Methodology Expert

Introduction 

Throughout my teaching journey, I have developed a diverse and adaptable set of methodological strategies that allow me to respond effectively to the varying needs of my students. Over the years, I’ve honed my ability to use a variety of approaches, including checking for understanding, cold calling, "Teach Like a Champion" strategies, integrating movement through whole-brain teaching, and applying inquiry-based learning (Lemov, 2015; Ernst, Hodge & Yoshinobu, 2017). My teaching style is consistent and structured, providing students with autonomy while also catering to their basic needs (Porges, 2011; Deci & Ryan, 2000).

In terms of lesson planning, I’ve had to adapt to various levels of students and work with different teaching materials, learning to explain concepts in multiple ways (Woolfolk, 2013; Tomilson, 2017). These challenges have strengthened my problem-solving skills, and I am now confident in my ability to tailor lessons to diverse student needs. I employ a range of formative assessment techniques, such as levels of understanding, cold calling, choral responding, exit tickets, and formative quizzes, to track student progress and provide timely feedback (Ur, 2012; Lemov, 2015; Hughes, 1989; Engagement Strategies - Choral Responses, n.d.; Black & Wiliam, 1998) These methods help me adjust my teaching on the spot and ensure that all students are making progress.

Moving forward, I plan to further develop my skills in formative assessment and small-group instruction, particularly to support students who are struggling. My goal is to refine my strategies so that all students, regardless of their starting point, can achieve success and feel valued in my classroom.

Instructional strategies

My instructional strategies have evolved significantly, particularly in the way I engage students with the content. Initially, my lessons were heavily theoretical, which sometimes led to student disengagement. Over time, I shifted towards a more interactive and student-centered approach, incorporating inquiry-based learning, essential questions, gamification and other strategies to make lessons more engaging and effective (Ernst, Hodge & Yoshinobu, 2017, Jensen, 2005, McTighe & Wiggins, 2013). This change was particularly evident in my approach to teaching grammar. Instead of presenting the rules directly, I began to ask students to identify patterns in examples, guiding them to deduce the grammar rules themselves. As you can see in picture one, Students can see a slide with sentenceses using the present simple and they are asked to try and figure out the rule (he/she/it +s). I first have students think about it on their own before having them turn to their neighbor and then we share as a class. As the teacher, I make sure that the final rule is the same for all students and that they understand what it means (in video compilation a part of my grammar lessons can be seen where students are using choral responding to apply what we have just learned). Afterwards, I discus with students when the present simple is used and we practice together. Finally, students get to practice individually. The present simple is then reviewed in class multiple time to make sure they know the rule and when to use it. And I have students apply the new grammar in their writing assignments. This method encouraged active participation and made grammar lessons more dynamic (Ernst, Hodge & Yoshinobu, 2017, Jensen, 2005, McTighe & Wiggins, 2013, Ur, 2012; Brandl, 2008; Buck & Wightwick, 2013). 

This shift in methodology aligns with constructivist learning theory (Piaget, 1976), which suggests that students construct knowledge most effectively through exploration and discovery. I noticed a significant improvement in student participation and retention of grammar concepts as a result of this change. They were more engaged during lessons, often asking insightful questions and demonstrating a deeper understanding in their writing tasks. I now combine inquiry-based learning with direct instruction, ensuring that every student has a firm grasp of the basics before moving on to more complex tasks (Tomilson, 2017; De Bruyckere, 2018). Furthermore, I will suppllement lessons with hand on activities or tasks. For example, playing dominoes with verb tenses, playing jenga with sentence structures, snake and ladders or using whiteboards for students to show their answers (see pictures # 2). 

Reflecting on this evolution, I have come to see the value of blending different instructional strategies to reach all learners. My current approach allows me to maintain a balance between encouraging independent thinking and providing the structured guidance some students need, ensuring that all students are engaged and can succeed.

Checking for understanding (formative assessment)

Assessment has always been a crucial aspect of my teaching practice, and my approach to checking for understanding has become increasingly sophisticated over time. I use a variety of formative assessment techniques to gauge student progress and guide my instruction, allowing me to respond quickly to any gaps in understanding (Lemov, 2015; Black & William, 1998; Ur, 2012). Early in my career, I relied primarily on informal observations, but I soon realized the need for a more structured and data-driven approach. Now, I regularly use quick quizzes, exit tickets, and small group discussions to check for understanding throughout each unit  (Lemov, 2015; Black & William, 1998; Ur, 2012; Geerts & Kralingen, 2018; Basco, 2021).

The data I gather from these assessments is tracked using a gradebook, which allows me to identify patterns and tailor my lessons accordingly. In my gradebook, I track students with a set of green, orange or red checkmarks. I can also take notes of areas where students struggle more and take the time to discuss with students what they understood, how it felt to complete the exercises or if they understand their mistakes. I then see my students in intervention groups where I can either target skills that need to be re-taught or practiced and can offer extra challenge (I can be seen in the video compilation sitting with a small-group of students. this is an intervention moment. At the same time another student is standing next to me to show me his work and I am putting a color coded check in my gradebook and signing his week task). I also keep students accountable through signing their week task with a red, orange or green pen and making a red or green mark on their exit tickets. I use formative assessment with an emphasizes on assessments to inform instruction rather than just to measure outcomes (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Speltincx & Vanhoof, 2021). This ongoing cycle of feedback has led to improved student performance, as I am able to provide immediate and targeted feedback that helps students adjust their learning strategies (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Speltincx & Vanhoof, 2021).

The effectiveness of my assessment methods has been noted by colleagues, who have praised my ability to identify and address gaps before they become significant issues. However, I received constructive feedback suggesting that I diversify my assessment techniques for students who may not perform well in traditional formats. In response, I have expanded my approach to include reflective tasks, peer assessments, and creative projects, providing students with multiple ways to demonstrate their understanding. This adjustment has not only made my assessments more inclusive but has also deepened my understanding of how students learn, allowing me to offer more personalized support.

Adapting teaching methods

In my first two years of teaching, I created my own grammar lessons based on a reference guide developed by another teacher (see pictures # 3). However, as I began working with an official curriculum last year, I have focused on adapting the provided materials to meet the diverse needs of my students and learning goals. An example of this is found in the Pearson "Focus 1" curriculum, used for my HAVO/VWO classes. This book presents grammar points like the present simple and past tenses in a structured way, but I often modify the explanations and activities to fit my students' learning styles, levels and national learning goals (Ur, 2018; Tomilson, 2017). 

For instance, in a lesson on the present simple, I used the book’s grammar exercises (found in Unit 1), but instead of solely relying on the textbook explanation, I implemented communicative activities, such as interactive games and inquiry-based tasks. Students analyzed the use of present simple in texts through collaborative group work, where they had to deduce grammar rules themselves before applying them in practice (Brandl, 2008). This inquiry-based learning approach aligns with Piaget’s theory of constructivist learning, as it encourages students to discover and construct their understanding of grammar, rather than passively receiving information (Piaget, 1976) (see pictures # 4 for lesson plans created based on Focus 1). These work forms and communicative activities were applied in order to help students reach the learning goals: "Can talk about habits or daily routines in a simple way" and "Can talk about everyday things (e.g. people, places, job,study) in a basic way". the curriculum itself led students to mostly practice their rot memory of grammar structures but by implementing activating work forms and CLT, the students use the language in a way that connects to real life thus fulfilling the learning goals (Brandl, 2008; Council of Europe, 2001).Emphasizing use over perfection encouraged students to experiment with the language, which aligns with the communicative language teaching (CLT) approach that fosters real-world language use over accuracy (Ur, 2012; Brandl, 2008). (see pictures # 5 & 6)

The effectiveness of this adaptation is evident through student participation and the improvement I observed in their writing tasks. Students were able to apply the present simple correctly when writing short texts, demonstrating not only an understanding of the grammar but also the ability to use it in context