Delta Module Three Principal Examiners Report June 2009

Delta Module Three

Examination Report

June 2009

Teaching Awards Delta Module Three Report June 2009

Page 2

Contents 1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... 3

2. Purpose of Report ......................................................................................................................................... 4

3. Examiners’ comments .................................................................................................................................. 4

3.1 Main strengths......................................................................................................................................... 4

3.1.1 Grasp of topic .................................................................................................................................. 5

3.1.2 Needs analysis ................................................................................................................................ 5

3.1.3 Course proposal ............................................................................................................................. 5

3.1.4 Assessment...................................................................................................................................... 5

3.1.5 Presentation and organisation.................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Main weaknesses.................................................................................................................................... 5

3.2.1 Choice of specialism ..................................................................................................................... 5

3.2.2 Reference to reading ..................................................................................................................... 6

3.2.3 Analysing learner needs ............................................................................................................... 6

3.2.4 Designing the course according to learner needs................................................................. 6

3.2.5 Others ................................................................................................................................................ 6

4. Advice for centres and candidates ........................................................................................................... 7

4.1 Part 1: Topic area.................................................................................................................................... 7

4.2 Part 2: Needs analysis ........................................................................................................................... 8

4.3 Part 3: Course proposal ........................................................................................................................ 8

4.4 Part 4: Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 9

4.5 Presentation and organisation ............................................................................................................ 9

4.6 General Advice ...................................................................................................................................... 10

4.7 Common failings................................................................................................................................... 10

5. Examples of reference to reading ........................................................................................................... 11

6. Examples of Course plans ........................................................................................................................ 12

7. Bibliography.................................................................................................................................................. 17

7.1 Teaching exam classes ....................................................................................................................... 17

7.2 EAP........................................................................................................................................................... 17

7.3 Teaching young learners .................................................................................................................... 17

7.4 Business English .................................................................................................................................. 18

7.5 Teaching one-to-one ............................................................................................................................ 18

7.6 ESP ........................................................................................................................................................... 18

7.7 Teaching multilingual classes........................................................................................................... 18

7.8 Teaching monolingual classes ......................................................................................................... 19

7.9 Teaching in an non-English-speaking environment.................................................................... 19

7.10 Teaching in an English-speaking environment .......................................................................... 19

7.11 CLIL ........................................................................................................................................................ 19

7.12 ESOL learners with literacy needs................................................................................................. 20


Page 3

Delta Module Three Principal Examiner’s Report

1. Introduction

Delta Module Three is one of three Delta Modules which candidates can take as a free standing professional development component or as part of the Delta qualification. Module Three aims to develop candidates’ knowledge of and competence in assessment and course planning in relation to a specialist area, and includes: approaches to needs analysis; curriculum and syllabus design principles and different types of syllabus; course design and evaluation; and assessment of learners. The module is assessed by means of a 4,000-4,500 word Extended Assignment (EA), submitted in June or December of each year, in which candidates carry out an independent investigation leading to the design of a course programme related to their chosen specialist area. Candidates choose a specialism for the EA which is relevant to their current or intended teaching context (for example, Business English, Young Learners, ESP, EAP, Exam Classes, One-to-One, etc.). The EA consists of five parts: (1) specialist topic area, (2) needs analysis, (3) course proposal, (4) assessment, and (5) conclusion. To complete the assignment, candidates need to:

review the relevant literature of their chosen topic area and identify key issues explain how they identified the needs of a chosen group of learners, and how they used

diagnostic tests to establish learning priorities design a course of at least 20 hours, providing a rationale for its design, goals and teaching

approach explain how the course will be assessed and evaluated outline how the proposed course design relates to the issues identified in the introduction.

In doing so, candidates are expected to demonstrate an informed understanding of: their chosen topic area; key principles of needs analysis and diagnostic testing; key principles of and types of course and syllabus design; as well as key principles and roles of assessment. The EA is assessed according to a detailed Mark Scheme which allocates marks for each of the five assessment categories each of which is divided into three sub-categories:

Grasp of topic

Review of the relevant literature in the topic area Understanding of key issues in the topic area Application of knowledge to practice and identification of key issues Needs analysis and commentary

Key principles of needs analysis and diagnostic testing Analysis of the diagnostic test and identification of learner needs Discussion and justification of priorities supported by the needs analysis Course proposal

Key principles of syllabus and course design Justification of learning aims, teaching approach and the course in terms of learner needs Design of the course Assessment

Key principles of different types of assessment Justification of assessment procedures in terms of course design and learner needs Application of assessment procedures Presentation and organisation

Academic writing, language and referencing


Page 4

Presentation, coherence and organization Clarity of argument and quality of ideas.

These categories are marked in line with the grade profiles as outlined in the Delta Modules Handbook 2008 (page 69). Marks are awarded for each category using a band system and then totalled to form an overall grade (Distinction, Merit, Pass or Fail). The weighting for the assessment categories is as follows:

Grasp of topic (25%) Needs analysis and commentary (20%) Course proposal (25%) Assessment (20%) Presentation and organisation (10%).

2. Purpose of Report This Module Three Report is based on Extended Assignments submitted in June 2009. These assignments are independent research projects owned by candidates, so it is not appropriate to provide model sample assignments. However, this report highlights areas considered by examiners to be particularly strong or weak so as to give clearer guidance to candidates and centres. It considers each of the five categories in turn and provides specific and detailed comments to help candidates and centres. 3. Examiners’ comments The topic areas focused on (and the percentage of candidates who chose these) were as follows:

Teaching exam classes (30%) EAP (18%) Teaching young learners (13%) Business English (12%) Teaching one-to-one (8%) ESP (5%) Teaching multilingual classes (5%) Teaching monolingual classes (4%) Teaching in an non-English-speaking environment (2%) Teaching in an English-speaking environment (1%) CLIL (1%) ESOL learners with literacy needs (1%)

As predicted by examiners after the previous session in December 2008, there was a greater range of chosen topics this time. It was interesting that the most popular topic chosen was Teaching Exam Classes; this may reflect the teaching context that many candidates are working in. It is hoped that there will continue to be a wide range of chosen topics in future submissions. The following is a summary of the comments made by the examiners in relation to particular strengths and weaknesses of the assignments. 3.1 Main strengths Work was generally of a high standard with the majority of candidates taking time and trouble to do their research and to present coherent programmes. Many had done extensive reading on their specialism, needs analysis, course planning, testing and evaluation, and showed evidence of ability to relate their reading to practice. The standard of presentation was good, with many candidates using a wide range of computer resources. Layout was better overall than in previous submissions, there was less use of footnotes, and better use of appendices, and also greater adherence to the word-limit,


Page 5

which again suggests that centres are preparing candidates well. Most candidates followed the headings recommended in the handbook and the recommended word count for each section. Generally the grade for grasp of topic was a good predictor of the overall grade. There were many excellent assignments which researched the specialism in insightful ways and critiqued the literature, identified key issues and their practical implications, used a range of tools to identify needs, analysed the results thoroughly, and designed innovative course plans which were detailed and well justified and which were complemented by useful and relevant assessment, all with copious reference to key sources and in a coherent manner. The following comments made by examiners reflect specific strengths related to each of the five assessment categories: 3.1.1 Grasp of topic When selected suitably, Part 1 was handled well. Stronger assignments often had a section addressing issues which characterised the specialism, or showed how it differs from other kinds of teaching. Stronger assignments typically made reference to at least five or six relevant sources. Most candidates also made good reference to experience. 3.1.2 Needs analysis Needs analyses were generally suitable, given the context and targets. Stronger assignments focused more on real target and immediate needs and focused less on “softer” needs such as learning styles or classroom preferences. Diagnostic tests (DT) were based on information about needs gleaned from the NA itself. Summarising results of NA and DTs and identification of priorities was well done. The use of bar and pie charts was generally helpful. Stronger assignments typically made reference to at least four or five relevant sources. 3.1.3 Course proposal Stronger candidates provided a good rationale for the course design in terms of structure and content. They reflected information from learning styles or classroom preferences and commented on this in sections concerning approach, methodology and materials. Course plans were mostly suitable and met stated needs. Stronger assignments numbered and colour-coded the objectives and then reflected this coding in the plan itself to show how and when objectives were being met. Stronger assignments typically made reference to at least five or six relevant sources 3.1.4 Assessment Most candidates had good sections on assessment, some showing real insight and thoughtful design of tests and other methods of assessment. Assessment terminology was generally well understood and applied, and tests were, for pass assignments, fit for purpose and displayed good face validity. They were well chosen with due consideration for the needs of groups and the course content and the institutional requirements. Justification was generally clear. Stronger assignments typically made reference to at least five or six relevant sources. 3.1.5 Presentation and organisation Presentation overall was strong and word limits were observed. Conclusions were generally clear and for the most part showed a good summing up of thinking that went into the selection of area and course design. 3.2 Main weaknesses Failing candidates tended to have common problems such as:

failing to adequately focus the assignment by choosing a suitable specialism; considering in Part 1 only a specific class and context rather than issues relating to the

specialism in general; not referring explicitly to key sources and theory; failing to analyse learners’ needs adequately; not linking the design of the course to the needs identified.

The following comments made by examiners reflect specific weaknesses related to these areas:


Page 6

3.2.1 Choice of specialism Where the work was not of such a high standard this was often because the subjects chosen were not really sufficiently ‘specialist’; for example some candidates described issues which related only to their specific current working context such as the lack of stimulating course material in their school. Some candidates who chose teaching exam classes focused too narrowly on a specific exam class, e.g. their current FCE exam class. They needed to discuss key principles and implications for teaching (FCE) exam classes in general rather than describe the context and specific course they wanted to design. Some candidates merely described the exam in Part 1. While it is acceptable to exemplify in relation to a specific exam, the issues discussed should include general concerns which need to be taken account of in any exam teaching context, such as factors to do with motivation, to what degree to teach to the test, etc, and ways in which this differs from teaching general English. Lack of clarity as to the specialism, and failure to link the rest of the assignment to the specialism inevitably led such candidates to receive low grades overall. Some candidates clearly started off with a course which was already planned and just used the specialism as a kind of title, or way of providing some background context to the learners rather than as the starting point for investigation into a specialist area. Others described language learning in general without focusing specifically on the chosen topic in detail. Some weaker candidates misunderstood the purpose of Part 1 and used it to reference all of their reading for the whole assignment. 3.2.2 Reference to reading Weaker assignments failed to refer explicitly to the literature on needs analysis, diagnostic testing, course design, types of syllabus, principles of assessment and types of assessment. Some candidates failed to consider the theory, while others mentioned it without direct reference to key sources. Some candidates summarised the views of an author but failed to include any criticality and did not indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with the views expressed. See Section 5 below for examples of good reference to reading from different assignments. 3.2.3 Analysing learner needs In terms of needs analysis, weaker candidates tended to choose tools without explaining why, did not analyse thoroughly enough, and subsequently failed to justify learning priorities adequately with reference to the analysis. In such cases, it was difficult to see how learning priorities were derived and how course objectives stemmed from findings. Weaker candidates sometimes made assumptions from global test results and did not analyse in sufficient depth, e.g. The listening scores showed that the students listening skills were good, whereas stronger candidates analysed in more detail and identified which aspects of listening were problematic, So, for example, one candidate analysed which questions in a listening exercise had or had not been successfully answered and identified the fact that his students answered open-ended questions less well even though they had good scores overall. He was therefore able to define a specific and well justified objective for the listening element of his proposed course. Some candidates seemed to have already decided on their course focus and merely went through the motions of doing a needs analysis. Some assignments failed to append any completed diagnostic tests at all. 3.2.4 Designing the course according to learner needs Course plans were sometimes lacking in detail and rationale for sequencing; some even failed to include a course plan. Weaker candidates were unable to justify the course content adequately, and some had clearly used a course which was already planned before the assignment. Such candidates had obviously decided in advance what the problems would be and what their programme would include and more or less ignored the outcome from the tasks. 3.2.5 Others In addition to the above weaknesses, examiners also noted the following weaknesses in some assignments:


Page 7

Assessment procedures of weaker candidates tended to be superficial with little account of an overall framework, and little thought as to how the procedures fit into the course. In some cases there were no appended samples of tests.

The main problems with presentation concerned use of footnotes (which led to exceeding the

word-limit), sloppy layout and spacing between sections, poor referencing conventions, and failure to signal appendices in the main body of the assignment. Such examples suggested work which had been done in a hurry without ample regard to proof-reading and careful revision.

4. Advice for centres and candidates

The majority of assignments submitted for assessment met the criteria and represented work which demonstrated a sound grasp of candidates’ chosen specialism, principles of needs analysis, course design and assessment. There was also a good range of assignments which met the criteria for a Merit and Distinction. The following provides specific advice to both candidates and centres relating to each of the five assessment categories used to mark the EA. Centres are advised to continue to monitor candidates’ progress in this assignment, through individual tutorials and by commenting on drafts, in order to ensure that they are meeting the criteria before they complete the whole assignment. Centres should also continue to advise candidates that assignments are checked electronically for plagiarism and that plagiarism has already been and will be penalised. Plagiarism checks include checks against previously submitted assignments as well as assignments or parts of assignments which include passages copied from online resources or books. 4.1 Part 1: Topic area

General comment

Most assignments demonstrated a good understanding of the chosen topic area. However, a number of candidates failed to adequately identify a specialism from the list provided. Advice to centres and candidates: a) Candidates are advised to choose a topic area from the list of specialisms provided on p63 of the

Handbook. Candidates may focus the specialism on an area within the specialism – e.g. Teaching academic writing (EAP). It is essential that the whole assignment is clearly related to a specialism. Centres are advised to guide candidates on how to focus their assignment and how to move from the general to the specific through the assignment. So, for example, key principles of and implications for teaching academic writing should be discussed in Part 1 and issues relating to a specific group in Part 2.

b) The choice of specialism is not simply a title for the assignment. On the contrary it should underpin and inform the discussion in all the remaining sections of the assignment, e.g. when justifying the structure and content of the course programme. The starting point for the assignment is the specialism, not a particular group of learners. Thus, a candidate teaching, for example, multilingual learners will discuss issues related to Teaching multilingual learners in Part 1 of the assignment, and narrow the assignment down to his current class of learners when conducting the needs analysis in Part 2. This applies also if the candidate chooses to focus the assignment on a particular level, e.g. advanced multilingual learners, from the outset. Part 1 should consider general issues to be considered when teaching this type of class. In Part 2 the focus will be narrowed to a specific class of advanced learners.

c) Candidates focusing on Teaching examination classes, for example, need to focus their discussion in Part 1 on specific issues related to teaching such classes and how this differs from other forms of teaching rather than describe a particular exam, such as IELTS, in detail. If candidates choose to focus on an area of the specialism e.g. IELTS Listening, Part 1 needs to include discussion of issues related to preparing candidates for listening in an examination preparation context, and factors which are specific to the teaching of examination classes.

d) The review of the literature should go beyond simply finding one or two sources which describe the topic area, and should show that the candidate has read and synthesised a number of key sources. It should also contain an element of criticality.


Page 8

e) Where candidates have less extensive experience of teaching their specialism, it is important that they apply their knowledge to practice by, for example, outlining in practical terms key features of the specialism, ways in which teaching may differ from General English, and particular points which need to be considered when designing a course in this specialism.

4.2 Part 2: Needs analysis General comment Stronger assignments demonstrated an explicit understanding of needs analysis and diagnostic testing, although some candidates’ understanding had to be inferred from their choice of tools and diagnostic tests. Most assignments were strong in terms of their analysis of diagnostic tests and identification of priorities for learning, although weaker assignments tended to perform badly in this area. Advice to centres and candidates a) It is important that the needs analysis informs the subsequent design of the course rather than

being derived from a course which has already been planned, which was the case with some weaker assignments.

b) Candidates are expected to explicitly refer to principles of needs analysis and diagnostic testing with reference to terminology and sources as appropriate, without pre-empting the general discussion of testing principles in Part 4, and to show clearly how this understanding has influenced their choice of diagnostic testing procedures. Centres may wish to provide suggested reading.

c) It is important to show which diagnostic tests have been used and why, and to clearly demonstrate how analysis of these tests has been conducted and how the results of this analysis have helped the candidate identify priorities for learning.

d) Analysis of the tools used should be detailed and clearly indicate how learning priorities have been arrived at. A clear summary of the analysis, possibly in chart format in the appendix, should be provided, so as to show how the results have been synthesised.

e) It is important for candidates to provide a completed example of all diagnostic tests given in the appendix. Where many different diagnostic tests have been used, it is important to provide a summary of these in the appendix, preferably in a chart format for readers’ ease of access.

4.3 Part 3: Course proposal General comment This part of the assignment was generally successfully done. Most assignments demonstrated an ability to design a realistic and appropriate course and to justify content, sequencing, teaching approach and materials with reference to the needs analysis. However, some candidates seemed to have started the assignment with a course in mind and tried to make the needs analysis fit the course post-hoc, while others failed to explicitly refer to principles of course design and types of syllabus. See section 6 below for extracts of course plans from stronger assignments which illustrate the level of detail and specificity required for this assignment. Advice to centres and candidates a) It is important that the course plan is developed out of the needs analysis and justified explicitly in

terms of the results and priorities identified in Part 2 of the assignment. Some candidates presented a course which was clearly already being taught, and which had clearly been designed before writing the assignment.

b) In cases where candidates are conducting a needs analysis for a group which they are already teaching and for which a real course may already have been planned or imposed by the candidate’s institution, it is important that the course designed and presented in Part 3 of the assignment reflects the results of the needs analysis even if this means it differing from the actual course being taught.

c) Candidates are expected to explicitly refer to principles of course and syllabus design and types of syllabus with reference to terminology and sources as appropriate, and to show clearly how this understanding has influenced their choice and sequencing of course content and teaching approach. Centres may wish to provide suggested reading.


Page 9

d) It is important to outline how the different strands of the course and different lessons relate to one another. Simply allocating different lessons and lesson aims to slots in a 20-hour timetable without sufficient justification is not sufficient. Some candidates simply presented a number of lesson plans for individual lessons without indicating how they related to each other. See section 6 below for extracts of good course plans.

4.4 Part 4: Assessment General comment This part of the assignment was the most successful in terms of overall marks. Most candidates demonstrated an ability to choose suitable assessment procedures for their course with reference to learner needs, course content and approach, and explicitly referred to principles and types of assessment. Some candidates, however, seemed to have chosen tests which were part of the actual course they were teaching, and were unable to justify these in relation to their course aims and learner needs.

Advice to centres and candidates It is important for candidates to ensure that their assessment procedures are justified in terms of the course and learner needs outlined in Parts 2 and 3 of the assignment. a) Candidates should clearly show how they intend to make use of formative assessment during

their course to monitor learners’ progress, and how the results of this formative assessment might be used to adapt the course content and/or approach.

b) It is important that candidates clearly indicate what will be tested when during their course, and that they show how each individual test relates to an overall framework. Sample tests should be included in the appendix.

c) Candidates are expected to explicitly refer to principles of assessment with reference to terminology and sources as appropriate, and to show clearly how this understanding has influenced their choice of assessment procedures. Centres may wish to provide suggested reading.

d) Some candidates, particularly those who chose the specialism ‘Teaching Exam Classes’, simply justified their assessment procedures by using exam practice tests for example. In such cases it is not sufficient to state that Examination Board tests for the exam under discussion are valid and reliable. Further depth of justification is required.

e) Candidates are also expected to indicate, with reference to the literature, how they intend to evaluate their course formatively and summatively.

4.5 Presentation and organisation General comment Most assignments were well-presented and organised and demonstrated a good ability to develop ideas, argue clearly and support points made with reference to analysis and other documentation. However, some assignments again used footnotes as a way of circumventing the word-limit, while others failed to signpost their appendices properly, thus making it hard at times for readers to follow and access important information. Advice to centres and candidates a) Footnotes should not be used at all for this assignment. All references and terminology are to be

included in the text and count towards the overall word-limit. b) The word-limit for the assignment should be adhered to. c) It is important that all the parts of the assignment are linked and build on one another. Stronger

assignments did this successfully, while weaker ones gave the impression of having been written in isolation from one another.

d) Summaries of key data may be included in the text itself for readers’ ease of reference, but further detail should be put into the appendix.

e) Sub-headings help organise each part of the assignment and enable readers to better follow the arguments being made. Some of the better assignments made good use of the questions in the ‘Handbook for tutors and candidates’ (pages 64-5) to organise sub-headings.

f) Candidates would benefit from knowing how to include pie-charts, graphs, colour-coding etc.


Page 10

4.6 General Advice Background reading There should be explicit evidence of background reading in all of the first four sections of the assignment. This will typically include a minimum of five or six sources for each section. Referencing should follow a recognised format (such as APA) throughout the assignment (see p 66 of the Handbook), and the bibliography should only include sources which have been referred to in the assignment. In text referencing should include the author and year only (i.e. Hedge, 2000). Page numbers should only be used for direct quotations (Hedge, 2000:46). See section 5 below for examples of ways in which stronger assignments referred to background reading. Word count The word limit for this assignment is 4,500 words. Assignments which exceed 4,500 words will be penalised during marking. Any assignments which exceed 4,600 words will be returned to candidates unmarked. Candidates should use the ‘word count’ function in ‘Word’ (by highlighting all their text between the end of the contents pages and the start of the bibliography section) to monitor their number of words, and they are advised to note that examiners will automatically check all word counts before marking. Appendices Appendices need to be numbered and clearly signposted in the text itself in the order in which they are referred to in the text. The assignment should be readable without the appendices, which should be used to provide additional documentation which readers can refer to for further information as they wish. Readers should not need to read all the appendices in detail in order to make sense of the assignment. Candidates are not required to include copies of all questionnaires and diagnostic tests from all learners, but they should include single copies completed by learners and a summary analysis of the findings. Similarly, candidates are expected to include samples of assessments (and possibly also samples of materials) to be used in their course. 4.7 Common failings This section outlines many of the common failings of candidates:

failure to focus the assignment on a clear specialism from the list provided

lack of discussion of what makes the specialism unique

insufficient reference to reading in Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4

poor justification for need analysis tools used

lack of samples of diagnostic tests used

insufficient detail / depth of analysis of diagnostic assessment

failure to identify priorities from the diagnostic tools used

poor justification for the course in terms of the learner needs identified

lack of an explicit course plan

insufficient detail in course plan

lack of clarity as to what will be assessed and how

failure to mention how the course will be evaluated

exceeding the word-limit

lack of follow through from section to section

failure to signpost appendices in the main body of the text.


Page 11

Advice to candidates Candidates are advised to make use of the following checklist as a final check before submitting their assignment.

clearly chosen a specialism from the list provided, and indicated this on the cover page?

Yes/no

outlined key features of the specialism and indicated what distinguishes it from other forms of teaching?

referred to and commented on background reading and key sources throughout? discussed principles underlying NA / DT, CSD, assessment, etc clearly justified my choice of needs analysis tools? included completed samples of diagnostic tests used in the appendix? analysed the results of the diagnostic tests adequately? justified the learning priorities I have identified clearly in relation to my needs analysis?

justified my course objectives in terms of learner needs? justified the design and content of my course plan added my course plan as an appendix to the main body of the text? included sufficient detail in my course plan? made it clear what I will assess and how, with samples in the appendix? outlined how the course will be evaluated? respected the word-limit and indicated the word count on the cover page? linked all parts of the assignment coherently to one another?

Have I

signposted all the appendices clearly in the main body of the text?

5. Examples of reference to reading The following examples illustrate the ways in which stronger assignments referred to background reading. Examples from Grasp of Topic Section Example 1 Although learner-centeredness has been a key concept in adult EFL for years, many teachers believe that teens are too young to have a say in what is taught. Puchta and Schratz disagree; connecting course content to students' real-life experiences "make the end goals of language learning seem nearer and more motivating" (1992:1). Example 2 A number of writers feel that there is a fundamental dichotomy between EAP and general English. Benson, for example, argues that with regards to listening skills, those required in an academic environment are “quantitatively and qualitatively different than those within an ESL classroom” (1989:422). From my experience in both sectors I would not go this far……. Examples from Needs Analysis Section Example 1 The learner analysis of the students/group included both objective data and subjective data, which as Nunan (1988a) states is important in matching the expectations of the group and EFL provider. This is particularly important because…. Example 2 Yalden (1987:131) suggests three categories within which to base a needs analysis - background information, language needs and learning styles - and it is from this framework that I designed mine (see appendix A).


Page 12

Examples from Course Proposal section Example 1 The speaking skills course places the emphasis on process over product (Nunan 1988a) and closely follows a ‘needs generated task based syllabus design’ (Long, in Nunan 1988b:47). Example 2 I agree that not tackling grammar problems directly “seems an abdication of responsibility” (Brinton & Holten, 2001:250) and that grammar instruction is essential if students are to achieve their academic potential (Hinkel, 2004). Examples from Assessment section Example 1 I have chosen continuous assessment as opposed to one single exam because I believe it best exemplifies Chapelle and Brindley's definition of assessment: "the act of collecting information and making judgments on a language learner's knowledge of a language and ability to use it" (2002:267). Example 2 Going back to the aims and objectives that arose from the need analysis helped me focus on what I wanted to evaluate; a view held by Weir and Roberts (1994:84). Examples of good referencing to appendices Example 1 The diagnostic test results (see Appendix 2.4) reflect this need for practising reading skills because 75% of learners did not complete the reading task within the allotted 25 minute time limit allowed. Example 2 I analysed their writing for problem areas with grammar and organisation (see Appendix 5b) 6. Examples of Course plans The following examples from three course plans illustrate the ways in which stronger assignments presented their course plans.


Page 13

Sample 1: An EAP course Key: X = learner; T = teacher; Voice techniques; Learner training; Oral presentations (OPs); oral exams (OEs); Literature reviews (LRs) = continuity of learning experience Lesson Date

Ref. to course

objective

Lesson content (learning experiences, evaluation, feedback, etc)

Materials Homework

1. 09/09/09

Di A, B, C.

Warmer: informal chat about X’s new university course Orientation learner training – intro to ‘tool kit’/portfolio (discussion of learning

strategies, formulating a learning plan, setting personal goals) Genre intro (OPs, OEs and LRs) – what do you already know, use

internet to search for examples, discuss

Choose 3 articles (also send to T), read and prepare to introduce subject, summarise, give opinions and examples

2. 16/09/09

Ai, Bi Biv Di Ci, Cii Di

Q & A of OPs and oral exams: Overt focus on discourse differences between the two); Practice: giving opinions

ACTIVITY: X presents homework Add phrases/examples to ‘tool kit’ checklists

LRs: Overt focus on discourse, including plagiarism issues.

Practice: paraphrasing and referencing authors

Add examples to ‘tool kit’ checklists

Hargreaves & Fletcher (1981:32-4);Keller & Warner (2002:54-6) Jordan (1999:.87,93-4,96-7); Williams (1982:86-7)

Briefly summarise 3 articles: use non direct citation

Examiners’ comments The course plan itself is clearly colour coded, sequencing is highlighted, and the course is well-designed. The objectives are suitable and the plan is very clear in showing which areas are addressed and how / when.


Page 14

Sample 2: An EAP course

Product / Content Syllabus

Process Syllabus

Skills Syllabus

Week & focus

Lesson

Grammar Lexis Writing Product

Writing Process

Reading Skills

1:1 Feedba

ck

Main Homework

L1

Introduction to the whole writing process – in-class writing

L2 Skimming &

scanning

Week 1 Lead-in: essays and essay writing

L3 Conjunctions 1

Essay analysis – introduce terminology and organisation.

Write 300 word essay

L1 Thesis statements Brainstorming

L2 Introductions – organisation and

content. Analyse former students’ introductions

Week 2 Introductions

L3 Prefixes &

suffixes Deducing

meaning of unknown lexis

Write introduction from given essay title.

L1

Organisation of main body, inc. counterarguments and topic sentences

L2

Conjunctions 2: Co-ordinating and subordinating conjunctions (1 hr)

Planning, writing & peer-correcting mini-essay in class (1hr)

Week 3 Main body: organisation & cohesion

L3 Linking words & phrases review – gap fill using whole essay. Preceded by reading the essay to understand its organisation (revision from week 1).

Write plan of

assignment

Examiners’ comments Well planned and designed course. Information from students is crystallised into 7 course objectives which are relevant and realistic. The plan is impressive in that it shows how the syllabus types discussed are met over the course.


Page 15

Sample 3: An EAP course

MONDAY Morning Session: Test/Assessment 1 – Speaking Diagnostic Main Aim: To enable the teacher to assess the speaking level of the students. Subsidiary Aim:

To develop the students’ confidence in speaking English. To get to know the students on a personal level.

Major Activities: Teacher asks students questions about familiar topics. Materials: Speaking Assessment Test.

Afternoon Session: 1.1 – Spoken vs Written English Main Aim: To enable the students to identify the difference between spoken and written English. Major Activities:

Students are presented texts. Through genre analysis, they must analyse and identify the different features.

Discussion of features in class, with teacher filling in as necessary. Materials: Two pieces of text, both of which contain the same content, but one of which is written in formal academic English, the other which is a transcript of a monologue. TUESDAY Morning Session: 2.1 – Key Characteristics of British Academic Culture Main Aim: To enable the students to understand the differences between British and their own academic culture. Major Activities:

Students reflect on their own academic experience / cultures. Students listen to and read relevant texts, and develop their knowledge.

Materials:

Audio examples of lectures and seminars. Samples of writing which is written by students from different academic backgrounds.

Afternoon Session: 3.1 – Receptive skills Overview Main Aim: To enable the students to analyse and evaluate their current practice in reading and listening. Major Activities:

Students complete a self-assessment before and after a range of reading/listening activities. Students identify their strengths and weaknesses, which can be used as a platform for future

development. Materials:

Excerpt from a lecture (and its transcript). Piece of authentic academic writing. Self-assessment forms.


Page 16

WEDNESDAY Morning Session: 3.2 – Reading Skills 1 Main Aim: To review core reading skills. Subsidiary Aim: To check the students’ understanding of and ability to skim read, scan read and read for gist. Major Activities:

Students read the text in the way they normally would. Discussion and feedback. T guides them to improved techniques. Students repeat. Further discussion and feedback.

Materials: Text about the Houses of Parliament (adapted from the Guardian newspaper). Afternoon Session: 3.3 – Listening Skills 1 Main Aim: To review core listening skills. Subsidiary Aim: To check the students’ understanding of and ability to listen for gist signposting, transition etc. Major Activities:

Students listen to the audio in the way they normally would. Discussion and feedback. T guides them to improved techniques. Students repeat. Further discussion and feedback.

Materials: Audio piece from the BBC World Service (which focuses on the current economic crisis). THURSDAY Morning Session: 3.4 Speaking Skills 1 Main Aim: To review core speaking skills. Major Activities

Students are involved in a range of different speaking tasks. T monitors, and gauges class and individual strengths and weaknesses.

Weaknesses are then worked in the class. Materials: None. Afternoon Session: 4.1 – Learning Strategies Main Aim: To enable the students to understand the range of autonomous learning strategies which they can use in order to become more effective students.

Subsidiary Aim: To make the students aware of some of the techniques which will be used on this particular course. Major Activities: Focus on strategies such as a vocabulary notebook, process writing, peer correction – students experience and discuss which is most appropriate for them as individuals.

Materials: Vocabulary notebook (example).Student-generated texts (for process writing and peer correction). Examiners’ comments The course programme is well designed and reflects the issues raised in the results of the needs analysis. Objectives are numbered and then linked to the plan, which shows which aims are to be addressed, how, and using what materials / resources.


Page 17

7. Bibliography Below is a summary of reading references collated from a range of specialisms. Centres may wish to use this as a starting point for developing their own reading lists for the specialisms they are supporting. It is not intended to be a definitive or a prescriptive list but is an indication of which references candidates have found useful in researching their assignments. 7.1 Teaching exam classes Baxter, A. (1997). Evaluating Your Students. New York: Richmond Publishing. Bowler, B & Parminter, S. (2004). Continuous Assessment. ETP, 31. Brown, H. D. (1993). The Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (3rd ed.). Eaglewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice Hall. Burgess, S. & Head, K. (2005). How To Teach for Exams. Harlow: Longman. Flower, J. (1996). First Certificate Organiser (2nd ed). Hove: LTP. Haines, S. & May, P. (2006). IELTS Masterclass Student's Book. Oxford: OUP. Harmer, J. (2005). How to Teach for Exams. Harlow: Longman. Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: CUP. Jakeman, V. & McDowell, C (2001). Insight into IELTS. Cambridge: CUP. May, P. (1996). Exam Classes. Oxford: OUP. McNamara, T. (2000). Language Testing. Oxford: OUP. Pearson S. (2002). Focus on IELTS. London: Pearson. Prodromou, L. (1995). The Backwash Effect. ELTJ, 49(1). Wallace, C. (1997). IELTS: global implications of curriculum and design materials. ELTJ, 51(4). 7.2 EAP Bailey, S. (2003). Academic Writing: A Handbook for International Students. New York: Routlege. Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for Academic Purposes. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Cox, K. & Hill, D. (2004). EAP Now. London: Pearson. Cox, K. & Hill, D. (2007). EAP Now Preliminary. London: Pearson. Coxhead, A. (2000). ‘A new academic word list’. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213-238. Dudley-Evans, T. (2001). Team-teaching in EAP: Changes and adaptations in the Birmingham

approach. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacook (Eds.), Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes (pp. 225-238). Cambridge: CUP.

Flowerdew, J. & Peacook, M. (2001a). ‘Issues in EAP: A preliminary perspective’ In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacook (Eds.), Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes (pp. 8-24). Cambridge: CUP.

Flowerdew, J. & Peacook, M. (2001b). ‘The EAP Curriculum: Issues, methods and challenges’ In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacook (Eds.), Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes (pp. 177-194). Cambridge: CUP.

Gillet, A. (2000). What is EAP? Retrieved 02.05.09, from http://www.uefap.com/articles/eap.htm Hamp-Lyons, L. (2008). English for Academic Purposes. In R. Carter, & D. Nunan (Eds.), Teaching

English to Speakers of Other Languages (pp. 126-130). Cambridge: CUP. Hyland, K. (2006). English for Academic purposes: An advanced resource book. London: Routledge. Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for Academic Purposes: A guide and resource book for teachers.

Cambridge: CUP. Jordan, R. R. (1999) Academic Writing Course: Study skills in English (3rd ed.). Harlow: Longman. Kennedy, C. (2001). ‘Language use, language planning and EAP’. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacook

(Eds.), Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes (pp. 25-42). Cambridge: CUP. Stoller, F. L. (2001) ‘The Curriculum Renewal Process in English for Academic Purposes’ In J.

Flowerdew & M. Peacook (Eds.), Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes (pp. 208-224). Cambridge: CUP.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: CUP. 7.3 Teaching young learners Bourke, J.M. (2006). Designing a topic-based syllabus for young learners, ELTJ, 60(3). Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge: CUP. Gardner, H. (I995). The Unschooled Mind: How Children think and how Schools should Teach. New

York: Basic Books. Lewis, G. (2007). Teenagers. Oxford: OUP.


Page 18

Loannou-Georgia, S & Pavlou, P. (2003). Assessing Young Learners. Oxford: OUP. Moon, J. (2005). Children Learning English. London: Macmillan. Scott, W. A & Ytreberg, L.H. (1990). Teaching English to Children. Harlow: Longman. 7.4 Business English Brieger, N. (1997). The York Associates Teaching Business English Handbook. York: York

Associates. Brieger, N. & Comfort, J. (1998). Business English Meetings. London: Penguin Books. Donna S. (2000). Teach Business English Cambridge: Cambridge: CUP. Ellis, M. & Johnson, C. (2005). Teaching Business English. Oxford Handbook for Language Teachers.

Oxford: OUP. Frendo, E. (2005). How to teach Business English. Harlow: Longman. Hughes, J. (2006). Telephone English. London: Macmillan. Lloyd, A. & Preier, A. (1996). Business Communication Games. Oxford: OUP. Mascull, B. (2002). Business Vocabulary in Use. Cambridge: CUP. 7.5 Teaching one-to-one Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: OUP. Bowen, T. (2008). One Stop English. One-to-one: 10 practical teaching tips. Retrieved 25.11.08 from:

http://www.onestopenglish.com/section.asp?catid=58054&docid=144647 Cunningham, S. & Moor, P (1999). Cutting Edge Upper Intermediate Teacher’s Book. Harlow:

Longman. Gomm, H. (2001). Inside Out Upper Intermediate Teacher’s Book. London: Macmillan. Graves, K. (2000). Designing Language Courses. New York: Heinle & Heinle. Meldrum, N. & Clandfield, L. “One-to-one: Methodology”. Retrieved 22.06.08 from:

http://www.onestopenglish.com/section.asp?sectionType=listsummary&catid=58050&docid=144657

Murphey, T. (1991). Teaching One to One. Harlow: Longman. Osborne, P. (2005). Teaching English One to One. Modern English Publishing. Rea-Dickins, P. & Germaine, K. (1992). Evaluation. Oxford: OUP. Scrivener, J. “One-to-one: teaching tips - Tips for longer lessons”. Retrieved 20.08.09 from:

http://www.onestopenglish.com/section.asp?catid=58054&docid=144648 Thornbury, S. (2006). An A-Z of ELT. London: Macmillan. Triggs, T.D. (1996). First Certificate Testbuilder. London: Heinemann. Wilberg, P. (1987). One to One. Hove: Language Teaching Productions. 7.6 ESP Corbett, J. (2002). English for International Banking and Finance. Cambridge: CUP. Dudley-Evans, T. & St. John, M.J. (1998). Developments in English for Specific Purposes: A Multi-

disciplinary Approach. Cambridge: CUP. Gatehouse, K. (2001). Key Issues in ESP Curriculum Development. Retrieved 18.05.09 from

http://iteslj.org/Articles/Gatehouse‐ESP.html Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. (1992). English for Specific Purposes: A learning-centred approach.

Cambridge: CUP. McKenzie, I. (2007). Professional English in Use – Finance. Cambridge: CUP. Robinson, P. (1991) ESP Today: A practitioner’s Guide. New York: Prentice Hall. Lorenzo Fiorito. Teaching English for Specific Purposes. Retrieved 25.05.09 from: http://www.usingenglish.com/teachers/articles/teaching-english-for-specific-purposes-esp.html Attaolah M. ESP Teaching: A Matter of Controversy. Retrieved on 25.05.09 from http://www.esp-

world.info/Articles_17/PDF/ESP Teaching Iran.pdf 7.7 Teaching multilingual classes Crystal, D. (2003). English as a Global Language. Cambridge: CUP. Dunnet C. Dubin F. & Lezberg A. (1981). English Language Teaching from an Intercultural

Perspective. In J.M. Valdes (Ed.), Culture Bound. Cambridge: CUP. Gibson, R. (2000). Intercultural Business Communication. Oxford: OUP. Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: OUP. Hyde, B. (2000). Teachers as learners: beyond language learning. ELTJ 54(3). Finkbeiner, C. (2008). Culture and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from Good

Language Learners. Cambridge: CUP.


Page 19

Osstyn, L. (2004). Teaching Multilingual versus Monolingual Classes. Retrieved 26.05.09 from www.teflonline/net

Richard-Amato, P. & Snow, M. (1992). The Multicultural Classroom. New York: Addison-Wesley. 7.8 Teaching monolingual classes Atkinson, D. (1993). Teaching Monolingual Classes. London: Longman. Atkinson, D. (1995). English only in the Classroom: Why do we do it?

http://ettc.uwb.edu.pl/strony/ptt/feb95/8.html Clanfield, L & Foord, D. (2003). Using L1 in the classroom. HLT, 5(1).

http://www.hltmag.co.uk/jan03/mart2.htm Gass, S & Selinker, L. (1992). Language transfer in language learning. Michigan: Michigan State

University Press. Gill, S. (2005). The L1 in the L2 Classroom. HLT, 7(5). http://www.hltmag.co.uk/jan03/mart2.htm Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or Non-native: Who's Worth More? ELTJ, 46(4), 340-349. Odlin,T. (1989). Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning. Cambridge:

CUP. Osstyn, L. (2007). Teaching Multilingual Vs Monolingual Classes.

http://www.teflonline.net/articles/complete_articles.php?index=606&category=45 Swan, M. & Smith, B. (1990). Learner English. Cambridge: CUP. Willis, J. (1981). Teaching English through English. Harlow: Longman. 7.9 Teaching in an non-English-speaking environment Alptekin, C. (1983). The question of Culture: EFL teaching in non-English-speaking countries. ELTJ,

38(1). Bolitho, R. (1982). Talking Shop – The Communicative Teaching of English in non-English Speaking

Countries. ELTJ, 37(3). Edwards, C. & Willis, J. (2005). Teachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching. London:

Palgrave Macmillan. Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (1999). How Languages Are Learned. Oxford: OUP. Peretz, A. (1988). Language and EFL Teacher Preparation in Non-English-Speaking Environments.

ELTJ, 37(4), 304-311. Scharle, Á. and Szabó, A. (2000). Learner Autonomy. Cambridge: CUP. Tarnopolsky, Oleg (1999). Teaching English Intensively in a Non-English Speaking country: Theory,

Practice and Results. ERIC ED428579 7.10 Teaching in an English-speaking environment Jacobson, R. (1976). Incorporating Sociolinguistic Norms into an EFL Program. TESOL Quarterly,

10(4), 411-422. Lam, W. (2007). Raising students' awareness of the features of real-world listening input. In J.

Richards & W. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in Language Teaching (pp. 248-253). New York: CUP.

Tomalin, B. & Stempleski, S. (1993). Cultural Awareness. Hong Kong: OUP. 7.11 CLIL Ball P. What is CLIL? Retrieved 8 February, 2009, from:

http://www.onestopenglish.com/section.asp?docid=166604 Darn S. (2006). CLIL: A lesson frame. Retrieved 1 May, 2009, from:

http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/articles/clil-a-lesson-framework Lauder N. (2009) Clarifying CLIL. Retrieved 1 May, 2009, from:

http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/try/uk-publishers/oup/clarifying-clil Marsh,D. & Maljers, A. (2001), CLIL Compendium. Retrieved 1 May, 2009, from:

http://www.clilcompendium.com Mackenzie A. How should CLIL work in practice? Retrieved 3 May, 2009, from:

http://www.developingteachers.com/articles_tchtraining/clilpf_alex.htm Tenant A. The CLIL Debate: an EFL Teacher’s perspective. Retrieved 8 February, 2009, from:

http://www.onestopenglish.com/section.asp?catid=58057&docid=157120 Tiblom L. (2005) CLIL Content and Language Integrated Learning. Retreived 2 May, 2009 from:

www.talk-it.se/clilreport.doc


Page 20

7.12 ESOL learners with literacy needs Auerbach, E. (2002). The power of writing, the writing of power: approaches to adult ESOL writing.

Language Issues 14(1). DfES (2001). The Adult ESOL Core Curriculum. DfES. DfES (2003). Diagnostic Assessment Materials. ESOL Pack. DfES. Karlsen, L. (2005). The ESOL Literacy Resource Pack (2nd edn). Lisa Karlsen. Khanna, A., Mahendra K., Agnihotri, R. & Sinha, S. (1998). Adult ESOL Learners in Britain. London:

Multilingual Matters Ltd. LLU+ (1994). Multilingual Negotiation Pack. London: Language and Literacy Unit. Spiegel, M. & Sunderland, H. (1999). Writing Works – using a genre approach for teaching writing to

adults and young people in ESOL and Basic Education classes. London: Language and Literacy Unit.

Spiegel, M. & Sunderland, H. (2005). Teaching Basic Literacy to ESOL Learners. London: Language and Literacy Unit.

Sunderland, H. (1997). Dyslexia and the Bilingual Learner. London: Language and Literacy Unit. Williams, J. (2003). Teaching Literacy in ESOL Classes (2nd edn.). London: Avantibooks.

Documents

Delta Module Three Principal Examiners Report June 2009