I mark my first “real” teaching experience in university as my graduate employee (GE) position for LING 144: Learning How to Learn Languages. My duties were grading, attending lectures, and most importantly, leading a Friday discussion section. Though nervous, I was guided by instructor, Dr. Keli Yerian and co-GE, Anna Krinitsyna (an LTS cohort member), and we as a team cultivated a positive and inviting atmosphere for students who have never experienced the prospect of learning languages. I initially heavily relied on their advice in creating materials, conversing professionally with students, and the numerous other micro-responsibilities that are often glazed over when learning how to teach. However, through collaboration and trial and error, I become confident in myself. 

I bring the GE experience in as an artifact for my teaching experience because it was a truly burgeoning experience as a new educator. Creating weekly lesson plans and slides with Anna Krinitsyna, weekly meetings as a whole team, and then applying all our hard work felt exhilarating. Come Fridays, I began to implement my teaching philosophy and witness its effects.  As stated, my goal is to produce a cheerful learning environment where students feel secure, supported, and connected to not only me as an instructor but their peers. My priority is to learn my students’ names immediately, as names are an integral part of identity. I make sure to respond to my students’ emails within 24 hours, and I try to be available for my students when they need me. One facet of my teaching personality is that I consciously use humor, body language, facial expressions, and careful tone selection to convey a lighthearted atmosphere in my class. An instructor's perceived attitude and actions can make or break the quality of the classroom. Post-course, I found that my teaching philosophy was successful and well-received. Students were engaged and seemingly connected to one another. However, I found that the lines between student and instructor are quite opaque, and GEs land somewhere in the middle, often acting as mediators or messengers. I found that this was a challenging part of being a GE: not being too friendly but being more so than a professor(?); this was and still is a hurdle to overcome. The crescendo of the GE opportunity was leading a large time chunk of the main lecture during week 10. Though I was overwhelmed, my two teammates were able to give me confidence in my teaching abilities and guidance in the material collection. 

Upon reflection, I am proud of my accomplishments and advancements as a teacher. One of the most heartwarming aspects of teaching is the moments when students comment on how you have inspired/motivated/altered their learning journeys. 

Language acquisition is the intertwining of dedication, enjoyment, and presenting material in a way that encourages taking risks. Learning anything begins with a positive and safe atmosphere initiated by the instructor. If the instructor’s passion is not evident, the students often do not have passion either. Bélanger (2011) believes that, similarly to children, adults too can enjoy and learn more  effectively through play and stories. Play and storytelling are, by its very nature a, “personal, interpretive, and uniquely human,” (Chancellor & Lee, 2016 ). Thus, I utilize games and stories that involve the whole classroom, encouraging students to connect to what makes us so special and human. Tutoring is one of these pinnacle instances that I cite as a growth moment. Throughout the entirety of my Language Teaching Studies (LTS) program, I had the privilege of tutoring four ESL students in one-on-one sessions. Each with a range of abilities on the ACTFL scale: novice-mid to advanced-low (ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012, 2023).  These four students had varying goals that required ingenuity in completing them, and in turn, assessing their needs. A central part of my successful tutoring strategy was the Needs Analysis, introduced by Nation & Macalister (2010). During  the initial meeting, I asked questions in relation to Nation & Macalister's (2010) chapter 3’s Various Focuses of Needs Analysis, these being the Necessities, Lacks, and Wants. These questions took the form of “What are you needing to do with the language, what do you feel that you are not confident in doing when speaking English, and What are you wishing/wanting to learn specifically?” I took notes on their answers and internalized this data to craft what would be their tutoring curriculum.  

My two longest-standing clients, a mother who is a traveling scholar, and her six-year-old son, have had drastically varied curriculums that have evolved through their blossoming knowledge. This artifact that I have selected is a chunk of the materials that I have used in their curriculums. Each of their needs were always met, and one of the core strategies was to check in before the start every session. I internalized their responses with how homework and content has gone and evaluated if the current material is valuable to them. I implemented the Krashen (1985) Input hypothesis in how to properly challenge them so that they could flourish.