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.
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 responsible AI use that values transparency, accountability, and informed decision-making rather than simple content generation.
Edona Kajoshi is currently in her final semester at Touro University as a Masters Degree Candidate in TESOL program. She works at a preschool in Manhattan, where she teaches a 3K class. Over the years, she has gained extensive experience working with children ranging from infancy to kindergarten age. She is passionate about early childhood education and hopes to become a first- or second-grade teacher in the future.
This is the third class I have taken with Professor Cowin! In each class, I have learned things that I can use in my classroom to best support my students, especially my English language learners! This semester this class has taught me how to support the students’ needs. It also gave me a deeper insight on how I can add technology into my classroom despite not always having the technology materials other schools may have!
Edona Kajoshi, TESOL Candidate at Touro University, GSE
Why EDDN 637 Now Integrates the Science of Reading
Jasmin Cowin, Associate Professor, Touro University, GRE, TESOL/BLE Department | Path Forward Grant | PI: Dr. Seong Kim
New York is moving evidence-based literacy from professional judgment into regulatory expectation. Education Law §818 requires an annual review of district curriculum and instructional practices in reading for prekindergarten through grade three, with attestation to the Commissioner. In December 2024 the Board of Regents amended Section 100.3 of the Commissioner’s Regulations, and districts verified alignment by September 1, 2025. In July 2026 the Department introduced a proposed amendment of Sections 52.21 and 80-3.7 at the Board of Regents meeting. Teacher preparation programs in early childhood education, bilingual education, English language learners, literacy, and students with disabilities would be required to align their instruction with the State’s science of reading framework. Candidates would devote a portion of field experience and student teaching to evidence-based literacy instruction and to assessing students with reading challenges. A public comment period is underway and Board approval is anticipated in November.
Sources: NYSED, Elementary Requirements (Section 100.3): districts shall verify alignment of prekindergarten through grade three reading curriculum and instructional practices with the Commissioner’s instructional best practices on or before September 1, 2025, pursuant to Education Law §818 New York State Education Department NYSED, Prekindergarten-3rd Grade Literacy Instructional Best Practices Guide (§818 attestation) WXXI News, December 17, 2024: Board of Regents approval of the pre-K through grade three reading amendment Chalkbeat New York, July 20, 2026: proposed amendment of Sections 52.21 and 80-3.7 (https://lnkd.in/e3Pg9dQM)
EDDN 637 Second Language Learners and the Content Areas
EDDN 637 – TESOL/BLE Department at Touro University responded through the Path Forward Grant with a module-by-module revision that preserves the SIOP architecture of the original Spring 2026 course while embedding reading research at each component. Module 1 opens with a mandatory Science of Reading survey establishing candidates’ baseline knowledge, which informs Lesson Preparation. Modules 2 and 4 add structured literacy to content and language objectives and to Comprehensible Input. Module 3 foregrounds oral language development and pathways to skilled reading under Building Background. Module 7 introduces phoneme segmentation, blending, and structured literacy assessment within Practice and Application. Module 9 adds Scarborough’s Reading Rope, ReadWorks resources, and a Diagnostic Decoding Survey so candidates can determine whether a reading difficulty originates in decoding, vocabulary, fluency, or language comprehension.
The alignment is deliberate since SIOP offers a framework for making content and academic language accessible, while the Science of Reading (SoR) explains the cognitive architecture that makes reading possible. Module 10 helps candidates distinguish second language acquisition needs from reading difficulties and disability-related needs, Module 11 introduces tiered instruction and infographic reflection, and Module 12 closes with a research reflection on skilled reading pathways. Candidates leave EDDN 637 prepared to plan, assess, and intervene using evidence, which is what New York now expects of them.
Conclusion via Candidate Evidence
Candidate work supplies the clearest measure of whether integration reached practice. In Discussion Board 5, Touro University TESOL Candidate Aliyah Giana Martinez in exemplary analysis of an informational text on trees built content and language objectives around the Big 6 components, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. She identified brick words carrying the domain-specific load of the text, including roots, trunk, branches, bark, crown, leaves, sap, stomata, flowers, and seeds, together with mortar words such as alive, grow, anchor, support, protect, and instead. The observation driving the plan was that brick words appear rarely outside scientific contexts, while mortar words surface across many contexts with shifting meaning, so both categories require explicit instruction before students encounter the text. Her differentiation plan drew on sentence frames, total physical response, shades of meaning, picture and audio support, and structured partner and whole-class discussion. Drawing on Herr’s The Sourcebook for Teaching Science, she designed labeled diagrams, comparison organizers connecting tree survival to human survival, a cumulative word wall, and a hands-on construction paper tree.
That construction paper tree is the realia outcome the course intends. Aliyah Giana Martinez moved from explicit vocabulary work toward comprehension of the text, then produced a tangible artifact that makes literacy learning visible and assessable. That construction paper tree is the realia outcome the course intends. Moving from explicit vocabulary work toward comprehension of the text, then producing a tangible artifact that makes literacy learning visible and assessable. The same theoretical learning carried into the fieldwork strands housed in Modules 10 and 11. Reporting from a placement classroom, a candidate documented lessons in which students reread familiar texts, read aloud individually, answered comprehension questions, discussed characters and events, and worked through new texts with teacher support. Her analysis was that word level skills and meaningful reading were being taught in connection with one another, so decoding work and comprehension work occupied the same instructional space. Ms. Martinez mapped these observations onto the SoR Pathways to Skilled Reading infographic introduced in Module 3, noting that skilled reading depends on word recognition together with language comprehension, and that students require explicit instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, decoding, spelling, morphology, vocabulary, background knowledge, syntax, and comprehension. Locating each observed activity within that framework allowed her to read a single lesson as a set of identifiable components working together. Integration at the course level yielded observation, analysis, and application at the classroom level.
Aliyah Giana Martinez is of Chilean and Greek descent. She loves to travel, cook, and spend time outside going on adventures with her family and friends. She is a newly hired teacher who strives to support her students while learning from her colleagues in order to grow into the best educator she can be.
I am proud to feature her exemplary work in my blog!
Reading doesn’t just come to you, you have to be surrounded by people who believe in you and who will try a number of learning strategies with you to help you be the best reader you can be.
Aliyah Giana Martinez, Touro University TESOL Candidate
The Touro University TESOL EDDN 637 fieldwork experience is an essential component of TESOL preparation because it requires candidates to connect course theory with authentic instructional practice. Through focused observations, candidates examine how teachers support multilingual learners through comprehensible input, academic language development, differentiation, culturally responsive practices, technology, SIOP, and Science of Reading strategies. Rather than simply identifying instructional techniques, candidates must analyze how and why particular practices support, or fail to support, the linguistic, literacy, and academic development of multilingual learners.
This fieldwork also aligns with AAQEP expectations for high-quality educator preparation. AAQEP emphasizes candidate knowledge and skills, professional growth, responsiveness to diverse learners, evidence-based decision-making, and meaningful clinical experiences. The EDDN 637 fieldwork provides candidates with opportunities to demonstrate these expectations by observing instruction, documenting evidence, analyzing teacher and student interactions, and connecting observations to professional standards and course scholarship. The assignment therefore serves as more than a required number of field hours. It provides evidence that candidates can apply professional knowledge to the complex realities of TESOL practice.
Fieldwork as an AI-Resistant Assignment
This fieldwork is intentionally designed to require sustained, authentic engagement that cannot be replaced by AI. AI may assist with editing or organization, but it cannot complete the observation experience for the candidate. Candidates must closely examine actual teaching, maintain detailed field logs, document specific instructional events, include transcripts, and connect particular moments from lessons to SIOP, Science of Reading principles, course readings, and the needs of multilingual learners. Successful completion therefore depends on the candidate’s own observation, interpretation, and professional judgment.
The assignment also emphasizes the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Candidates move beyond remembering and understanding course concepts to applying them to real instructional situations, analyzing relationships among teaching practices and student responses, and evaluating the effectiveness of instruction for multilingual learners. Candidates also engage in creating as they synthesize observations, transcripts, course scholarship, and professional reflection into a coherent analysis and propose ways instruction could be strengthened. In this way, the fieldwork assesses not only what our Touro University TESOL candidates know, but how effectively they can think, reason, and make evidence-based professional decisions.
Yeimy Alvarado is a graduate student at Touro University completing an Advanced Certificate in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). She is passionate about literacy and finding ways to support all students through effective and meaningful teaching practices. The summer 2026 semester at Touro has helped her to see the importance of the SIOP model and the Science of Reading and how she can use both to create a classroom where every student feels included, supported, and confident in their ability to learn and grow.
I have learned that teaching is not just about what we teach, but also about making sure students can understand and access the content. The Science of Reading has taught me the importance of explicit instruction, while SIOP has shown me how important it is to provide multilingual learners with the right language support, background knowledge, and opportunities to participate and learn. As an educator, these strategies have strengthened my understanding that making content comprehensible does not mean making the academic task easier, but rather providing students of all levels with the support they need to access challenging content and be successful.
Yeimy Alvarado, Touro University Advanced Certificate in Teaching English Candidate
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
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.
