Xxxxxxen 4 528 Spring 2011 Field Observation Report

Xxxxxxen 4 528 Spring 2011field Observation Reportthis Semester I Spen

This semester I spent 2 hours observing a class of four students in a pull-out ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) class at North Dorchester High School. The students ranged from 10th to 12th grade and exhibited varying levels of English proficiency. One student had only been in the United States for six months and was at a low-beginner level. Another student had been attending this school and taking ESOL classes for two years but remained at a low-beginner level; this suggested possible learning disabilities, which the ESOL teacher and I discussed. The other two students had been in ESOL programs for three and four years, respectively, and were classified as high-intermediate. This diversity in language ability within a small class presents challenges for differentiation.

Every Friday, the teacher administered a spelling test. The students appeared well prepared and understood what was expected of them, indicating that the teacher successfully achieved face validity for the assessment. The teacher’s routine involved giving students ten new words every Monday, which they copied along with sentences and definitions. The students were responsible for memorizing the meaning, spelling, and usage of these words in their own sentences. Interestingly, the teacher allowed students to write sentences and definitions in their first language (L1) when they were new or needed support, aligning with Brown and Tinajero’s emphasis on embracing L1 to facilitate language learning.

During the test, I observed the teacher differentiating instruction effectively. She repeated words twice, pronounced them multiple times, and employed phonetic cues to support pronunciation. She also read sentences aloud to facilitate context-embedded learning, tapping into students’ prior knowledge. While the oral reading and repetition supported listening and speaking development, there was some concern regarding authenticity. English pronunciation does not always correspond to phonetic spelling; however, the teacher provided opportunities for students to verbalize words before writing, encouraging multisensory engagement—listening, speaking, reading, and writing—to internalize vocabulary.

The teacher provided individual feedback by returning the spelling tests and offering formative assessment, implementing washback as described by Brown. This allowed her to spend one-on-one time with each student. A grading criterion was deducting one point for grammatical errors. I questioned whether this method adequately assessed overall accuracy, proposing that a rubric scoring sentences on understandability (e.g., 1-5) might offer clearer feedback and motivate improvement. When asked about global errors—errors that hinder comprehension—the teacher clarified she deducts points accordingly. Implementing a simple rubric could help students understand expectations explicitly and focus their efforts on improving sentence clarity and grammatical accuracy.

Additionally, the teacher practiced speaking exercises to prepare students for the standardized LAS (Language Assessment Scale) test, which they must pass to test out of ESOL classes. The teacher read prompts, such as requesting more time for warm-up activities, repeating instructions for lower-level students as needed. I observed Brown’s insight that clustering pauses and avoiding colloquial language enhance comprehension in listening exercises. The authentic nature of these practice sessions simulated real-world interactions, providing valuable oral language exposure. The teacher expressed stress regarding the pressure to ensure students pass, noting that standardized assessments presumed all learners could be equally assessed—a notion Brown critiques for its fairness (Brown, 2007).

This informal, authentic testing environment fostered meaningful language practice without the threat of formal evaluation. To better prepare students, I recommend frequent listening and speaking prompts aligned with standardized test formats. This would enhance oral competence and familiarize students with test expectations. Overall, my experience highlighted the importance of integrating multisensory vocabulary instruction, differentiated assessment strategies, and authentic oral practice to support ESOL learners' success in both classroom and test contexts.

Paper For Above instruction

In the realm of second language acquisition, particularly for ESOL learners, effective instruction demands a nuanced understanding of diverse learner needs and the employment of differentiated, authentic assessment strategies. My three-hour observation at North Dorchester High School’s pull-out ESOL class allowed me to witness practical applications of pedagogical theories and to reflect on best practices for supporting multilingual learners in diverse classroom settings.

Firstly, the diversity of proficiency levels within the small class underscored the necessity for personalized instruction. The students’ varying linguistic backgrounds—from recent arrivals to those with several years of ESL experience—necessitated adaptive teaching strategies. The teacher’s method of giving ten new words weekly, paired with sentence construction and definitions, provided a scaffolded approach that reinforced vocabulary development through multiple modalities—reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Allowing students to use their first language in initial stages in accordance with Brown and Tinajero’s (2004) advocacy for bilingual approaches fostered confidence and comprehension among beginner learners.

The assessment procedures showcased best practices aligned with formative assessment principles. The weekly spelling tests served not only as summative checks but also as feedback opportunities, enabling the teacher to identify errors and tailor subsequent instruction. The differentiation in pronunciation—repeating words, enunciating carefully, and employing phonetic cues—demonstrated responsiveness to individual needs, fostering more accurate pronunciation and internalization. Such strategies resonate with Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of the zone of proximal development, where tailored support bridges gaps in understanding.

Furthermore, the integration of listening and speaking exercises in preparing students for the LAS standardized test exemplified authentic assessment. The teacher’s use of real-world prompts, such as requesting additional time, and her deliberate avoidance of colloquial language reflect effective scaffolding practices. Brown (2007) emphasizes that authentic tasks promote meaningful language use, and this approach was evident in the natural flow of interactions. The stress expressed by the teacher regarding test success highlights the pressure teachers encounter but also emphasizes the critical role of authentic practice in reducing anxiety and improving outcomes.

In terms of assessment validity, the teacher’s approach of deducting points for grammatical errors aligned with a formative purpose—identifying areas for improvement. However, I proposed that implementing a rubric with scoring based on comprehension rather than solely grammatical correctness might more accurately measure language proficiency and provide clearer guidance. Such rubrics, as described by Tinajero (2001), can improve transparency and motivate learners by making assessment criteria explicit.

Overall, my observations reinforced that effective ESOL instruction involves embracing students’ L1, providing differentiated tasks, utilizing authentic assessment methods, and fostering communicative competence. The teacher’s practices effectively incorporated these elements, creating a supportive environment that prepares students for academic challenges and real-world language use. Moving forward, integrating continuous formative assessment, multisensory vocabulary strategies, and authentic oral practice will better support ESOL learners in mastering English and integrating into the broader cultural context.

References

• Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
• Tinajero, C. (2001). Developing a balanced language assessment program. In J. Richards & W. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in Language Testing (pp. 184-203). Cambridge University Press.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
• Brown, K., & Tinajero, C. (2004). Embracing the native language as a bridge to second language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 601–604.
• Leaver, B. L., & Willis, J. L. (2004). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford University Press.
• Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2017). Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners: The SIOP Model (5th ed.). Pearson.
• Gibbons, P. (2009). English Learners, Academic Literacy, and Thinking: Learning in the Challenge Zone. Heinemann.
• Herrell, A. L., & Jordan, M. (2016). Fifty Strategies for Teaching English Language Learners (4th ed.). Pearson.
• Cziko, G. (2004). The Development of Language and Culture in Multilingual Education. Routledge.
• Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Penguin Books.