This is a bit of advice for an assignment / lesson on ‘discourse’. My experience has been that this area is the one where DELTA candidates have the most difficulty with focus. Generally, teachers are on safe ground with grammar. They identify the system (grammar) and subsystem (eg verb tenses) and then choose one topic area within it to focus on – eg progressive aspect. They then come up with a title such as “helping elementary learners with the progressive aspect” – and they’re set. But with ‘discourse’, this process doesn’t go so smoothly and what you get are very wide-ranging, but necessarily superficial discussions of ‘discourse’ or ‘collocation’ or whatever in general. In other words, the teacher hasn’t gone through the third step of focusing on a particular topic within the field of collocation, for instance.

The other aspect of focus is finding the right balance between theory and practice – and this is also made much more difficult by trying to bite off more than you can chew! You’ve probably already been given a sort of template for assignments, but here’s one suggestion:

A: Intro (reason for selection of topic) 100-150 words

B: Analysis of topic (eg form / meaning / use / phonology / spelling – depending on what you’ve chosen) 700 – 750 words

C: Range of problems for learners (referring to own experience, observation as well as your sources, such as Swan & Smith ‘Learner English’ etc) 700 – 750 words

D: Strategies for teachers – a well-selected set of activities or approaches that deal with the problems for learners that you’ve mentioned above. Not a list – each suggestion should have a brief rationale, description, evaluation 700 – 750 words

E: Conclusion – eg implications for future practice or for other contexts 50 – 100 words

Anyway, as you can see, most of the theory is embedded in practical applications. So try to get the balance right – and also continuity – so that what you say about the problems for learners is reflected in your ideas for strategies for teachers.

I’ll add one more suggestion – I hope I’m not poking my nose in. Here are three things I like about lessons (or suggestions for classroom activities) when I get the chance to observe:

1) Here-and-now-ness

In other words, the topic and/or activities are for this place, these students (and teacher) and their interests. I’m not saying it all has to be original – but a complete coursebook based lesson is hardly likely to impress

2) Topic

I like lessons that are about something – not just language – and where there’s continuity of theme. Scott Thornbury wrote about this in an article in the ELTJ about 10 years ago. He quoted from EM Forster’s ‘Aspects of the Novel’ regarding the difference between a story and a plot. ‘The queen died and then the king died and then … there was this funny chicken …’: that’s a story: ‘The queen died and then the king died – of grief’: that’s a plot. Things happen in an order and for a reason.

3) Flexibility

If a plan has stated in advance everything that’s to happen, then it’s almost a statement of belief that students don’t matter – that what they say or do is of no possible interest to everyone. Pawns in the lesson plan! But good planning is the very opposite of predetermination. It’s the structure that allows student participation and teacher engagement. So, practically speaking, I think it makes sense to have A and B options later on in lesson plans to allow the teacher to make judgements based on his/her perceptions of student needs – as the lesson itself unfolds. A lesson isn’t a scripted play, it’s a structured impro.

By the way, it goes down particularly badly, I think, if a teacher has made a big point of learner autonomy in a background assignment, but then delivered a plan which predetermines every move. What you’re looking for overall is consistency – of beliefs, analysis, methodology, planning and performance. Consistency – and a core of effective classroom skills – not perfection!