Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(TESL) 2008-2009
David Deubelbeiss
Jochiwon, S. Korea
A SUMMARY OF MY LEARNING
Research methodology and how to undertake professional research
Bilingual education
“I am an experiment of one”
-- Stephen Jay Gould
Introduction
This course was meant to focus on practical research related to students, curriculum, and
The main purpose being to give us teachers some kind of framework upon which to look
at our classrooms and do both action research and maybe even more formal types of
My Experience
I was a little nervous and apprehensive about this course – it seemed more “hard” than
most other courses one might take in the social sciences and arts. However, Dr. Whitman
really gave out simple assignments with a handy workbook of questions and answers to
follow. Statistics was never my forte but the professor was always open to questions and
I most appreciated the thought and paper/design I had to put into the research proposal. I
chose “coteaching” and it really forced me to look at the previous statistics I’d gathered
as part of the SMOE (Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education) program and alter the
questionnaire so I might gather more appropriate data. The course also forced me to see
research as a more “on going” process which a teacher can undertake daily through
This course can only better how I fine tune my instruction to students in my classes. It
will also allow me to have a valuable “toolkit” and knowledge base should I wish to
pursue more formal research and experiments in my future teaching (for example, in
Evaluation
This research course really set a high standard for the program. There was lots of
homework and precise evaluation through quizzes and a mid term/final of short answers.
Each teacher knew their exact standing and what they did and didn’t know.
One thing I didn’t really think added to the course were the old (1980s) videos that were
shown from Annenberg Media. We could have watched them on our own time and just
commented on them. More up to date multi media material is needed! Overall though – I
Introduction
and looked at and discussed the differences between first and second language
presentations and the focus was on the cohort and not too much on the professor. Group
work and discussion was stressed and there was a very marked “anthropological” focus to
My Experience
I must say that I liked how this course really prompted discussion and debate among us
teachers. There was real “learning” as we went through the many (maybe too many?)
readings and looked at the many sides to how children/students acquire an L1 or L2. The
professor really encouraged our opinions and allowed us to express our own viewpoints.
The many current articles and videos were phenomenal and really highlighted different
re-reading of David Crystal’s fine book of the same name – allowed me to tackle many
issues regarding WHY language is important and why we should protect each one,
however small. Many teachers appreciated my work on our own course website
This course gave me a wider view of language and will help me see much better from a
Evaluation
This course could be structures and evaluated more rigorously. Perhaps with a more strict
That said, this is the only drawback and though others didn’t like the discussion and
student centered approach, I loved it. This is what a master’s level course should be – the
focus on our intelligence and talents and allowing us to present our knowledge to each
other. Diane gave of herself and the online use of blackboard for discussion was
excellent. Her curiosity and love of the topic shone through and shone on us. So too, her
Introduction
This course gave teachers an understanding of educational philosophies as the basis for
educational practice. There was a focus on the development of our own educational
philosophy and the use of this to address issues of instruction, assessment, administration
We were given an overview of historical development and approaches vis a vis education
and learning. Further, we were asked to look at our own philosophy and develop a much
firmer (or clearer ) educational philosophy than that which existed prior to the course.
My Experience
I was really surprised by and happy with Dr. Gutek’s very reflective and calm presence.
education were clearly evident. I really enjoyed being able to think at education through
various “glasses” and perspectives and come to appreciate the strands from which people
view education.
I took things by the horns and really helped my classmates challenge their beliefs – the
basic method and purpose of a course like this. Some classmates might not have
appreciated it but I think it was needed and this was one thing Dr. Gutek lacked in his
delivery.
I worked on both my preliminary and final Philosophy of Education statement with a lot
of energy and passion. Probably due to the conversations we had in class and the readings
which brought to our attention many seminal thinkers; Postman, Freire, Dewey, Giroux,
Illych, Noddings, Gallo etc…. My own final philosophy of education was what I’m most
proud of this course producing out of me. It will always be a work in progress but the
This course really gave me the opportunity to sort out lots of things and firm up my own
philosophy of education. This “philosophy” is essential for better teaching practices and
Evaluation
Dr. Gutek’s use of his own text and his knowledge of the material were excellent. So too,
as mentioned, his manner and personality. He allowed lots of discussion and respected
I do think though, he could have been a bit more demanding of us. Presentations and a
final paper/philosophical statement were good assignments but there should have been
more in my opinion. There wasn’t a good use of class time other than discussions and
presentations and we really needed to look more in-depth into the philosophies discussed.
Introduction
This course allowed us to study the linguistic properties of sound systems and the basic
features of the English sound system. The rules of word formation and aspects of
morphological typology are also examined. English was compared and contrasted with
other languages to give us teachers a sound comparative toolkit when teaching overseas.
My Experience
I had studied phonetics briefly during my Anthropology undergrad years and so was
really looking forward to this being a “refresher”. It certainly was and we did look quite a
transcribe words phonetically and to have a good handle on the IPA (International
Phonetic Alphabet).
Many teachers had trouble with the IPA and transcription and we never did get around to
doing much with morphology at all. That was disappointing and I really can’t say that I
took anything from this course. There wasn’t much of a demand on us and assignments
were negligible. We basically spent a lot of class time, “studying” for the quizzes with
Dr. Warsi walking around helping us and answering questions. I found this a little too
Evaluation
This course was too “light” and not up to the standards of a masters level course.
Professor Warsi was certainly capable of designing and delivering a course of a higher
standard. The course text is great but we only really tackled one chapter! I also think that
he could have asked more of us and been much, much better prepared in terms of lecture
delivery and content. There was very little use of multi media and in particular video – to
give us the backdrop of how important sound is to language. I’m very glad he did
His candor and humor were appreciated. Also, his attention towards us mastering the
IPA. Still, we needed more and it wasn’t given. My grade for this course, 65.
(61.913) Current Issues in Second Language Acquisition
Professor Loy Riley
Summer 2008 – Jochiwon, Korea
Introduction
We reviewed recent research and theories of second language acquisition and the factors
that lead to its success. Multilingual education and the ways in which children cope with
and function in school as bilingual learners was also explored. We looked in particular at
interference etc….
My Experience
I really looked forward to this course. On reading the syllabus, it seemed to offer a great
opportunity to think about our students from a solid “researched” and theoretical
background. Our discussions did enter this vein but not as much as they could have and
there wasn’t enough attention to our Korean learner context as there could have been.
The final assignment did have some Korean aspect but a lot of this course was for ESL
educators in America.
The final assignment was very invigorating and refreshing. I enjoyed the challenge of
designing a series of workshops for non-ESL teachers and highlighting the issues /
content to be covered. The professor really motivated us for this through her showing of
the video “My Brown Eyes”. As I did my final paper, I really came to some solid
conclusions as to all the variables and all the stakeholders in the “educational equation”
This course will help me when I return home to Canada and continue to teach there in the
public school system in ESL. I will have a good understanding of bilingual program
delivery and how to help other non ESL teachers help their second language students.
Evaluation
This course really had some excellent readings and the reflective pieces we were asked to
write were instructive and helped us to “solidify” the thoughts from in class discussions.
Prof. Riley used a variety of multi media and was genuinely interested in developing this
into her own teaching method. The group work assignments were also a good way to
Still, I didn’t feel like we were being challenged too much. There was a “go through the
motions” feel and also a lot of overlap with the Language Development and
Communications course (perhaps too much!). The final assignment was excellent as
mentioned but like so much in the program, no feedback on it was received, it just went
Introduction
This course considered the teaching of literacy and reading comprehension through
bottom-up and top-down processes. We discussed and debated the phonics / whole
language divide. Various theories of process and product writing were also examined
through content based language teaching and sheltered subject matter teaching.
My Experience
I was so glad to be introduced to Frank Smith and this text – “Understanding Reading”. It
was brilliant and really leapfrogged my own Kraschen “The Power of Reading”. It was so
clear and I really liked how we all presented a part of the book and covered it in a
Our discussions in class were very memorable and the assignment of debating about
Phonics or Whole Language instruction was fantastic. I really put a lot of time into
thinking through why we teach reading as we do and came to the conclusion that beyond
the mechanics of reading – phonics is not the way. Students need to WANT TO read and
instilling this value is the priority to ensure literacy. It does no student any good if they
and I think all teachers were thankful for having to go through this and it really helped
our development as teachers. We began to see reading in a much more “complete” light.
The writing assignment of grading particular pieces of writing using a predefined rubric
was enlightening. It was excellent that we shared our answers and came to some
This course will help me with the planning and implementation of extensive reading
programs. I have a much better understanding of the “how to” and will be better able to
Evaluation
This was a full course load with a lot of meat. Lots of good assignments, pre and post
course. Discussion / debate and presentations were plentiful and there was a great use of
class time. Once again, I have to state – an excellent course textbook. Nothing much to
“I am an experiment of one”
-- Stephen Jay Gould
Introduction
We looked in depth at the “special” learner both gifted and challenged. In particular, we
discussed all the various manifestations and conditions which students might have and
how to diagnose and remediate them. Videos and readings of students with readings were
shown and discussed and we were asked to reflect on the learners in our own classrooms.
My Experience
This class on the one hand, really was a necessary eye opener for many teachers without
formal teaching degrees. I appreciated how we covered many conditions which we might
encounter in the classroom. Great tips and suggestions for dealing with challenged
students were given and we were evaluated fairly on our knowledge of them.
The discussions of our own classroom’s students were invaluable. Also, the Richard
Lavoie “Fat City” video. This really woke me up and really made me see clearer, how
each of our children is an individual but even more so that it is our job to teach those who
can’t – to teach the lower levels and not the higher levels (who will probably succeed in
any case).
This course woke me up. My final paper was a highlight. I really had always thought of
how to diagnose if a student is just learning language slowly or if they have an underlying
disability. In my paper and based on my research I came to some great conclusions that
will inform my teaching in the future – signs of how to tell if an ELL (English language
Evaluation
I think that overall, the course had a structure and maturity. Discussions, presentations
and a research paper really complimented each other. Dr. Majoy brought a lot of practical
experience to the table. However, it would have been better if there were more focus on
the English Language learner. So relevancy for us English teachers was an issue – would
we really use this in our future classes? I think so but many teachers didn’t . Also, Prof.
Majoy at times seemed a little confrontational with our group and arrived with some prior
Introduction
We looked at various methods and practices in both foreign and second language
teaching and learning at various proficiency levels. There was an overview of all the
identify our teaching style and preferences as well as their effect on learner styles and
acquisition success. There was opportunity to share teaching ideas as well as present our
My Experience
I have been a teacher trainer for many years so I looked forward to sharing my own
watched a series of videos which highlighted each teaching method and discussed their
relevance in regards to the present day classroom. This was great and the opportunity to
sort out through discussion, the positives / negatives really helped us.
We also were able to plan and “micro teach” a lesson given a specific methodology. This
I found the most interesting however challenging it was to plan and decide with other
teachers (we were in groups of 4). In class demonstration helped other teachers clearly
This course really helped us share ideas. One thing I firmly believe in and fight for (the
open classroom). Sharing ideas as we did, even in a short format, really gave me some
specific techniques which I will bring to my classroom and my teachers in the future.
Evaluation
I really liked both course texts but wondered why we didn’t use one of them ( How to be
a successful Language learner) at all. The final test was excellent and through evaluating
and then designing a specific task/lesson (with rubrics and evaluative measures) I really
learned a lot. Dr. Stadtler – Chester brought a lot of good ideas to the class and allowed
However, I didn’t like her examples of teaching a foreign language (like Italian / or in the
videos – Spanish). We are all teaching English and materials should have modeled
English being taught. I know there is cross over but there are plenty of ELT (English
Language Teaching ) videos and lessons out there. My mark for this course, a solid 90.
(61.902) Language Structure: Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics
Dr. Marguerite Mahler
Summer 2009 – Jochiwon, Korea
“Ignorant people think it is the noise which fighting cats make that is so
aggravating, but it ain't so; it is the sickening grammar that they use.”
-- Mark Twain
Introduction
We learned about the ways in which words are organized to form sentences and how
words and syntactic structure combine to yield meaning. The combining of sentences into
conversations to express a range of attitudes and relationships is also covered. The focus
was on syntax and understanding a lot of the terminology and how to explain / describe
My Experience
I really appreciated how well organized this course was. There was a clear and concise
syllabus in the textbook – with answers in most cases that we could refer to.
I think all teachers appreciated looking at sentences and meaning and Dr. Mahler slowly
and deliberately led us through all the terminology and conventions of detailing sentence
structure. It was all a little confusing at the beginning (verb phrases, noun phrases,
adjuncts, declension etc….) but with clear evaluative means, this course was a success.
I really liked the grammatically speaking examples in the textbook. Real life teaching
This course will benefit me immensely. I’ve always been able to explain grammaticality /
ungrammaticality but never had either the precise / correct terminology or an overall
sense of how the answer compliments English as a language. Now, I’ll be able to very
well, provide students and the teachers I train, with an explanation for many confounding
Evaluation
I really liked the structure and the rigor by which the evaluation was undertaken (the first
of all the courses!). We knew what was expected and what we had to learn to get a grade.
Dr. Mahler answered all questions in class and was very competent in her knowledge of
the subject. The only qualm I have is that we didn’t look at semantics at all. I talked to
Dr. Mahler about this and she explained it fully and I understand. However, I still wish
Introduction
languages and prestige foreign languages. Presentations on the effects of national policies
on local languages and cultures, along with the role of educational institutions in
promoting social unity and cultural diversity were undertaken. Examples of bilingual,
immersion, and integrated models were given particular attention with respect to
multiculturalism.
My Experience
This course had many amazing group activities, done workshop style, which helped us
understand the concepts through participating and “living” them. This is a great way to
teach and it really worked for the most part and helped us understand a lot of the “power”
The highlight of this was producing two wikis about languages around the world. We
presented them to our colleagues who could read and respond online. They were all
wonderfully done and ranged through all the regions of the world. This was an invaluable
exercise in collaborative learning. I really learned a lot through my fellow colleagues and
This course will really help me in the future – no matter where I travel, I’ll have better
tools and experiences for relating languages to each other. I also gained valuable
experience in working with a team on a research project, especially one online. The use
of a Wiki and the experience of building one will be something I’ll be able to transfer and
Evaluation
1. There didn’t seem to be a clear plan on how we were to be evaluated for both our
presentations and online wiki work. I would have appreciated some transparency in how
2. There were just too many presentations – however good they were. This led to
Dr. Stadtler-Chester really showed a sincere will to use technology and better her own
Strengths
Weakness
3. Some professors came and used the time too casually. I say this with all sincerity and
not pointing fingers. There could have been a better use of class time and many times, it
seemed professors were filling up time with discussion and off topic stuff. Discussion is
needed but it must be controlled and handled by the professor with regard to time and
content and appropriateness.
4. Overlap. There was apparent overlap in some course. I mention some between
(14.998) Language Development and Communication and (61.913) Current Issues in
Second Language Acquisition.
5. Not enough focus on English Language Teaching nor the Korean context/learner.
This might be hard to accomplish but I found that all courses lacked a very practical
focus and some relationship to our own teaching , in our own classrooms. This should be
required of all courses. For most of us teachers, we are practicing teachers and need “this
meat” to bring to our teaching. Though many teachers did try to address issues about
Korea (especially Prof. Epstein and Dr. Stadtler Chester) I feel more could have been
done. Even if it meant putting the onus on us teachers here in Korea to bring in the
content to the classes.