Table of Contents
Abstract 2
Teaching Philosophy 3
TESOL Standards and Artifacts
Professional Knowledge Area 1: Learner
TESOL Domain 4: Identity and Context 8
Artifact A: Community Literacy Excursion 8 TESOL Domain 6: Learning 10
Artifact B: Science Experiment at Overton High School 10 Professional Knowledge Area 2: The Learning Contexts
TESOL Domain 2: Instructing 12
Artifact C: Peer Instruction to Accommodate Heterogeneous Students at Nashville Chinese School 12
Professional Knowledge Area 3: Curriculum TESOL Domain 1: Planning 14
Artifact D: Curriculum for Nashville Chinese School 14 TESOL Domain 2: Content 17
Artifact E: Down Syndrome as Content for Learning English 18 Professional Knowledge Area 4: Assessment
TESOL Domain 3: Assessing 19
Artifact F: Examination of the Language Development of EL Learner KOK 20
Application to Teaching 22 Reference 27
Abstract
In this capstone I describe my teaching philosophy as an ELL teacher: respect and leverage students’ cultures and languages; connect with and capitalize on students’ families and communities; advocate problem-posing education and promote liberation. After explaining my teaching philosophies, I provide an artifact for each TESOL domain under the four professional knowledge areas. Those artifacts prove that I have understood or met the requirements of the TESOL standards. In the end, I summarize my teacher identities as an observer, facilitator and enlightener. I envision possible challenges in the future and design a detained plan for continued professional development.
Key Words: teaching philosophy; professional knowledge area; TESOL domain; artifact
Teaching Philosophy
My teaching philosophy of ELL education is based on the question: How can ELL students be best served in the current social situation in the US? The key to serving ELL students well, in my opinion, is to help them learn English and other content knowledge well, and at the same time sustain their culture, home language, community and family connection, and development as a whole person (Paris, 2012). To put these goals in another order, the three dimensions of my teaching philosophy are: 1) Respect and leverage students’ cultures and languages; 2) Connect with and capitalize on students’ family and communities; 3) Advocate problem-posing education and promote liberation.
Respect and Leverage Students’ Cultures and Languages
Many scholars point out the importance of knowing and leveraging students’ cultural heritage when educating ELL students (Igoa, 1995; González, Moll & Amanti, 2005;
Howard, 2012). Igoa (1995) brings up her Cultural, Academic, and Psychological(CAP) approach of intervention when addressing the problem of educating immigrant children. She regards cultural and psychological aspects as the foundation of the intervention and they key to helping students reach academic achievements. Although she keeps academics clearly in focus, she is carefully balancing it with cultural and psychological aspects because she believes that only when a child is supported in all three could he or she be successful in school. González, Moll and Amanti (2005) assert that educators need to draw on students’
“funds of knowledge” to better teach them. When explaining “funds of knowledge,” they say that it is necessary to leverage students’ household knowledge into classroom practice. By doing so, students’ prior experience is validated. When classroom practices build on familiar knowledge bases, it enhances their learning of disciplinary content knowledge. Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (Howard 2012) also expresses the idea of applying students’ culture to teaching. This approach is intended to incorporate knowledge of students’ cultural
background into instruction in order to improve academic performance. This approach rejects many teachers’ deficit-based beliefs towards culturally diverse students and instead
recognizes their strengths and seeks to build on them. In addition, this approach also tries to build critical consciousness in students and encourages them to become agents of change. It strives to maintain students’ cultural identity and heritage while helping them reach academic achievements.
The above theories about recognizing and leveraging students’ cultures have shaped my philosophy of ELL education. What I would like to add is that even our students
themselves may not fully understand and appreciate their own cultures, so as educators, in addition to utilizing students’ cultures as teaching tools, we also need to encourage students to further explore and learn their own cultures. This would not only help them maintain their identities and grow in their cultural competence, but also expand their cultural repertoire which teachers could further draw upon.
Several scholars recognize the importance of students’ home languages for learning (August, Goldenberg & Rueda, 2010; Goodwin & Jiménez, 2015; Wei, 2010). August, Goldenberg and Rueda (2010) describe three major benefits of being bilingual: greater cognitive flexibility, stronger family cohesion, and deeper cultural identity. Goodwin and Jiménez (2015) bring up a strategic approach for English learners called Translate. They encourage students to use their full linguistic repertoire by strategically translating English texts into their home languages. In this process, students develop metalinguistic awareness as well as deepen their comprehension of the text. Goodwin and Jiménez argue that the process of translation is similar to close reading. Wei (2010) conceptualizes translanguaging from a psycholinguistic perspective and argues that languages are vehicles that transform thinking it into action. The act of translanguaging creates a social space where multilingual language users can bring together different ideas, personal history and experience, beliefs and
ideologies to forge a shared experience. It is not simply a place where different identities and values co-exist, but a place for those diverse thoughts combine and generate new ideas. Such translanguaging behaviors transcend the pursuit of English learning, also opening
opportunities to interact with other people, expand their life experience, and become active agents in their social lives.
The above approaches underscore the importance of students’ home languages, but educators should be aware that students do not necessarily have a perfect command of their home languages. Their learning of their home languages may be interrupted by the unfriendly educational environment towards multilingualism or by the lack of learning resources.
Educators need to constantly encourage students to learn and keep their home languages; we also need to convince their parents that encouraging their students to learn home languages is beneficial.
Connect with Students’ Families and Communities
Some researchers argue that including students’ family and community when educating ELL students because doing so may help ELL students learn English and other content knowledge better and at the same time help them benefit from family cohesion and community connection (DaSilva Iddings, 2009; Jiménez, Smith, & Teague, 2009; Skerrett, 2015). DaSilva Iddings (2009) recommends schools set up a Welcome Center as a space for immigrant parents to exchange their expertise, learn about their children’s education, and also get information and help on practical matters. In doing so, teachers could facilitate the
fluidity between home and school, help newly arrived immigrant parents settle down and also legitimize bilingualism. Jiménez, Smith, and Teague (2009) suggests teachers need to explore students’ communities to gather examples of transnational and community literacies as a way to integrate community into the scope of school education. They argue four benefits of community exploration: helping teachers understand students’ worlds better, making
students learn the diverse composition of their communities, leveraging students’ prior knowledge for learning, and fully engaging students in language, literacy and content area learning. They suggest that teachers should visit a variety of community sites--including religious institutions, banks, restaurants, beauty salons, grocery stores and transportation hubs
—to gather literacy samples. Next, they encourage teachers to translate the samples and ask students to interview people who produce these texts. In this process, students are deeply involved in community exploration and are actively relating their community experience with their language learning. Skerrett (2015) argues for the importance leveraging of outside- school literacy to support students’ literacy in academic settings. Students’ non-school spaces for literate life include formal spaces such as religious institutions and places of employment, as well as informal spaces such as home, online worlds, community and neighborhood street corners. Skerrett expands the scope of learning from schools to families and communities;
she encourages literacy practices in all life spaces and seeks to improve them for better academic performance.
The above theories underscore the importance of connecting families and communities when teaching ELL students. What needs to be further addressed is the importance of teaching students to honor their families and communities. We need to tell students explicitly to regard their families and communities as assets, to be grateful for them and to use these resources wisely.
Advocate for Problem-posing Education to Promote Liberation
Freire (1993) argues that traditional banking education regards students as repositories of knowledge and teachers as depositors of knowledge. This pedagogy is oppressive by nature. It serves the interests of the oppressors to annul students’ creative power, deprive them of inquiry or praxis, and normalize oppressive social structures. Banking education depict students as the pathology of the healthy society. In contrast, problem-posing
education (Freire, 1993), is liberating in nature. It challenges the dichotomy of teacher- student relationship. In Freire’s (1993) pedagogy, students become co-investigators with teachers instead of docile listeners. They are empowered to utilize critical thinking and are encouraged to solve real-world problems and thus emancipate themselves.
The banking model education treats students like objects, resists dialogue and communication, and mystifies the world (Freire, 1993). In contrast, the problem-posing education regards students as conscious beings, advocates teacher-student dialogue, demystifies the world and empowers students to solve real-world challenges pertaining to their lives (Freire, 1993). In conclusion, the banking model education promotes domination while the problem-posing education promotes liberation.
A large portion of ELLs are socially and economically disadvantaged students who feel the sense of oppression and domination from the government, teachers and classmates.
Society labels their socioeconomic inferiority as social pathology, which engenders their low academic performance. The loop can not be broken without problem-posing education (Freire, 1993). Unfortunately, even those who embrace the cause of liberation, such as the teachers who are dedicated to ELL teaching, are influenced by the school climate that generates the banking model of education, even if unintentionally. Monolingual policies and standardized testing are oppressive by nature. They are aligned with the banking model of education because they recast students’ linguistic difference as a deficit that must be
overcome. However, ELL educators face tension between adhering to policies they know are unjust or advocating for the revolutionary stance of liberatory education (Freire, 1993).
TESOL Standards and Artifacts Professional Knowledge Area 1: Learner
The professional knowledge area concerns two aspects of the learner. One aspect involves the social perspective: who are the learners, where do they belong, what cultural or linguistic heritages do they bear, and what are their learning objectives and expectations? The second aspect involves the scientific perspective: how does the human brain process language in the light of cognitive science, linguistics, and developmental psychology.
TESOL Domain 4: Identity and Context
Teachers understand the importance of who learners are and how their communities, heritage and goals shape learning and expectations of learning. Teachers recognize the importance how context contributes to identify formation and therefore influences learning.
Teachers use this knowledge of identify and settings in planning, instructing, and assessing.
Understanding identity and context of learners requires teachers to explore our
students in the lens of social perspective. In order to answer who our students are, we need to focus on three most important facets: their heritage, their community, and their goals. This framework dovetails with my teaching philosophy, where I assert that teachers should respect and leverage students’ cultures and languages, connect with students’ families and communities, and advocate for problem-posing education to promote liberation. I analyze the following artifacts to demonstrate how my practice has developed in light of my teaching philosophy.
Artifact A: Community Literacy Excursion
In the first semester, I participated in a local literacy excursion as advocated by Jiménez, Smith, & Teague (2009). We visited different places including Casa Azafran and K&S World Market. This allowed me to sample the rich and authentic literacy pieces in these immigrant communities in the forms of pictures, maps, advertisements, slogans, newspapers,
flyers, food packages. We collected many artifacts in these locations and thought about how to integrate those artifacts into ELL classroom instruction. This aligns with Skerrett’s (2015) concept of outside-of-school literacy: by connecting students’ use of literacy in the
community to the classroom, teachers are naturally supporting students’ literacy in academic settings.
Second, the literacy excursion to ELL communities can help teachers comprehend students’ communities better. As indicated by TESOL domain 4, teachers need to understand how students’ communities shape their learning and expectations of learning. One way to achieve this goal is to walk into students’ communities and immerse in the environment.
Collecting the pictures of the sauces sold in K&S World Market is a good start towards learning about students’ communities and families.
However, I think that this excursion experience had its limitations. It would have been more helpful to explore the community with our students. For example, having students introduce their favorite parts of the market would be a great way for students to strengthen both languages and help teachers learn about students’ communicates and families. What’s more, if possible, it would have been better to visit students’ homes, rather than simply visiting the neighborhood. Visiting students’ family and chatting about their life is a great way to have deeper understanding of students’ funds of knowledge (Gonzalez, Moll, and Amanti) that they can later leverage in the classroom. This also helps teachers have stronger connections with student’ families. Finally, the literacy excursion could have also been used to inform teachers of students’ sociopolitical realities, preparing them to design problem- solving learning opportunities based on those realities. TESOL Domain 4 states that teachers have to understand how students’ goals shape their learning. Connecting students’ learning goals to the needs of their communities gives students agency to counter systematic inequity.
A tension that remains is the wide range of students backgrounds in each classroom. The
intrinsic diversity of students in a given class invariably poses a huge challenge for teachers to balance between the individual and the group. In order to differentiate for the disparate needs of diverse students, teachers may need to prioritize the needs of some students over others. I will revisit this in the application to teaching, as I see it as one of the three largest challenges I might face in future teaching.
TESOL Domain 6: Learning
Teachers draw on their knowledge of language and adult language learning to understand the processes by which learners acquire a new language in and out of classroom settings.
They use this knowledge to support adult language learning.
Artifact B: Science Experiment at Overton High School
I did my practicum at Overton High School for Methods and Materials for ELL Education. My students were new immigrants to the US and spoke very little English.
However, they were all fluent Spanish speakers. I taught a science class on how to use the scientific method to conduct science experiment. Students were guided to do a hands-on experiment in pairs to find out whether skittles dissolve more quickly in hot water or cold water. In that class, I used multiple semiotic systems to scaffold students’ learning
(Hammond & Gibbons, 2005). In addition to demonstrating my competency with TESOL Domain 6, this lesson connects with my teaching philosophy in many ways.
First, it reflects the importance of taking advantage of students’ home languages. I encouraged translanguaging throughout my class as a semiotic system to scaffold students’
learning. Before class, I pre-tested students’ background knowledge of scientific method in Spanish to gauge their content knowledge. In addition, during the introduction of the
scientific method, I used a picture of the Spanish version of the scientific method to compare with its English counterpart. While comparing the two pictures where the six steps of the scientific method were described in two languages, I helped them connect the cognates for
key vocabulary. For example, “metodo cientifico” is “scientific method” in English,
“hipotesis” is “hypothesis” in English, “experimento” is “experiment” in English. Further more, I encouraged students to talk and record in Spanish when conducting the experiment.
Students talked fervently in Spanish when they observed the dissolution of skittles in hot water and cold water, and they recorded in Spanish the time and degree they dissolved in each cup of the water. Even thought they were required to report the experiment result in English, the use of Spanish during the experiment was a good way to scaffold students’
science learning.
Second, this lesson also echoes with the dialogic dimensions of Freire’s (1993) problem-solving education. In class, the students shared that in most of their science classes from their home countries, the teachers simply told them what the scientific results would be.
This may be because those classrooms had less access to scientific equipment; however, the effect was that students were simply regarded as recipients of the knowledge, rather than creators of their own knowledge. In contrast, in my class, they engaged in the experiment, then collectively presented and discussed their results in order to draw their own conclusions.
This empowered them to be their own problem-solvers.
However, I found it difficult to connect the science content from this class with students’ family and communities. In my future teaching, I should keep this in mind and find some potential approaches to include students’ family and communities for students’ science education.
Professional Knowledge Area 2: The Learning Contexts
Professional knowledge area 1 delves into learners, the targets of teaching. Teachers benefit from knowing the targets of their teaching but they also benefit from knowing the learning environment where the targets of teaching and the agents of teaching interact. As another important facet of teaching, professional knowledge area 2 talks about the learning
environment. It is concerned with teachers’ abilities to establish a friendly and supportive English learning climate where students feel safe and willing to learn and express. However, being affable and amiable does not suffice; the learning environment also has to be
productive and generative, where teachers set clear learning goals and students practice purposeful learning.
TESOL Domain 2: Instructing
Teachers create supportive environments that engage all learners in purposeful learning and promote respectful classroom interactions.
From my perspective, effective instruction involves setting realistic goals for students and orchestrating purposeful learning, while at the time making efforts to create and maintain a friendly and productive learning environment.
Artifact C: Peer Instruction to Accommodate Heterogeneous Students at Nashville Chinese School
The class I was in charge of in Nashville Chinese school was a heterogeneous class in the sense of culture, academic aptitude and personalities. In addition to the majority of students who were white, wealthy and bright, there was a girl recently adopted from China who spoke almost no English, an American girl who with learning disabilities who was very talented at drawing, a Korean girl who was experiencing “hostility” phase of “acculturation”
(Cushner, 2009, p113) and did not want speak a word. Creating a supportive environment to make these three students feel at home and at the same time leverage their potential abilities to help other students became a big concern for me. I tried to incorporate some modes of peer instruction into my class to create an inclusive environment and facilitate students’ learning.
The benefits of peer instruction include providing practice opportunities, scaffolding and assistance for classmates (Flood, Lapp, Flood, & Nagel, 1992; Nagel, 2001; Tompkins, 2006)
In the unit of Mid-autumn festival, the content objective was to learn about “Chang’e Ascending to the Moon”, a mythology related to Mid-autumn festival. After watching two videos and reading one picture book in Chinese, students were required to draw and retell the story in English to show their understanding of these the mythology. In the second class, students’ parents were invited to make moon cakes with their kids with the guidance of the teachers in school cafeteria. During these classes, I intentionally grouped students into three groups where every student’s unique talent could contribute to the project. For example, the Chinese girl was grouped with students who were less fluent in Chinese so she could help them with their word choices and pronunciations when they retold the stories. The girl who had learning disabilities but was good at drawing was grouped with some boys who were reluctant to draw pictures. The silent Korean girl was grouped with two compassionate and encouraging classmates who were native speakers of English. The results were surprisingly satisfying: with the help of the Chinese girl, the group of students were able to comprehend the mythology and retold the stories in depth; the learning disabled girl helped the boys draw amazing pictures to illustrate their convoluted ideas; the Korean girl was able to speak one or two sentences in English to tell the stories with the patient help of her group members.
Reflecting on that class, it not only demonstrates my competency with TESOL Domain 2, but it also connects with two dimensions of my teaching philosophy. First, I was able to leverage students’ home languages and cultures. In my class, students used English to retell the story to help them understand the Chinese mythology better. In addition, the Chinese girl drew upon her home language and culture to help other students learn Chinese better and to help herself connect with classmates. This lesson also connects with my
philosophy of investing in students’ families. On the one hand, when students’ parents were invited to make moon cakes with students, their parents gained more insights about what their students were learning at school, and they became more aware of students’ academic
progress. On the other hand, students were delighted that they could tell the story of
“Chang’e Ascending to the Moon” mythology to their parents and make moon cakes for their parents. The closer connection between the school and students’ families helped students take ownership of their learning.
Professional Knowledge Area 3: Curriculum
The first two professional knowledge areas analyze the learners (targets of teaching) and the learning contexts (where teachers and students interact with each other), now professional knowledge area 3 talks about curriculum, namely how teachers can plan the course and what teachers can teach to their students. In other words, it involves two aspects of the curriculum, planning the course and choosing the appropriate contents to teach. In order to plan well, teachers are supposed to structure their curriculum to meet the leaning goals of students and adjust their plans according to the learning realities of their students. As for the learning content, teachers need to realize that the content should be around topics that are of real importance to students. The best learning is more likely to happen when students use English for real learning purposes.
TESOL Domain 1: Planning
Teachers plan instruction to promote learning and meet learner goals, and modify plans to assure learner engagement and achievement.
Two significant issues need to be considered when planning for teaching. First, the planning should always be targeted toward learner goals. Second, the planning should allow for adjustment based on learners’ performances. Teachers need to constantly monitor students’ language abilities and modify instruction accordingly.
Artifact D: Curriculum for Nashville Chinese School
This semester, I have taught Chinese at a Nashville Chinese school on Saturdays. The class that I have taught is mostly made up of American students. As a result, learning Chinese
for them is learning a foreign/second language. Many theories of EFL/ESL can also be applied to CFL/CSL. The curriculum that I designed for the fall semester for them is an artifact that shows my ability to design and plan a course; at the same time, it reflects the requirements of TESOL domain 1 and allows me to my connect my teaching philosophy to practice.
The syllabus that I designed for the Chinese course in Nashville Chinese school mirrored the two principles of planning in TESOL domain1: to plan according to learners’
goals, and to adjust the plan whenever appropriate. First of all, the syllabus that I wrote was centered around learners’ goals. The American students have the goal of communicating with native speakers of Chinese and also understanding Chinese cultures. As a result, the syllabus starts with a notation that we “will use ‘Communicative Method’ as the primary method of teaching; most of the classes will be organized in the form of IPA (Integrated Performance Assessment).” This ensures that this course is more communication-oriented instead of knowledge-oriented. At mid-semester, I planned for a story-telling competition which allows students to use Chinese as a tool to introduce themselves. This task fulfills the two learning goals of communication and cultural competence. In addition, on 9/14, I held a Moon Festival celebration, and on 9/28, I held a birthday celebration for Confucius: these events deepen student understanding of Chinese cultures.
The second principle in TESOL domain 1 stresses the importance of flexibility of planning, in the sense that teachers should adjust their plans to accommodate learners’
performance and involvement. As an example, when I planned they syllabus, I didn’t know students’ Chinese language proficiency or their learning abilities . My syllabus was created according to my estimation of my students’ Chinese language proficiency or learning abilities. Initially, I planned five units for the new semester. However, after two weeks of teaching, I realized that teaching five units was unrealistic. As a result, I changed the syllabus
and decided to teach three units . As another example, I took the learning goals of students and their families into account when adjusting the syllabus. There was a student whose parents wished him to learn traditional characters instead of simplified characters. As a result, I need to change the former lesson plans and assessments that I created for all students.
Instead giving a uniform of class instruction and assessment, I provided students with choice.
I put traditional characters alongside with simplified characters in the class, and provide them with two sets of assessments that they could freely choose according to their learning goals.
My final example concerns taking into account students’ learning preferences. There were several girls who were very excited about drawing as a way of learning. In order to cater to their learning needs, I adjusted some parts of my teaching. I included the drawing of their family tree when I taught the unit on family members. It turned out those students were so intrigued in this meaning-focused drawing activity that they ended up introducing their family tree with all the key vocabulary required for that unit.
The syllabus for the Chinese course is also consistent with my teaching philosophies.
First, I planned to leverage students’ L1, English, to bridge the linguistic gap between the target language and students’ own linguistic resources. The manner and the amount of English used in the class had to be delicately examined, because I had to make sure that students could understand my class, while at the same gain adequate input in Chinese.
One way I planned to integrate students’ home language was to compare the
similarities and differences of English and Chinese when I taught. In this way, students had the opportunity to draw on their linguistic knowledge of English to learn Chinese, which also increased their meta-linguistic awareness. Moreover, I considered student culture when planning the syllabus. As most of the students grow up with the influence of American culture, it will be interesting and helpful to compare the two different cultures when introducing Chinese cultures. Students will not only learn more about Chinese cultures but
also have a deeper understanding of their own cultures if they consciously compare the two.
The conflict and harmony of these two cultures will cultivate students’ cultural sensitivity;
hopefully students’ ability to understand Chinese culture will be transferred to understanding other cultures in the world.
Second, I intentionally connected students’ family to the learning. I created a blog where I posted all the learning information where parents can check every week. In doing so, parents knew the plans of the school for their kids and could be helpful in preparing learning materials for their students (as such buying the new textbook from Amazon) or reminding their students to preview and review the learning contents.
The final dimension of my philosophy—Freire’s (1993) problem posing education – is the most challenging to connect with the practice of teaching CFL given the context of my instruction. On the one hand, I am fostering a dialogic environment, where teacher and student share power and authority. On the other hand, the students I am working with are from families that have substantial wealth and power within American culture; enough wealth and power to send their students to private Saturday school. This makes it challenging to enact a liberatory framework. In the future, I need to do a better job of considering how to encourage students to think critically about their place of power in the world. I will address this opportunity for future professional development later, in the application to teaching.
TESOL Domain 2: Content
Teachers understand that language learning is most likely to occur when teachers are trying to use the language for genuine communicative purposes. Teachers understand that the content of the language courser is the language that learners need in order to listen, to talk about, to read and write about a subject matter or content area. Teachers design their lessons to help learners acquire the language they need to successfully communicate in the subject or content areas they want/need to learn about .
To design curriculum well, having a good plan is not enough, teachers also need to consider the content of learning. Teachers have to realize that language is a tool that can be used as a medium to access to subject matter or content area. By structuring the language class around a particular topic which students need to or are willing to learn, teachers can create different tasks that develop listening, reading, speaking and writing skills alongside content development.
Artifact E: Down Syndrome as Content for Learning English
I created a lesson plan for 10th graders in high school in China based on the topic of Down Syndrome. I wove the required language points into different tasks based on an
authentic text about Down Syndrome. In the following paragraphs, I analyze how this content helped students meet the language goals of listening, speaking, reading and writing, as indicated in TESOL domain 2, as well as how it aligns with my teaching philosophy.
In this lesson, I designed three tasks: retell, record, and report. In the first task,
“retell”, students were required to read his or her own text carefully and then take turns to retell the story to other students in the same group. In this process, students practiced reading while they try to figure out what the assigned text was talking about. Then, they practiced their speaking while trying to retell the story of famous people with Down Syndrome to other group members. In the second task “record”, students were asked to document the important information in the table in their handout while listening to the stories of other group
members. That information included the famous person’s name, nationality and achievement.
Students also needed to communicate with the “tellers,” asking questions and requesting them to clarify the information if they could not hear them clearly. In the third task, “report”, students were encouraged to share two stories that they heard from their group members with the whole class. For homework, students searched for another famous person who has Down Syndrome and wrote a short paragraph about that person in their own words, which further
developed students’ writing abilities. Because students were intrigued by learning the content knowledge about Down Syndrome, they had less anxiety about using English to fulfill the communicative tasks.
This artifact most closely aligns with the third dimension of my teaching philosophy:
Freire’s (1993) problem-posing education. Students were active participants in negotiating the meaning of the text. The teacher was not the only authority in the classroom; the students taught each other, as well. In addition, people with Down Syndrome often face oppression.
By reading about the accomplishments of famous people with Down Syndrome, I encouraged students to think critically about the negative stereotypes that position people with Down Syndrome in deficit ways.
Professional Knowledge Area 4: Assessment TESOL Domain 3: Assessing
Teachers recognize the importance of and are able to gather and interpret information about learning and performance to promote the continuous intellectual and linguistic development of each learner. Teachers use knowledge of student performance to make decisions about planning and instruction “on the spot” and for the future. Teachers involve learners in determining what will be assessed and provide constructive feedback to learners, based on assessments of their learning.
Professional knowledge area one deals with learners; teachers need to know about learners’ identities and leverage that knowledge to build a warm and productive learning environment, which is the main focus of professional knowledge area two. In addition teachers also need to attend to curriculum. Teachers need to know effectively plan and enact instruction. Finally, teachers need to gather and analyze evidence of students’ learning, make teaching decisions based upon it, and provide useful feedback for students. In the artifact
analysis below, I demonstrate my ability to effectively assess student language and use that data to inform instruction.
Artifact F: Examination of the Language Development of EL Learner KOK
In the Educational Linguistics class in the first semester, we were asked to do a case study to examine the language development of an EL student in depth. I did the case study with KOK, a Japanese student at Vanderbilt. This case study was an overall assessment of KOK’s language abilities in four different aspects: pragmatics, phonology, grammar and semantics. By analyzing the four aspects of his English, I determined strengths and
weaknesses of each of the four aspects and offered instructional plans for him based on the areas that he needed to improve. In addition, I reflected on the assessment process in order to apply my learning to future practice. This artifact reflected the three main points of
assessments as shown in TESOL domain 3 assessing: 1) gathering and interpreting information about learning and performance; 2) making decisions about planning and instructing “on the spot” or in the future; 3) providing constructive feedback for students.
First, I gathered and interpreted information about KOK’s English abilities.
Throughout the semester, I recorded three episodes of my conversations with him. After transcribing and analyzing the conversations according to linguistic criteria, I interpreted and assessed his English abilities in pragmatics, phonology, grammar and semantics based on the information I collected. Second, I reflected what I, as a future teacher, can do if I have students like KOK: by constantly assessing students through different means, teachers can make stronger, data-based decisions for teaching. Third, I provided constructive feedback to KOK. This feedback was not based on my imagination or first impression, but on my careful and in-depth analysis of his language use conveyed by the transcriptions of our conversations.
For example, in my many instructional plans for him, I wrote the following
suggestions for his phonological skills: “First, pay close attention to schwa /Ə/, consonants / ʃ
/, /ʤ/ and the differences between /l/ and /r/, /n/ and /ng/…Second, speak more and increase fluency…Third, keep polishing stress and intonation…” This feedback can help KOK gain insights of his shortcomings of English pronunciation and improve his pronunciation accordingly.
This artifact also reflects my commitment one dimension of my teaching philosophy:
leveraging students’ native languages for second language learning. While KOK’s first language, Japanese does influence his English pronunciations, it can be used to strengthen his English learning in certain ways. The prose style of KOK is more colloquial than formal.
This is not only because of his inability to structure complex sentences in English, but also due to his lack of academic language training in general. If he has more academic language exposure in Japanese, he could have done better in writing in English because the academic language thinking habits can transfer from Japanese to English.
Application to Teaching Teacher Identity
I identify my role of teaching as an observer, facilitator and enlightener. The very first and frequently overlooked role of teachers is to observe their students and the environment around them, including their family, school, community, district, county, and the world. The first two dimensions of my teaching philosophy emphasize how teachers need to fully appreciate students’ background in order to teach effectively. They are required to know students’ biopsychosocial history, education history and language history through pre- instructional assessments (Herrera, Cabral & Murry, 2012). In addition to that, teachers are advised to know about the different levels of environment the students are placed in.
Brofenbrenner (1989) proposes five interconnected environmental systems that might influence learning: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem.
By being active observers, teachers are able to figure out as much as possible how those social systems interact with students delicately. At no point can teachers can claim to totally understand their students; observation is ongoing work.
The reason that teachers should be observers is that it prepares them to become good facilitators, which is the most important role for them. Teachers orchestrate students’ learning by incorporating their linguistic, academic and social background into teaching. In addition, teachers facilitate meaningful activities and tasks which allow students to learn for or from each other. The pedagogical goal is to push students to focus on learning processes and cultivate the ability of self-learning. In order to do that, teachers are encouraged to make the class more “dialogic” than “monologic” (Reznitskaya, 2012). The teacher should not do all the talking in the classroom; learners should also be talking with each other.
Advanced teachers are not content to be only observers and facilitators, they also wish to become enlighteners. This teacher identity aligns with the third dimension of my teaching
philosophy: advocate for problem-posing education to promote liberation (Freire, 1993).
Although the final goal is to emancipate students from their oppressed status, the real
emancipators are not teachers but students themselves. Teachers simply make students aware of their own power to do the work of liberation They help students develop critical awareness (Freire, 1993) to name and fight the systems of oppression around them. In this fast-changing society we live, our socioeconomically disadvantaged students cannot be placed in “orderly but lifeless classrooms”, where teachers “avoid controversial topics, simplifying complex issues into bite-sized pieces of information” and only train students to “recall what someone else thought, rather than articulate, examine, elaborate, or revise what they themselves thought” (Nystrand, 1997, p.3).
Challenges
My philosophy is a vision for educational ideals. However, I have already noted two important challenges to implementing this vision – challenges that will likely come up in my future classroom, as well. These include attending to the diverse needs in the classroom and countering a form-focused teaching tradition.
The first challenge is the range of diverse needs in the classroom. Students
backgrounds vary according to culture, language, education, and socioeconomic status. In my first artifact analysis, I reflected on the power of engaging in the community and collecting literacy artifacts to incorporate out-of-school literacies with in school literacies. However, this work becomes even more complex when one considers both the large class sizes and heterogeneity of students in those classes. Class size and a broad range of diverse needs in the classroom makes teaching difficult in many ways, including preparing differentiated and individualized lessons, grouping students and addressing personal needs, being culturally responsive to students of various cultural backgrounds, grading a large volume of homework and giving feedback, creating appropriate assessments for students at different levels, and
meeting with students outside of class time. In addition, these challenges are compounded by limited available resources.
The second largest challenge is the domination of examination culture in schools.
Communicative language teaching requires that language techniques should be “designed to engage students in the pragmatic, authentic, functional use of language for meaningful purposes”(Brown, 1994). In addition, teachers need to help students finally reach the goal to use English in “unrehearsed contexts” outside classrooms, so teachers should provide opportunities for students to practice English in this way in class. However, teachers often feel that they must sacrifice authentic learning opportunities in order to efficiently cover curriculum. The cramming of knowledge in preparation for college entrance examinations is a good representation of the “banking” concept of education (Freire, 1993) The rejection of
“dialogic” education in trade for more efficient learning is common in the Chinese education system under the huge pressure of college entrance examinations. To be more specific, the tradition of form-focused instruction is entrenched in the educational ecology of most schools, especially regarding assessment. Teachers are faced with the dilemma of either following the form-focused school routine, or providing meaning-focused, problem-posing liberatory classes for students that may not prepare them for tests that are form-focused.
Future Development
In order to overcome these challenges, I will continue to develop myself
professionally in two ways: collaborating with other educators at my school, in my district or beyond school level; reading works by liberatory educators such as Kevin Kumashiro. While collaborating with a team can help to differentiate for the needs of diverse learners, reading liberatory work can help me reflect and work towards liberation. First, I will connect with teachers at my school, in the same district or even teachers in the same city or county. At school level, I will join a teachers’ club to communicate with other teachers. A video club can
be a good example where teachers can share their recorded teaching clips and analyze where they have room to improve. Teachers can reflect on whether they are paying attention to the different needs of diverse students through video analysis. Another example is to use modified descriptive review as a tool for reflection and professional inquiry with other teachers collaboratively (Marten & Spielman, 2005). The descriptive analysis can change the way educators work with children, change students’ access to literacy strategies, and also change in the way educators think of themselves professionally.
At district level, I can participate in teachers’ meetings held by the district
proactively to discuss language teaching with teachers from other schools in the same district.
I will share resources through Google drive with other teachers or research collaboratively with them on specific topics to shed light on how to serve students with diverse needs. I will observe in advanced teachers’ classes and learn from them.
Beyond the school level, I will actively participate in educational conferences, such as TESOL, so that I can involve myself in up-to-date academic discussions on language teaching. I will also take online courses about education, especially language teaching as a way to communicate with other educators from around the world.
Second, I will read more works by liberatory educators, such as Kevin Kumashiro.
Kumashiro (2000) asserts that post-structuralism and psychoanalysis should be considered by educators as a means of doing the continual work of liberatory education. Post-structuralism recognizes the harmfulness of repetitive “citations” of particular discourses and maintains a means of counterbalancing these dominant discourses. Psychoanalysis realizes that we unconsciously want to learn what affirms our knowledge and sense of self, but resist learning anything that reveals our complicity with different forms of oppression. Thus, the way to anti-oppression needs to involve overcoming this resistance to change and learning.
Those arguments are enlightening and have deepened my understanding of liberatory education., and bring my attention to the ways engaging in liberatory education is work that is never finished. In the future, I will read more liberatory work to help me reflect and work towards anti-oppressive education.
I will find more ways to develop my professional abilities when I really begin teaching and continue doing more research. I believe that my teaching will benefit from greater experience with the interaction of theories and practices.
References
August, D., Goldenberg, C. & Rueda, R. (2010) Restrictive state language policies: Are they scientifically based? in Gandara, P. & Hopkins, M. (Eds.) Forbidden Language (pp.
139-153). Columbia: Teachers College Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development: Vol 6. Six theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Brown, H. D. (1994) Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Cushner, K. (1992). Human Diversity in Education: An Integrative Approach. McGraw-Hill, Princeton Road, Hightstown, NJ 08520.
DaSilva Iddings, A. C. (2009) Bridging Home and School Literacy Practices: Empowering Families of Recent Immigrant Children, Theory Into Practice, 48:4, 304-311
de Oliveira, L.C. (2016) A Language-Based Approach to Content Instruction (LACI) for English Language Learners: Examples from Two Elementary Teachers. International Multilingual Research Journal 10:3 217-231.
Flood, J., Lapp, D., Flood, S., & Nagel, G. (1992). Am I allowed to group? Using flexible patterns for effective instruction. The Reading Teacher, 45, 608-616.
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
González. N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2005) Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Goodwin, A.P. & Jiménez R. T. (2015) Translate: New strategic approaches for English learners. The Reading Teachers. 69(6), pp621-625.
Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). Putting scaffolding to work: The contribution of scaffolding in articulating ESL education.
Herrera, S. G., Cabral, R. M. & Murry. K. ( 2012) Assessment Accommodations for Classroom Teachers of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students. London:
Pearson.
Howard, T.C. (2012) Culturally Responsive Pedagogy in J.A. Banks (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Diversity in Education. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2012.
Igoa, C. (1995) The inner world of the immigrant children. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Jiménez, R.T., Smith, P.H. & Teague B. L. (2009) Transnational and community literacies for teachers. Journal of Adolescence & Adult Literacy 53(1). pp.16-26.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York:
Pergamon Press.
Kumashiro, K. K. (2000). Toward a theory of anti-oppressive education. Review of Educational research, 70(1), 25-53.
Lier, van L. (2000). From input to affordance : social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, 245–259.
Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teacher College Press.
Reznitskaya, A. (2012). Dialogic teaching: Rethinking language use during literaturediscussions. Reading Teacher, 65(7), 446–456.
https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01066
Seidenberg, M. S. (2005) Connectionist models of word reading. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 238-242.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one.
Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X027002004
Skerrett, A. (2015) Teaching transnational youth—literacy and education in a changing world. Columbia: Teachers College Press.
Splitter, L.J., & Sharp, A.M. (1996). The practice of philosophy in the classroom. In R.F.
Reed & A.M. Sharp (Eds.), Studies in philosophy for children: Pixie (pp. 285–314).
Madrid, Spain: Ediciones De La Torre.
Van Orden, G. C. (1987). A rows is a rose: Spelling, sound, and reading. Memory and Cognition, 15, 181-198.
Wei, L(2010) Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics. 43(5), pp1222-1235. www.elsevier.com/locate/pragmatics
