#AI – Dr. J's Education Blog

Touro University TESOL Candidate Crystal Ching: From Reading and Discourse to Prompt Engineering – Constructing Culturally Responsive Rubrics

The MS in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) Program helps NYS-certified PreK-12 teachers more effectively teach and communicate with a diverse student population. If you have questions about our admissions requirements, certification guidelines, or transfer credits, feel free to contact us.

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!

EDPN 673 Methods and Materials for Teaching English as a Second Language

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.
Presentation Skills Clarity, modeling, multisensory delivery	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.
Student Engagement Participation, attention, multisensory involvement	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.

TESOL Graduate Student at Touro University Shobha Kunjbeharry on Curriculum Design vs. Instructional Design using AI Analysis in EDDN 635

I believe that highlighting an exemplary discussion board post does more than celebrate one candidate’s success; it sets a visible, attainable standard that shows the whole course cohort what thoughtful, well-developed thinking looks like in practice. When I feature one of my candidates’ work on my blog, I want them to feel that the often invisible labor of reflection, synthesis, and pedagogical reasoning behind a strong post has truly been seen. I also believe that celebrating progress, not just polished perfection, builds a culture where candidates learn from and encourage one another rather than viewing the discussion board as a box to check. Ultimately, I share this work because I want my future educators to know their voices matter, modeling the same encouraging, growth-oriented feedback I hope they will one day offer their own students.Beyond the present cohort, my blog also serves as a living repository, offering future students clear and exemplary models to draw inspiration from as they develop their own voices.

My name is Shobha Kunjbeharry, a TESOL graduate student at Touro University, committed to supporting multilingual students through equitable and engaging instruction. My interests include curriculum design, language development, culturally responsive teaching, and the integration of technology and Artificial Intelligence to enhance learning outcomes. I strive to improve my knowledge to create an inclusive educational environment that empowers students to achieve academic success while valuing their linguistic and cultural strengths.

“Through studying curriculum mapping and AI Integration, I have learned that effective curriculum design requires both intentional planning and reflective analysis. AI serves as an analytical partner in examining standard alignment, identifying gaps, and supporting decision-making for instruction. However, the need for educators’ expertise is not eliminated but rather becomes expanded, bringing the best outcomes for everyone.” Shobha Kunjbeharry,

Moduel 1 – DB 1

Part 1: Curriculum Design vs. Instructional Design

Grade 3 ELA/ENL Unit Using Dear Primo: A Letter to My Cousin

Curriculum design	Instructional design
Establishes the unit focusing on context Dear Primo by comparing perspectives across cultures	Teacher plans daily lessons using read aloud, partner discussions, small groups, and graphic organizers.
Alignment to NY State Next Generation 3R2, 3R3 and 3R6 (NYSED, 2017).	Selection of strategies such as background knowledge, sentence frames, Think-Pair-Share, and Role Play.
Central goals of summarizing, identifying main ideas and narrators, and comparing setting.	Allocation of vocabulary activities and close reading task. Background uses of key vocabulary words and make personal connections. Provides scaffolding opportunities such as visuals, modeling, slow speech and bilingual support.
Determine and define sequence of learning throughout the unit with expected outcomes for students and assessments	Developing and designing formative activities to student population such as exit tickets and comprehension questions.

Part 2: Your Own Reading First (3-4 sentences)

I reviewed the HMH curriculum for Grade 3, which focuses on the unit Dear Primo: A Letter to My Cousin. This unit emphasizes comparing experiences, cultures, and different perspectives through literary texts. The learning objectives for students are to help them identify themes, analyze characters, and make connections between their own lives and the lives of others. The expectations for students are to use evidence from texts to support their comprehension and participate in oral discussions and writing.

Part 3: AI- Generated Summary

The main goal and scope of this unit are to explore how individuals compare different experiences, lifestyles, and cultural perspectives. Through the central text Dear Primo, students examine the lives of two cousins living in different countries (the US and Mexico). The scope of the unit prioritizes developing essential literacy skills, including summarizing key events, identifying narrators and shifting points of view, and describing character traits and settings. Additionally, students are expected to analyze text and graphic features to deepen their comprehension of cultural contexts. Two highly relevant alignments to the New York State Next Generation ELA Learning Standards include:

3R2: Determine a theme or central idea and explain how it is supported by key details; summarize portions of a text.
- Application: This matches the unit’s core requirement for students to track repeated details across the letters to summarize the text and determine the overarching theme of cultural connection.
3R6: Discuss how the reader’s point of view or perspective may differ from that of the author, narrator, or characters in a text.
- Application: Because the book is written in an epistolary (letter-sharing) format, this standard directly addresses the instructional focus on identifying different narrators and comparing characters’ distinct perspectives.

Part 4: Compare and Critique (4-6 Sentences)

My analysis and AI Summary share similar objectives because they both identified comparing perspectives, summarized events, and understanding the narrators and characters’ primary goals. The confirmation of standards was shared by AI for 3R2 and 3R6, and not 3R3. One difference was AI sharing the challenges for multilingual learning, which is the dual load of cultural schema and contrastive vocabulary. MLs require extensive support to bridge the vocabulary gap when making connections to their own lives into formal English academic writing and discussion. Recommendations for scaffolds aligned with support: I include sentence frames and visuals, but AI uses the keyword “culturally responsive scaffolding”. AI expanded my thinking about language support for ENLs and MLs; however, Specific directions and files to understand the unit I will be using were required in the search to get the best outcomes using AI as an analytical partner.

Peer responses.

#1 Hi J.,

You shared a great comparison on your critique versus AI critique. You mentioned AI gives you a better depth into the Unit and is not oversimplified as your summary. I agree that using AI to deepen our knowledge and expand on what we offer to students can be helpful in teaching and preparing them with a wide scope of content areas. When students are given more information that is appropriate to their Grade level and proficiency, they can grasp sufficient information to bring understanding of the object, which is a positive influence on the best outcomes for all students.

Thanks, Shobha

#2 Hi T.,

You shared some great information on identifying curriculum design and instructional design. These two go hand in hand and significantly increase participation and productivity of students’ outcomes. You also shared great instructional methods to encourage student outcomes by providing opportunities for scaffolding, which is an important component for multilingual learners. Emphasizing culturally responsive teaching is essential for English Language Learners, which helps them to connect using background knowledge and make meaningful connections. A key point in your analysis and AI that I thought is imperative is the inclusion of family relationships; this is a big part of students’ outcomes and creates a sense of belonging and motivation to learn in an environment that values community.

Thanks, Shobha

#3 Hi M.,

“Curriculum design tells teachers what and when to teach a topic. Instructional design allows teachers to create lessons, supplement the curriculum, and deliver instruction.” These two sentences stand out to me and hit exactly the difference between these two topics and how they go hand in hand with each other. I watched a video shared by our professor on the 4 Ts of Curriculum Design framework, which includes Topic, Task, Target, and Text (EL Education, 2018). These are 4 simple concepts for how to design a curriculum and build knowledge for students. This framework works in an interrelationship, helping teachers connect and create the scaffolding. To simplify it, the curriculum offers the ingredients to a standard, and teachers use those ingredients based on individual outcomes in proportion to students’ expectations.

Thanks, Shobha

Reference:

EL Education. (2018). Curriculum Design: The 4 Ts. Touro University. YouTube Video.

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. (2020). HMH Into Reading: Grade 3 teacher’s Guide. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

NYSED. (2017). New York Next Generation English Language Arts Learning Standards. https://www.nysed.gov/sites/default/files/programs/standards-instruction/nys-next-generation-ela-standards.pdf

Touro TESOL Candidate Gianna Luna’s Exemplary EDPN 673 Methods and Materials for Teaching English as a Second Language Projects

EDPN 673 Methods and Materials for Teaching English as a Second Language

This course provides a 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 ESL instruction which includes differentiated learning experiences geared to students’ needs. Emphasis is placed on creating culturally responsive learning environments. Includes 15 hours of field work.

“One of my biggest takeaways from this course was learning about a variety of resources and strategies that I can use to better guide my instruction and make learning more meaningful and accessible for a wide range of learners. This course also encouraged me to experiment with resources and technology tools that I had never used before, such as Copilot and creating infographics, which helped expand my creativity and thought process when designing instruction. This course helped me become more reflective and intentional in planning lessons that support both language development and academic growth for multilingual learners.”
Gianna Luna, Touro University TESOL Candidate, EDPN 673

Gianna Luna is an Inclusive Childhood Education teacher and graduate student in the TESOL program at Touro University. She currently works as a consultant teacher in an elementary school setting, providing push-in and small-group support to students with diverse learning and language needs. She is passionate about creating inclusive and supportive learning environments that help multilingual learners build confidence and academic skills.

Using Copilot throughout this assignment helped me realize how supportive technology tools can be during the lesson planning and design process. It encouraged me to experiment with resources I had never used before, such as creating infographics and using AI to brainstorm differentiated instructional ideas. I found that Copilot helped guide my thinking, organization, and creativity while still allowing me to personalize materials by redesigning them to meet the needs of my learners. This experience showed me how technology can be used as a meaningful support tool when designing accessible and engaging instruction for multilingual learners.

My experience in the TESOL program at Touro University has helped me become a more reflective and intentional educator. Throughout this course, I learned how to better support multilingual learners through meaningful scaffolds, and I also gained confidence experimenting with new instructional resources and technology tools that I can continue using in my future classroom.

Gianna Luna – Touro TESOL Candidate, EDPN 673

Gianna Luna – EDPN 673

Instructional Material Critique & Redesign with Infographic Gianna Luna Download

Field Work Paper Gianna Luna Download

Touro University TESOL Candidate Anastasios Panagiotidis’ EDPN-673 Instructional Material Critique & Redesign with Infographic

EDPN 673 Methods and Materials for Teaching English as a Second Language

I designed the Instructional Material Critique & Redesign with Infographic assignment in direct alignment with my concept of ‘Education for 2060’ and its implications for teacher education in multilingual and technologically evolving classrooms. My focus within ‘Education for 2060’ is not simply the inclusion of emerging technologies in coursework, but the preparation of teacher candidates who can think critically, act reflectively, and maintain pedagogical intentionality within increasingly complex educational environments. This assignment reflects my belief that future TESOL educators must be prepared to evaluate instructional materials analytically, redesign curriculum responsively, and engage artificial intelligence through informed professional judgment rather than passive dependence.

The Instructional Material Critique & Redesign with Infographic positions AI as a pedagogical instrument that must remain secondary to teacher cognition, disciplinary expertise, and reflective decision-making. Candidates are required to identify instructional challenges, critique AI-generated outputs, revise materials through TESOL and WIDA frameworks, and justify redesign choices in relation to multilingual learner needs. In this way, the assignment preserves cognitive rigor and metacognitive engagement while simultaneously acknowledging that AI will remain part of future educational practice. Within my conception of Education for 2060, teacher education must prepare candidates not merely to use technological tools, but to interrogate them critically, adapt them responsibly, and align them with equitable instructional goals.

My emphasis on multimodal redesign and visual instructional supports is also informed by the Science of Reading and its attention to language comprehension, vocabulary development, background knowledge, and meaningful access to complex texts. For multilingual learners, literacy development requires intentional scaffolding that integrates oral language, academic discourse, visual representation, and culturally responsive instructional design. By requiring candidates to adapt materials according to WIDA proficiency levels and create multimodal supports for learners, the assignment reinforces the understanding that literacy instruction in TESOL contexts is both cognitive and sociocultural.

Ultimately, this assignment embodies my vision of ‘Education for 2060’ by positioning teacher education as intellectually rigorous, critically reflective, technologically informed, and fundamentally human-centered. The project is designed to ensure that future TESOL educators retain ownership of pedagogical reasoning even as AI becomes increasingly integrated into educational systems. Rather than diminishing professional expertise, the assignment requires candidates to strengthen their analytical capacities, deepen their metacognitive awareness, and develop the reflective habits necessary for equitable multilingual learner instruction in future educational contexts.

My TESOL teacher candidate, Anastasios Panagiotidis, submitted exemplary work showcasing his specialty as an Earth and Space Science teacher!

Anastasios Panagiotidis proudly serves the South Huntington Union Free School District as an Earth and Space Science teacher and recently obtained his tenure at Walt Whitman High School. He is passionate about creating engaging, student-centered lessons that emphasize inquiry, collaboration, and real-world connections. Anastasios strongly believes that curiosity is at the root of all learning and strives to create experiences that encourage students to ask questions, think critically, and actively engage with science. His goal is to help students develop a lasting interest in science that extends beyond the classroom. He also uses artificial intelligence as a tool to strengthen instructional materials, support differentiated instruction, and create more accessible learning experiences for multilingual learners.

Through my experience at Touro University, I have learned to combine strong instructional practices with the thoughtful use of artificial intelligence to seamlessly create engaging, accessible, and effective learning experiences that better support diverse student needs.
Anastasios Panagiotidis, Touro University TESOL Candidate

EDPN 673- Instructional Material Critique & Redesign with Infographic A_Panagiotidis Download

Touro University TESOL Candidate Evangelia Diakoumakos’ Instructional Method Assignment for EDPN 673 – Methods and Materials for Teaching English as a Second Language

In current TESOL practice, the question is no longer whether artificial intelligence belongs in the classroom, but how it can be integrated without displacing the intellectual and pedagogical labor that defines effective teaching. This Instructional Method Assignment – Teaching a Mini-Lesson to an ML Audience for the Touro University TESOL/BLE course EDPN 673 – Methods and Materials for Teaching English as a Second Language is designed as a deliberate response to that tension. It positions AI not as a substitute for thinking, but as a collaborator within a broader ecology of embodied teaching, disciplinary knowledge, and reflective practice.

At its core, the assignment asks Touro University TESOL/BLE teacher candidates to inhabit a methodological tradition not abstractly, but physically. The simulated teaching video foregrounds the body as a site of pedagogy: gesture, proximity, pacing, and the handling of realia become constitutive elements of meaning-making. In this sense, the “method-pure” requirement is not merely technical. It is epistemological. It asks candidates to test what it means for a theory of language learning to be enacted through voice and movement in space, rather than summarized in prose.

Evangelia Diakoumakos Method Teaching Simulation Video

The written analysis, by contrast, reclaims the domain of intellectual work. Here, candidates situate their chosen method historically and theoretically, interrogating its assumptions, affordances, and limitations. This component resists the reduction of teaching to performance alone. It insists that pedagogical action must be grounded in critical awareness, particularly when methods are transported into multilingual, contemporary classrooms that differ significantly from their original contexts.

Evangelia D._ Total Physical Response (TPR) in ML instruction_ Method Analysis and Reflective Practice-2 Download

Evanglia D_Digraph Slideshow Download

Between these two domains lies the guided use of AI, specifically through structured co-creation with tools such as Microsoft Copilot. The reflective component makes visible an often invisible process: how ideas are iteratively shaped, challenged, and refined. In my view, this is where responsible AI use becomes pedagogically meaningful. Candidates are not rewarded for seamless outputs, but for evidencing discernment. They must demonstrate where AI supported clarity, where it introduced limitations, and where professional judgment required deviation from its suggestions.

The assignment, therefore, stages a productive dialectic. The physical performance of teaching resists abstraction; the analytical paper resists superficiality; and the AI collaboration resists passivity. Taken together, these elements model a form of teacher preparation that acknowledges technological change while maintaining a clear commitment to pedagogical intentionality.

Featured Touro University Candidate:

Evangelia Diakoumakos is an elementary school teacher in Brooklyn, who teaches a fourth-grade general education (ENL) class. As a teacher of a large multilingual learner population, she has developed an even stronger passion for language development and culturally responsive teaching. She is committed to creating an inclusive classroom where all students feel valued and supported in their learning.

“As a student nearing the completion of my master’s degree, one of the most rewarding experiences has been the ability to connect and apply concepts from my coursework at Touro directly to my classroom. My studies have not only transformed my instructional practices, but have also reaffirmed my love for language learning.”
Evangelia Diakoumakos, Touro University TESOL Candidate

Touro University TESOL Candidate Carly Croteau’s Student Work Demonstrating Disciplined Copilot Use

EDPN 673 – Methods and Materials for Teaching English as a Second Language

Instructional Materials Critique and Redesign

This assignment centers on material analysis as a core professional skill. Candidates critically examine two instructional materials at different grade levels to investigate how linguistic demands, discourse expectations, and access points for multilingual learners vary across instructional contexts. This comparative approach is designed to move candidates away from generic notions of “ELL strategies” and toward a disciplined analysis of language use, text complexity, and opportunities for meaning-making. In my view, this kind of analytic work is foundational to effective TESOL practice and is often underemphasized in methods coursework.

Within the context of the AI grant, Copilot is used in a deliberately structured way. It functions as a generative drafting tool that supports instructional redesign, not as an instructional authority. Candidates identify a specific instructional limitation in a selected material, use Copilot to generate a redesign artifact, and then evaluate and revise that output using WIDA English Language Development Standards, New York State Next Generation Learning Standards, and established TESOL frameworks. The requirement to critique and modify AI generated content foregrounds professional judgment and exposes the limitations of automated outputs in addressing linguistic precision and cultural responsiveness.

The infographic component extends this work by requiring candidates to synthesize analytic findings into a visual support that could plausibly mediate content access for multilingual learners. This element emphasizes multimodality as an instructional practice rather than a design exercise. Taken together, the assignment models an approach to AI use that is critical, standards aligned, and grounded in the everyday instructional decisions TESOL educators must make.

Carly Croteau is in her second-to-last semester at Touro University. She serves in her Fourth Year of Teaching as a fourth-grade general education teacher within an ENL classroom. Carly shared a quote to describe her Touro Journey: “I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” by Maya Angelou

Carly Croteau’s exemplary submission demonstrates a precise, standards-aligned critique of both materials and a redesigned artifact that clearly addresses an identified linguistic barrier for multilingual learners. Her use of Copilot is transparent and disciplined, with revisions that reflect strong TESOL knowledge and well-justified instructional decision-making.

EDPN 673 Instructional Material Critique (1).docx Download

Xavier Campoverde’s work with CoPilot and Materials Critique & Redesign for Touro University’s TESOL Course EDPN 673

The Touro University Copilot Grant supports my work as a faculty member in explicitly teaching teacher candidates how to use Copilot as an instructional design tool within a structured, standards-aligned pedagogical framework. In this course, Copilot is not introduced as an optional productivity aid. It is taught as a professional instructional resource whose use must be intentional, transparent, and grounded in TESOL theory, state standards, and multilingual learner pedagogy.

The instructional focus of this grant-funded work is on teaching candidates how to work with Copilot, rather than merely allowing its use. Candidates are guided through a faculty-modeled process that emphasizes instructional problem identification, constrained prompting, critical evaluation of AI-generated outputs, and revision based on professional judgment.

Instructional context and assignment purpose

The Copilot integration is based on a major assessment titled “Instructional Material Critique and Redesign with Infographic.” The assignment is designed to teach candidates how to critically analyze instructional materials and redesign them to improve accessibility and rigor for multilingual learners.

Materials may include complete texts or individual chapters from instructional resources commonly used in schools. The assignment explicitly teaches candidates how to engage in mastery-level material critique and redesign using established TESOL and multilingual education frameworks.

Explicit teaching of Copilot as an instructional design tool

Within this assignment, I explicitly teach candidates how Copilot can be used as a co-creative instructional design partner under faculty supervision and pedagogical constraints. Copilot is introduced through direct instruction and modeling, not discovery-based experimentation.

Generates draft instructional materials, not finished products
Requires human evaluation using research-based criteria
Must be revised to ensure linguistic accuracy, cultural responsiveness, and standards alignment

This explicit framing positions Copilot as part of the instructional design process, not as an authority or substitute for professional educators’ expertise.

Xavier Campoverde is a bilingual social studies teacher at the high school he attended growing up. He is passionate about ensuring that every student has the ability to learn based on their individual needs, building on what they already know, and establishing a safe learning environment for all. He is also a proud husband and father to two wonderful children.

I learned that being a TESOL educator means being an advocate, a designer, and a listener, using data, culture, and technology to ensure every multilingual learner can thrive. Xavier Campoverde, Touro University TESOL Candidate.

Materials Critique Redesign Xavier Download

Rachel Melamed master’s degree candidate in TESOL at Touro University: AI Literacy Through Method Embodiment

This assignment, Instructional Method Assignment – Teaching a Mini-Lesson to an ML Audience, required creating a simulated teaching video that demonstrates one specific language teaching method from our course readings. This is a pretend lesson where you act as the teacher presenting to an imaginary multilingual learner audience for EDPN 673 Methods and Materials for Teaching English as a Second Language. This course provides a 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 ESL instruction, which includes differentiated learning experiences geared to students’ needs. Emphasis is placed on creating culturally responsive learning environments. Includes 15 hours of field work.

The assignment was designed to deepen TESOL candidates’ methodological expertise while positioning them to engage with artificial intelligence in purposeful and pedagogically sound ways. It reflects Touro University’s broader initiative to strengthen AI literacy across its programs through a Touro Faculty AI Grant headed and supported by Shlomo Engelson Argamon, Associate Provost for Artificial Intelligence and Professor of Computer Science, and Jamie Sundvall, Ph.D, Psy.D, LP, LCSW, Assistant Provost of Artificial Intelligence. Within this institutional landscape, the assignment serves as a structured model for preparing educators to work in learning environments where AI is increasingly integrated into curriculum, assessment, and multilingual support.

My motto, Education for 2060, emphasizes the development of shared spaces of competencies influenced by AI and large language models. As schools and districts integrate AI into core instructional processes, teacher education programs must develop candidates who can navigate these systems with ethical judgment and instructional precision. This assignment, therefore, balances two essential design principles: strong safeguards against unverified AI substitution and intentional guidance for targeted AI use.

The AI-resistant component centers on a six to seven-minute simulated teaching video that requires candidates to embody a single method from the course readings. By performing the method in a real physical space with realia, gesture, classroom presence, and teacher talk, candidates demonstrate the translation of theory into practice. This performance reveals decision-making, sequencing, and pedagogical rationale that cannot be delegated to AI, ensuring that candidates are evaluated on their own instructional competence.

Targeted AI use is built into the assignment through Copilot-supported planning and reflection. Copilot is positioned as a thinking partner that helps candidates examine the structural logic of the method, refine the flow of the activity, and interrogate their own understanding. Proof of work in the form of screenshots and reflective commentary ensures transparency and allows candidates to analyze the accuracy, limitations, and pedagogical value of AI-generated suggestions. In this way, the assignment teaches AI literacy as a reflective and evaluative process rather than a generative shortcut.

The written analysis links the performance to course theories, identifies the method features demonstrated in the video, and articulates how Copilot contributed to planning choices. This component reinforces conceptual understanding while modeling a professional stance toward responsible AI use.

By combining embodied demonstration with documented AI-supported thinking, the assignment prepares candidates for a future in which educators and AI systems occupy interconnected roles. It brings the work full circle by returning to the idea of shared spaces of competencies. Candidates learn to inhabit these spaces with confidence, contributing their own pedagogical judgment while engaging with AI in ways that enhance, rather than replace, their professional expertise.

Rachel Melamed is a high school teacher in Brooklyn, New York. She earned her bachelor’s degree in Inclusive Education from SUNY Cortland and is a first-generation graduate student pursuing her master’s in TESOL at Touro University. Growing up in a Russian-speaking household helped her develop a passion for teaching multilingual learners and shaped her approach to connecting with them in the classroom.

Using Copilot helped me rework a lesson I had taught before and make it more accessible for English language learners. I learned how small adjustments and simplified, repetitive language can make a big difference when designing lessons.
Rachel Melamed master’s degree candidate in TESOL at Touro University

Rachel M_Instructional Teaching method25 Download

Master’s Degree in TESOL Candidate at Touro University Carly Croteau’s Submission: Simulation Teaching, Embodiment, and AI Literacy

Carly Croteau is in her second-to-last semester of the Master’s Degree in TESOL at Touro University and is currently in her fourth year of teaching as a fourth-grade general education teacher in an ENL classroom. Her favorite quote: “I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” by Maya Angelou

I was first introduced to Copilot during a district professional development session and encountered it again this semester in my TESOL coursework at Touro University. I find Copilot to be a valuable support for both educators and students when used with clear, well-structured prompts. I see it as a helpful aid that can enhance instructional work, but not as a replacement for the professional judgment and intellectual effort that teachers and learners bring to the process.
Carly Croteau, Master’s Degree in TESOL candidate at Touro University

Carly Croteau Grammar Translation Method Video (teaching simulation)

Carly Cannotated-EDPN67320Method20Supporting%20Materials Download

Carly C_EDPN 673 Instructional Method Assignment- Written Analysis Download

Joyann Castilletti, Touro University TESOL Candidate, on her experience working with structured prompt engineering and AI

MS in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages
TESOL – New York is a state that speaks many languages. We need teachers who can find the common ground.

🏛️ As part of Touro University’s comprehensive initiative to introduce #AI #literacy to our students, I am engaged in a #Touro #University #grant focused on developing AI literacy in #TESOL candidates. My project-based approach empowers future educators to leverage AI as a strategic partner in curriculum design, bridging theoretical understanding with applied classroom practice.

Joyann Castilletti is a 7th–12th grade certified English teacher, currently working as a permanent substitute teacher while pursuing her TESOL degree at Touro University. She is passionate about creating learning environments where every student feels seen, heard, and loved, and where each learner is supported in achieving success. She continues to inspire a love of learning in every English learner while equipping them with the skills to communicate confidently and effectively.

Although my time at Touro has been brief, it has inspired me to reconnect with my cultural roots through my father and grandmother, celebrating the legacy that came before me. Through Touro’s TESOL graduate program, I’ve had the opportunity to engage with peers from diverse backgrounds, sharing experiences that have enriched me professionally and sparked conversations I might never have had otherwise.
Joyann Castilletti, Touro University TESOL Candidate

Joyann Castilletti, Touro University TESOL Candidate, on her experience working with structured prompt engineering and AI:

Using this prompt showed me a few things about designing rubrics. For starters, specifics are key to a solid rubric. When I first started student teaching, every assignment I gave had some sort of rubric mainly to protect myself in case a student didn’t do too well. Since student teaching, I have still utilized rubrics but have worked towards making them more specific and rooted in whatever standard I was working on. The rubric that CoPilot and ChatGPT provided is a great jumping point if my students were doing this presentation. My biggest negative with this rubric is that since CoPilot is primarily analytic based, it does not allow for a holistic view of my students (especially since all of my key domains were also analytical). When I make my rubrics, I try to include some element that allows my students that may struggle with the assignment a chance to achieve highly in one category. Additionally, since this rubric was generated from a prompt it did not allow me to have student insight which I like to do (unless I took this rubric to the students and had a discussion about it with them for recommendations or suggested changes). I do like that CoPilot clearly establishes the format of “you do exactly this– you get this score”. When I make my rubrics, I tend to struggle with the verbiage to express exactly what I am looking for and to separate between each score point. With this said, by utilizing this format, I can create more efficient rubrics and change them as needed to make my accommodations.

Joyann Castilletti 673 db 4 Final Download