Developing Discipline-Related Teaching Strategies

Description: I've taken this course twice, once as a new student, the semester I started my Ph.D. program, and again three years later, to shadow the professor. ROM 803 primarily focuses on developing core competencies for language instructors in communicative language teaching and lesson planning, while also strengthening their reflective teaching practices. The class introduces language instructors to key principles of second language acquisition (SLA) and helps apply these principles through teaching techniques, assessment design, and classroom management. Overall, this course develops the ability to design effective and proficiency-based lessons using a communicative approach in the language classroom.

Artifact rationale: The syllabus shows the progression from "theory" to "practice", highlighting how SLA principles are integrated into classroom teaching. At the same time, it enhances the development of practical skills to improve pedagogical skills, such as lesson planning or assessment. It’s interesting to see how the course connects what we learn in class to real teaching through its professional development and outreach components, helping make the theory more concrete in practice. Therefore, the syllabus shows how instructors can move beyond intuitive teaching (or copying what they experienced) and develop a more informed, evidence-based approach, while encouraging reflection so they don’t reproduce less effective practices.

Materials developed during this course and rationale for these materials: I developed a range of materials, including communicative lesson plans aligned with proficiency goals and micro-teaching activities designed to incorporate structured input and output in the target language. I also made observation reports to analyze other instructors' practices, completed reflections on professional development workshops, and participated in an outreach experience. These materials were important because they helped connect theory to practice, develop concrete teaching skills, and encourage reflection on both my own teaching and others'. The final project for this course was a teaching portfolio that included two lesson plans, an example of student assessment, and a written rationale of all these elements. It was meaningful because it allowed me to bring together everything I learned and apply it in a concrete, practical way.

Reflection: Looking back, this course has taken on a very different meaning for me. When I first took it, I understood the main ideas mostly at a surface level, even though I was already familiar with some of the main concepts thanks to my pedagogical background. However, when I participated in it again three years later by shadowing the class, it gave me a much deeper understanding of those same concepts. With more teaching experience in the same academic context (teaching language classes at the university level in the USA), I could better see how ideas like input, output, and interaction actually play out in the classroom. What stands out most from this class is the emphasis on background design that supports meaningful communication and student engagement through interaction. The observation, feedback, and reflection helped me better understand how some pedagogical choices can impact students' learning. Overall, this course shaped how I design my lessons and continues to have a significant impact on how I structure my teaching today.

Creating Effective Learning Environments

Description: This workshop focused on designing and facilitating learning environments that are inclusive, supportive, and that promote students' engagement and success. Key elements that emerged from this session focused on reducing barriers to learning, fostering a sense of belonging, and aligning our own practices as instructors with clear learning goals and equitable assessment strategies while fitting curriculum requirements.

Materials developed: After the workshop, I worked on completing the connected reflection worksheet. As a personal example, I designed a creative writing activity and a step-by-step worksheet for my FRN 202 class to guide students through writing a short narrative in the past tense.

Artifact rationale: The reflection worksheet helped me clarify and align my teaching choices, making my approach more intentional, transparent, and also to try to be more responsive to students’ diverse needs. On the other hand, the activity I designed is inclusive, transparent, and equitable because it breaks down the writing task into clear, manageable steps that support students throughout the writing process. The guided structure aims to reduce cognitive load and allows all students to engage more deeply with the task content while following their own pace. It is transparent because expectations are clearly outlined, helping students understand the grading expectations. The task supports more equitable learning through scaffolding, allowing students to demonstrate their skills while still being guided, rather than relying solely on prior knowledge. Finally, the designed assignment can be considered inclusive because it invites students to draw on their own voices and personal experiences.

Reflection: This workshop really reminded me that teaching is not just about delivering "content", but about creating a safe environment where students feel comfortable enough to participate and take risks. One thing that stood out to me was the importance of keeping the workload manageable and flexible, and of using class time for meaningful interaction and practice. Although it's already part of the curriculum I teach, this workshop further emphasized how diversity should be part of everyday teaching choices, from how I introduce myself or talk to my students to how I design assessments to make grading more equitable and transparent. This helped me to rethink my lesson planning and be more intentional about using backward design so that everything aligns.

Incorporating Technology in Teaching

Description: This workshop focused on how to incorporate technology into teaching by aligning it with clear learning goals and outcomes. The key idea throughout the session was that technology should not be used for its own sake, but rather as a tool to support learning and make concepts more accessible. The workshop explored how to define technology broadly (as any tool that helps achieve a learning outcome) and how to use it effectively in the classroom (for real learning). It also emphasized the importance of backward design, encouraging educators to start from learning objectives and outcomes before selecting appropriate technological tools.

Materials developed: I developed an FRN 201 lesson on the interactive platform Nearpod. The goal of the lesson was to practice using the subjunctive in French, which students had been working on throughout the unit. Nearpod, an easy, modern digital learning platform, has great potential to enhance learners' engagement. It includes more than 10 interactive activities to support class engagement and the option to integrate media and questions into the lesson. In the language classroom, thanks to the back-and-forth between these appealing interactive activities and the support of written activities, students are more eager to participate. Most importantly, they build confidence in their language skills, which facilitates their engagement in oral interactions with peers.

Artifact rationale: I intend to use this platform to make class time more engaging. At the same time, I did not want students to hide behind their screens and remain silent while completing tasks individually, as this would run counter to the principles of communicative language teaching. Therefore, I adapted the interactive activities to encourage guided oral interaction, using exercises as a stepping stone toward speaking. Student feedback was positive, and the lesson was successful. Overall, this tool, among others, has supported my use of backward design by helping me implement lessons that effectively align with both grammatical and communicative learning objectives. More broadly, the use of technology in the language classroom can foster a positive learning environment and allow for flexibility in pacing. It can also facilitate interaction, as the presence of a third component (the screen) can sometimes reduce anxiety and make students more willing to participate in communication. Note: I didn't share the reflection sheet for this workshop because it was collaborative, and I couldn't locate my group/table work.

Reflection: This workshop helped me see even more technology as a purposeful pedagogical choice rather than an add-on, reinforcing the idea that tools should be used only when they clearly support learning objectives. For example, in designing my Nearpod lesson, I became more intentional about moving from individual interaction with the tool to guided peer interaction, ensuring that technology supported communication. The emphasis on backward design also helped me better align activities with both grammatical and communicative goals. Globally, the workshop confirmed that technology is a great fit in the classroom and can greatly enhance students' engagement, but only when used thoughtfully and in direct support of learning.

Understanding the University Context

Description: This workshop focused on understanding the university context and its role in shaping teaching practices and the development of a teaching philosophy. A key idea was that teaching is context-sensitive and influenced by multiple factors beyond the classroom, including institutional type, mission, values, student populations, and broader trends in higher education. The workshop also highlighted the diversity of institution types in the U.S. and how expectations for teaching vary across these contexts.

Materials developed: Thanks to this workshop, the main artifact I refined was my teaching philosophy. The reflection worksheet itself was less directly impactful on my role as an educator; however, the session was particularly valuable in helping me understand that application materials must be adapted to the specific type of institution and academic context. As a result, the key materials I will continue to develop are targeted job application documents that reflect the expectations and values discussed in this workshop. In particular, the workshop helped me better understand how to frame my current teaching practices—such as communicative language teaching, student engagement, and inclusive pedagogy—in relation to institutional missions and expectations. Building on this, I also revised my DEI statement to ensure stronger alignment with these broader institutional priorities.

Artifact rationale: I focused on clarifying and structuring my teaching philosophy as a professional document. This process helped me make my pedagogical choices more explicit and coherent by including more concrete examples rather than only general statements, and by moving from a purely “I”-centered perspective to one that also centers students’ voices and learning experiences. I worked in particular on improving how I present my teaching practices, priorities, and values. I also revised my DEI statement and, similarly to my teaching philosophy, I aimed to move beyond general commitments by highlighting concrete examples and evidence of inclusive practices in my teaching. This demonstrates how these principles are actively implemented rather than simply stated.

Reflection: This workshop helped me better understand that a teaching philosophy is not only a reflection of personal beliefs, but also a professional document shaped by institutional context. It made me more aware of the need to adapt how I present my teaching depending on the type of institution and its expectations, and to support my ideas with concrete examples rather than general statements. It also encouraged me to place greater emphasis on students’ experiences, engagement, and inclusivity in how I frame my teaching. Overall, the session strengthened my ability to present my pedagogical approach in a more coherent, context-aware manner for future academic applications.

Assessing Student Learning

Description: This workshop focused on assessing student learning by aligning assessment methods with learning objectives and in-class activities and/or homework. One takeaway was the distinction between formative and summative assessment and the importance of using both to support learning and measure outcomes. The session also emphasized backward design by: 1. encouraging instructors to start with clear goals and then consider how students will demonstrate their learning, and 2. selecting assessment methods that align with such goals. In addition, the workshop introduced Bloom’s taxonomy as a helpful framework to ensure that learning objectives and assessments move from basic to more complex levels of thinking.

Materials developed: After the workshop, I completed the reflection worksheet and began rethinking assessment practices in my French courses. In the basic FRN curriculum, both formative and summative assessments are used; however, as a Teaching Assistant, I am primarily responsible for designing formative assessments, while summative assessments are standardized across sections to ensure equity. I therefore focused on refining short formative assessments, known as PGAs (Proficiency Graded Activities), to better align with daily learning goals. These activities are designed to connect with the grammatical and content focus of each lesson and must remain communicative. In particular, I worked on clarifying grading criteria, providing clear prompts and examples when needed, and developing more creative peer-based tasks that encourage students to actively use and build new linguistic forms. I included a peer-review prompt to encourage students to engage critically with their peers’ work while reinforcing their own language skills. I provide this example from my FRN 202 class as an artifact.

Artifact rationale: The materials developed reflect a more intentional alignment between learning objectives, classroom activities, and assessment practices. In FRN basic-level classes, implementing PGAs as formative assessments provides students with opportunities to demonstrate their language skills and receive timely feedback. These low-stakes, communicative tasks are directly connected to daily learning goals and are designed as part of a scaffolded process that assesses material practiced in class, moving from basic understanding toward more creative language use. Thanks to the PGAs, assessment becomes an integrated part of the learning process, while also enhancing equity by offering multiple testing opportunities and modalities.

Reflection: This workshop really pushed me to improve my assessment techniques, especially when designing formative assessment in my classes, and reminded me of the importance of aligning such assessment with primary learning goals. In my field, this means keeping assessment tasks meaningful and communicative, which can sometimes be challenging since the language classroom often only “simulates” authentic communication. Working with backward design can therefore help support this process by ensuring that assessment is closely connected to course and lesson goals. Overall, I can say that this workshop helped me think more intentionally about assessment and its role in supporting student learning.

Project outline

This project examines the development of intermediate-low to mid-level French learners’ self-perceived confidence and willingness to participate orally by investigating the impact of short, regular peer-based oral practice tasks implemented over the semester. Students in one section systematically complete collaborative dialogue tasks focused on oral production as part of their graded homework. This is designed to provide consistent opportunities for oral practice aligned with communicative goals. In the other section, students complete the same portion of the graded homework through activities that primarily involve written or oral comprehension, although some opportunities for production (e.g., engaging in an online conversation with a partner) remain. A longitudinal, survey-based approach is used to assess changes in students’ self-perceptions. Data are collected at the beginning, multiple points during, and the end of the semester, using Likert-scale questions and open-ended responses. This design allows tracking of students’ confidence and willingness to participate over time. Anticipated outcomes include an overall increase in students’ self-perceived confidence and willingness to participate, suggesting that short, regular, and structured peer-based oral practice can foster a more supportive and engaging environment for oral communication.

Project summary

Teaching & Learning Goal: The goal of this project is to examine and support the development of students’ self-perceived confidence in oral communication and willingness to participate orally in French. At the intermediate-low to mid speaking level, learners often have sufficient linguistic knowledge but may hesitate to participate due to low confidence or fear of making mistakes. In this course, which emphasizes communicative competence, students’ willingness to engage orally is essential, yet it is often constrained by low self-confidence. This project investigates whether integrating short, regular, peer-based oral practice tasks into homework assignments can provide consistent opportunities for speaking and reduce performance pressure, supporting students’ confidence and willingness to participate over the course of the semester.

Teaching Question: What is the impact of short, regular peer-based oral practice tasks on intermediate-low to mid French learners’ self-perceived confidence and willingness to participate?

Classroom Practice: This project focuses on the systematic integration of short, regular peer-based oral practice tasks into students’ homework. Students in one section systematically complete collaborative dialogue tasks focused on oral production for their homework assignments. These tasks involve structured peer conversations and are designed to ensure regular, meaningful speaking practice. In contrast, students in the other section complete the same portion of the homework through activities that primarily involve written or oral comprehension, although some opportunities for production (e.g., engaging in an online conversation with a partner) remain. This design allows for a comparison between different types of practices. Such tasks are implemented throughout the semester, can focus on topics chosen by students, and are (dans la mesure du possible) connected to class subjects. Activities are designed to be collaborative, encouraging students to speak regularly in a supportive environment. Tasks are designed to be collaborative and low-stakes, encouraging regular oral engagement through structured peer interaction in a less stressful setting. The instructor provides prompts, supports task completion, and ensures that all students participate with rotating partners.

Assessment Technique: This project uses a longitudinal, survey-based approach to examine changes in students’ self-perceptions of their confidence to engage orally over the semester. Data are collected at multiple time points to capture students’ initial self-perceptions and track changes over the semester regarding the systematic integration of peer-based oral activities. Data collection: Beginning-of-semester survey (10 minutes): Administered during the first week of class, this survey establishes students’ initial self-perceptions of their confidence in engaging orally in French, their comfort with peer interaction, and any perceived barriers to participation;  Mid-semester surveys (3x 3-5 minutes each): Administered at three points during the semester (e.g., Weeks 3, 6, and 9), these brief surveys track students’ evolving perceptions of their confidence in oral engagement and their experiences with peer-based speaking activities. These repeated measures help track changes over time; End-of-semester survey ( 15 minutes): Administered during the final week of class, this survey mirrors key items from the initial survey to allow for direct comparison. It also includes reflective questions to better understand students’ perceptions of how and why their confidence may have changed, as well as which classroom practices contributed to that change.; Methodology and data analysis: Likert-scale responses measuring confidence, comfort, and perceived ability to engage orally, and short open-ended responses providing qualitative insight into student experiences. This combination of quantitative and qualitative data allows for a comprehensive analysis of changes in students’ self-perception over time and directly addresses the teaching question by linking those changes to the consistent use of peer-based oral activities throughout the course.

Data & Summary of Findings: 

Conclusion: 

👩🏻‍🏫 Read my statement of educational philosophy