoning function each one serves. A reflection on which word type poses the greater challenge for your multilingual learners and what one instructional move you would make before reading to reduce that barrier.
Connect your analysis explicitly to the Science of Reading component of vocabulary instruction and cite at least one course reading in your response.
Using insights from Robust Vocabulary Instruction to discuss how explicitly teaching vocabulary can enhance multilingual learners’ comprehension and engagement with complex texts.
For my text analysis, I selected pages 4–7 of One Well: The Story of Water on Earth by Rochelle Strauss. The text contains science concepts, diagrams, statistics, and challenging vocabulary related to freshwater, pollution, conservation, and population. It is used in EL Education’s Grade 3 Water Around the World module. This section introduces the idea that all the water on Earth is connected. For this vocabulary analysis, I selected the opening sentence:
“Imagine for a moment that all the water on Earth came from just one well” (Strauss, 2007, p. 4).
Brick Words
Water: This is the central scientific concept in the text. Students must understand that the author is discussing all forms and sources of water, not only drinking water.
Earth: This establishes the global scale of the text. The author is discussing the entire planet rather than one particular community.
Well: This word is essential because the author uses a well as a metaphor for Earth’s connected water supply. Multilingual learners may initially interpret it only as a hole from which people collect water.
Mortar Words
Imagine: This word asks readers to form a mental picture and consider a hypothetical situation.
For a moment: This phrase signals that the reader should pause and temporarily consider the author’s idea.
All: This word communicates total inclusion. It emphasizes that no source of water is excluded.
Came from: This phrase expresses a source relationship by explaining where something originates.
Just one: This phrase emphasizes limitation and unity. It supports the author’s central idea that Earth’s separate-looking water sources are interconnected.
I believe the mortar words may present the greater challenge for multilingual learners because their meanings are less concrete and often depend on how they function within a sentence. Words such as water, Earth, and well can be supported with pictures or real objects, but phrases such as came from, just one, and imagine for a moment communicate more subtle relationships and reasoning. Sandora (n.d.) explains that traditional activities such as copying dictionary definitions often produce only a superficial understanding of vocabulary. Robust vocabulary instruction instead provides student-friendly definitions and repeated opportunities for students to encounter, discuss, and apply words in meaningful contexts.
Before reading, I would display a diagram showing oceans, rivers, lakes, rain, and groundwater flowing into one large container labeled “Earth’s Well.” I would introduce the important brick and mortar words with visuals and student-friendly explanations. Students would then complete an example/non-example activity and discuss their reasoning with a partner. For example, students could decide whether a river, rainstorm, swimming pool, or ocean represents part of Earth’s “one well” and explain why. I would also introduce the sentence orally, explain the metaphor, and have students use the frame, “Imagine that all ___ came from ___.” Students could practice the frame with a partner before applying it to water. This supports the Science of Reading component of vocabulary, as students develop deeper knowledge of word meanings and relationships rather than merely memorizing definitions. Knowing how to pronounce a word is not enough; students need a deep understanding of its meaning and how it functions within a sentence. It would also increase multilingual learners’ engagement by allowing them to speak, collaborate, make visual connections, and use the vocabulary in meaningful ways. As Sandora (n.d.) emphasizes, students need opportunities to interact with words through activities such as examples and non-examples, word associations, physical actions, and writing.
References:
Echevarría, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. J. (2017). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model (5th ed.). Pearson.
Sandora, C. (n.d.). Robust vocabulary instruction. Institute for Learning, University of Pittsburgh.
Strauss, R. (2007). One well: The story of water on Earth. Kids Can Press.
Peer Response #1
Hi R.! I really like how you pointed out that Mr. Lew earned the highest rating because he stayed actively involved with students throughout the lesson. I agree with your point that simply giving students a task is not enough, especially when working with multilingual learners. Your quote that “Mr. Lew circulated through the classroom, supervising the students and answering their questions” shows that he was checking for understanding and making the input more comprehensible as students worked. That kind of teacher support is so important because students may not always ask for help unless the teacher is nearby and available.
Peer Response #2
Hi J.! I really enjoyed reading your vocabulary analysis of Esperanza Rising. I thought your choice of text was strong because the excerpt gives students both cultural vocabulary and emotional language that are important for understanding the story. I especially liked how you separated the brick words from the mortar words and explained why each type matters. Words like campesinos, vaqueros, and quinceañeras help students understand the setting, culture, and ranch life in the novel. At the same time, I agree with you that the mortar words may create a bigger challenge for multilingual learners because words like premonition, uneasiness, dismissed, and strained require students to understand feelings, tone, and deeper meaning.
Your point about using visuals, Frayer Models, and personal connections before reading really stood out to me. In my experience working with ELLs, students often understand concrete vocabulary faster when they can see a picture or connect the word to something familiar. The more abstract words usually need more discussion, modeling, and examples in context. I also liked how you connected this to the Science of Reading because vocabulary is not just about memorizing definitions. Students need repeated, meaningful exposure to words so they can use them to comprehend, discuss, and write about complex texts.
I also thought your connection to robust vocabulary instruction was important. Explicitly teaching vocabulary before reading can help multilingual learners feel more confident instead of overwhelmed by unfamiliar words. When students understand both the story-specific words and the academic language that connects ideas, they are better prepared to engage with the text. Your response reminded me that vocabulary instruction needs to be intentional, especially when a text includes cultural, academic, and emotional language all at once.
Dr. J's Education Blog 