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.
Instructional Material Critique and Redesign for Multilingual Learners: Integrating AI, WIDA, and New York State Standards
As AI becomes increasingly integrated into educational settings, teacher preparation programs such as Touro University’s GSE face an important challenge: helping aspiring educators use AI productively while preserving the professional judgment at the heart of teaching. The Instructional Material Critique and Redesign for Multilingual Learners: Integrating AI, WIDA, and New York State Standards assignment was designed with this goal in mind.
The assignment requires our TESOL candidates to engage first in the intellectual work that defines effective teaching. They analyze authentic instructional materials using the ESL Textbook Evaluation Checklist, the WIDA PRIME framework, New York State Next Generation Learning Standards, and TESOL research. Candidates identify strengths, limitations, linguistic barriers, and opportunities for instructional improvement. These decisions require disciplinary knowledge, critical analysis, and an understanding of multilingual learner development.
AI enters the process after candidates have completed this professional evaluation. Using Gemini and NotebookLM through the Touro student portal, candidates develop instructional artifacts such as leveled reading passages, vocabulary supports, comic strips, and infographics. The generated materials are not submitted as finished products. Candidates must verify sources, evaluate the quality of the output, revise it for accuracy and appropriateness, and explain how the redesigned material supports multilingual learners. The assignment places responsibility for instructional decision-making with the candidate.
Recent implementation of New York State guidance aligned with the WIDA English Language Development Standards makes this work particularly relevant. Candidates are expected to consider proficiency-level expectations, language features, communication demands, and content-language integration when redesigning instructional materials. The assignment requires them to translate WIDA principles into classroom practice, creating supports that maintain grade-level rigor while improving access for multilingual learners.
NotebookLM contributes an additional dimension of professional learning through its source-grounded design. Candidates are encouraged to build materials from selected curriculum texts, chapters, articles, and instructional resources rather than relying on generalized AI responses. This process strengthens habits of evidence-based practice, source verification, and curriculum alignment that are essential in PK-12 settings.
The project avoids cognitive offshoring and develops skills that candidates will use throughout their careers. Schools increasingly expect educators to evaluate AI-generated content, create multimodal learning resources, adapt materials for diverse student populations, and document standards alignment. Through this assignment, candidates gain experience with each of these responsibilities while maintaining ownership of the pedagogical decisions that shape student learning.
Kalee Fan is an early childhood special education teacher in 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.
“This assignment taught me that effective instructional materials are not simply selected. They are thoughtfully evaluated and adapted so multilingual learners can fully access, engage with, and contribute to learning.”
Kalee Fan, Bilingual Education Extension Candidate, Touro University
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.
The Curriculum Design Techtool resource project for EDDN 635 provides a strong model for meaningful AI integration in teacher education because it requires candidates to produce and document evidence of their decision-making process. Rather than submitting a finished curriculum map alone, candidates must include screenshots, exact prompts, complete AI outputs, links to artifacts, and explanations of how they revised or improved the generated material. These requirements make the candidate’s thinking visible and create accountability for the quality of the final product. The proof-of-work component also supports academic integrity because instructors can see how the candidate interacted with the technology, what recommendations the AI generated, and which professional decisions the candidate made independently. In curriculum design, where standards alignment and language progression are essential, this transparency is particularly valuable because it allows both the process and the product to be evaluated.
The Curriculum Design Techtool resource project also cultivates AI literacy as a professional competency for future educators. Teachers entering today’s schools will encounter AI-supported planning, assessment, and instructional tools, making it important to develop habits of verification, revision, and critical analysis. Candidates are required to check AI-generated standards against NYSED documents, evaluate whether language functions align with content objectives, and explain modifications they make to AI-produced drafts. The expectation that students submit the original prompt, the complete output, and evidence of revision reinforces the understanding that expertise remains with the educator. AI contributes suggestions and organizational support, while the candidate applies pedagogical knowledge, curriculum expertise, and professional judgment to determine what is accurate, appropriate, and instructionally sound. Through this documented process, Touro University candidates learn to use AI responsibly, valuing transparency, accountability, and informed decision-making over simple content generation.
Ariana Loyfman is a New York City public school teacher and a graduate student pursuing a degree in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) at Touro University. As an educator, she is committed to giving students a strong educational foundation while creating a supportive, inclusive learning environment where all learners feel confident, motivated, and valued for who they are.
She is dedicated to inspiring a lifelong love of learning in her students and helping them recognize and build upon their individual strengths. Through meaningful instruction and encouragement, she supports students in developing the confidence to navigate challenges, pursue their goals, and use their unique talents and interests to achieve personal and academic success.
Early summer 2026 I decided to apply for the competitive Stanford University’s Fall 2026 Ethics, Technology, and Public Policy for Practitioners course. Every year, I take one synchronous course to be part of my transdisciplinary quest on knowledge and personal connection building. My final reflection and report on my course experiences are structured through the lens of Star Trek’s Prime Directive.
Session one’s Opening Session and Moral Caffeination reading was Ursula K. Le Guin’s The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. I was unfamiliar with the short story of a prosperous society whose happiness rests on the deliberate and excruciating suffering of an imprisoned child. The reading troubled me, and I rejected the offered choices between accepting the child’s horrific suffering for the sake of communal happiness or walking away as cowardly solutions. Instead, I devised a third solution: an outsider who rescues the child. My inspiration: a personal hero of mine: Raoul Wallenberg, a Swedish rescuer in Budapest, who acted to save as many Jews as possible during a time when the Nazi regime normalized the persecution of its Jewish citizens.
Personally, I reject collective happiness as justification for a society’s deliberate disregard for individual suffering. A tyrant may experience genuine happiness while inflicting profound suffering on others. A society may celebrate its collective well-being while knowingly sacrificing the well-being of some of its members. But what does that happiness tell us about the ethical legitimacy of either? Nothing. Isn’t happiness a subjective experience? Aristotle’s eudaimonia and Kant’s conception of duty influence my ethical outlook. Society’s satisfaction cannot justify what it knowingly inflicts on someone powerless. Needless to say, I felt very righteous post-session and Dr. Beverly Crusher’s objection to Captain Picard supported my righteousness.: “It’s hard to be philosophical when faced with suffering.”
Dr. Beverly Crusher: “But aren’t we interfering either way? If we take no action, it’s a conscious decision to let the Boraalans die.” The Next Generation, “Homeward” (1994).
However, sessions 2: Algorithmic Decision-Making and Fairness; 3: Data Collection, Privacy, and AI; and 4; Political Economy of Technology and the Distribution of Power, especially the deeper exploration on automated hiring, gave Omelas a distinctive and contemporary institutional form. An algorithmic decision can be transparent and still produce unfair outcomes. I learned that disclosure does not confer accountability; neither does an audit remedy harm unless someone is empowered to act on its findings. My recurring question became: who possesses the authority and incentive to correct a system once its effects are visible? Our privacy session made this question more difficult to resolve – I was still looking for an Omelas closure. Lawrence Lessig’s account of law, markets, norms, and architecture helped me see technological defaults as a form of governance. I explored a related problem before the course in The Educational Data Ghost: AI, Learning Platforms, and European Sovereignty (July 2026). My article asked “whether students and faculty can know where their traces have gone” and argued for “the right not to be indefinitely reconstructed from one’s own traces.” Learning platforms retain evidence of student activity and faculty work long after an interaction ends. Failing to investigate those data practices is a decision with consequences, but intervention must respect consent, privacy, and legitimate educational purposes.
The lectures and fireplace presentations also made me reconsider the relationship between an AI system’s analytical moral competence and its behavioral moral acting. An LLM may identify a defensible action and explain Kantian duty without acting in accordance with either. When an agent has tools and permission to operate beyond a chat window, this gap becomes very dangerous as ethical fluency is not evidence of reliable behavior. I explored that topic in my October 1st Horasis’ article, Capabilities, Behaviors and Resistance to Oversight: How Much Autonomy Have We Already Given AI?, where I examined incidents involving autonomous agents and argued:
“Institutions need detailed activity records, clearly defined permissions, independent evaluations, and procedures for identifying and reporting unauthorized actions.”
During our session on AI governance under uncertainty, Seth Lazar’s concept of anticipatory AI ethics challenged me to consider when emerging AI capabilities and their foreseeable harms create a duty to intervene before those harms materialize, even when the evidence remains incomplete and the legitimacy of preventive action must still be established. His technological horizon asks us to examine plausible capabilities and their effects within existing institutions, without pretending to predict society’s entire future. Consistent with the Star Trek framing I used earlier, I applied this approach in my article Where No Worm Has Gone Before: AI That Self-Replicates onto Your $55 TV Box , looking at AI that replicates across inexpensive consumer devices. I observed that while laboratories can test and constrain models, they cannot by themselves secure household hardware, regulate device manufacturers, or protect networks. The duty to respond must be distributed among actors with different powers. An earlier article of mine, What the OpenAI Cyber Defense Letter Says, Who Signed It, and What Remains Unclear (August 2026), posed a related problem. Examining a public warning hosted by a company with commercial interests in the proposed response, I wrote that “a warning can be self-serving and accurate in the same breath.” That remains important to my thinking. Recognizing a genuine cyber threat does not exempt the proposed intervention from scrutiny, particularly when access, benefits, and authority are concentrated among the organizations promoting it.
Captain Kathryn Janeway: “You have no idea what the consequences might be once you involve yourself.” Voyager, “Time and Again” (1995).
Sessions 5. AI, Child Safety, and the Burden of Responsibility and 6. AI & the Future of Work continued my journey to a more nuanced thought process. I revisited my ‘heroic’ and, in hindsight, thoughtless Wagnerian rescue of the Omelas’ child. My original position was that no community can claim moral authority to perpetuate suffering simply because its members collectively accept or benefit from it. Communal consent does not legitimize the injustice. However, after session 5, I started asking myself:
Defensible aims: Ending the child’s suffering and simultaneously protecting Omelans’ rights.
Proportionate means: Using methods appropriate to the harm being prevented, without inflicting unnecessary additional harm.
Competence: Ensuring that those intervening possess the abilities and resources to do so effectively.
Accountability: Accepting responsibility for the consequences, including the child’s and Omelas’ welfare after the rescue.
The difficult to bear child-safety session brought these distinctions into sharper focus. My writing on New Mexico v. Meta had questioned leaving child protection to platforms whose commercial incentives favor engagement. Yet proposed client-side scanning of private communications creates a different risk: a protective unleveraging of privacy rights to justify disproportionate surveillance.
The future-of-work readings in session 6 extended the question of inaction. The Stanford Canaries in the Coal Mine research suggests a loss of the entry-level tasks. When employers automate those tasks, who assumes responsibility for creating alternative routes into skilled work? Will GenZ become the “useless” new class with total economic irrelevance? (Harari, 2022)
Finally, as a professor preparing future teachers, I find myself considering a much longer horizon: how do we educate teachers today to prepare children for the world of 2060? We cannot reliably predict the professions, technologies, or social conditions those children will encounter. We can, however, prepare teachers to cultivate intellectual independence, critical inquiry, disciplinary knowledge, ethical judgment, and the ability to learn beyond existing frameworks. My concern is that increasing reliance on AI may deprive my current candidates of the productive, intellectual struggles and practical (and sometimes painful) experiences through which judgment and expertise develop.
Cumulatively, the Stanford course gave me a distinct philosophical vocabulary with my final take-away: Non-intervention is not neutral in education either. The choices we make in preparing teachers today will influence the intellectual autonomy and economic opportunities available to their students (and our children’s children) – a future yet to be lived.
Dacey, C. M., Cowin, J., & de los Reyes, J. (2026). Editorial: Artificial intelligence in educational and business ecosystems: Convergent perspectives on agency, ethics, and transformation. Frontiers in Education, 11, Article 1780854. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2026.1780854
The contributions curated in this Research Topic resist the techno-solutionist narrative that frames AI as a neutral efficiency tool requiring only proper deployment. Instead, they capture tensions between automation and augmentation, between administrative rationalization and pedagogical transformation, and between predictive precision and educational equity. These tensions operate simultaneously across institutional, instructional, and individual levels, calling for analytical frameworks that draw on computer science, learning sciences, ethics, policy studies, and critical pedagogy. The authors invite readers to continue building collaborative and integrative approaches that match the scale and complexity of AI’s global impact. We can benefit from reconsidering our teaching methods and comparing the ethical challenges of AI in business education, as well as how AI can be effectively incorporated to help prepare workforce-ready graduates. The effects of using artificial intelligence in education are just beginning to be measured, and its use will likely have ripple effects for years to come (Dacey et al., 2023). As we look toward the horizon, we see the need for more flexible, decentralized, and inclusive governance and educational structures, much like a forest of diverse species adapting to changing conditions within a vibrant ecosystem (Dacey et al., 2025, p. 70). Throughout the production process of this Research Topic, we remained mindful that “companies like OpenAI stand at the forefront, pushing the boundaries of what generative pre-trained transformers or ‘GPTs’ can achieve. However, beneath this veneer of progress lies a complex web of epistemological and pedagogical quandaries that question the very foundation of AI’s trajectory in education” (Cowin, 2024). We invite continued dialogue on these fundamental questions as the field evolves. Author contributions CD: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Writing– original draft, Writing– review & editing. JC: Writing– original draft, Writing– review & editing. JdlR: Writing– review & editing. Conflict of interest The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Dacey, C. (2022). Examining ethical tensions and the pursuit of care through an invitational lens. J. Invit. Theory Pract. 28, 5–30. doi: 10.26522/jitp.v28i.4208
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
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.
