Education Case Study Field Assignment

1

PEACE Project: A Case Study

Andrea Flores Sanchez

TSL 4324

ESOL Issues and Strategies for Content Area Teachers & TESOL for Secondary Teachers;

Section RVC

Fall 2021

Florida International University

Submitted to: Dr. Aixa Perez-Prado

Date: November 29, 2021

2

Introduction

As professional educators in the state of Florida, we have an obligation to the education

profession, the public, and most importantly, the student (Florida Department of Education, n.d.).

As that is the case, it is our responsibility to provide access to developmentally appropriate

material, culturally responsive instruction, cognitively stimulating experiences, and

“linguistically accessible” resources (Florida Department of Education, 2010). In other words, it

is our responsibility to create environments that reflect our students’ individuality and are

relevant to their experiences within and beyond the classroom.

Having this in mind, the purpose of this case study is to develop responsive, empathetic

approaches that attend to the cultural, psychological, developmental, and linguistic differences

and needs of our learners in order to better facilitate teaching and learning in our classrooms.

Specifically, one of the main goals of the case study is to delve deeper into English language

teaching and learning, researching and applying second language learning theories, developing

and implementing an action plan tailored to the learner’s needs, and engaging in “language

acquisition friendly” activities (Perez-Prado, 2021, p. 26).

The case study will be developed over the course of a semester through the analysis of

the experiences of an individual student, considering how their background, cultural values,

perspectives on language learning, adaptation and communication barriers, and so forth impact

their learning, and thus, ask for more responsive ways of teaching. Working with the learner, the

student teacher will be better equipped to advocate and promote equity in the classroom, foster a

supportive learning environment, adapt instructional resources as needed, and present high

expectations and quality education to all students.

3

The student involved in this case study is Waldina, an adult learner. Waldina is from

Tegucigalpa, Honduras; her native language is Spanish. She moved to Florida seven years ago,

prompting her to adjust to a new culture and naturally, a new language. Previously, Waldina had

basic English instruction at the secondary level back in Honduras. In those courses, she learned

common words and phrases such as greetings, personal introductions, the days of the week, the

colors on the wheel, and so forth. All of this learning occurred through a process of drill and

repetition. As an adult, she kept taking English courses but almost never to completion due to

external factors such as conflicts with schedules, family responsibilities, and work. The mode of

instruction in all the English courses she has received has often been filled with repetition, which

as she expressed, doesn’t allow her to move forward and makes her leave again as she considers

her educational needs are not being met or challenged enough.

Most recently, she received English language instruction through ESOL courses offered

at Miami Dade College’s School of Continuing Education. She was tested and classified to be in

level 4 of the ESOL program. This demonstrates she has attained a satisfactory use of the

language in certain contexts yet has some difficulty in conversations that require a more

proficient level of English, especially those involving unfamiliar themes. Waldina uses English

in her basic day-to-day conversations and in different scenarios, including grocery shopping,

calling customer-service, writing emails, and relating to people in her work environment.

At home, Spanish is the main language used, though her husband and children sometimes

speak to her in English, and they sometimes enjoy media in this language. From informal

conversations, she picks up certain words and sometimes incorporates them into her vocabulary.

At work, she speaks Spanish and English, despite some difficulties she has expressing herself in

4

the latter. She feels more confident speaking in her native language, but she makes an effort to

develop and expand her listening, speaking, reading, and writing English language skills.

Observations

The observations for this case study were made during the first meeting I had with the

learner. I briefly interviewed Waldina over the period of forty-five minutes and asked her

personally how she felt about her English skills. I was able to observe the following:

Waldina sometimes struggles expressing herself to others in English, and though this

generates some frustration for her, it does not inhibit her from trying. She puts her maximum

effort to communicate her thoughts and listens attentively to others, asking them to repeat

themselves or slow down if needed for her to fully understand what she is being told, which is

totally valid. She seems to understand much of what is said to her and displays good listening

skills in regard to language.

Like many language learners and speakers of multiple languages, Waldina struggles with

pronunciation, which is common, normal, and acceptable and should not be corrected but

embraced. However, due to this, she sometimes gets nervous when speaking English and doubts

herself, often worrying if she is saying words correctly when talking, or spelling them properly

when writing. As a result, she asks for validation when engaging in these two activities. After

conversing with her, she expressed that she feels more comfortable listening and reading than

speaking and writing. She added that speaking and listening are the skills she would like to

practice the most.

Action Plan

Considering the observations described above and the needs the learner expressed, the

action plan developed for this case study is based on the interactionist theories of second

5

language acquisition (SLA). The idea behind interactionism is that language is acquired

gradually and naturally by interacting with and relating to others (Perez-Prado, 2021, p.21).

However, even though students can acquire language through social interactions, they still

“require explicit instruction and modeling of the more formal language” (The Education

Alliance, n.d.). Modeling and correcting, however, should be done mindfully, and it should be

considered that “mistakes are…a natural part of the process of language acquisition” (Perez-

Prado, p. 20). Moreover, as Krashen (1982) suggests, “error correction does not influence

acquisition to any great extent” (p. 11) and in fact overcorrecting should be avoided as it might

increase students’ monitor. His research further suggests that monitoring or checking for

mistakes in grammar when communicating in the target language hinders fluency, given that

students might focus more on rules and not on what they are trying to share (p.19). This fluency,

in regard to speaking as it pertains to this case, “cannot be taught directly. Rather, it ‘emerges’

over time, on its own[,]” and at different rates for different people (Krashen, 1982, p. 22). For

that reason, it is important to provide our students with “comprehensible input,” which gives

learners the opportunity to use what they already know about language to decode messages and

learn something new (p. 21).

This was also supported by Long (1996), who specifies that through interaction, the

exchange of comprehensible input promotes the “negotiation for meaning… [, which in turn]

facilitates acquisition” (as cited in Tran, 2009). Additionally, as other theorists like “Gass and

Mackey” suggest, “interaction…may lead learners to pay attention to something new such as a

new word or grammar structure, so the development of the second language is promoted” (as

cited in Tran, 2009).

6

Furthermore, as Asher (1977) clarifies, there are stages where second language “students

can understand more complex language than what they can produce” (as cited in The Education

Alliance, n.d.). When interviewing my learner for the observations section of this case study, I

was able to note that she followed what I said, and it seemed like she knew what she wanted to

say on response yet showed some struggle when trying to communicate that. I believe that has to

do with her monitor, and at the same time, with the fact that she might rely on her first language

skills to produce sentences on her second language. To explain the latter, Krashen (1982)

indicates that a lack of a “silent period,” a time where second language learners focus on

listening to acquire language before they even start producing it, is often lacking in “formal”

language courses taken both by adults and children (p.27). About this, he asserts, “[learners in

these courses] are often asked to produce very early in a second language, before they have

acquired enough syntactic competence to express their ideas.” That might be affecting my

particular learner, given that her previous English instruction has been more formal as opposed

to natural. This modality has made her focus heavily on repetition and memorization, which

might be the reason why she is constantly monitoring how she speaks and writes in English.

For that reason, this action plan will aim to promote a judgement-free environment where

my learner feels like she can speak comfortably, without over-relying on rules and correction.

The plan will be tailored to give her ample time to formulate responses without interruptions,

showing attention to what she is saying and respect to her person. To guide my learner, the plan

is to model proper speech, which will be demonstrated by mirroring what she says back at her in

the form of questions, mainly. For instance, if she were to say “I go shopping this morning” I

would say something like “Oh, so you went shopping earlier today. How did it go?,” allowing

her to keep the conversation going and benefit from the interaction.

7

Furthermore, to apply the concepts explored by the interactionist theories of SLA, I will

be incorporating interactive learning activities and diverse teaching strategies into the plan so

that over time, my learner can further develop her English speaking and listening skills and be

able to communicate with other people more confidently and connect with them more fully. The

specific activities and strategies applied will be thoroughly addressed on the following section of

this case study: the implementation of the plan. Briefly, these include visual thinking routines,

verbal and nonverbal cues, visuals and graphic organizers, engaging in discussions, and

paraphrasing information, among others.

Speaking and listening, the particular needs that will be focused on for this case study,

relate to oral language development, which later translates to literacy (Samson & Collins, 2012;

The Education Alliance, n.d.). Developing oral language skills will help my learner expand her

comprehension abilities when listening to and communicating in English in the long run,

allowing her to progressively engage more in discussions and develop vocabulary as she

interacts with other people. Lastly, it is important to note that as my learner responds to this plan,

activities, approaches, and materials might me modified to promote understanding and/or add a

challenge to keep my learner engaged.

Implementation of Plan

October 14, 2021: First Meeting

Today, I met with Waldina for forty-five minutes. We did the “Amazing Art” activity,

which involves using the “See, Think, Wonder” thinking routine (Perez-Prado, 2021, p. 93). I

explained to her that we would be looking at a work of art and that she would tell me what she

saw, describing all the elements she could identify. I added that after listing what she saw, she

would be sharing what it made her think, followed by what this all made her wonder. At first it

8

was hard for her to distinguish between think and wonder, they seemed very similar to her, and

they are in their way. To make a clearer distinction, I gave her examples orally and supported

them with symbol drawings on the board: an eye for see, a dialogue bubble for think, and a

though bubble for wonder. This seemed to help, and we proceeded with the activity. Together,

we took a look at Georges Seurat’s A Sunday on La Grande Jatte (1884). She started her

description with the obvious and then when a bit deeper as she slowed down and took her time to

process what she was seeing. I asked her to write her descriptions on the white board, she

seemed a bit concerned, especially about her grammar. I told her not to worry about spelling or

pronunciation for this assignment, to just share her observations. She expressed it was helpful to

practice writing, though she was afraid that she wasn’t prepared for it. Moreover, she was also

worried if I was going to grade her, but I explained that I wouldn’t be doing that, that I would be

learning from her just as she would be from me, and that my intention was not to correct her but

guide her along the way. She felt reassured.

In coming up with the observations for this activity, I would ask her guiding questions,

questions that pointed out at objects without directly mentioning them. Were able to connect and

she would later mirror what I said. For instance, I said “good observation” at some point in the

“see” section of the chart, and at a later point in the activity, I gave her an example of something

I wondered (“why is there a monkey there?”). She also pointed out that people in the image are

“using hats” I told her that “yes, they are wearing hats.” She then asked me “wearing?,” and I

proceeded to explain how in English we use the verb wear for clothes. She took notes of this in

her little notebook and seemed happy to learn a new word that she could use.

9

(Left) Seurat, George. A Sunday on La Grande Jatte (1884). Courtesy the Art Institute Chicago, https://www.artic.edu/artworks/27992/a-sunday-on-la-grande-jatte-1884 (Right) See, Think, Wonder Chart we completed

November 9, 2021: Second Meeting

For today’s session, I met with my learner for a total of eighty minutes. The session was

split in two sets of thirty-five minutes, each set made to allocate a different activity for a total of

two activities, and an additional 10 minutes at the end of the meeting to discuss what we did and

how we felt doing it.

For the first thirty-five minutes, we did an activity titled “Building on Ideas Together”

(Perez-Prado, 2021, p. 54). For this activity, I started by greeting my student and then explaining

to her that we would be using Jenga blocks to create a structure as we spoke, using one block at a

time to build upon each other’s sentences. We started by speaking about the nice weather we

were having today and ended up talking about completely different topics along the way. We

touched upon favorite meals, her children, chores that we liked the least, and so forth. Waldina

was very cooperative and as we moved forward in the activity, she felt more and more

comfortable speaking. Sometimes she paused to gather her thoughts and think about how she

was going to add to what was said before. She would apologize for that, but I would assure her

that it was okay, that she could take the time she needed.

10

The structure we built using Jenga blocks

For the next thirty-five minutes of our session, we worked on an activity called

“Pro/Con” (Perez-Prado, 2021, p. 129). We did this activity twice using two different topics, the

first being eating out/dining out, and the second being traveling. Waldina really enjoyed this

activity. I started by writing pro/con on the whiteboard and asking her what she thought those

words meant. She expressed pro could mean that something is better or superior. I agreed with

her, but then asked her what she thought it meant when together with con. She kept thinking and

then asked me for an example. I mentioned that pro is anything in favor of, she looked puzzled,

so I rephrased it and said why something is good, an advantage. She seemed to understand that

better. As with con, I mentioned that it is against of, or why something is bad or a disadvantage. I

also drew a thumbs-up next to pro and thumbs-down next to con to illustrate this. It was helpful

to my learner. We then started. I gave her an example about eating pineapple saying pro: it’s a

healthy snack and con saying it can be too sweet. She added onto this by saying “Oh, so con for

me could be to peel it.” I validated her and then explained that for the activity, I would shout out

pro or con and that she would have to switch between saying good or bad things about

something, respectively. We started the exercise. Of eating out, she gave me different examples

as can be seen on the image below. I didn’t write everything she said on the board but took notes

of certain things she mentioned to have as a record. After fifteen minutes, she didn’t have much

11

to add to this topic so I asked her a topic that she would like to do next. She said traveling and

we did that. She expressed a lot for this one and switched between pro and con with a lot of

fluency. I was positively surprised, and so was she.

In the final ten minutes, Waldina gave me her thanks. She mentioned she enjoyed the

Pro/Con activity a lot. She said she enjoyed how much she used her mind and what she already

knows to speak about these topics. About the Building on Ideas Together activity she explained

that she liked how I used Jenga blocks to “distract” her and get her to speak. This was

meaningful to her as she mentioned some of her struggles, saying that sometimes, even though

she knows the words she wants to use, she refrains from using them for the fear of

mispronouncing. She said the activity took her mind away from this and allowed her to just

speak.

Pro/Con chart on dining out Pro/Con chart on traveling

November 10, 2021: Third Meeting

Today, our session lasted fifty minutes in total. Waldina and I worked on the activity “Pet

Peeves” (Perez-Prado, 2021, p. 186) for 35 minutes and then spent the last fifteen minutes

talking about how she felt about the class. I started the lesson by asking her about her day briefly

and then she mentioned she had a long and busy day and did things she felt were a bit annoying,

like filling out long forms at a doctor’s office. I took this opportunity to empathize with her and

12

then introduce the topic of pet peeves. I asked her if she had heard those words before. She said,

“pet is a dog or cat, but I don’t know peeves.” I nodded and agreed that a pet can be an animal

but that when it is next to peeves as in pet peeves it refers to something that one finds annoying. I

wrote that on the white board. She didn’t seem to understand at first, but then I gave her an

example saying that a pet peeve for me is when driving, a pet peeve of mind is when the person

in front of me is moving too slow. She seemed less confused but still asked me to explain. I

mentioned that for some people, a pet peeve could be when others talk really loud or not loud

enough, etc. She seemed to understand better and even gave me an example of hers, saying that

for her, it is annoying when she is driving in heavy traffic, or when people cut her off in traffic. I

gave her affirmation and asked her to come up with more examples of pet peeves she has in her

note pad. I found that she was having trouble coming up with her writing, but it looked like she

knew what to say but didn’t know how to put it in writing. She wrote a few things down but then

I gave her the option to answer orally, and she felt more comfortable sharing her pet peeves with

me that way. She started explaining all sorts of pet peeves, like coming home to undone dishes,

or cleaning the house and having her husband come in with dirty boots, or trying to change the

A/C settings but changing the temperature instead, etc.

Throughout the activity, I nodded and asked her to tell me more, also restating and

summarizing what she had said in some cases to clarify what she had told me and in other

moments to correct her without correcting her directly. Also, at some points, she would say a few

words in Spanish while completing her sentences in English. I allowed that; it is how she was

completing her thoughts. But I would rephrase it back as a question just to let her listen to the

words in English and also verify what she was telling me. This way, she didn’t feel embarrassed

or like she was wrong, but rather knew that she could keep trying.

13

This activity involved using a think, write, pair, and share but it was adapted to the

circumstances my learner and I were in. We were only two people, so we did this in pairs all

throughout. She gave me her thoughts orally for almost the entire activity which also accounted

for the sharing part. I shared some of my pet peeves too, and that made her understand the

concept better. She used body language at some points to get by, as did I.

November 14, 2021: Fourth Meeting

I met with Waldina today for a total of fifty minutes. For this session, we focused on the

“Thinking Journey” (Perez Prado, 2021, p. 179) activity, which invited us to consider what we

were like in the past (what we used to think) and compare it to what we are like now (what we

think). As described in the book, the activity is meant to be in small groups and each member has

to discuss something they used to think and put it together with what they think now. After all

learners in the circle go, each of them has to say something that another group member shared in

the circle to demonstrate understanding (listening). I adapted this activity to my learner and me. I

explained the phrases “I used to think…” and “Now I think…” saying that these referred to

thoughts that changed, to ideas or beliefs that we used to have but now we don’t. It was hard for

my learner to understand at first so I tried to break it down as much as I could on the white board

(see picture below) and modeled the activity by giving examples of my own. She seemed to

understand better, but as we went along, she would say things she would do in the past and

14

things she does now, as opposed to things she thought/ she thinks. I told her those were good

examples because she is considering the past but asked her if she could put them in such a way

that she includes the I used to think/ Now I think in her sentences. She tried. Before, she had

said, “I used to go to work with bus, but now I use car,” but then she said, “I used to think going

to work was hard for me because I used bus, but now I think it is better for me because I drive.”

She took her time, but the challenge worked well for her. For some other examples, she would

leave her sentences sort of incomplete. For instance, she said “I used to think more makeup, now

I think less makeup.” I asked her “Oh, so you used to think that wearing more makeup was better

for you, but now you think it is better to wear less makeup?” just so she could listen to her own

thought in a more complete way. But she did well overall, she even gave me an example that she

used to think that she didn’t understand that much English, but that now she thinks she

understands more with pride in her eyes.

As far as the activity structure, we shared our examples back and forth. At the end, I

asked her if she could give me at least two or three examples of what I said I used to think but

that now I think differently, and I told her that I would also mention a couple of the examples she

gave me. She wasn’t expecting it, I failed to mention it at the beginning because it occurred to

me as we went along just to have her practice her listening skills as the original activity did in the

small group. Despite this shortcoming on my behalf, the sharing went well. She remembered

some of the examples I gave her, practiced talking from someone else’s perspective and

demonstrated her understanding of what was shared.

15

November 21, 2021: Fifth Meeting

Today, I worked with Waldina for thirty-five minutes. We did the “Outside the Box”

activity (Perez-Prado, 2021, p.126), except I called it “What’s in the bag?.” I gathered different

objects and put them inside a tote bag so that my learner could tell me what these items were,

what they were normally used for, and how they could be used in a different way. Among the

items that I showed her, there was a hairbrush, a hairclip, a key, a ball, a paintbrush, a tube of

paint, headphones, colored pencils, an umbrella, a sponge, and playing cards. I would take the

items out of the bag and ask her the questions so that she would name the item, describe it, and

propose an alternative use for it. Some items were easier for her to describe, but some others

were more difficult. She seemed to know what the object was called but couldn’t really verbalize

it. In those cases, I would try to guide her with questions so she could come to say it.

Waldina gave me some interesting ways to use the items, for example, when I showed

her a paintbrush, she said what it was, she said it was normally used for paining, but that it could

be used for dusting, for cleaning window frames and other hard-to-reach areas in a house. About

the key, she said it was used to open and lock doors and locks, but that it could be used as

decoration or jewelry. Overall, she did a great job describing the items, though sometimes she

would say “it’s used for something,” and I would ask her if she could be a bit more specific. I

16

think she knew what it was used for, she just didn’t know how to express it at that moment. I was

patient with her and gave her time to put het thoughts into words.

Eventually, we assorted the items into categories. She immediately put the paintbrush,

paint, and colored pencils together, saying they are all to make art. She later made other

categories with the ball, playing cards, and headphones, another with the key, the umbrella, the

same tote bag where all the items were in at first, and so forth. It was hard for her to classify

items like the sponge, so she left it alone. She did a great job naming these items, sorting them

out, and finding connections among them. Also, she seemed really excited throughout this

activity and in the end, she said she really enjoyed working with real objects, with items that she

recognized. I appreciated the feedback.

November 23, 2021: Sixth Meeting

For today’s meeting, Waldina and I worked together over the period of fifty-five minutes.

We did two activities, the first one being the “Back to Back Drawing Challenge” (Perez-Prado,

2021, p. 133) and the second one being “Listening & Imagining” (Perez-Prado, 2021, p. 50).

For the Back-to-Back Drawing Challenge, we spent thirty-five minutes (this activity was

adapted for art). To adapt the activity to the content area, I spent some time reviewing art

vocabulary with my learner. This was helpful as we would be using that vocabulary for this

activity in my case to describe a picture and in her case to listen and make meaning of it. Prior to

17

the session, I made three drawings that I would describe to Waldina so that she could listen

attentively and try to get them as close as possible to the original without looking. She had to

listen attentively but also ask questions so that her drawing was as accurate as possible. I would

say words like corner, edge, center, large/ small, above/under, higher/lower, etc. to describe the

positions of the lines and shapes in the drawings.

We used color pencils and paper for two drawings, and a pen for the last one. She was

surprised that her drawings were pretty accurate for the most part.

(First Row) Drawings made by teacher; (Second Row) Drawings made by learner

18

Next, we worked on Listening & Imagining (Perez-Prado, 2021, p. 50) for twenty

minutes. I read the sample passage on Perez-Prado (2021) p.51 as she had her eyes closed. I

asked her to visualize, to picture in her mind, what I was going to read to her. I read it twice

before asked her the sample questions for this passage.

As I conversed with Waldina, it seemed to me that she wasn’t thinking about the passage.

She was saying random answers to the questions without connecting them to the information in

the short paragraph. For example, when asked what month of the year it was, she said October. I

then asked her if it would be hot in October. She made the connection and said, “oh you’re right

it was hot, so maybe it was June.”

November 24, 2021: Seventh Meeting

For this meeting, Waldina and I met for thirty-five minutes, we did an activity titled Big

Questions to the Universe (Perez-Prado, 2021, p. 60). I told Waldina that I was going to read a

question out loud and that after reading the question, I would give her a minute to just think

about it, without her writing anything down or telling me her ideas yet. I posed the question,

“What is freedom?. “At first she struggled keeping her thoughts to herself and started telling me

what freedom was to her. I told her to remember not to tell me yet, that she would have time to

tell me later in the activity.

After the time to think ended, I gave her five minutes to write down her thoughts and/or

ideas She made a list of different things she thought translated to freedom, to being free. I wrote

a list myself so we could share with each other. After these five minutes, I asked her to read her

answers to me, and then I read mine. After that, I proceeded to ask her questions about her

remarks, particularly one she made about freedom being love. She explained that for her to be

free means to love herself first and then love other people, and also to not only give but to

19

receive in relationships. She further added that to love is to be free in that when you love

someone and they love you, you don’t feel trapped in a relationship or like the relationship is not

moving forward. As we continued our discussion, she made a point that to be free you have to

decide for yourself, and that this in the past was not possible for those who were slaves. I told her

this point was valid but asked her if she thought that we are still slaves in a way, maybe to the

internet, work, or social media. She nodded and said we are, adding that in these ways we lose

our freedom to some degree.

We kept interacting back and forth. In the end, I gave her a few minutes to make a

drawing of what freedom meant to her. The drawing is attached below (right) as are the lists we

made (mine is in the left, hers is in the center).

November 26, 2021: Eighth Meeting

I met with Waldina today for a hundred and ten minutes, time over which we did three

activities. The first activity we did was the Sunrise/ Sunset Activity (Perez-Prado, 2021, p. 89)

for a duration of fifty minutes. Instead of using two sides of the room to do this activity, I gave

my learner two different colored popsicle sticks, one yellow to represent the first item mentioned

in each set of items and another one red to represent the second item, respectively. I had a pair

myself, so each time we would give a set of times we went to select an item we were most like,

20

we would use the yellow popsicle stick for the first item choice and the red popsicle stick for the

second item choice if we felt more like it. It was really hard for Waldina to understand the

difference between liking something and being like something. It was also hard for me to

explain, it seemed like no matter how many different examples I tried to use or how many

different words I would use to describe each phrase, I would not get across. I almost considered

moving on to a different activity, but I decided to keep modeling and move forward using the

items from the table I had ready (see below; the first two set of items were taken from Perez-

Prado, 2021, p. 91). Before starting, I told her to start her sentences with “I am like…” to make it

easier. For the first set of items, she raised the yellow-colored popsicle stick, meaning she chose

the first item in the set, which was sunrise in this case. When I asked her to defend her position

she said, “I am like sunrise because it is in the morning.” I would explain to her that she was

telling me that she liked her item choice, and that for this activity, she had to tell me how she was

like it. She was very confused even after I gave her an example of me being like the sunset

because of the warm, red tones it has, and how they resemble the color of my skin. I tried to

explain to her that she had to connect the item with her, that she had to tell me how the item was

similar to her, which characteristics of the item she felt identified with. After saying it this way,

she understood what was expected from her better, and this was exemplified in her response for

the next set of items. She raised her yellow popsicle stick and explained that she was like a lion

because she was “very protective of her children.” I praised her and she felt relieved because she

got a better sense of what the activity was asking of her. We both were glad about that. The rest

of the activity followed the same pattern: after selecting an item using the colored sticks,

Waldina and I would each give at least one explanation why we felt more like that item than the

other.

21

Sunrise Sunset

Lion Kitten

Coffee Tea

Plane Boat

Wind Fire

Sandals Sneakers

Oven Fridge

Pen Pencil

Clay Plastic

Moon Sun

Shape Form

For the next thirty minutes, we redid the “Amazing Art” Activity (Perez-Prado, 2021, p.

92). This time around, we did the See, Think, Wonder routine with the painting The Scream

(1893) by Edvard Munch. Unlike last time where I showed Waldina a digital image from a

computer screen, this time I used a physical book (Plazy, 1999, p.148) where the image was

larger, and she could experience it differently than on a screen. She could touch it, go around the

page with her finger and point out the details she observed, and hold the book in her hands to see

the image more closely.

(Left) Munch, Edvard. The Scream (1893). Courtesy Plazy 1999, p.148. (Right) See, Think, Wonder Chart we completed for this artwork

We had a short five-minute break (not accounted in the ten hours) and finished off this

session by doing the “Help! I’m ready to give up!” Activity (Perez-Prado, 2021, p. 82) for thirty

minutes. For this activity, I used the sample problems in Perez-Prado (2021) p. 83. I wrote them

down in a sheet of paper, which I later cut into strips, each containing a problem. I folded the

22

strips so they couldn’t be read and put them in a box. I explained to Waldina that the box

contained a series of problems and that we would be taking turns to get a strip of paper out of the

box and to offer/receive advice. I also clarified that we would have to do this as if we were

acting, as if we came to each other in need of help. I let Waldina get a problem out of the box

first, so that she could read it aloud and I could model how to respond. (If I had done something

differently here, I would have also read the problem first to model intonation). We went through

all the problems on the list, and we would really get into character, regardless of if we were the

person with the problem or the person giving advice. We would continue our dialogues and reach

a point till we were like, “Thank you for your help, I’ll try that out” and move onto the next

problem. Certainly, this activity made us listen empathically to what the other was saying

without judgement, just trying to offer help. In the end, we told each other what we thought was

the most helpful advice we received. Waldina expressed that for her, this was when I talked to

her about saving money when it’s almost too hard, sharing that it might help to cut down on

unnecessary expenses and create a budget. I told her that for me, the most helpful advice she

gave me was when looking for a partner, to show confidence and poise.

23

November 27, 2021: Ninth Meeting

For this session, I worked with Waldina for ninety minutes. We did two activities: the

“Outside the Box” activity (Perez-Prado, 2021, p.126) for the second time and then the

“Franken-Animals” exercise (Perez-Prado, 2021, p. 171) (this activity was adapted to art).

We spent forty-five minutes doing the Outside the Box activity. The first twenty minutes

were spent guessing the items I had out in a box. Though these were physical items, they were

not the actual items themselves, they were all erasers in the shape of items. My learner found this

interesting, and she liked this fun way of presenting these objects.

I would give her clues to describe the item without saying its name, and Waldina would

have to guess and tell me what it was. We did that until all the items were outside the box. Then,

we took twenty-five minutes for Waldina to retell me what the item was called, but this time

around also add what it was used for and how else it could be used. I would ask guiding

questions all along. Since we had done this activity in the past, she was familiar with this

procedure. I noticed that some of her answers included some words I mentioned in the clues I

said in the first part of the activity. I was proud because this meant she was picking up these

terms without me making her repeat them over and over, which might be counterproductive.

Anyway, one of the most creative new uses she came up for an item was with the mirror,

she said it was normally used to see reflections and put on make-up, check outfits, etc., but

mentioned that it could also be used to make signals reflecting light in the case you were lost and

needed help. I thought this was interesting.

24

For the next activity, we also spent forty-five minutes in total. First, I reviewed color and

explained some of the categories in which it could be divided including primary, secondary,

tertiary, warm, cool, complementary and analogous. I wrote on the white board but also

incorporated visuals, one from a book (Barnet et. al, 1988, p. 118) and two other charts retrieved

online (see below).

Next, I explained that we would be using colored pencils and sheets of paper to create animals

using colors that fit into the categories that we just learned. I told her that we would fold a piece

of paper in half, and without letting the other see, we would be using a color pencil to make the

head of any animal and then flip the page and exchange papers to draw another animal’s body

using a different color. I mentioned that before drawing either a head or a body, I would say what

kind of color she should use (not the color itself, just the category like cool color, for instance).

We did four rounds, round #1 was primary color/cool color, round #2 secondary color/primary

color, #3 tertiary color/tertiary color, and the last round was warm color/cool color. We had a lot

of fun doing this activity, we found it engaging and exciting as we didn’t know what the end

result would be. The resulting Franken-Animals are below.

25

1 2 3 4

November 28, 2021: Tenth Meeting

For our last meeting, Waldina and I worked for fifty minutes. We did Perez-Prado’s (2021)

“Thinking Bubbles” activity (p.136). Before meeting with her, I cut out and gathered twelve

images from magazines to use for the activity. I placed them all on a wooden board. I asked my

learner if she found any similarities among the images; she explained that they all contained

26

people. I agreed with her and explained that for this activity, we would be looking at the people

in these images and imagining what they had in mind, what they were thinking.

At first, it was hard for Waldina to imagine what the people in the images were thinking,

so we didn’t start right away. She would explain that she couldn’t know what they were thinking

because she wasn’t them. I told her to try to see herself in that situation, to try to picture what she

would think in the scenarios shown. I also mentioned that it would be helpful to see these

people’s facial expressions and body language as well as the setting they were in to try to come

up with a thought they might be having at that particular moment.

I felt that my learner was a little more unreceptive today than she has been in the past, so

working with her having this energy was a bit of a challenge to me. For that reason, I tried to do

something similar to the See and Think sections of the See, Think, Wonder thinking routine.

Since we had done this activity in the past, it helped her to describe the scene, what the

characters were doing, how they looked, and what they might be thinking. Fortunately, she

warmed up to the exercise after we did this and also went through multiple examples orally using

the images on the board.

Since I realized how much of a struggle the exercise was for my learner, I did the activity

a bit different than how it is presented in Perez-Prado (p.136). Instead of each of us having an

image (or set of images) and make thought bubbles for it by ourselves, I thought it would be

easier if both of us talked through the image and made thought bubbles together as we went

along the image board. I found this to be helpful to my learner as she still struggled going

through the images. We exchanged our ideas orally, breaking down the elements in the images

first and then wondering what the characters had in mind. Then, we would write down our ideas

27

in a thought bubble (I had modeled how to do this) and repeat the process. In the fifty minutes

that we took to do this activity, we went over eight out of twelve images.

Critique

After completing my case study experience and reflecting on the approach I took, I

realize that my plan was efficient in supporting my individual learner, but the overall

implementation of the plan could have been more effective. For instance, I believe my case study

would have been more successful if I had been more consistent with the meeting schedule. That

way, I would have given my learner more structure and predictability, and me more organization,

which could have enhanced the overall implementation of the plan.

Our first meeting for the purposes of the case study was almost a month apart from the

following meeting, and though the next consecutive meetings were close to each other and we

picked up the pace, the duration of most of our sessions varied, making some meetings longer

and others shorter. We had a really long meeting one day (session number eight), and even

though we had short breaks in between activities, I believe it would have helped to break the

meeting down into at least one more session. My learner was still very receptive and cooperative,

but I think reducing the session time for this session would have given us both more time to

28

process and derive more meaning from what we did for the day. So overall, I think that more

constancy when implementing the plan would have been more beneficial for my learner and me.

Also, I spoke in English all throughout each meeting and encouraged my learner to do the

same. Still, there were times where she would say certain things in Spanish either because she

didn’t know the term for them in English or wasn’t so sure of its pronunciation. In those cases, I

would say the words and/or phrases in English for modeling so she became better familiarized

with them. However, in the “Sunrise/ Sunset” and “Thinking Bubbles” activities specifically, no

matter how many different ways I tried to explain certain words to be used in the activity, my

learner didn’t seem to understand what I was trying to say. This was a bit frustrating for me, and

I can only imagine how it must have been for her. After struggling with this and only after I

really couldn’t think of other way to explain a word to her in English, I said the term in Spanish

(for these activities only, didn’t do it before and didn’t do it after because it is not helpful to

language acquisition). This helped at the moment, but I wasn’t proud to resort to that.

Despite these shortcomings, there were things that worked. My learner particularly found

the activities implemented in the plan to be helpful. She mentioned these lessons have helped her

in her daily interactions as she has incorporated vocabulary in her day-to-day conversations. She

seems to have gained a little more confidence in her speaking skills, which was the target of the

action plan for this study. Moreover, in delivering these activities I made certain adjustments

where appropriate based on my particular learner and her needs. These were mostly done after

making observations, determining, on the spot, what was not working at the moment and what

could be done to make it better. For example, in the last meeting we had, my learner seemed to

need a little more guidance, so I decided it would be better if we worked together from beginning

29

to end in order to complete the task as opposed to working independently first and then begin to

cooperate and exchange thoughts.

Additionally, something that was also very effective was using real life objects and

visuals like images and charts, as well as body language. My learner found these additional

resources to be helpful when making connections, which supported her understanding of the

terms being used in our lesson.

I tried to make the learning environment welcoming, and for some sessions I even played

soft background music to ease the vibe in the room and make my learner more comfortable. I

would make sure my learner knew that I have high expectations for her, that I believe in her.

This translated to creating a safe environment, a space where my learner didn’t feel judged but

accepted, a place where she felt capable. At first she was clearly uncomfortable talking to me in

English for this study given that our personal communication has mostly been in Spanish, so

having a safe environment definitely helped her gain confidence and reduce her fear and anxiety

of speaking in English with me out of fear of being judged.

Another thing that worked was asking questions and then follow-up questions (where

appropriate) to make my learner dig deeper into her thoughts. As she answered these questions,

she not only gave answers but explained her reasoning expressing herself more fully. I think this

was impactful because it invited her to think critically and use the target language, which is a

complex process altogether. Similarly, it helped to provide comprehensible input, which made

her understand new concepts better.

Conclusively my learner might have not become fluent in English as a result of the

implementation of this case study plan, but she has definitely gained more confidence in her

abilities to understand and use English (mainly through speech as this was the target of the

30

study). Also, I noticed that though she still doubts herself a bit on how to phrase her sentences in

English, she does it with less frustration than on our first couple of meetings where she had a

higher affective filter, and she seems to be more accepting of her mistakes. I think that she got

more comfortable as we went through the activities, and she naturally liked some more than

others (the “Outside the Box” and the “Back to Back Drawing Challenge” were among her

favorites). The plan was effective in that sense, given that the activities were all interactive and

promoted the development and expansion of speaking and listening skills. Overall, we had a lot

of fun working together for this case study. I feel that in working through these activities, I got to

know a side of my learner that I hadn’t known before. Admittedly, this experience helped both of

us grow, it helped her in her language acquisition journey and me in my (pre) teaching

experience, both paths that require empathy, persistence, acceptance, and flexibility.

Reflection and ESOL Standards

As a pre-service teacher, this case study was a valuable learning experience to me.

Working one-on-one with an English language learner (ELL) for this project was a meaningful

way of putting what we have learned in this course into practice and gain a deeper understanding

of the concepts being presented in the course modules and resources. Largely, this case study has

made of me a more reflective, responsive, and responsible (pre-service) teacher. Reflective in the

sense that I realize now more than ever the importance of continually assessing my approach to

teaching and considering what is working and what is not. Responsive in that I understand that

my future students will come from different backgrounds, and I will have to be not only

understanding but accommodating, tailoring content to meet their needs. And responsible in that

I recognize that it is my duty to serve all students, and I believe that goal could not be possibly

achieved without being able to relate to them, without making content accessible or considering

31

their differences, without cherishing what they contribute to the classroom and providing

appropriate challenges to nurture their minds. Overall, these new understandings extend to the

ESOL domains in the State of Florida (Florida Department of Education, 2010). Some of the

ways in which these domains were met are briefly explained below:

Domain 1, “Culture (Cross-Cultural Communications)” was met in interviewing my case

study learner, Waldina, and understanding how her cultural background relates to the ways she

learns, given “the interrelationship between language and culture for students from diverse

backgrounds and at varying English proficiency levels” as stated in domain 1, standard 1.1f

((Florida Department of Education, 2010).

Domain 2 “Language and Literacy (Applied Linguistics)” was covered in the case study

as standard 2.1 by modeling proper usage of English language to an ELL student “for different

purposes.” Since the study focused on language acquisition and was interactive in nature, my

learner and I used language in different contexts as opposed to a solely academic perspective.

Moreover, understanding my learner’s first language was important as it helped me appreciate

her acquisition of her second language and why she would say certain words the way she did, for

instance, why she would use direct translations sometimes (this relates to standard 2.3c).

Domain 3, “Methods of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL)” was

touched upon as SLA theories were applied in the development and implementation of an action

plan. Particularly, standard 3.2 was met as TESOL strategies were implemented to support the

development of listening and speaking skills pertaining to language acquisition “for a variety of

academic and social purposes.” In basing the case study in interactionist SLA theories, my

learner and I got to converse in meaningful ways, listening and speaking to one another in

authentic English (English as would be spoken naturally, not scripted or staged which doesn’t

32

always reflect how people actually speak). This helped her pick up certain terms that she used

not only during our lessons, but in her daily activities as she would proudly let me now in some

of our meetings. Since materials were varied and responsive to my learner’s age and cultural

background, standard 3.3 was also met.

Domain 4, “ESOL Curriculum and Materials Development” was mostly included in the

form of standard 4.1.b., as a “supportive, accepting, [and] student-centered [learning

environment]” was created, encouraging my learner to feel safe and motivating her to participate

and branch out.

Unlike the domains described above, Domain 5, “Assessment (ESOL Testing and

Evaluation)” was not really touched on for this particular case study as I did not assess my

learner neither formally nor informally.

33

References

Barlett, A., Devane, J., Smith, S., Harrison, H., & Wheeler, L. (1988). The painting and drawing

course (p. 118). Portland House, New York.

Florida Department of Education. (n.d.) Principles of professional conduct for the education

profession in Florida. https://www.fldoe.org/teaching/professional-practices/code-of-

ethics-principles-of-professio.stml

Florida Department of Education. (2010). Florida teacher standards for ESOL endorsement

2010. https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7502/urlt/0071748-

approvedteacherstandards.pdf

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press

Inc. http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/principles_and_practice.pdf

Perez-Prado, A. (2021). LAF with the habits of mind: Strategies and activities for teaching

diverse language learners.

Plazy, G. (1999) The history of art in pictures (p.148). MetroBooks.

Samson, J. F., & Collins, B. A. (2012). Preparing all teachers to meet the needs of English

language learners. Center for American Progress.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535608.pdf

Seurat, G. (1884). A Sunday on La Grande Jatte [Painting]. The Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL,

United States. https://www.artic.edu/artworks/27992/a-sunday-on-la-grande-jatte-1884

The Education Alliance. (n.d.) Literature review. Brown University.

https://www.brown.edu/academics/education-alliance/teaching-diverse-

learners/literature-review-0

Tran, T. H. (2009). The interaction hypothesis: A literature review. Alliant International

University. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED507194.pdf