The EDDN 637 Discussion Board on Practice and Application with a Focus on Differentiated Assessment connects the principles of differentiation to the practical work of classroom teaching by focusing on lesson planning, authentic student products, reflection, and multimodal explanation. It is also a low-stakes grade preparation for a larger assignment later in the semester and serves as a knowledge check for me, the faculty. The answers my candidates provide are helpful for my commentary focused on the upcoming assignment. A central feature of the assignment is the use of anonymized student products. These products provide concrete evidence of how differentiation functions in practice. Rather than discussing differentiation only in theory, the assignment requires analyzing real student work and demonstrates how assessment can be adjusted while maintaining meaningful learning goals.
Dionysia Di Meo is an experienced educator and NYS‑licensed bilingual (Greek) Speech‑Language Pathologist specializing in pediatric language/phonological disorders, dysphagia, and Autism Spectrum Disorders. She has extensive experience in Early Intervention, holds TSSLD certification, and is pursuing an Advanced Certificate in TESOL at Touro University. An aspiring polyglot, she is learning Italian, Spanish, and Turkish, and teaches Greek Language, History, and Culture at a National Blue Ribbon School.
Through Touro’s TESOL program, I learned that the most powerful classrooms are built on scaffolds, not shortcuts – meeting Multilingual Learners where they are and believing in where they can go.
Dionysia Di Meo, Touro University TESOL Candidate
Featuring my teacher candidates’ work in my TESOL blog is an intentional pedagogical practice that recognizes them as emerging professionals whose ideas, reflections, and instructional designs deserve visibility within the field. It makes the complex process of becoming a TESOL educator visible by showcasing how candidates connect coursework, theory, fieldwork, and multilingual learner advocacy in authentic classroom contexts. Most importantly, it positions my candidates not simply as students completing assignments, but as capable, praxis-oriented future educators whose developing expertise, creativity, and professional voices contribute meaningfully to the broader educational community. Below is the exemplary DB submitted by my candidate Dionysia Di Meo:
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.
Jeannine Pepe is a 48-year-old educator with 26 years of teaching experience. For over 20 years, she worked in ENL classroom settings, developing a strong commitment to supporting multilingual learners. Through her continued work with this population, she recognized the importance of further formalizing her training and expanding her instructional strategies. This led her to pursue advanced study, and she found her way to Touro University, whose TESOL program closely aligns with her professional goals and passion for supporting English language learners.
Dr. Jasmin Cowin: “This discussion board is an important component of candidate learning because it connects theory, reflective practice, and field-based inquiry within the context of literacy development for multilingual learners. Through engagement with WIDA Can Do Descriptors, candidates critically examine how language proficiency frameworks can inform the selection of appropriate reading materials and support differentiated assessment practices for ELLs/MLs across varying proficiency levels. These discussions encourage candidates to make pedagogically informed decisions that are responsive to learners’ linguistic and academic needs.
In addition, the graphic organizer activity promotes reflective professional growth by asking candidates to identify specific areas for improvement in L2 reading instruction. This process aligns with reflective teaching practices emphasized in TESOL teacher education, where gradual, intentional refinement of instructional strategies supports long-term professional development. Sharing these reflections with peers also fosters collaborative learning and the exchange of effective instructional practices.
The inclusion of field notes and classroom observations further strengthens the discussion board as a site of qualitative inquiry and practitioner research. By documenting and analyzing authentic classroom interactions, candidates deepen their understanding of literacy instruction, classroom dynamics, and the experiences of multilingual learners. These activities foster analytical, reflective, and research-oriented dispositions central to effective TESOL practice.
Jeannine Pepe’s Discussion Board submission
DB 8 Literacy Development: Focus on Reading Method: Content-Based Instruction and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and WIDA
The WIDA Can Do Descriptors provide examples of what language learners can do at various stages of English language development in listening, speaking, reading, and writing. (WIDA, n.d.) The descriptors help teachers build on strengths rather than lower expectations. It focuses on what students can do rather than what they cannot yet do. This helps teachers to match texts to students’ language abilities. It pairs materials based on their ability level, not grade level. Instead of just guessing what the right choice for a student is, this aligns the material to their actual ability. It assists with differentiated instruction, which I find to be challenging when you have students at all different ability levels. The descriptors show specific reading behaviors, such as sequencing, so when choosing material, you are selecting texts that are based on skills they are ready to practice, not overwhelm them. The descriptors help teachers to differentiate the same text for different learners. It helps you to decipher what supports to pair with the same story at different proficiency levels. The goal is not to “water down” content, but to keep all students engaged with the same concepts at different language levels. The descriptors can help you look at an activity you plan to do with your English-speaking students, then scale it back for ELL students so that they are still interacting with the academic content, just at a simplified level. It also provides appropriate supports so all learners can access grade-level content while developing their language skills. Everyone studies the same topic, but the reading materials may vary. Using the WIDA Can Do Descriptors ensures that multilingual learners have equitable access to grade-level content, even as their English proficiency continues to develop (WIDA, n.d.).
2. How could the WIDA Can Do descriptors help you create differentiation for the reading assessment of your ELL’s//MLs?
The WIDA Can Do Descriptors help teachers differentiate reading assessments by identifying what multilingual learners can do at different levels of English proficiency. Instead of providing a single assessment for all, these descriptors allow you to “scale back” or modify the way a student demonstrates understanding of the same academic content. Teachers can use the descriptors to write unique, level-specific language expectations for a single reading task. Instead of giving everyone the same test, teachers can adjust it to each student’s language ability. For example, beginners might work with shorter texts, visuals, or matching activities, while more advanced students can answer deeper questions or analyze the text. Supports like sentence frames or word banks can be added to help students show what they understand. The main idea is that everyone is learning the same content, but the way they access it and show their understanding looks a little different. This makes the assessment fairer and allows students to succeed based on their strengths rather than their English proficiency (WIDA, n.d.).
3. Chapter 12: Use and upload (you can also take a photo) a graphic organizer of your choice to showcase five areas you would like to improve in your teaching of L2 reading that you have learned about in this chapter. Choose one thing at a time, and focus on improving that aspect of your teaching. Share with others what you are doing to become a better teacher of reading. Remember that it will take time to fully develop the ability to integrate improvements into your teaching. Celce-Murcia, Marianne; Brinton, Donna M.; Snow, Marguerite Ann. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (p. 186). Heinle ELT. Kindle Edition
As I continue to develop as a teacher, I want to improve my teaching of reading to multilingual learners. I have learned that effective reading instruction involves more than just decoding—it requires helping students understand meaning, use strategies, and connect to the text. Based on this, I have identified several areas I would like to improve in my teaching, including differentiation, background knowledge, balancing decoding and meaning, gradual release, and text selection.
One area I want to improve is differentiating reading instruction based on my students’ language levels. I have learned that not all students can access the same text or respond in the same way, especially in an ENL classroom. To improve, I will adjust both the reading materials and the tasks. I will adjust the text difficulty and provide scaffolds when necessary. For example, I can provide beginners with visuals or matching activities, while more advanced students can complete harder and more complex tasks. This will help all students work on the same content while still being supported at their level.
Another area I want to improve is how I build background knowledge before reading. I have realized that students understand texts better when they can connect to what they already know. To improve, I will take more time before reading to ask questions, have discussions, and use visuals or real-life examples. For instance, before a lesson on weather and climate, I can ask students about their own experiences and show pictures to help them make connections. As I work to improve how I build background knowledge, I recognize that “comprehension depends on the reader’s background knowledge” (Celce-Murcia et al., 2014), underscoring the importance of activating students’ prior experiences before reading.
I also want to improve how I balance teaching decoding skills with helping students understand meaning. Sometimes students focus too much on sounding out every word, losing the overall meaning of the text. To improve, I will encourage students to use context clues and to look at the bigger picture rather than stopping at every unknown word. For example, in my kindergarten classrooms, we used “Skippy the Frog”. Readers were taught to “skip it, skip it” (skip the word), read to the end of the sentence to gather clues, and then hop back to try the word again. I will model how to determine the meaning of a sentence and remind students that understanding the main idea is more important than knowing every word.
Another area I want to improve is my use of the gradual release of responsibility. I know it is important to move from teacher modeling to student independence, but I want to be more intentional with this process. I tend to “overhelp”. I hate to see my students struggle, and sometimes I assist too quickly. To improve, I will first model reading strategies, then guide students as we practice together, and finally allow them to try independently. This will help students build confidence and become more independent readers over time.
The last area I want to improve is differentiating reading instruction based on my students’ language levels. The WIDA Can Do Descriptors help guide this by showing what students can do at different levels of English proficiency. To improve, I will adjust both the reading materials and the tasks. For example, beginners may require visuals or other forms of support, while more advanced students can explain ideas or answer deeper questions. Again, this will allow all students to work on the same content while being supported at their own level.
Overall, becoming a better teacher of L2 reading will take time and practice. The areas I’ve identified will help me better support my students. By working on one area at a time and using tools like the WIDA Can Do Descriptors, I can continue to grow and help my students become more confident readers.
4. You are sharing one excerpt of your field notes for your fieldwork project – either one of your observations or interviews. Please anonymize any interviews. THIS IS A REQUIREMENT. You may take a photo of your field notes, which you can take by hand. Field notes and observations are essential tools in qualitative research for understanding classroom dynamics. Observations involve systematically watching and recording behaviors, interactions, and environments in real-time, while field notes are written accounts that capture details, interpretations, and reflections. These tools help document context, patterns, and insights that may not be evident in quantitative data.
2-25-26
Setting
My first observational setting was at Uquenock Elementary School in West Islip. I was greeted by the principal upon my arrival. She briefly described her school to me. Oquenock Elementary School is the district’s only ENL school. She mentioned to me that they get a lot of new ENL students in January and February. That is when their school calendar ends, unlike the one in America. She informed me that there are two ENL teachers in the building. The teacher that I will be working with serves students in kindergarten, first, and second grade, and she speaks fluent Spanish. Her colleague takes care of the third, fourth, and fifth-grade students. She explained that Spanish was not the predominant language in their school, but Turkish and Urdu were. The building was decorated beautifully for Valentine’s Day, P.S. I Love You Day, and for Foreign Language Week! It was so welcoming and inviting. When I arrived at my teacher’s room, I was equally impressed with how it was arranged. She had a print-rich classroom. Everything was labeled in English for the students to see. I observed a pocket chart with word families and sentence structure cards. It appears the children are working on forming sentences and CLOZE activities. Fundations cards were displayed, and there were numerous bulletin boards. There was a Good Manners board, an alphabet chart, a vowel poster, color and shape displays, and a positive reinforcement board with slogans like “You Sparkle.” I noticed a birthday chart and student names to create a warm, personal environment. I saw a diversity poster, an emotions chart, visual instructions on how to write a sentence, and descriptions of what an author and an illustrator are. Fiction and nonfiction book descriptions were displayed, days-of-the-week vocabulary were presented, and all objectives were clearly stated for each grade on a whiteboard. The teacher had a kidney-shaped table for small-group work with students, along with four neatly lined desks in front of a smartboard. She occupied half of a classroom and had plenty of space to instruct her students.
Present Findings: Discuss the pedagogical approaches, strategies, materials, and assessment methods observed and their effectiveness. Analyze Teacher & Student Feedback.
When I arrived, the teacher was working one-on-one with a second-grade student. She was struggling with a writing piece. She had difficulty forming a complete sentence and sounding out words. She had a Level 2 reader in front of her to use as a reference for her reader response activity. A lot of guidance and support was needed, and she was getting it in a quiet, distraction-free area.
The teacher was giving intensive, individualized scaffolding, including: linguistic support – helping the student form a complete sentence (syntax/grammar), Phonological support – guiding her to sound out words (decoding/phonics), Cognitive support – helping her understand what to write in response to the text, and Emotional support – working in a quiet space to reduce anxiety and build confidence. In terms of scaffolding, the teacher was breaking the task into manageable parts. She was helping to build one sentence at a time. She was supporting word-by-word decoding and gradually releasing responsibility.
This interaction reflects Vygotsky’s concept of the Zone of Proximal Development, the space between what a student can do independently and what they can accomplish with assistance. The teacher provided scaffolding to help the student complete a task she could not do independently. With guided assistance, modeling, and prompting, the student developed her sentence-writing skills in a supportive learning environment. (Vygotsky, 1978) The student responded positively to this type of instruction, as she engaged with the task and produced a written response with support. Although she initially struggled to form complete sentences and decode words independently, the teacher’s support enabled her to actively participate in the learning process. The student demonstrated effort by attempting to sound out words and construct sentences, indicating a willingness to take risks in a supportive environment. There is evidence of formative assessment occurring during the one-on-one interaction. The teacher is informally assessing the student’s ability to construct complete sentences and apply phonics skills while writing.
Sample Field Notes From Interviews:
References:
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Snow, M. A. (2014). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed.). National Geographic Learning / Heinle Cengage Learning.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Students will become acquainted with and practice effective approaches, methods, and strategies for teaching and evaluating English language learners in the content areas (ELA, social studies, math and science). Throughout the course, students will explore the impact of culture and language on classroom learning. Special challenges in teaching and assessment in each content area will also be discussed. Includes 15 hours of field work.
Madison Derwin holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Inclusive Childhood Education from SUNY Cortland. She works as a 4th-grade teacher’s assistant at an elementary school on Long Island. Her goal as an educator is to provide a safe and engaging learning environment where students of all abilities are empowered to reach their full potential while growing academically, socially, and emotionally. hHer favorite quote is:
“Education is the passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to those who prepare for it today.” Malcolm X
Students will become acquainted with and practice effective approaches, methods, and strategies for teaching and evaluating English language learners in the content areas (ELA, social studies, math and science). Throughout the course, students will explore the impact of culture and language on classroom learning. Special challenges in teaching and assessment in each content area will also be discussed. Includes 15 hours of field work.
Maria Quiroz is a Spanish teacher at John Adams High School in New York City. She is currently pursuing a Master’s degree in TESOL at Touro University, where she focuses on supporting multilingual learners through effective instructional strategies. Her work emphasizes creating engaging, inclusive, and language-rich classroom environments.
“My journey at Touro has helped me connect theory to real classroom practice, allowing me to better support my multilingual learners. I have grown as an educator by learning how to design lessons that build both content knowledge and language skills. This program has strengthened my confidence and commitment to teaching diverse students.” Maria Quiroz, Touro University TESOL Candidate
Exemplary Discussion Board 7 Practice and Application submission for EDDN 637 Second Language Learners and the Content Areas
Prof. Jasmin Cowin:This Discussion Board submission is exemplary because it demonstrates a clear and applied understanding of the SIOP model through the integration of hands-on practice, structured application tasks, and attention to multiple language domains. It is further strengthened by the effective use of direct textual evidence to support instructional decisions and by the analytical treatment of teaching scenarios, which moves beyond description to evaluation. The discussion of writing samples is particularly well developed, as it connects proficiency levels to observable learner performance, reflecting a grounded understanding of second-language development.
Textbook Chapter 7 Practice and Application (p. 182-203): What activities are you planning to provide for your students in your SIOP lesson to apply content and language knowledge? Support your statement by quoting directly from the text with the page number.
In my SIOP lesson, I plan to use hands-on practice and meaningful application tasks so students can build content understanding while also using academic language. First, I will include manipulatives or visual models that students can touch, move, and use to demonstrate new concepts. The chapter explains that “students have a greater chance of mastering content concepts and skills when they are given multiple opportunities to practice in relevant, meaningful ways” (p. 185).
Next, I will design an application task that asks students to use the new concept in a new way, such as explaining a process to a partner using sentence frames, creating a short written explanation, or acting out a concept and describing it orally. This matches the idea that for students learning a new language, application matters because “discussing and ‘doing’ make the abstract concepts more concrete” (p. 187).
I will also plan for students to use more than one language domain in the same lesson, so they practice speaking, listening, reading, and writing connected to the same objective. The chapter states that for SIOP instruction, “practice and application tasks should also aim for practice of all four language skills: reading, writing, listening, and speaking” (p. 183).
2. Teaching scenarios, starting on p. 193 – discuss your takeaways from the teaching scenarios and quote directly from the text with the page number.
My key takeaway from the teaching scenarios is that practice and application must be active and structured, so students do not stay passive. In Mrs. Bertoni’s lesson, students listened, repeated, copied, and then were expected to complete homework independently, but they did not get guided opportunities to practice and apply the concepts in class. The discussion makes this point clearly: “Listening to a teacher read is not a practice activity” (p. 198).
In contrast, Mr. Sherbiny’s lesson shows what strong SIOP Practice and Application looks like. Students used hands-on materials, practiced the language frames aloud, read a text, wrote sentences, and applied concepts through examples and demonstrations. The scenario analysis highlights that “students used manipulatives in small groups to demonstrate revolution and rotation and practiced language frames to explain the concepts” (p. 198).
Mrs. Aliheri’s lesson reminded me that interactive activities still need careful scaffolding. Even though she used a video and tried word cards, the task did not set students up for success because there were missing supports and unclear steps. The text explains that “her planning was poor, as was the execution of the task” (p. 198). Overall, these scenarios reinforced that SIOP practice must be hands-on and guided, and application must require students to use both content knowledge and language in a supportive structure.
3. Choose one grade-level writing sample to build your understanding of the different writing competencies and levels at your teaching level. Choose 3 writing samples of your grade level and discuss how they are similar/not similar to what you see your ELL/ML students produce in your writing assessments. Select a writing sample below. INCLUDE A SCREENSHOT of the writing sample because neither your peers nor I will be able to guess what you are analyzing!
For this part, I selected three Grades 7–9 writing samples at Level 1, Level 3, and Level 5 from the LearnAlberta Writing Assessment Exemplars to understand differences in writing competencies across proficiency levels.
Level 1 shows very basic writing control. The writing is short, repetitive, and relies on simple sentence patterns. Ideas are listed more than developed, and there are frequent grammar errors that affect clarity. This looks similar to what I see when my beginner language learners write, even in my Spanish classroom. At early stages, students often depend on repeated sentence starters and basic vocabulary because they are still building control of word order and sentence structure.
Level 3 shows growth in development and organization. The student writes a longer response, attempts to explain reasons, and includes more detail. Sentences are longer and more complete, and the ideas connect more logically, even if there are still noticeable language errors. This is similar to what I see when students move from novice to more intermediate performance in a second language. They take more risks with language and expand their ideas, but they still need support with accuracy and cohesion.
Level 5 shows stronger control of extended writing. The response is longer, more organized, and includes explanations and examples. Vocabulary is more varied, and sentences show more complexity, even though some grammar issues remain. This resembles what I see in my more advanced language learners, who can sustain an argument or explanation and elaborate their ideas with more independence.
References
Echevarría, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. J. (2017). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model(5th ed.). Pearson.
The EDDN 637 Differentiated Assessment assignment connects the principles of differentiation to the practical work of classroom teaching by focusing on lesson planning, authentic student products, reflection, and multimodal explanation.
It begins with an existing lesson plan and asks for a modified version that incorporates differentiated assessment. This structure reflects classroom reality: teachers often adapt existing lessons to better respond to students’ readiness, interests, and learning profiles. Using the same lesson plan template for both the original and revised versions makes the instructional changes visible and easy to compare.
A central feature of the assignment is the use of anonymized student products. These products provide concrete evidence of how differentiation functions in practice. Rather than discussing differentiation only in theory, the assignment requires analyzing real student work and demonstrates how assessment can be adjusted while maintaining meaningful learning goals.
The reflection component supports professional growth by requiring an explanation of how differentiated assessment applies to English language learners and multilingual learners. The use of Grammarly is required as part of the writing and revision process. The screenshot requirement also supports transparency in completing the reflection.
The video component adds another practical dimension. By presenting one aspect of differentiated assessment through Padlet, the assignment connects written analysis to oral explanation. This mirrors professional teaching contexts, where instructional decisions must often be explained clearly to colleagues, supervisors, or families.
The assignment is AI-resistant because it depends on authentic, context-specific evidence. A generic response cannot replace an actual lesson plan, anonymized student work, a documented revision process, and a personalized explanation of classroom practice. AI may support limited tasks, such as helping create a graphic organizer when properly disclosed, but it cannot substitute for the required connection among teaching context, student products, reflection, and professional judgment.
Overall, the assignment links differentiation theory to classroom-based assessment practice. It emphasizes that differentiated assessment is not only a planning concept, but a documented instructional process grounded in the needs and products of multilingual learners.
Kamryn Sherman is currently teaching at Buchanan-Verplanck Elementary School as a 1st-grade leave replacement in an ENL co-taught classroom. She earned her degree in Childhood Education (1-6) from SUNY Oswego and is currently pursuing her master’s in TESOL at Touro University. Her work focuses on creating inclusive, language-rich classrooms that help all students build confidence and feel valued in their learning.
“My time at Touro University has pushed me to think more deeply about my teaching and has strengthened my ability to support multilingual learners in meaningful ways.” Kamryn Sherman, Touro University TESOL Candidate
From a TESOL teacher education perspective, this discussion board is not a routine comprehension check. It is a structured rehearsal of evidence-based instructional decision making, with a clear emphasis on how assessment is conceptualized, enacted, and interpreted within the SIOP Model.
In EDDN 637 Second Language Learners and the Content Areas, Touro University, GSE TESOL candidates will become acquainted with and practice effective approaches, methods, and strategies for teaching and evaluating English language learners in the content areas (ELA, social studies, math, and science). Throughout the course, students will explore the impact of culture and language on classroom learning. Special challenges in teaching and assessment in each content area will also be discussed. Includes 15 hours of field work.
First, the prompt requires candidates to translate theory into assessable classroom practice. When candidates identify activities from Practice and Application (Short et al., 2017), they are not simply listing strategies. They are implicitly addressing a core assessment question: What observable student behaviors will demonstrate both content understanding and language development? In this sense, activities function as embedded formative assessments. For example, when a candidate plans structured interaction, hands-on tasks, or application exercises, they are defining opportunities where student language output becomes measurable evidence. The requirement to cite the text with page numbers reinforces that these decisions are anchored in a validated instructional framework rather than intuition.
Second, the teaching scenarios component develops interpretive assessment literacy. By analyzing classroom scenarios and quoting directly, candidates practice identifying where instruction succeeds or fails in generating usable evidence of learning. This is critical for professional growth because effective TESOL educators must move beyond asking whether an activity occurred to evaluating whether it elicited language that can be assessed. The scenarios model how instructional moves produce or limit student output, which, in turn, determines the quality of the formative assessment data available to the teacher.
Third, the writing sample analysis is the most explicit assessment task. Here, candidates engage in diagnostic assessment and calibration. By selecting three grade-level samples and comparing them to their own multilingual learners, candidates confront a central professional challenge: distinguishing between developmental language variation and instructional gaps. The requirement to include a screenshot is not procedural. It functions as evidence validation, ensuring that claims about student writing are grounded in observable data rather than generalized impressions. This mirrors professional expectations in TESOL contexts, where assessment claims must be tied to artifacts.
Equally important, this task builds comparative judgment, a key but often underdeveloped skill. Candidates must analyze similarities and differences across samples, which supports their ability to place student performance along a continuum rather than in binary categories. This directly informs instructional planning, particularly in aligning writing tasks with language proficiency levels.
Finally, the discussion board as a whole cultivates assessment coherence. Candidates are required to connect three domains that are often treated separately:
Instructional design (SIOP activities)
Observational analysis (teaching scenarios)
Student evidence (writing samples)
In Shobha Kunjbeharry’s well-developed response, these elements converge into a unified understanding: instruction produces evidence, evidence informs assessment, and assessment drives instructional refinement. In my view, this is the central professional shift the assignment is designed to produce. It moves candidates away from viewing assessment as an endpoint and toward understanding it as an embedded, continuous process within TESOL pedagogy.
A candidate who engages this discussion board at such a high level is therefore not only demonstrating comprehension of the SIOP model but is actively developing the capacity to design, elicit, interpret, and justify assessment evidence in linguistically diverse classrooms.
Biography: Shobha Kunjbeharry is a TESOL graduate student at Touro University with a strong focus on supporting culturally and linguistically diverse English Language Learners. As an educator, I amshe is passionate about creating inclusive, engaging, and language-rich learning environments that promote academic success for all students. Her work emphasizes literacy development, vocabulary instruction, and culturally responsive teaching practices.
My Journey at Touro University has strengthened my commitment to teaching multilingual learners by giving me tools to connect language, culture, and academic success in meaningful ways to make sense of the science of reading in today’s classroom.
Shobha Kunjbeharry, TESOL graduate student at Touro University
Textbook Chapter 7 Practice and Application (p. 182-203): What activities are you planning to provide for your students in your SIOP lesson to apply content and language knowledge? Support your statement by quoting directly from the text with the page number.
Planning tasks so that students can experience new knowledge in various ways by practicing with new materials is the goal that encourages higher thinking order (Short et al, pg. 183, 2017). Activities that will build on students’ background knowledge and enhance practice time, while allowing both practice and application, incorporating all four language skills: reading, writing, listening, and speaking.
Using Sentence stems and language frames to help students articulate thoughts and ideas is an activity that will advance student proficiency in English, linking language functions pg. 184. This activity helps students move from using simple sentences to a more detailed expression, for example, “I believe that _” to the more detailed “In my opinion, _ is right/wrong because _,” and finally to the more complex form (Short et al, pg. 184, 2017).
Hands-on materials and manipulatives provide students with practice with new knowledge. “Students have greater chances of mastering content and concept skills when they are given multiple opportunities to practice in relevant, meaningful ways.” (Short et al, pg. 185, 2017). Using practice-enhancing sessions with manipulatives and guidance with feedback helps students know how well they are doing. Handson’s strategies that incorporate counting, classifying, stacking, experimenting with, observing, rearranging, and dismantling are helpful for English Learners to learn materials. An example shared in chapter 7 is that an individual in a math class should have practice with paper and pen before they can draw geometric shapes as a content objective (Short et al, pg. 186, 2017). These activities help to reduce language load for students, thus providing concrete knowledge through experience.
Teaching scenarios, starting on p. 193 – discuss your takeaways from the teaching scenarios and quote directly from the text with the page number.
The three teaching scenarios highlight the importance of how different instructional approaches impact multilingual learners’ language development, engagement, and understanding of the content.
Mrs. Bertoni’s lesson demonstrates that modelling alone is not enough; students need active participation, discussion, and hands-on experience to understand content and language objectives. She used visuals and oral explanation without a practice activity. “Students were mostly passive while they copied her illustrations from the board. Listening to a teacher read is not a practice activity” (Short et al, pg.198, 2017).
Mr. Sherbiny’s Lesson demonstrates meaningful content of language application and practice with the strongest example of effective instruction because it integrates hands-on learning and student interaction. He uses manipulatives in small settings and checks for understanding by “each group drawing to show movement and shared with the class pg.198. He also asked students to raise their hands when they hear a key term during a low literacy whole classroom read-aloud from the science textbook (Short et al, pg. 195, 2017). He uses students in demonstrations of the sun, moon, and earth with manipulatives to represent each in different sizes with sentence frames to support comprehension, pg. 195. This leads to thinking and using real-life examples where something rotates and revolves. This lesson incorporates all language domains of listening, speaking, reading, and writing, giving it a comprehensive teaching approach that supports deeper learning for multilingual learners.
Mrs. Aliheri’s lesson is lacking proper scaffolding and effective implementation.She attempted to use technology, but did not provide enough support for what students see in the video. She asked students, “When you see a revolution, I want you to raise one finger. When you see a rotation, raise two fingers.” Students were confused, and she replayed the clip again pg. 196. The word card activity provided was confusing and quickly executed, which shows poor planning pg. 197. I do believe she had a good activity to help understand the difference between rotation and revolution. Still, she did not provide enough activity to practice new knowledge and demonstrate with examples. Her only background knowledge was a video clip in which students did not receive scaffolded instructional support to comprehend what they saw (Short et al, 2017). Students did some partner reading and asked students to make sentences using manipulatives, but due to a lack of scaffolding, students could not pg. 200.
Choose one grade-level writing sample to build your understanding of the different writing competencies and levels at your teaching level. Choose 3 writing samples of your grade level and discuss how they are similar/not similar to what you see your ELL/ML students produce in your writing assessments. Select a writing sample below. INCLUDE A SCREENSHOT of the writing sample because neither your peers nor I will be able to guess what you are analyzing! https://curriculum.learnalberta.ca/cdn/resources/m/eslapb/writingsamples/grade1_level3.html
The writing sample chosen is Grade 1, Level 3. The analysis of the chosen writing sample shows that students can write multiple sentences to form a simple story using vocabulary familiar to the topic. Students demonstrate emerging grammar and sentence structure with some errors, for example, “It raining to much”, “She not get wet.” It shows organizations and the sequencing of ideas. Students at level 3 can produce simple sentences and connect ideas, but with some errors. Similarities are that ML students can produce simple sentences, show phonetic spelling (to, too), make grammatical errors (verb tense, syntax, semantics), and rely on familiar topics with visuals. Differences at levels 1 and 2 may produce shorter responses and depend on teacher guidance with limited vocabulary. Students in all three levels completed words, sentences, and connecting ideas. Using explicit instructions and scaffolds such as sentence frames, word banks, repetition, and visual prompts will be a great benefit to help students move to complex sentences and accurate writing.
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.
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.
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
Education for 2060 will require TESOL educators who can design and create meaningful artifacts using technology, not simply describe or evaluate its use. In my view, the central shift is from consumption to production: educators must be able to develop digital materials, curate multimodal resources, and construct learning environments that actively engage multilingual learners. This emphasis on creation reflects a broader redefinition of teaching as a design-oriented practice grounded in both pedagogy and technological fluency.
Within this framework, the intersection of curriculum development, classroom management, and digital innovation reshapes how learning experiences are constructed for English language learners (ELLs). Technology supports varied ways of learning, fosters critical thinking, and increases efficiency in task completion. It also provides teachers with opportunities to design instructional materials, adapt content for diverse learners, and facilitate more responsive forms of classroom interaction.
As the field of TESOL continues to evolve, it is no longer sufficient for teacher candidates to be aware of digital tools or to discuss their potential. They need to demonstrate the ability to create instructional artifacts that connect with students, expand access to content, and enhance teaching quality. In this sense, technology becomes a medium for design. It enables the development of interactive materials, multiple forms of representation, communication with diverse stakeholders, and platforms for inquiry. This assignment, therefore, positions candidates as creators, asking them to design artifacts that respond to the linguistic, academic, and sociocultural needs of ELLs and their families.
The assignment moves beyond surface-level familiarity by requiring candidates to evaluate how their chosen tools support TESOL instructional strategies such as scaffolding, differentiation, and multimodal learning. Teachers must determine how the artifacts they create align with specific pedagogical goals, which requires deliberate integration rather than simple adoption. Technology can extend instructional strategies by supporting interaction and collaboration while also generating data that informs teaching decisions.
By asking candidates to design, justify, and reflect on their artifacts in relation to curriculum standards, community engagement, and instructional effectiveness, the assignment develops the kind of professional reasoning needed for work with linguistically diverse populations. In my view, this focus on creation is essential for preparing educators for education for 2060. Future classrooms will require teachers who can build, adapt, and critically evaluate digital learning environments, not merely participate in them. This assignment, therefore, represents a step toward my topic “Education for 2060,” by positioning TESOL educators as intentional designers of technology-mediated learning.
Rachel Melamed is a high school teacher in Brooklyn working with multilingual learners. She received her bachelor’s degree from SUNY Cortland and is currently pursuing her TESOL master’s degree at Touro University, where she focuses on helping students understand content while building their academic language. She aims to create a classroom where students feel confident participating and supported in their learning.
The TESOL program at Touro University has changed the way I plan for my students, making me more intentional about breaking down content and providing support to improve language and comprehension.
The five-stage Affix Word Tree Action Guide is not a standalone vocabulary exercise. It is, in fact, deeply grounded in the evidentiary base that constitutes the Science of Reading (SoR), a body of converging research drawn from cognitive science, linguistics, and educational psychology that identifies the foundational competencies required for skilled reading. Situating this instructional framework within SoR principles strengthens its theoretical legitimacy for ESOL, ENL, EFL and TESOL teacher candidates working across multilingual, K-12, and adult literacy contexts.
Morphological Awareness Within the Science of Reading
The Science of Reading is frequently organized around two overarching constructs: word recognition and language comprehension (Scarborough, 2001). Scarborough’s (2001) multistrand model of reading development identifies morphological knowledge as a contributing thread within the language comprehension strand, alongside background knowledge, vocabulary, and syntactic awareness. The Affix Word Tree Action Guide directly addresses this strand by systematically building learners’ capacity to recognize how morphological structure signals both meaning and grammatical function.
The infographic presented constitutes a structured pedagogical framework designed to scaffold morphological awareness instruction within second language acquisition (SLA) contexts. Drawing on foundational research in vocabulary development, particularly Nation’s (2001) lexical approach and Bauer and Nation’s (1993) taxonomy of English word families, this five-stage action guide operationalizes affix word tree methodology as a systematic instructional sequence rather than an incidental classroom activity.
Morphological awareness, defined as the explicit knowledge of how meaningful units (morphemes) combine to form words, has been consistently identified in the literature as a robust predictor of reading comprehension and productive vocabulary growth among English language learners (Kieffer & Lesaux, 2008; Tyler & Nagy, 1989). Yet despite this evidence base, morphology instruction remains underrepresented in many TESOL classrooms, often displaced by communicative fluency activities or decontextualized vocabulary lists. This action guide directly addresses that pedagogical gap.
Each stage in the framework reflects a deliberate progression from receptive recognition to productive application, mirroring the input-to-output continuum foundational to Swain’s (1985) Output Hypothesis. Stage 1 activates prior lexical schemata; Stages 2 and 3 engage learners in collaborative analysis and categorization; Stages 4 and 5 shift agency to the learner, requiring both generative tree construction and grammatical integration of derived forms.
As ESOL/ENL/EFL educators, you might engage with this infographic in two ways. First, analyze each stage as a principled instructional decision, noting how teacher actions and student tasks are deliberately aligned. Second, you are invited to consider how this framework might be adapted across proficiency levels, L1 backgrounds, and disciplinary content areas, recognizing that morphologically rich instruction is not a one-size-fits-all intervention but a flexible, evidence-informed repertoire. The integration of part-of-speech labeling, semantic analysis, and L1 equivalence in Stage 3 reflects an additive, translanguaging-informed stance toward linguistic diversity in the multilingual classroom.
This framework is offered not as a rigid script but as a visualization or thinking tool, one that makes the invisible architecture of English word formation visible, learnable, and teachable.
References
Bauer, L., & Nation, I. S. P. (1993). Word families. International Journal of Lexicography, 6(4), 253–279.https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/6.4.253
Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2008). The role of derivational morphology in the reading comprehension of Spanish-speaking English language learners. Reading and Writing, 21(8), 783–804.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9092-8
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press.
Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 97–110). Guilford Press.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Newbury House. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=1501919
This infographic is designed for educators working with Emergent Writers and Newcomers to Literacy (EWNL), English as a Foreign Language (EFL), and TESOL learners across elementary, secondary, and adult contexts who are acquiring literacy in alphabetic writing systems. Its purpose is to support instructional decision-making grounded in the Science of Reading by linking observable reading errors to the specific cognitive and linguistic processes that underlie word recognition.
The organizing principle of the infographic, the instructional response must match the processing breakdown, not the surface error, reflects a central finding of reading science: word reading difficulties arise from identifiable breakdowns in component processes rather than from general language proficiency, motivation, or exposure to text. Decades of research demonstrate that effective reading instruction requires diagnosing which processing system has failed and responding at that level with targeted instruction (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Moats, 2020).
The framework is structured around four empirically supported domains of word recognition: phonemic awareness, phonics knowledge, decoding behavior, and automaticity. These domains align with models of skilled reading that distinguish between language comprehension and word recognition, most notably the Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986), and with research on orthographic mapping as the mechanism that enables accurate and fluent word reading (Ehri, 2014; Share, 1995).
Each panel in the infographic identifies a specific processing breakdown and pairs it with an instructional response that directly supports orthographic mapping. For example, phonemic gaps require oral phoneme manipulation without print, while phonics gaps require explicit instruction in sound–symbol correspondences. Weak decoding habits reflect reliance on context or partial visual cues, which research has shown does not support long-term word learning (Share, 1995). Lack of automaticity reflects constrained working memory during reading and calls for accurate repeated practice rather than new phonics instruction (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974).
Working Memory Capacity: Readers have limited working memory. Non-automatic word recognition quickly exhausts this capacity, hindering comprehension.
Role of Practice: The goal of practice is to make decoding and word recognition so fast and accurate that it becomes automatic.
Focus on Fluency: Instead of introducing new rules, practice should focus on increasing the speed and ease with which known skills are applied.
For multilingual learners, including EFL and TESOL students of all ages, this distinction is essential. Research indicates that decoding difficulties in second-language readers often mirror those of monolingual learners and should be addressed through the same evidence-based instructional approaches, while keeping language comprehension supports separate (August & Shanahan, 2006; Lesaux et al., 2007).
The instructional decision check reinforces a diagnostic stance toward reading errors, treating them as data that inform instruction. This approach aligns with Science of Reading principles that emphasize precision, systematic instruction, and alignment between assessment and response.
Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.819356
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2007). Developing Reading and Writing in Second-Language Learners: Lessons from the Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Published by Routledge for the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203937600
Dr. J's Education Blog 