I would like to conclude this portfolio by highlighting some key ideas that are

demonstrated in my portfolio, reviewing each component of the portfolio, and giving an

overall assessment of my work. Some of the key ideas that are demonstrated in my
portfolio are the second language acquisition theories and hypotheses, language
development stages, a wide variety of strategies to use with ELLs, and sheltered lesson
plans using SIOP model components. I will discuss how each of these elements are
covered in various parts of my portfolio and why they are important for teaching ELLs.
The first component of the portfolio was my reflection on my second language
acquisition. This reflection piece enabled me to dissect the various second language
acquisition theories such as behaviorist, innatist, and interactionist, and use my
knowledge of them to see why I learned some things and not others. I was able to reflect
on that fact that if my teachers had used more innatist and interactionist instruction and
applied Krashens hypotheses, I would most likely have had a completely different
experience learning a second language. What I further learned from my own history was
that I plan on using very few behaviorist strategies and much more innatist and
interactionist type instruction. I also learned that anxiety was a contributing factor to my
lack of comprehensible input so I plan on striving to create a classroom that is low
anxiety in an effort to keep my students affective filters low enough for comprehensible
input. Overall, my reflection set the foundation for me on how I would teach my students
and what the atmosphere in the classroom would look like. Knowing this helped me
choose my strategies.
The next part of my portfolio was oral strategies. I chose story reenactment and
dictogolos. I chose those particular two to research because I want a lot of interaction in
my class, and these strategies were perfect for that. They also covered a lot of important

areas such as comprehension, speaking, listening, reading, and social interaction. I like
strategies that can cover as many areas as possible since time is so limited. Both of these
strategies also fall along the lines of innatist and interactionist instruction, which is how I
plan on designing my classroom. Both of these strategies would work very well with
intermediate and advanced language learner, but they could be heavily modified to use
with beginners.
After oral strategies, I discussed literacy development strategies. I chose read,
pair, share and word wall. Read, pair, share falls along the same lines as my oral
strategies in that I like the peer interaction and low anxiety strategy. It also teaches much
more than just comprehension. As for the word wall, I felt that this was more behaviorist
in nature, but I chose it because I thought it was an excellent way to encourage and
expect correct spelling and continual use of new words. Read, pair, share would be a
strategy I would use for intermediate to advanced language learners, but word wall would
be a fantastic strategy to use for all levels!
The next part of the portfolio was my Internet resource webliography. This
consisted of 16 different web resources, and I believe they are imperative to meeting the
needs of ELLs. These resources provide teachers with an enormous amount of lesson
plan ideas, interactive videos, games, assessments, peer-to-peer advice, professional
development, blogs, apps, and many more things that teachers need to stay excited,
creative, and interesting in the classroom. The webliography also had many sites for
students to learn and practice their new language in a fun way. Technology should be an
integral part of our teaching ELLs, and my webliography makes it easy to find that
perfect technological supplement to your lesson.

Other than this conclusion, the sheltered lesson plans were the last part of my
portfolio, and for me, the most difficult to write. However, I believe they contain all the
components required in the rubric. For both plans, key vocabulary words were identified,
such as living and nonliving, needs and wants, and the definitions of these were supplied
through student friendly videos such as Sesame Street. Images were also provided
through videos, pictures, and realia. Language and content objectives were clearly
identified, although I did have trouble with language objectives simply because I had
never written one before so, I cant say with 100% confidence that it is written correctly.
All the objectives were clearly aligned with TEKS and ELPS. This part of the lesson
encompassed the preparation component of the SIOP model.
The second part of the lesson plan was focused on instruction and incorporated all
elements of the SIOP model. Links to students prior knowledge were made through
questions such as, Have you ever packed a suitcase to visit a relative? What did you
pack? Background knowledge was built through a book about bringing things you need
and want to grandmas house or through the video of cookie monster figuring out who
was living, him or the rock. All vocabulary was pre-taught before the lesson. Both lesson
plans integrated practice in listening, speaking, and reading vocabulary words in
meaningful activities such as a scavenger hunt and cooperative learning groups. There
was not a lot of writing involved for my lesson plans but could easily be integrated. Since
interaction is key to my classroom, there was an abundance of opportunities for peer to
peer and student to teacher interaction. Interaction was built in throughout both lesson
plans. Strategies for comprehensible input were also built in throughout both lesson plans
such as using realia, pictures, videos, and graphic organizers, and all objectives were
clearly supported by instructional activities. There was differentiation for beginning and

intermediate language levels, but I think I could have improved on that element.
Differentiation is an element that I struggle with since I havent actually taught yet so its
hard for me to visualize what I will be working with and how to teach so many students
in so many different ways.
The last component of my lesson plan was assessment, and it too was aligned
with the SIOP model. All assessments were conducted based on content and language
objectives. Assessments were differentiated for language proficiency levels, but once
again, I know they could have been stronger.
Based on the portfolio rubric, I believe I should receive full credit for the intro,
reflection, webliography, and strategies components of my portfolio since all areas were
covered and researched thoroughly. I believe my knowledge of teaching ELLs was
clearly displayed. For both lesson plans, I would give myself 18 out of 20 points because
I am unsure how well I wrote my language objectives, but mainly because I feel my
differentiation could have been better. Overall, I believe my portfolio is a definite
confirmation that I have learned the course content.