Delta Module Three

Examination Report

June 2009

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
Teaching Awards
Delta Module Three Report June 2009
Page 2

Delta Module Three Principal Examiners 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

Teaching Awards
Delta Module Three Report June 2009
Page 3

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,
Teaching Awards
Delta Module Three Report June 2009
Page 4

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:

Teaching Awards
Delta Module Three Report June 2009
Page 5

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:
Teaching Awards
Delta Module Three Report June 2009
Page 6

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.
Teaching Awards
Delta Module Three Report June 2009
Page 7

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
candidates 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.
Teaching Awards
Delta Module Three Report June 2009
Page 8

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.
Teaching Awards
Delta Module Three Report June 2009
Page 9

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.

Teaching Awards
Delta Module Three Report June 2009
Page 10

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

clearly chosen a specialism from the list provided, and indicated this on the cover
page?
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?
signposted all the appendices clearly in the main body of the text?

Yes/no

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).

Teaching Awards
Delta Module Three Report June 2009
Page 11

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.

Teaching Awards
Delta Module Three Report June 2009
Page 12

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

Di

A, B, C.

Ai, Bi

Q & A of OPs and oral exams: Overt focus on discourse

differences between the two); Practice: giving opinions

Biv
Di

ACTIVITY: X presents homework

Add phrases/examples to tool kit checklists

Ci, Cii

LRs: Overt focus on discourse, including plagiarism issues.

Practice: paraphrasing and referencing authors

Di

Add examples to tool kit checklists

1.
09/09/09

2.
16/09/09

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

Materials

Homework

Choose 3 articles (also

send to T), read and
prepare to introduce
subject, summarise,
give opinions and
examples

Warmer: informal chat about Xs 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

Hargreaves &
Briefly summarise 3
Fletcher (1981:32-4); articles: use non direct
Keller & Warner
citation
(2002:54-6)

Jordan (1999:.87,934,96-7); Williams

(1982:86-7)

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.

Teaching Awards
Delta Module Three Report June 2009
Page 13

Sample 2: An EAP course

Week &
focus

Lesso
n

Grammar

Product / Content
Syllabus
Lexis
Writing
Product

L1

Week 2

Conjunctions
1

Thesis statements

Week 3
L1
Main body:
organisati
on &
cohesion

L2

L3

Main
Homework

Write 300
word essay

Brainstorming

Introductions organisation and

content. Analyse former students
introductions

L2

L3

1:1
Feedba
ck

Essay analysis introduce

terminology and organisation.

L1

Introductio
ns

Reading
Skills

Skimming &
scanning

L2

L3

Skills Syllabus

Introduction to the
whole writing
process in-class
writing

Week 1
Lead-in:
essays
and essay
writing

Process
Syllabus
Writing
Process

Prefixes &
suffixes

Deducing
meaning of
unknown lexis

Write
introduction
from given
essay title.

Organisation of main body, inc.

counterarguments and topic
sentences
Conjunctions 2: Coordinating and
subordinating conjunctions
(1 hr)
Linking words & phrases review gap fill using whole essay.
Preceded by reading the essay to understand its organisation
(revision from week 1).

Planning, writing &

peer-correcting miniessay in class
(1hr)

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.
Teaching Awards
Delta Module Three Report June 2009
Page 14

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.

Teaching Awards
Delta Module Three Report June 2009
Page 15

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.

Teaching Awards
Delta Module Three Report June 2009
Page 16

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.
Teaching Awards
Delta Module Three Report June 2009
Page 17

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 Teachers Book. Harlow:
Longman.
Gomm, H. (2001). Inside Out Upper Intermediate Teachers 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=14465
7
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 Multidisciplinary Approach. Cambridge: CUP.
Gatehouse, K. (2001). Key Issues in ESP Curriculum Development. Retrieved 18.05.09 from
http://iteslj.org/Articles/GatehouseESP.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 practitioners 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.espworld.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.
Teaching Awards
Delta Module Three Report June 2009
Page 18

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, . and Szab, 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 Teachers 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
Teaching Awards
Delta Module Three Report June 2009
Page 19

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.

Teaching Awards
Delta Module Three Report June 2009
Page 20