Framingham State College M.Ed.

(TESL) 2008-2009
David Deubelbeiss
Jochiwon, S. Korea

A SUMMARY OF MY LEARNING
 Research methodology and how to undertake professional research

 The origins of language. Why languages are important.

 Language development. How we acquire language L1 and L2

 Philosophies of Education. Approaches and developing my own.

 Developing of a portfolio of professional development

 Group work / Collaborative learning / Presenting to peers

 Creating and managing a LMS (Learning Management System)

 http://fsckorea.ning.com

 Special education and the English Language learner

 conditions, syndromes, diagnosis, remediation

 Phonetics: transcription and understanding

 Syntax and Semantics

 grammatical understanding/terminology, tree diagrams

 Sheltered Instruction Observational Protocol

 Bilingual education

 Issues in Language Acquisition

 -transfer, methodologies, techniques, research (Vygotsky, Chomsky, Kraschen et
al.)

 Reading instruction : Whole language vs Phonics

 Writing Instruction and assessment

 Language policy, administration and program delivery

(14.999) Research and Evaluation
Professor Betsey Whitman
Winter 2008 – Jochiwon, Korea

“I am an experiment of one”
-- Stephen Jay Gould

Introduction

This course was meant to focus on practical research related to students, curriculum, and

schools. We completed a content-specific research project related to our field of teaching.

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

research and design.

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

really “knew her stuff”.

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

observation and data collection in the short term.

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

publishing or furthering my education to a PhD. program.

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

give this course a 90.

(14.998) Language Development and Communication
Professor Diane Epstein
Winter 2008 – Jochiwon, Korea

“No man is an island”

-- John Donne

Introduction

We considered typical and atypical language acquisitions and development in children

and looked at and discussed the differences between first and second language

acquisition. The implications of ethnic, linguistic, psychological, and cultural differences

among children for language learning were explored. We undertook a variety of

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

the course content / materials.

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

aspects of language acquisition remarkably well.

I will remember most, my own project and presentation on “Language Death”. My own

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

http://fsckorea.ning.com and in particular my playing of a short clip by Wade Davis – a

TED Talk he gave on ethnolinguistic genocide.

This course gave me a wider view of language and will help me see much better from a

“student’s perspective” and thus, inform my daily teaching and planning.

Evaluation

This course could be structures and evaluated more rigorously. Perhaps with a more strict

rubric and evaluation checklist of expectations.

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

giving us time after class. I give this course an 85.

(14.991) Philosophy of Education
Dr. Gerald Gutek
May 2008 – Jochiwon, Korea

“I must create my own system or be enslaved by another man’s.”

-- William Blake

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

and equality in education.

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.

His understanding and ability to communicate the various philosophical approaches to

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

process itself was invaluable.

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

can only help me be a better, more directed professional.

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

the opinions of everyone in the class.

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.

My mark for this course, 80.

(61.901) Language Structure: Phonetics & Morphology
Professor Jilani Warsi
Summer 2008 – Jochiwon, Korea

“It is a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”

-- William Faulkner

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

bit at phonology, especially transcription. Teachers were expected to be able to

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

much and a lot of wasting of time.

This course won’t contribute fundamentally to my own development as a teacher. It just

didn’t have “the beef”.

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

introduce to others the Univ. of Iowa, Phonetiks website

http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/phonetics/english/frameset.html This will be very

useful to us teachers in our own classroom instruction.

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

“By mistakes we learn”

-- Czech proverb

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

different forms of delivery (SIOPS) and the concepts of inter-language / transfer /

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”

and the ESL classroom.

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

cover text material.

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

into “space”, never to be seen again.

My mark for this course, 75.

(61.950) Reading and Writing for TESL
Professor Diane Epstein
Winter 2009 – Jochiwon, Korea

'Children learn what makes sense to them;

they learn through the sense of things they want to understand.'
-- Frank Smith

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

complete as possible a fashion.

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

can read but don’t read.

The pre-course work of doing a reading inventory with selected students was important

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

conclusions as to how to evaluate our student writing using a generalized rubric.

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

help other teachers set up an ER program.

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

really criticize and my grade for this course , 95.

(61.966) Seminar in Applied Linguistics
Dr. Rosanne Majoy
Winter 2009 – Jochiwon, Korea

“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

learner) has a learning disability or just a second language acquisition problem.

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

expectations that weren’t warranted. My overall course mark, 75

(61.958) Language Teaching Methods, Techniques and Assessment
Professor Mary Ann Stadtler-Chester
May 2009 – Jochiwon, Korea

“When one teaches, two learn”

-- Greek proverb

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

major second language teaching methodologies. Short micro-teaching sessions helped us

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

own ideas in class.

My Experience

I have been a teacher trainer for many years so I looked forward to sharing my own

thoughts and gathering more ideas to relay to teachers. I wasn’t disappointed. We

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

see the procedure of the given methodology.

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

for a lot of sharing among us teachers. Big pluses.

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

the structure of sentences whether grammatical or ungrammatical. English was compared

and contrasted with other languages.

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

examples of the grammar points we looked at. A wonderful addition!

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

language questions related to syntax.

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

we would have ventured into this most “meaty” subject.

My final mark for this course is a well deserved, 95.

(61.924) Language Planning and Multicultural Language Acquisition
Professor Mary Ann Stadtler-Chester
Summer 2009 – Jochiwon, Korea

“A language is a dialect with an army and navy”

-- Linguist Max Weinreich

Introduction

We researched and discussed the complex socio-political issue of non-dominant national

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”

at play between dominant and minority languages.

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

liked this approach.

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

use with my students/teachers.

Evaluation

There is not a lot to criticize except for two things.

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

the final work would be given ( a clear rubric or checklist?)

2. There were just too many presentations – however good they were. This led to

“presentation burnout” and a lot of people just turning off.

Dr. Stadtler-Chester really showed a sincere will to use technology and better her own

teaching. That impressed us. Overall – I give this course an 85.

Framingham State College M.Ed. (TESL) 2008-2009
David Deubelbeiss
Jochiwon, S. Korea

Overall Program Evaluation

I have already given individual course evaluations under each course in my portfolio.
Here, I’d like to briefly in point form both a) state the simple strengths of the program as
I see them b) list the major weaknesses of this program as I see them. All in the name of
helping create a stronger program for future cohorts.

Strengths

 Knowledgeable, culturally sensitive professors who sincerely wanted and tried to

do a good job
 Cost. Affordability.
 Jason, program onsite coordinator. Excellent and couldn’t find anyone better.
 Facilities. Quite good.

Weakness

1. Very little use of technology nor a component on the Use of Technology in

Language Instruction.
-- I say this not just because this is my field. I say this because nowadays, we are all
teaching digital learners. Professors should be competent in the use of technology. ALL
were not and this is like a farmer not knowing how to put the reins on a horse.
Unacceptable and shows that the program is behind the times.

2. Transparency and Feedback. A lack of transparency by most professors regarding

evaluation. There was little feedback to us teachers regarding how we’d be evaluated
other than the usual (20% presentation, 25% paper etc…). This is unacceptable and
administration should ensure that all professors clearly outline what an A is, what an A-
is etc…. There was not once a use of a rubric by a professor. Not once, despite this being
something we are required to do in our classrooms almost daily. Also, final papers and
assignments were never returned nor in most cases was much feedback given to us
teachers. Maybe it is because of the size of our group but it really is a pity that teachers
produce great work, put a lot of time into it and then only see a final grade on a website
afterwards. That’s not educative or education!

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.