Artifact 1B: Journal for Recasting

This journal and activity demonstrates  my understanding of the use of recasting and the limits of grammar development, as defined in Standard 1B,  which states that candidates for the degree must “understand and apply theories of research in second language acquisition and development.”  While we touched on theories of second language acquisition throughout our classes in Lehman, this assignment made me reflect on how I was able to “take pertinent findings in…interlanguage and input and interaction” in order to create effective instruction.  Before taking classes at Lehman, I did not consider recasting as a method of teaching so consciously, as it was something that commonly occurs in many classrooms. We touched on the method and research in depth in Professor Bermudez-Rodriguez’s class ESC 766, Teaching English Across the Content Areas.

In order to make this activity more useful, I would have committed more time to the vocabulary by completing more of Marzano’s steps. Students did parts of Step 1 (see the term in context in the text), restate it in their own words, which was Step 2 (very little of this), did not create a non-linguistic representation which was step 3, did step 4 (manipulating the terms by using them to compare the two native American tribes), and reviewed and monitored use of the terms by later taking a test and writing an essay (step 6). 

I felt that I effectively used recasting to bring the academic vocabulary into use, showing an awareness of theories of second language acquisition and findings based upon what we read in class about recasting and vocabulary learning as literacy learning.  We wrote half of the essay together, with me providing the first half of introductory sentences for each paragraph, and asking students to complete them. When students wrote the details of their paragraphs, they had to use their notes. I divided up my white-paper and their printed sheets into similarities and differences with the sentence starters pre-written. Students had to finish some sentences and write the supporting sentences on their own. When they had trouble, I used recasting, first by asking the question (or giving the statement) in a different way, and then restating what they said using the academic vocabulary.

I would have liked to do more of the earlier steps to better set up students for success. The main issue is that activities with ENL students take longer than for other students, as they often write and read slower and take time to process the information.  To compensate for this, I would have liked to do two things: work more on putting the definitions in their own words, and find a way to incorporate visual descriptions of the vocabulary.  Research in second language acquisition shows this to be efficient and effective. This could have been done by finding illustrations and having the students match them with the words. I believe that in many cases, having students write a non-linguistic representation, while useful, can be very time consuming for unfamiliar and abstract concepts. I would like to experiment more to find ways to make it more effective. It is much easier to have this part of the vocabulary teaching as homework as it has students thinking about the word for a longer time at home, and it also helps to have students have gaps in time between their interactions with the word. Reflecting and describing the process in the class activity made me see ways I could do better and be more conscious of input and interaction via recasting. While I have not yet honed my skills and seen an impact, I believe that with more conscious efforts and time, this is an area of growth that I have not yet accessed sufficiently.