Module Title: Teaching English through Literature

Module Code: NB5043HUM

Assignment Brief

Coursework Title: Lesson Plan & Rationale: Materials design Coursework Number:
of a teaching English through literature unit with rationale. CW1
Module Leader: Erandi Harischandra Hand-in date and
Email: harischandra@nibm.lk time:
05 July 2021
Week 08
Module Staff: N/A Individual assignment
Word Count: 2000 Words This assignment
2000 (-/+10%) counts for 50% of
module marks
Estimated Time (hrs.): 50 hours.
Online submission arrangement via Mark and Feedback date:
Moodle: Week 08
To be submitted via Turnitin link to
LMS Mark and Feedback method:
written via LMS

Task/Question

Task

Materials design of a teaching English through literature unit with rationale (which
can be used in the micro teaching session related to cw 2)

The word count for both should be around 2000 words in total (+/- 10%).

If there is anything that you do not understand about this assignment brief once
you have read it fully, or you have any concerns about it, please contact the
Module Leader immediately. Their name and contact details are at the top of this
brief.

Materials design of a teaching English through literature unit with rationale.

Part 1:

Imagine that you will be doing a micro teaching session for 10 minutes. Now select an area / topic / lesson / activity related to teaching
English as a second language and design your materials for the 10-minute session. You are required to use any literary text such as a
poem or excerpts from a short story/ drama /novel etc.). The teaching session is based on this literary text.

Since it is a micro teaching session with a short period of time, you are encouraged to select a suitable activity that can be completed
within 10 minutes time.

Eg. One of the below

 A revision task
 One language focus activity: vocabulary or grammar
  One receptive skill focus activity (reading or listening)

 One productive skill focus activity which allows for learners to receive feedback.

 One interactive task where learners have the chance to discuss with each other.

Explain the procedure of the micro teaching session briefly by using the following table format and also attach the study materials sued
for the session.
Lesson Plan – procedure

Stage /
Time What you will do Why you’ll do it What the Ls will do Interaction
activity

Eg.

First 5
minutes
/ lead in

Eg.

Next 5
minutes
/ main
activity

The number of words used to describe the lesson plan for the 10 minute session and the words used to present / attach the study
materials is not calculated and only the number of words used for the rationale is calculated.
Rationale (2000 words) : You need to provide a rationale for the design of your activity / lesson for the micro-teaching session. That
means it needs to explain the decisions that you made when creating the activities (types of question, order of activities etc.
It should include:

 A rationale for the topic chosen and a justification of the material design.
 An explanation of the expected learning outcomes (what will the students learn) and how the materials will meet these objectives.

 A reflection on the platform and tools that have been used to create the materials/activities and their strengths/weaknesses for
creating effective English language learning activities.

Your discussion must be supported by relevant scholarly background reading – minimum of 3-4 texts.

Refer to your sources as required by the CU-Harvard style in-text (author, date, page if applicable) and add a reference section at the end
of your text.

This is a take-home assignment.

You are required to upload the typed answer to the LMS under the relevant module.
You should include any lesson materials / aids that you will have to use in delivering this
lesson, but please note that they do not count towards the word limit of 2000 words.

Module Learning Outcomes

Assessed in this
 assignment?

LO1: 1. Understand and assess major methodological yes

approaches to the integration of literary texts into the
TESOL classroom.
LO2 2. Select literary texts and demonstrate how they yes
could be used in a TESOL setting.
LO3 3. Deliver a microteaching session and reflect on it. No

You will find full details of how these Learning Outcomes will be assessed by this
assignment in the marking rubric at the end of this brief. You should read this as it
explains how submitted work achieves certain grades. It will be useful in preparing your
assignment as well as in understanding your feedback.

Marking Process and Feedback

The work will be assessed by the Module team in accordance with the CU Assessment and Feedback policy (2017). Feedback will be
given via LMS. Feedback will be released within three weeks of the assessment deadline, in line with University requirements.
Ethics
N/A

Extensions and Mitigating Circumstances

We want you to do your best in each assessment. However, we know that sometimes events happen that are either beyond your control
or not easy to predict and which mean that you will not be able to submit your coursework by the deadline. If this happens, you can apply
for an extension to your deadline according to our regulations. If you need longer than the extension window, you can apply for a
deferral, which takes you to the next assessment period. You must apply for an extension or a deferral before the assignment deadline
stated in your module guide.
Apply for an extension or deferral by speaking to a member of the Administrative Team.
Please note: under no circumstances are module staff allowed to give unofficial extensions.

Late or non-submission
If you fail to submit work for the module or submit an assessed piece of work late without an agreed extension, you will receive a mark of
0% for that piece of work. You will however be eligible for a resit attempt at the next available assessment opportunity (normally in week
12 of semester 2). If you pass from the resit attempt, then your mark will be capped at 40%. Refer to the regulations regarding further
resit attempts.

Academic Misconduct

We expect all students to act with academic integrity, which means that they will study and produce work in an open, honest and
responsible manner.

Academic misconduct covers any action by a student to gain unfair advantage (e.g. extra marks) for her/himself, or for another student, in
their assessed work. It not only damages your personal reputation, but also the reputation of the entire university, and it will not be
tolerated. There are severe penalties for students who are found guilty of academic misconduct ranging from obtaining a mark of 0% for
the piece of work concerned, through to exclusion from the university.

Many modules require you to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the work of others (artists, makers, practitioners, academics,
designers, performers, etc.). It is of fundamental importance that you make it absolutely clear when you are using work from other
sources, and that you reference it clearly and correctly. If you are unsure how to reference, please refer to the CU Harvard Referencing
Guide here and speak to a tutor on the module immediately.

Assessment Criteria

Detailed Marking Rubric/Scheme for the detailed lesson plan in the form of an essay

A. Overall report structure - 10 marks:

Even and clear structure: introduction, main core and conclusion
Good paragraph organisation
Information well integrated into the answer
Page numbers included
B. Content and argumentation/clarity - 70 marks:
Relevant information selected
Critical evaluation of evidence
Coherent and logical line of reasoning
Supporting arguments with evidence/examples
Good paraphrasing and/or summary of academic sources used
Answer in keeping with the title set
Answer meets set criteria
Evidence of having read widely
Appropriate statement of conclusion
C. Quality of the academic writing style - 10 marks:
 Appropriate register of academic writing used
Accurate grammar (including sentence structure)
Accurate spelling
Appropriate vocabulary
D. Referencing - 10 marks:
Accurate in-text referencing
Accurate reference list
Inclusion of at least four academic sources
(such as academic books, or chapter(s) from an academic book – can
be one of your textbooks - and scholarly journal article(s) available
either in hard copy or in e-copy from the CU databases).
Evidence of having identified relevant subject-specific academic
sources
Total marks 100

Extra information:
 There are standard University Assessment criteria that you can use to assist with understanding the mark you receive for
this assignment. You can find these here.

Generic criteria:

Class Marks Guidelines

available

100%, In addition to that for 72/75 below, the answer will demonstrate an excellent level of
95%, understanding, presence of clear description, critical/analytical skills or research, as
90%, appropriate. Excellent referencing and evidence of scholarship.
85%,
80%
72%, Answer entirely relevant to the assignment set. Answer will demonstrate clear
Very Good 75% understanding of theories, concepts, issues and methodology, as appropriate. There will be
First Class evidence of wide-ranging reading and/or research, as appropriate, beyond the minimum
recommended. Answers will be written/presented in a clear, well-structured way with clarity
of expression.
 68% Answer demonstrating a very good understanding of the requirements of the assignment.
Answer will demonstrate very good understanding of theories, concepts, issues and
methodology, as appropriate. Answer will be mostly accurate/appropriate, with few errors.
Little, if any, irrelevant material may be present. Reading beyond the recommended
Good
minimum will be present where appropriate. Well organised and clearly written/presented.
Upper
Very good evidence of scholarly referencing, minor referencing mistakes (incorrect
Second
referencing style).
Class
2.1
A good understanding, with few errors. Some irrelevant material may be present. Well
62%, organised and clearly written/presented. Some reading/research beyond recommended in
65% evidence. Good level of scholarly referencing, but with some referencing mistakes and
omissions (e.g.: incorrect referencing style).

Average 58% Answer demonstrating an understanding to a great extent of relevant theories, concepts,
Lower issues and methodology. Some reading/research beyond that recommended may be
Second present. Some errors may be present and inclusion of irrelevant material. May not be
Class particularly well-structured, and/or clearly presented.
2.2 Some evidence of scholarly referencing, but uneven and inaccurate in places. Referencing
mistakes (e.g.: incorrect referencing style).

Answer demonstrating to a great extent a reasonable understanding of theories, concepts,

52%, issues and methodology. Answer likely to show some errors of understanding. May be
55% significant amount of irrelevant material. May not be well-structured and
expression/presentation may be unclear at times. Some evidence of scholarly referencing,
but a bit limited. Referencing mistakes and omissions (e.g. incorrect referencing style).
 An understanding demonstrated, but may be incomplete and with some errors. Limited use
48% of material with limited reading/research on the topic. Likely to be poorly structured and not
well-expressed/presented. Irrelevant material likely to be present. Some evidence of
scholarly referencing, but very limited. Referencing mistakes and omissions (e.g. incorrect
referencing style).
Weak
(Pass) Basic understanding demonstrated, with some correct description. Answer likely to be
3rd class 42%, incomplete with substantial errors or misunderstandings. Little use of material and limited
45% reading/research on the topic in evidence. May be poorly structured and poorly
expressed/presented. Some material may be irrelevant to the assignment requirements. Very
limited evidence of scholarly referencing. Referencing mistakes and omissions (incorrect
referencing style).

Marginal
Fail Some relevant material will be present. Understanding will be poor with little evidence of
38% reading/research on the topic. Fundamental errors and misunderstanding likely to be
present. Poor structure and poor expression/presentation. Much material may not be
relevant to the assignment. No real evidence of scholarly referencing. Serious referencing
mistakes (incorrect referencing style).
 30%, Inadequate answer with little relevant material and poor understanding of theories, concepts,
35% issues and methodology, as appropriate. Fundamental errors and misunderstandings will be
present. Material may be largely irrelevant. Poorly structured and poorly
expressed/presented. Hardly any scholarly referencing.

Clear failure to provide answer to the assignment. Little understanding and only a vague
Fail 20% knowledge of the area. Serious and fundamental errors and lack of understanding. Virtually
no evidence of relevant reading/research. Poorly structured and inadequately
expressed/presented. Very poor referencing.

Complete failure, virtually no understanding of requirements of the assignment. Material

0%, 10% may be entirely irrelevant. Answer may be extremely short, and in note form only. Answer
may be fundamentally wrong, or trivial. Not a serious attempt.