Jillian Martinez

TED 407 (#23449)

Professor Hernandez
April 14, 2018
Microanalysis of a Teaching Event and Reflection

I facilitated this strategy by collecting pre-assessments to figure out what level of

literacy and language my students are at. They are 7th and 8th grade students with

moderate to severe disabilities and most of their academic and learning levels range from

Kindergarten to 2nd grade. Once I knew what level the students were at I chose a simple

activity and strategy (name tag) and turned it into something more complex and in depth

that involved literacy. This allowed students to share more about their personal lives,

values, and beliefs through word recognition and comparison.

I used the ‘name tag’ language learning strategy to teach students our vocabulary

word of the day and to help them understand the synonyms and antonyms of that word.

Students folded cardstock into three sections and set up the cardstock to look like a three

dimensional nametag. In the video I explained to my students that we are going to make

nametags today so we can get to know one another a little better. I also added in that we

are going to combine our nametag activity with our word of the day activity. I presented

the word ‘afraid’ to the students. I asked them to describe what the word meant and to

share at least one experience where they were afraid. Once I felt students had the idea

down I asked them to draw 3 symbols, items, or pictures of things that represent what

they are afraid of on the right side of their nametag. For the next part of the learning

strategy I asked the students what the opposite of afraid is. They were very quick to call

out “bold, brave, strong, to conquer fears”. I then had the students draw three objects on
the other side of their nametags that represent them being brave, bold, or strong. To

conclude and wrap up the lesson, I had students go around and say what they are afraid of

versus’ what things make them brave and strong.

The classroom artifact that I can use to help me identify what areas of this activity

were successfully accomplished and what parts could use some improvement are the

variety of nametags the students made. Three of the four nametags show that students

understood the definition of the word afraid and that the opposite of the word afraid, the

antonym, is brave, bold, and conquering your fears. These students drew snakes, the dark,

ghosts, and spiders to show symbols that represent their fears. On the opposite side they

drew math problems, writing, running, heights, and scary movies to show that they are

brave. These students drew each of their symbols on opposite sides of their nametags to

show they understand the two different meanings of afraid versus brave. There was one

nametag that showed there needed to be some sort of improvement because they couldn’t

think of any symbols to draw to represent them being afraid versus brave and they drew

both symbols on the same side of the nametag. This student did not want to participate so

I believe I can improve by telling a story before this strategy that helps students get a

better idea of things that make them afraid versus brave. I also think it would of also been

beneficial if I knew more about the students background and interests so I could have

helped him brain storm better ideas.

The language learning theory that influences my learning strategy the most is Luis

C. Moll’s (1992) funds of knowledge . The primary purpose of this lesson is to form a

collaborative activity that connects literacy/vocabulary with personal views, ideas, beliefs

and values. Luis Moll (1992) taught me that when it comes to funds of knowledge my
goal as a teacher is to understand the diversity and differences of my students’ ideas and

backgrounds. This language learning strategy is a way for students to use their funds of

knowledge when defining vocabulary words and differentiate experiences they have had

being afraid versus being brave. The nametag with the three symbols is a language

learning strategy that practices funds of knowledge because it allows students to tell us

and teach us more about their life, beliefs, opinions, and views (Moll, 1992).

The language learning strategy presented in my teaching event is an example of

‘Interacting in Meaningful Ways’, which is explained in the ELD California State

Standards (Hernandez, J. PowerPoint Presentation, January 18, 2018). The New

California ELD Standards that correspond to the common core ELA helped me mold my

lesson through its three steps of how to interact in meaningful ways. I demonstrated the

first step, collaboration, by having students exchange ideas and experiences they have

had being afraid and brave with one another. I adapted language choices when one

student explained that she believes breathing air makes her brave and I had her elaborate

to see where this idea came from. I involved the second step of interpretation by having

all students listen actively while others were sharing their thoughts and opinions, and

analyzing choices students made by connecting it to their language and background. I

demonstrated the last step, productivity, by having students go around and present their

name tags and explain afraid versus brave to show their understanding and justify why

they picked these specific symbols to represent their understandings.

Using the nametag strategy and tying it to vocabulary and literacy allowed me to

be more sensitive toward individuals who come from diverse cultural and linguistic

background. I believe this strategy was an appropriate and creative use of experiential
learning. Students were able to facilitate learning in a performance-based and standard-

based environment.
 References

Hernandez, J. (2018). Week 2: New California ELD Standards (Proficiency

Levels) [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from

https://toro.csudh.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_209388_1

&content_id=_4485561_1

Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for

teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into

Practice,31(2), 132-141. doi:10.1080/00405849209543534