Source #1:

Lindqvist, & Forsberg, C. (2022). Constructivist grounded theory and educational research:

constructing theories about teachers’ work when analyzing relationships between codes.

International Journal of Research & Method in Education, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print),

1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2022.2095998

Summary:

This academic article talks about the difference between constructivist grounded theory benefits

and those of qualitative methods. It also mentions the five steps of the constructivist approach:

Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate. The main discussion/objective is on the

knowledge of the participant/student, such as concerns and perspectives. To approach these,

teachers used explanatory approaches and involved theoretical coding. It also talks about various

insights that could be obtained when using the theory that could be valuable additions to

educational practices and future research.

Reflection:

I chose this article because it summarizes what I did with my students. Before starting the study,

I would engage with them daily; therefore, I was aware of their personal and academic struggles

and primary concerns. From doing this, I had an idea of where I wanted to head, and I did have a

talk with them where I explained their standing and mine on the study. I then continued with the

other steps to do my research and analysis, calling it constructivist. Now that I am finalizing it, I

plan to use the insights for future reference since I will continue to see them for the rest of the

academic school year. I’d say that my study and work with the students are not done yet, since
we have other areas to improve; however, the constructivist approach is undoubtedly the most

supportive, in my opinion.

Source #2:

Bishop. (2006). Participation / edited by Claire Bishop. (Bishop, Ed.). Whitechapel

Summary:

The book talks about a variety of techniques and causes of participation by students. For

example, it gives examples such as students going from observers to becoming producers. The

greatest technique in my opinion was used on an argument which was to have the students read

first, then write about it and finally talk about the idea. By doing this, the student is being

educated on the topic first, and then he/she is adding her ideas about it to what others say.

Reflection:

This book supports my long term instructional needs by providing me with ideas to use

throughout my time with the students. The author does a similar thing with my research. What he

does is to produce oral language through comprehension of a topic. Instead of having the

students talk about a certain aspect before the story, the author has them read it first and then talk

about it. He also tries to produce the most oral language possible by doing it via a discussion

where the students are debating and not only adding to others ideas without a challenge. The

only thing that the author is doing differently is that he is not doing it with second language

learners. The book recommends taking the approach of educating the student first on a topic to

then talk about it and defend its own comprehension. Having students defend their ideals is the
method utilized to create oral language production while thinking about what to say next. This

method does not give the producer time to stop for a while to bring a comeback.

Source #3:

Brooks. (2011). English Learner Oral Language Production in Middle School Academic Classes.

Journal of Research in Education (Online), 21(2), 66–.

Summary:

This study is mainly a study about eco behavior and its results on English Learners. It explains

that the study was done on a whole-class, groups, and one on one interventions, and how the

whole class did not produce any academic oral language on the ELs such as reading out loud in

the classroom did not occur. The method that did work the best was the one on one intervention

with students. For this, the author spoke about the idea of demanding the student to really talk

since he said that as a whole, the student would feel less forced to do it.

Reflection:

The source supports the instructional methods in my study because it gives it backup research on

an experimental group of ELs that feels safer to speak in one on one. The author did a very

similar type of research because I will use techniques such as in group and one on one activities

to distinguish between the preference of students and its oral language production methods. The

author recommends for the teacher to get to know its students very well. This so that the teacher
understands the most productive technique on which the student can work the best. After this, the

idea is to produce oral language and then to slowly start to expose him to an audience so that the

student feels safe with his words and not the number of people listening to him/her.

Source #4:

Faltis, & Faltis, C. (2006). Teaching English language learners in elementary school

communities : a joinfostering approach / Christian J. Faltis. (4th ed.). Pearson/

Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Summary:

This book is mainly designed for student teachers, regular education teachers, and teachers of

dual-language classes. It talks about the various English Language Learners in Elementary

School Communities in regards to what the teacher expectations should be, the different

solutions for the dual-language classroom, how to encourage active participation and social

integration, mixed-language whole-class teaching, small group work, involving families and

communities in school activities, and assessments. Most of this work is said to be done in an

integrated setting where the students are exposed to different encounters with others.

Reflection:

This source supports the long term goal of my study because it educates the new educators with a

variety of strategies on how to best support English language learners. In the school that I am at,
about 60 percent is considered an EL student. The author did a similar type of research study as I

when demanding the English learner to develop a conversation with someone who only speaks

English. This is a similar study because it is encountering oral language production. From the

book, oral language production was formal and I am working with both informal and formal

language production. The book recommends approaches to teaching that could work in my

context such as pairing students with different English oral levels. Her target with this technique

was to encourage the language of English to be spoken while working with others.

Source #5:

Levelt, Roelofs, & Meyer (2018). Psycholinguistic models of oral verbal language production.

Gragoatá, 23(46), 427–447. https://doi.org/10.22409/gragoata.2018n46a1083

Summary:

This article is great when speaking about the physiological oral language production. It says,

“oral verbal language production refers to the opening of a topic and not to the ongoing

dialogue.” With this meaning that it is not always the strategies that one takes to keep the oral

conversation all along but instead it could be the topic or how the conversation is started. It also

speaks about the hypothesis that, as the processing levels become lower, with enclosed

paradigms, constituted by a smaller number of elements, the processes are automated and

encapsulated.

Reflection:
The article supports my long term assessment strategies by putting more focus on the type of

questions or assessments where students are to produce oral language. The author did not do a

similar research study, but the article does have a strategy that can be well used in my research

study. This strategy is to group the students into groups or assign them a different topic to which

they need to talk about. This is to have the students think about different things with various

perspectives about them. Also, some topics might awaken a deeper talk on one of the students.

Having various topics to talk about and rotate is something that the article does recommend to

do; however, giving only one topic might have the students work on it as a group and add with

different ideas and point of views.

Source #6:

Sandlund, & Sundqvist, P. (2016). Equity in L2 English Oral Assessment: Criterion-Based Facts

or Works of Fiction? Nordic Journal of English Studies, 15(2), 113–.

https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.365

Summary:

The article does not speak about methods of instruction or strategies to be used, but about teacher

equitable grading methods. For example, it talks about grading a L2 student oral language

production with the same criteria method as the others at a point. This to comprehend where the

student stands in comparison with the others in the classroom. It also speaks about the testing

forms of the students in which it specifies that testing the student with on the same instruction

favors the instruction in which the student should be put on.

Reflection:

The article supports the long term goal of my study supporting me with the idea of doing a fair

and equitable strategy to grade the students. With this in mind, I will have a more focused view

on the students in general since they will not be compared with students at their level. Getting a

general level of them in a class group classroom will be key for myself to discover their real

level. In other words, grading everyone with the same criteria will provide me with a more exact

idea of where their oral language production levels are.The author did not do something similar

to what I was thinking of doing, but her strategies are something that should be done without a

doubt. I was thinking about grading then based on their progress, but still grading them just like

the general student population. The article does recommend to grade ELs with the same criteria

as the whole class to have a clear idea of where the student stands with the rest of the population.

Source #7:

Snow, Powell, M. B., & Sanger, D. D. (2012). Oral language competence, young speakers, and

the law. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 43(4), 496–506.

https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2012/11-0065)

Summary:

This article is mainly about the struggles that young language producers have. For example, it

talks about forensic evidence that says that a child depends on different types of interactions to

evolve its oral language productions. One of the evidence that they found talked about children
related with child abuse and how it becomes much for harder to produce linguistic demands from

its experiences with it. It also talks about the level of difficulty that the student has to acquire oral

language skills when he/she has good experiences in their lives.

Reflection:

The information in this article supports my long-term goal by providing me with ideas of what

could be factors that are involved in the learning of oral language production. The author did not

do a similar type of research since he focused more on the forensic part of oral language

production; however, he does have useful evidence that I could use to take the more elements in

consideration. Besides the differences in research studies, the article does recommend getting to

know the student well to have the different struggles of every student in mind. This to see the

causes of different scenarios in students.

Source #8:

Riley. (2009). Who made the soup? Socializing the researcher and shaping her data. Language &

Communication, 29(3), 254–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2009.02.007

Summary:

This article is interesting looking at it through the view of a researcher. It is about an

ethnographer who paper examines the communication and the speech acts of French hosts while

having dinner. The whole idea is to better understand the interactions of his hosts when

socializing with others with similar backgrounds. His intentions are also to collect data on

language ideology going on with the French hosts to also represent the analytic findings in

reaction to feedback.
Reflection:

This article helps me by providing me with strategies of what to look for when observing my

students. In round 1, I was not able to collect the desired amount and quality of data; therefore, I

seeked for an article to ease and better my abilities of observation skills. It supports the long term

goal of it by identifying key elements that explain certain reactions in conversations of students

and their expressions when socializing with one another. It also supports my instructional

strategies by intentionally exposing students to scenarios that demand them to express and act in

various forms. The other did similar research by observing and transcribing the contact between

two people with a common background who shared the same language. The article recommends

approaches that could work in my context by including discussions between topics of familiar

interests where all my subjects have knowledge of to gather information about the different

forms of socialization.

Source #9:

Constantin-Dureci. (2022). Challenging Dominant Language Ideology in the Adult ESL

Classroom: A Case Study. Studies in Applied Linguistics & TESOL, 22(1).

https://doi.org/10.52214/salt.v22i1.8726

Summary:

This study is actually done for a case study. A section that really caught my eye talked about

code switching with languages. It said that the teacher doing the case study resists the dominant
language ideology since she views students’ code switching as a resource, rather than a deficit.

She also does not use Standardized English with correctness. This research is focused in

equity-oriented teaching since it was done with the clear idea that incorporating language

variation in an ESL classroom is viewed as a necessary teaching practice. Due to this, every

student has the chance to understand what is being taught and with this, language barriers are not

as present anymore.

Reflection:

This article supported me in my study in different ways. For example, being strict with only

using one language on my second round was not the best idea. Due to being very tough wanting

everyone to only speak English, I would shut off one student out of the three since he only

speaks and understands the Spanish language. Another student would sometimes not express

herself due to her lack of English. This article helped me understand that I am only causing a

language barrier and they are not expressing themselves for the students when the goal is to help

them express themselves in English as they would in Spanish. The author did do a similar study

since he focused on the ideology of language when I am wanting to support students transcribe

one language into the other when expressing. The article recommends that using different

languages in an ESL classroom is beneficial since it can be used as a resource and that it does not

damage the students' learning. From my point of view, I am going to use Spanish and give them

the liberty to use it as well to say any feelings and to socialize in a better way with one another.
Source #10:

Azatova. (2021). I CONTROL MY OWN ENGLISH LEARNING: DEVELOPING

SELF-REGULATION IN ELEMENTARY ELL USING SELF-ASSESSMENT AND

EXPLICIT STRATEGY INSTRUCTION. TEFLIN Journal, 32(2), 183–213.

https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v32i2/183-213

Summary:

This article is based on a group of fourth grade students who are English Language Learners.

The main idea of it was to support the students' English skills by using self regulatory cycles in

conjunction with self-assessment and explicit strategy instruction. After four months, the

students were consistently able to set goals to monitor their progress and then reflect on what to

change and what to keep doing.

Reflection:

This academic article is related to the nature of my study in terms of finding the best way to

support ELs to ease their learning in any classroom setting. The idea is to make them

independent. It supports my instructional strategies by providing me with ideas on strategies to

use with my students, such as the cycles, self-assessments, and the one on one explicit strategies

instruction. The article does something similar by using various techniques to best support its

students. The article recommends approaches of instruction, such as having the students evaluate

their growth and self reflect on what is going well and the issues that they are having.
Source #11:

Cheung, & Slavin, R. E. (2012). Effective Reading Programs for Spanish-Dominant English

Language Learners (ELLs) in the Elementary Grades: A Synthesis of Research. Review

of Educational Research, 82(4), 351–395. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312465472

Summary:

This is a study done in a school where two ideas of instruction are being compared. One of them

consists of doing instruction in both Spanish and English at every grade level in a school. The

other is made for instruction in English only. Data here showed that both methods have the same

amount of efficacy. It also shows that .21 percent prefer bilingual instruction over English only.

The findings also show that the language of instruction is not very important, what is important

is the quality of instruction.

Reflection:

This study supports one of my ideas in the research. I was in doubt if having my students speak

English only was the best instruction practice, but according to this research it does not matter.

The data shown in this academic article also tell me that small group phonetic instruction also

works and prominents great results when it is done with quality. The author somewhat did a

similar type of research, but he had without a doubt a different focus. This article recommends

approaches of instruction that can work for me such as bilingual instruction. Later on, when I

have a full classroom, I will talk to my principal and ask if bilingual instruction is something that

can be possible to do for a certain amount of time during the day. I really think that this will
benefit students that want to learn the language of Spanish and those that already speak it by

giving them the freedom of using it with dialogue between them and others and with me.

Source #12:

Greene, M. (2017) Teaching as possibility: A light in dark times. In A. Darder, R. D. Torres, &

M. P. Baltodano (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (3rd ed.) (pp. 405–436.). New York,

NY: Routledge.

Summary:

The primary purpose of this chapter is to communicate that new literacy studies and popular

culture can serve educators to connect to the world of students, promote academic achievement,

and prepare students for critical citizenship in a multicultural democracy. The book argued

against classical pedagogy, where theorists saw popular culture as a struggle between the

dominant groups in society and the subordinate. As said by Morrell, “Popular Culture is not an

imposed mass culture or a people’s culture; it is more a terrain of exchange between the two”

(pg. 413). In other terms, Morell argues that educators should not compare both groups but

connect the two and encourage the education style to a more ideal where both feel that they fit in.

Through this, students can feel the inclusive setting where both work together for the same

objective. For this to be fulfilled, Morrell says that students should use the resources that can

now be utilized to conduct studies in different manners. Resources that he talks about are; music,

films, mass media artifacts, language, customs, and values. According to Morrell, the critical

element of why educators should utilize these things is to create a logical connection between
lived experiences and the school culture for urban youth. In this chapter, Ernest advocates for

popular culture to be involved in curricula. He says, “any pedagogy of popular culture has to be

critical pedagogy where students and teacher learn from and with one another” (pg. 413). From

my point of view, he is arguing for a restructuring of education. Although he wants to connect

certain aspects of it from experience, he also says he has met with colleagues throughout the

years. They seem to like incorporating popular culture, but are unprepared for the significant

change.

Reflection:

The topic, Popular Culture, incites me to try and build a connection between students and myself

where we dialogue and learn from the communication system. My perspective has increased

during conversations. Engaging with the students throughout the conversation is crucial for

educators to learn with them. Regarding my skill set, I will work to encounter students through

various aspects of their interests to share the knowledge learned with others. I will aim to

develop communication where my students see my interest in their interests. With this, students

will be more open and consider taking action deeper than before from seeing me do the same.