Module Three

Module Three.
Extended assignment.
Extending Practice and ELT Specialism.
A learner-centered course for C1
Advanced writing and reading
Centre number: RU 006

Name of candidate: Iuliia Kumicheva
Candidate number: 0004
Specialism chosen: EX
Word count: 4997
The version of Word used to check the word count: Microsoft Word 2016
2
Iuliia Kumicheva. A learner-centered course for C1 Advanced writing and reading
Contents
Part 1: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 5
Key Issues (KI) and Implications (I) for Course Design ................................................... 5
KI1. Sustaining students’ motivation .................................................................................... 5
KI2. Promoting learner autonomy ......................................................................................... 6
KI3. Teaching learning strategies .......................................................................................... 7
KI4. Teaching Writing ........................................................................................................... 7
Part 2: Needs Analysis and Commentary ........................................................................... 8
Group Profile ......................................................................................................................... 8
Needs analysis (NA) .............................................................................................................. 9
NA Tools and Justification .................................................................................................... 9
NA results .............................................................................................................................. 9
Diagnostic Tests (DT) ......................................................................................................... 10
DT Tools and Justification .................................................................................................. 10
DT results ............................................................................................................................ 11
Learning priorities (LP) ....................................................................................................... 11
Part 3: Course Proposal ..................................................................................................... 13
Course outline ...................................................................................................................... 13
Course goals (CG) and objectives (CO) .............................................................................. 13
Approaches to course design ............................................................................................... 14
Approaches to language teaching ........................................................................................ 15
Syllabus ............................................................................................................................... 16
Techniques and exercises .................................................................................................... 16
Course materials .................................................................................................................. 17
Course constrains................................................................................................................. 17
Part 4: Assessment .............................................................................................................. 18
Assessment principles.......................................................................................................... 18
FA tools ............................................................................................................................... 18
FA / SA tools ....................................................................................................................... 20
SA tools ............................................................................................................................... 21
Course evaluation (CE) tools............................................................................................... 21
Part 5: Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 22
Addressing KI ...................................................................................................................... 22
Benefits and limitations of the course ................................................................................. 23
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 24
Materials .............................................................................................................................. 26
3
Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 28
Appendix 1: Course plan ................................................................................................... 28
Appendix 1.1 Course goals (CG) and objectives (CO) ....................................................... 28
Appendix 1.2. Course proposal ........................................................................................... 29
Appendix 1.3. Links / Recycling of content ........................................................................ 40
Appendix 2: Needs Analysis and Test Results ................................................................. 41
Appendix 2.1. Class profile ................................................................................................. 41
Appendix 2.2. Learner preference questionnaire results ..................................................... 41
Appendix 2.3. Diagnostic tests results (DTR) ..................................................................... 46
Appendix 2.3.1 Reading results ........................................................................................... 46
Appendix 2.3.2 Detailed analysis of DTR for Reading and Use of English Parts 1-4 ........ 47
Appendix 2.3.3 Writing results............................................................................................ 49
Appendix 2.3.4 Listening Results........................................................................................ 50
Appendix 2.3.5 Speaking Results ........................................................................................ 51
Appendix 2.4.1 Self-reflection questionnaire results (DTR) – Reading strategies ............. 52
Appendix 2.4.2 Self-reflection questionnaire results (DTR) – Listening strategies ........... 53
Appendix 2.4.3 Self-reflection questionnaire results (DTR) – Writing Strategies ............. 54
Appendix 2.4.4 Self-reflection questionnaire results (DTR) – Speaking Strategies ........... 55
Appendix 2.5 Summary of NA results ................................................................................ 56
Appendix 2.6 Summary of DT results ................................................................................. 56
4
Part 1: Introduction
I have been teaching exam preparation classes ranging from YLE to C2 Proficiency for
five years. My contact hours now are mostly C1 Advanced preparation group classes. I love
exam preparation because it gives one a sense of direction and purpose. Having analysed 23
statements of results of those students who attended my C1 Advanced preparation classes in
2016-2020, I noticed that 40% of the students obtained the lowest score for their writing. I want
to investigate whether teaching language learning strategies may improve students’ writing
performance. I also want to help students organise their work outside the classroom effectively.
Key Issues (KI) and Implications (I) for Course Design
KI1. Sustaining students’ motivation
In my personal experience, students who take exam preparation courses are more
motivated than others, probably due to having a clear time-bound goal in sight. However, I have
encountered several factors that may negatively influence students’ motivation. Advanced
learners reportedly find that their language learning progress slows down as they study (Wood,
2014). Although exams are arguably an effective form of extrinsic motivation, I agree with
Burgess and Head (2005) that students’ motivation level is usually high at the beginning of the
course and tends to lower as the course progresses. Another potential reason for students’
motivation to decrease is the need for repetitive exam tasks practice. As Prodromou (1995)
points out, teaching exam preparation classes may limit teacher’s choices of input material and
restrict learners’ output which, in my opinion, might lead to students’ burnout. Although exam
tasks should be a part of a learning experience, one should avoid limiting students’ output to
listing correct answers as in “1 – A, 2 – C” and try to foster meaningful communication.
I1.1. Invite learners to document their achievements. Doing this could give students a
sense of progress (Graves, 1996). Such activities could be found in Morrison and Navarro’s
5
book (2014), for example, keeping a learning log for students to reflect on what new learning
strategies they attempted.
I1.2. Select activities to expand course books’ materials beyond completing exam tasks.
For example, responding to texts (May, 1996:39) lets students do both: practice exam reading
tasks and give a personal evaluation of the texts read by asking them questions like "What did
you feel after you read the text?", "Do you find the writer’s arguments convincing?", "What
have you learned from the text?" which would create opportunities to practice the target
language in a meaningful context.
KI2. Promoting learner autonomy
Relating to KI1, another possible way to sustain students’ motivation is to foster
students’ responsible attitude for their progress, according to Burgess and Head (2005). I
believe this could be achieved by implementing the Autonomy Approach’s principles
(Morrison, Navarro, 2014), which include applying self-access learning, self-directed learning
and metacognitive strategies (learner’s preferences and attitudes, self-efficacy beliefs, task
knowledge, strategic knowledge).
I2.1. Select activities that would help develop their autonomous learning skills, such as
planning self-study, documenting learning, and evaluating progress. For example, create a
digital self-access learning centre with authentic reading and listening materials, which students
may use outside of our classroom time.
I2.2. Provide students with opportunities to reflect on their progress, evaluate the
effectiveness of learning activities, and equip them with transferable knowledge that they may
apply outside of the exam preparation class. For example, use self-assessment questionnaires
throughout the course to reflect on students’ learning progress.
6
KI3. Teaching learning strategies
I believe that discussing strategies to approaching exam tasks strategies may be
effective, as it provides numerous opportunities to practice the target language in a meaningful
context. It lets students engage with texts, focus on accuracy, participate in collaborative
activities, and consequently, meet their learning needs. Macaro defines strategy as “a conscious
action/cluster of actions undertaken with a goal and evaluated against a learning situation”
(Macaro, 2006: 329), i.e. a strategy is choosing to perform a certain action depending on a
learning situation/task and the desired learning outcome. Some dismiss learning strategies as
irrelevant, as students have already developed strategic competence in their L1 and can
therefore transfer it to their L2 (Kellerman, 1991). However, my experience is that Russian-
speaking students do not always possess an adequate suite of learning strategies when
approaching exam tasks, possibly due to insufficient learning strategy training. I have noticed
that students sometimes struggle to deploy strategies in L2 text processing; for example, they
may fixate on parsing difficulties and fail even to attempt an exam task.
I also share Macaro’s view that successful deployment of strategies builds higher self-
efficacy levels, leading to enhanced motivation (Macaro, 2006), the importance of which I
highlighted in KI1.
I3.1. Focus on teaching transferrable strategies, which would allow students to apply
and combine them when completing different exam tasks.
I3.2. Use strategies training as a platform to work on students’ linguistic ability
addressing their learning needs.
KI4. Teaching Writing
According to some researchers, writing in a second language is arguably the most
difficult of the modalities in which to achieve communicative competence (Chamot, 2005:121),
7
which I tend to agree with, having analysed my students’ exam results. As Raimes (1991) points
out, there has been a growing emphasis on the complexity of writing processes. Assessment
criteria (Cambridge Assessment English, 2020) also reflect a multi-faceted nature of writing
tasks: apart from demonstrating genre awareness, students are expected to select language
appropriately to fit the purpose of the task and the intended reader, develop all the content
points, and coherently organise texts. I believe the complex nature of writing as a process and
a variety of exam writing tasks are the reasons why many of my students find it challenging to
write in English. Another reason could be insufficient writing training in Russian state schools
and universities, where I have been learning and teaching. Several students have confessed that
they feel insecure when writing: it is hard to generate ideas and overcome "blank page anxiety".
I4.1. Focus on overlapping nature of categories of content to teach when teaching
writing. For example, teaching writing implies developing reading skills, metacognitive
strategies, and students’ language command.
Part 2: Needs Analysis and Commentary
Group Profile
Students 6 females aged 23-40
CEFR Level C1
Reasons for taking exam 3 – career, 1 – prevent language from getting rusty, 2 –
personal achievement.
Occupations 1 – school owner, 3 –teachers, 1 – stay-at-home mum, 1 –
student.
Language learning history 4 – Russian schools and universities (grammar-translation
method used); 2 – exchange programmes and living abroad.
8
Needs analysis (NA)
NA aims to systematically collect and analyse all subjective and objective information
necessary to define and validate curriculum purposes and language learning requirements
(Brown, 1995:36).
NA Tools and Justification
NA tool Justification
NA1. Oral interview (Doc 2 –  It gives information about attitudes, beliefs and
learning experience, which are essential for
A.3) (A.3 = Appendix 3) developing learner autonomy (Morrison, Navarro,
2014) (KI2).
based on the survey from  It shows what motivates students to take the exam
(KI1).
(Graves, 2000:251)
NA2. Self-made written  It focuses on learning preferences → may increase

integrative motivation (KI1).
questionnaire (Doc 2 – A.4)  6/6 expressed concerns about writing tasks during
the interview (A2.2. fig.1) → I added the question to
see which writing tasks are perceived as difficult
(KI4).
NA results
Motivation 3 – instrumental, 3 – integrative; All want to take C1
Advanced exam.
Perceived strengths 3 – listening, 1 – grammar/vocabulary/reading (A2.2 fig.1)
Perceived weakness 3 – writing, 1 – vocabulary/ reading/ speaking (A2.2 fig.2)
Learning preferences Group and pair work; speaking and vocabulary tasks; fast-
paced lessons (A2.2 fig.8)
Topics of interest Psychology, literature, culture, education (A2.2 fig.9)
Vocabulary areas to work on Social issues, finance, research, science and technology
(A2.2 fig.6)
Homework per week 3 – 1-2 hours, 1 – 30 min-1 hour, 1 – 2-3 hours (A2.2. fig.5)
9
The most challenging part of Writing Part 2, writing letters (A2.2. fig.7)
the exam
Diagnostic Tests (DT)
To obtain students’ objective needs, I used a diagnostic Test (Doc 2 – A.6), which
Hughes (1989:14) defines as a means to identify students’ strengths and weaknesses. I have
chosen the following tools for DT:
DT Tools and Justification
DT tool Justification
DT1. A complete C1  All students want to take the exam according to NA

interviews
Advanced mock exam (Doc  It gauges whether course goals (taking C1 Advanced)
are manageable for students (Brown, 1995).
2 – A.5)  It is an integrative test that tests various skills and
language features.
 It is devised by an international examination board.
 It was conducted in exam-like conditions, which
might reduce students’ anxiety and give students an
idea of what to expect (Burgess, Head, 2005).
 It has high construct validity and face validity as it
seems and does measure what it is supposed to
(Hughes, 1992).
 Reading, Listening, and Use of English are marked
objectively, and criterion-referencing (Doc 2 – A8)
ensures the reliability of Speaking and Writing marks.
DT2. A self-reflection  3/6 students highlighted the importance of exam task
strategies in their NA (A2.2. fig.8).
questionnaire based on  It demonstrates how many strategies students are
aware of and use, which is presumably linked to
activities from (Morrison, higher attainment (KI3).
Navarro, 2014) (Doc 2 –
A.7)
10
DT results
Strengths Weaknesses Strategies
Reading  Global  Reading for inference,  Poor time

understanding identifying tone; detail management:
enough time to
complete Reading
part 8 for 2/6
students (A2.3.1)
Use of  Phrasal verbs  Collocations,  Not proofreading to
synonyms, commonly check the answer
English confused words, linkers (subject-predicate
agreement, opposite
meaning) (A2.3.2)
Writing  Paragraphing  Communicative  Not creating
 Following achievement: wrong plans/drafts (A2.4.3)
conventional register  Not proofreading for
layouts  Content: register, content or
 Language: full misinterpreting text- organisation – only
control of simple based output, not for language (A2.4)
and some complex including all the
grammar content points
structures  Organisation: simple
linkers
 Language: limited
range of complex
structures (A2.3.3)
Listening  Global  Listening for specific  Not proofreading for
understanding information; detail; parts of speech in
inferring attitudes part 2 (A2.3.4)
Speaking  Language  Minor pronunciation  Good use of

accuracy mistakes communicative
 Extent, relevance  Primarily using simple strategies overall
 Turn-taking, structures (A2.3.5)
negotiating
towards an
outcome
Learning priorities (LP)
Learning priority Justification
LP1. Vocabulary  To meet subjective needs to help

student’s stay motivated (KI1/ NA –
A2.2 fig. 4, fig.8)
 LP1.1. Collocations  DT – A2.3.2
11
 LP1.2. Fixed expressions
 LP1.3. Synonyms
 LP1.4. Lexis related to unfamiliar  To address objective needs (NA –

topics A.2.2. fig 6)
LP2. Develop writing skills  Students identified writing as their

weakness (NA – A.2.2 fig 1)

LP2.1. Writing essays  DT – A2.3.5 – low scores for writing /

LP2.2. Writing formal emails (KI4)

LP2.3. Planning and drafting  NA – A2.2.2 fig. 7 – students want to

LP2.4. Summarising and linking practice formal emails
ideas together
 LP2.5 Highlighting the content
points and adequately addressing
them
 LP2.6 Introducing a thesis statement
and developing it, providing
supporting details in persuasive
arguments
 LP2.7 Using less common
expressions appropriately and
accurately (LP1)
LP3. Develop reading skills  May improve writing ← input-based
tasks, students must integrate the task
content into their writing (KI4)
 Students find reading helpful
according to NA (A.2.2 fig.4)
 LP3.1. For inference  DT – A2.3.1

 LP3.2. For detail
 LP.3.4. For identifying layout  To focus on different linkers and

connectors beyond the sentence level
and improve organisation (DT –
A2.3.3 / KI4)
 To practice linkers and conjunctions
and improve scores for parts 1,2, 4 of
Reading and Use of English (DT –
A.2.3.2)
LP4. Exam strategies  KI3

 To meet students’ expectations (NA –
A2.2 fig.8)
 To help students to become more
autonomous learners (KI2), as using
strategies is linked to self-efficacy
(Morrison, Navarro, 2014).
12
 LP4.1. Proofreading  DT – A2.4.1 / A2.4.2 / A2.4.3/ A2.4.4
 LP4.2. Time-management  DT – A2.3.1
 LP4.3 Identifying keywords and
ideas
 LP4.4 Identifying distractors
Part 3: Course Proposal
Course outline
The course duration is 21 hours, consisting of fifteen 90-min lessons conducted online
twice a week.
Course goals (CG) and objectives (CO)
According to Brown, goals are “general statements concerning desirable and attainable
learning purposes and aims based on perceived situational needs” (Brown, 1995:71). Objectives
are “specific statements that describe particular knowledge, behaviour, and/or skills that the
learners will be expected to know or perform at the end of the course” (ibid.:73).
By the end of the course students will:
CG1. Improve writing skills and strategies for writing essays and formal letters (KI4,
LP2, NA A.2.2 fig 1, fig. 7; DT A2.4.3, A2.3.5).
 CO1.1. Employ strategies such as brainstorming, drafting and proofreading
(LP4).
 CO1.2. Produce a broader range of complex language.
 CO1.3. Use topic-specific vocabulary on global issues, finance, research and
technology in their writing (LP1.4).
 CO1.4. Accurately interpret text-based input and include all the content points
(LP2.5, LP3).
13
 CO1.5. Use cohesive devices showing cause and effect, comparison and
contrast, persuasion flexibility to make a text coherent and cohesive (LP2.4).
 CO1.6. Show awareness of a contrary opinion and be able to refute it (LP2.6)
CG2. Improve reading skills for inference, detail and identifying layout (LP3, NA A.2.2
fig.4, DT A2.3.1, A.2.3.2, A2.3.3).
 CO2.1. Practice inferring main ideas and supporting details.
 CO2.2. Practice summarising the texts.
 CO2.3. Practice inferring sequence and opinions.
CG3. Practice a range of learning strategies to foster autonomy (LP4)
 CO3.1. Widen an array of strategies they employ.
 CO3.2. Boost sense of autonomy and self-efficacy.
Some authors (Nunan, 1988; Graves, 1996, 2000; Nation & Macalister, 2010) agree that
CG and CO should not be permanent but rather constantly adjusted to meet students’ needs. I
believe that revisiting CG and CO is beneficial, as negotiating them has a strong effect on
students’ satisfaction (KI1), commitment and makes students better learners (KI2) (Nation &
Macalister, 2010:156). That is why one possible way to develop the course further after these
fifteen lessons is to negotiate the next CG and CO by getting students to complete a course
evaluation survey and a new NA. In addition, a shorter course of fifteen lessons leaves more
flexibility to respond to any emergent problems, which is one of the common criticisms against
setting CG and CO, as mentioned by Brown (1995).
Approaches to course design
I used a framework for material design outlined by Brown, as it connects and theoretical
elements (approaches and syllabus) and practical elements (techniques and exercises) (Brown,
14
1995: 139). Brown claims that course design and teaching are not sequential, and all of the
elements are interconnected and interdependent (ibid., 4).
Approaches to language teaching
Graves mentions the effect one’s language teaching and learning beliefs have on the
course content, although they may not always be present in a teacher’s thinking (Graves,
2000:33). I believe in key tenets of Communicative language teaching (CLT). The fact that
principles of CLT are traced throughout this course reiterates Brown’s idea of a concurrent and
reciprocal nature of course development. To illustrate:
 CO are partially based on CEFR descriptors, which learning outcomes are often linked
to CLT course objectives (Richards & Rodgers, 2001);
 A topical / skill-based syllabus is selected to develop communicative competencies; so
as not to focus on purely grammar, lexis or exam tasks, but marry them together with a
meaningful context (I1.2, I3.1, I4.1);
 Techniques facilitate learning through scaffolding by an expert or fellow learner
(Vygotsky, as cited in Richards & Rodgers, 2001), e.g. analysing models of good
writing;
 Exercises include activities that would allow students to collaborate and interact, e.g.
opinion-sharing activities;
 Course materials include materials based on authentic texts.
I am inclined to agree with Nation & Macalister (2010:37-38), who highlight the
importance of “navigating through several principles based on research and theory with a
certain degree of flexibility to fulfil the desired learning outcomes”. Some of the principles that
this course rests on are:
15
 Distributed practice. Increasingly spaced, repeated opportunities to retrieve the target
language in various contexts should be provided (Thornbury, 2002:24) – LP1.
 Narrow reading and listening. Some research validates narrow reading and listening, i.e.
reading/listening about one topic, as an effective means of developing vocabulary due
to repeated exposure (Krashen, 1996; Min, 2008). This principle was applied when
designing a self-access learning centre (Doc 2 – A9) – I2.1.
 Integrating teaching reading and writing is reportedly beneficial in acquiring both skills
(Campbell, 1998) – KI4, I4.1, LP2, LP3.
Syllabus
According to McKay (as cited in Brown, 1995:7), a syllabus focuses on what should be
studied and a rationale for how the content should be selected and ordered. I selected a layered
syllabus as it effectively covers the LP identified earlier. The course has a primarily topical
syllabus, consisting of three modules based on the three most voted topics identified during NA
interviews (A2.2 fig.6), which implies developing vocabulary related to unfamiliar topics
(LP1). An underlying skill-based syllabus focuses on skills identified as weaknesses after DT
and highlighted in LP2 and LP3.
I chose a matrix model to order the course content to ensure that the students have
repeated exposure to the target language and opportunities to employ target skills (Macalister
& Nation, 2010) and that there is an overlap of the course content (A1.3), as identified in I3.1
and I4.1.
Techniques and exercises
Brown defines techniques as ways to present the target language to students, and exercises are
ways to practice the language (Brown, 1995).
Techniques Exercises
16
 Sampling oral and written works (L5,  Information-transfer (L2, L6)
L8, L9, L11, L15)  Opinion-sharing (L1, L3, L4, L7, L8,
 Brainstorming (L3, L5, L8) L13, L14)
 Scaffolding by teacher or peers (L1,  Reasoning gap (L10)
 Self-reflection (L2, L4, L15)
L5, L6)
Course materials
I selected Expert Advanced (Bell & Gower, 2015) because it presents the content in a
communicative way, is geared to Complete Advanced and has units on global issues, science
and technology and finance (A2.2 fig.6). It is supplemented with activities from [May, 1996],
[Morrison, Navarro, 2014], [Allsop, Little, Robinson, 2018], and tips from CAE exam tips
(Girardin, 2021) to provide students with opportunities to practice the target language in a
meaningful context (KI1), train exam strategies (KI3) and become more aware of their learning
(KI2). One lesson (L9) is based on a lesson "Vital Statistics" in Outcomes Advanced (Dellar &
Walkley, 2016: p.66), as I find the content of the unit engaging and thought-provoking.
Some materials are self-designed (Doc 2 – A18) and include.
 Authentic text-based materials (L5, L9, L10);
 Self-access learning centre (Doc 2 – A9) with authentic texts to practice extensive
narrow reading/listening to meet vocabulary goals (I1.1 KI`, LP1, CO) for students to
choose and develop learner autonomy (KI2, I2.1);
 Learning log (Doc 2 – A11) – KI1, I1.1, KI2, I2.2, KI3.
Course constrains
As I am self-employed, there are no institutional constraints. However, some students
have a limited amount of time to study apart from contact hours (A2.2 fig.5), which may result
in students not doing homework, thus hindering learner autonomy (KI2).
17
Part 4: Assessment
Assessment principles
Harris and McCann (1994) define assessment as a measurement of students’ performance and
progress. According to Bailey (1998), the criteria for evaluating assessment procedures are
validity, reliability, practicality, and positive washback. There are two types of assessment:
formative (FA) and summative (SA). FA takes places as the course progresses and focuses on
students’ current strengths and weaknesses. SA is conducted at the end of the course and focuses
on students’ overall achievement and overall effectiveness of the course (Graves, 2000: 203).
FA tools
FA1. Class quizzes (Doc 2 – A12): Fill-in and multiple-choice quizzes made with
Quizziz.com/Wordwall.com testing the target/emergent language. It is reliable as the exact
word method for scoring is used.
 CO assessed: CO1.2, CO1.3;
 Takes place at L4, L7, L10, L13, L14, L15;
 Possible constraints: Potential negative washback: it does not encourage creativity and
risk-taking due to being rigid (Bailey, 1998:68).
FA2. Exam writing tasks (Doc 2 – A13): It represents a task that students will perform
during the exam, so it has high construct and face validity. It is an integrative task, involving
more than one language level (Bailey, 1998:76). It uses analytical scoring. Criterion-
referencing ensures its reliability (Doc 2 – A8). Moreover, criterion-referencing may also
promote positive washback if criteria are discussed with students (Hughes, 1992: 45). It also
meets students expectations and needs (NA – A2.2 fig.1, fig.7; DT – A2.2.3). Students are asked
to complete the writing tasks and reflect using a post-writing questionnaire in their learning log
(Doc 2 – A11.3).
18
 CO assessed: CO1.4, CO1.5, CO1.6, CO1.2, CO1.3;
 Takes place at L5, L10, L14;
 Possible constraints: Receiving feedback with corrections may undermine students’
sense of progress, thus taking its toll on students’ motivation (KI1). Highlighting the
learning value of such a task, focusing on areas of success and on the process rather than
product may help convert testing procedures into teaching procedures (Prodromou,
1995). However, students may see teacher’s feedback as the end of the interaction, i.e.
will not address any issues identified (KI4). A possible solution could be including
specific directions on what to do next, (Lees, as cited in Raimes, 1991: 419).
FA3. Reading proficiency test; parts 1, 5-8 (CUP, ULCES, 2014; Doc 2 – A14): It
represents typical exam tasks. It has high scorer reliability due to objective marking and also
has high face and construct validity.
 CO assessed: CO2.1, CO2.2, CO2.3;
 Takes place at L11 – set as homework;
 Possible constraints: It may potentially lead to negative washback as this type of test
“values the correct answer and penalises error” (Prodromou, 1995: 16). However, when
designing the course, I tried to address this issue and balance testing and communicative
activities to sustain students’ motivation (KI1).
FA4. Reflection questions (Doc 2 – A10.5): Reflection questions will focus on topics
(LP1, CO1.3), learning strategies (KI3, CO3) and activities from which students feel they
benefitted the most (KI1). Students’ answers are valuable for promoting learner autonomy
(KI2). Answering questions is likely to build higher levels of self-efficacy and give students a
deeper understanding of areas to focus on. “Testing abilities which development is desirable
may help achieve a positive washback” (Hughes, 1992: 44).
19
 CO assessed: CO1.1, CO1.3, CO3.1, CO3.2;
 Takes place at L6, L11, L15;
 Possible constraints: Students might be used to assessment and evaluation being
conducted by a teacher. The potential diversity of products to evaluate may result in
lower reliability and practicality (Bailey, 1998: 218).
FA / SA tools
FA5 / SA1. Learning log. An online log consisting of two parts:
o a guided part with a one particular task (Doc 2 – A11.1), or self-reflection
questionnaire related to strategies employed (KI3) (Doc 2 – A11.3, A11.4), or a
post-course evaluation questionnaire (Doc 2 – A11.6). It would show if students
are progressively using more strategies, as using a range of strategies is more
effective than the linear deployment of several strategies (Macaro, 2006: 328);
o an unguided part (Doc 2 – A11.2), where students reflect on their learning
outside contact hours on their own to promote learner autonomy (KI2). “The
greater the motivation, the greater the engagement in autonomous learning and
vice versa” (Kemp, 2010: 387) (KI1). As students are intentionally allowed to
select how their learning will be structured, it is likely to promote positive
washback.
 CO assessed: All CO;
 FA: L1 – L6, L8 – L13 / SA: after L15 – set as homework;
 Possible constraints: same as for FA4.
20
SA tools
SA2. Post-course mock exam (CUP, ULCES, 2014) Doc 2 – A15. It is an integrative
devised by an international exam board. It has the same characteristics as DT1, and includes
characteristics of FA2 and FA3.
 CO assessed: CO1.2, CO1.4, CO1.5, CO1.6, CO2.1, CO2.2, CO2.3;
 Takes place after L15 – set as homework;
 Possible constraints: Same as for FA2 and FA3. Another potential issue is that students
could be demotivated due to having to complete exam tasks which the course has not
covered, e.g. listening. However, conducting a complete mock exam might be beneficial
for further course development, as it may identify potential areas for development.
When selecting assessment procedures, I tried to balance formal (FA2, FA3, SA2),
informal (FA1, FA4, FA5, SA1) and self-assessment (FA4, FA5, SA1), as they all are a part of
ongoing assessment process (Harris & McCann, 1994). There is an emphasis on self-assessment
as the “ability to assess one’s own performance is an integral part of language learning”
(LeBlanc & Painchaud, as cited in Bailey, 1998:227).
Course evaluation (CE) tools
Course evaluation is “the systematic collection and analysis of all relevant information
necessary to promote the improvements of a curriculum and assess its effectiveness within the
context … involved” (Brown, 1995:218). The following CE tools will determine the overall
degree of success of the course:
CE1. Teaching log and self-observations. Teaching log (Doc 2 – A16) is built around
questions to reflect on a lesson, a plan, and achieving CO. As I work online, I can easily record
my lessons to watch them later and reflect on my strengths and weaknesses. The self-
observation form (Doc 2 – A17) is based on the form presented by Brown (1995: 198-199).
21
CE2. Student’s learning logs. Examining learning logs (Doc 2 – A11) may show
students’ interests, goals, and confidence levels changing throughout the course. It could help
indicate both activities that had the most significant influence on students’ progress and areas
students feel they need to work on (Bailey, 1998). The post-course evaluation questionnaire
(Doc 2 – A11.6) will gather summative information regarding NA, CO, syllabus, materials,
techniques and exercises.
Part 5: Conclusion
Addressing KI
The course aims at sustaining students’ motivation (KI1) as:
 LP1–4, CO1.2–1.6, CO2.1–2.3, topical/skill-based syllabus, and communicative
activities (I1.2) are selected to meet students’ subjective and objective needs
based on NA and DT results.
 Students are repeatedly invited to document their progress which may instil a
sense of “ownership” of their achievements (Bailey, 1998) (CO3.2, I1.1).
 Different types of assessment (self-, formal, informal) are included to minimise
negative washback.
The complex nature of writing process identified in KI4 has been reflected in LP2–3
and CO1.1–1.6. KI4 informed some questions during NA. It is assessed during DT and
throughout the course (FA2, FA5 / SA1, SA2).
As for learner strategies (KI3), DT (A2.4.1–A2.4.4) has been used to identify what
strategies students currently employ. It is reflected in LP4, CO1.1, CO3.1. Whenever an exam
task is introduced, possible strategies are discussed. The use of strategies is also assessed (FA5
/ SA1).
22
Learner autonomy (KI2) is developed through reflection activities and encouraging
students to work on their own using a self-access centre with authentic texts or any other
resources available.
Benefits and limitations of the course
The benefits of the course are as follows:
 It uses a learner-centred syllabus which was devised after analysis of NA and DT results;
 There is a balance between testing and communicative activities. The input is not limited
to exam tasks only.
 The course focuses on the process of acquiring language and skills, which is likely to
make the course more enjoyable (Prodromou, 1995)
 It promotes learner autonomy and learning strategies, which can be transferable to other
personal and professional spheres, not only taking exams.
The two main potential limitations of the course are:
 It does not include preparation for all the exam parts (listening/ UoE/ writing reviews,
articles, informal letters/ speaking). Despite students being able to practice these parts
outside of contact hours using a learning log, it may not suffice, and students might not
be comprehensively ready for the exam due to time constraints.
 Students potential objection to frequent self-assessment and reflection activities, as
students may be unfamiliar with learner-centred syllabi with emphasis on learner
autonomy due to previous learning experience.
23
Bibliography
Bailey, K. M. (1998). Learning about language assessment. Dilemmas, decisions, and
directions. Boston: Heinle & Heinle
Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum: A systematic approach to
program development. Boston: Heinle & Heinle
Burgess, S., Head, K. (2005). How to Teach for Exams. London: Longman.
Cambridge Assessment English. Assessing writing for Cambridge English
Qualifications: C1 Advanced. A guide for teachers. Retrieved 27 January, 2021, from
https://bit.ly/3omkjH2
Campbell, C. (Ed.) (1998). Teaching Second-Language Writing. Interacting with Text.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Chamot, A. (2005). Language Learning Strategy Instruction: Current Issues and
Research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25, 112–130.
Graves, K. (Ed.) (1996). Teachers as course developers. Cambridge: CUP.
Graves, K. (2000). Designing language courses: a guide for teachers. Boston: Heinle
& Heinle.
Harris, M & McCann, P. (1994). Assessment. Macmillan Heinemann
Hughes, A. (1992). Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: CUP.
Kellerman, E. (1991). Compensatory strategies in second language research: A critique,
a revision and some (non-) implications for the classroom. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L.
Selinker, M. Sharwood-Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign and second language pedagogy
research (pp. 142–162). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
24
Kemp, J. (2009). The Listening Log: motivating autonomous learning. ELT Journal,
64(4), 385–395.
Krashen, S. D. (1996). The case for narrow listening. System, 24(1), 97–100.
Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for Language Learning and for Language Use: Revising
the Theoretical Framework. The Modern Language Journal, Volume 90 (3), 320-337.
May, P. (Ed.) (1996). Exam Classes. Oxford: OUP.
Min, H.-T. (2008). EFL Vocabulary Acquisition and Retention: Reading Plus
Vocabulary Enhancement Activities and Narrow Reading. Language Learning, 58(1), 73–115.
Morrison B., Navarro D. (2014). The Autonomy Approach. Peaslake: Delta Publishing.
Nation, I.S.P. & J. Macalister (2009) Language Curriculum Design. London:
Routledge.
Nunan, D. (1988). Syllabus design. Oxford: OUP.
Prodromou, L. (1995). The Backwash Effect: from Testing to Teaching. ELT Journal,
Volume 49 (1), 13-25.
Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the Woods: Emerging Traditions in the Teaching of Writing.
TESOL Quarterly, Volume 25 (3), 407-403.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: CUP.
Thornbury, S. (2002). How to teach vocabulary. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Wood, I. (2014). Progress - what is it and are you making it? Modern English Teacher,
Volume 23 (4), 52-54.
25
Materials
Allsop, C, Little M., Robinson, A. (2018). Exam booster for Advanced. Cambridge:
CUP
Bell, J. & Gower, R. (2015). Expert Advanced. London: Pearson Education
Cambridge English Language Assessment. (2014). Cambridge English Advanced 2 for
Revised Exam from 2015 Student’s Book with Answers: Authentic Examination Papers. CUP,
ULCES.
Dellar, H. & Walkley, A. (2016). Outcomes Advanced, Second Edition. Andover:
National Geographic Learning
Kemper, D. & Sebranek, P., Meyer V. (2007). Write Source. Wilmington: Great Source
Education Group
Droesser, C. (2019). Do Music Lessons Really Make Children Smarter? Undark.
Retrieved 18 May, 2021, from: https://undark.org/2019/11/04/music-lessons-intelligence/
Hammond, C. (2013) Does listening to Mozart really boost your brainpower? BBC
Future. Retrieved 18 May, 2021, from: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20130107-can-
mozart-boost-brainpower
Musacchia, G & Khalil, A. (2020) Music and Learning: Does Music Make You
Smarter?. Front. Young Minds. Retrieved 18 May, 2021, from:
https://kids.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frym.2020.00081
Reuell, P. (2013). Muting the Mozart Effect. The Harvard Gazette. Retrieved 18 May,
2021, from: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/12/muting-the-mozart-effect/
Saluda, S. Can technology solve our big problems? ESL Brains. Retrieved 18 May,
2021, from: https://eslbrains.com/can-technology-solve-our-big-problems/
26
Girardin, A. CAE exam tips. Retrieved 4 April, 2021, from:
https://www.caeexamtips.com/articles
Vigen, T. Spurious corellations. Retrieved 10 April, 2021, from:
https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
Vox. (2018). What happens when nature goes viral? Retrieved 10 April, 2021, from:
https://youtu.be/Itjc14Fm-gs
ULCES, 2020. Checklist for writing C1. Retrieved 4 April, 2021, from:
https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/images/286979-improve-your-english-checklist-
c1.pdf
27
Appendices
Appendix 1: Course plan
Appendix 1.1: Course goals (CG) and objectives (CO)
CG1. Improve writing skills and strategies for writing essays and
By the end of formal letters in terms of organisation, content and language (KI4, LP2,
the course NA A.2.2 fig 1, fig. 7; DT A2.4.3, A2.3.5).
students will:  CO1.1. Employ strategies such as brainstorming, drafting
and proofreading.
 CO1.2. Produce a broader range of complex language
(complex sentences, cleft sentences, emphatic structures).
 CO1.3. Use topic-specific vocabulary on global issues,
finance, research and technology in their writing (LP1.4).
 CO1.4. Accurately interpret text-based input and include
all the content points (LP2.5, LP3).
 CO1.5. Use cohesive devices showing cause and effect,
comparison and contrast, persuasion with flexibility to
make a text coherent and cohesive (LP2.4).
 CO1.6. Anticipate an objection or contrary view, showing
awareness of a contrary opinion, and being able to refute
it (LP2.6).
CG2. Improve reading skills for inference, detail and identifying
layout (LP3, NA A.2.2 fig.4, DT A2.3.1, A.2.3.2, A2.3.3).
 CO2.1. Practice inferring main ideas and supporting
details.
28
 CO2.2. Practice summarising the texts.
 CO2.3. Practice inferring sequence and opinions.
By the end of CG3. Practice a range of learning strategies to foster autonomy
the course (LP4).
students will:  CO3.1. Widen an array of strategies they employ.
 CO3.2. Boost sense of autonomy and self-efficacy with
learning strategies and self-reflection activities.
Appendix 1.2: Course proposal
The course duration is 21 hours, consisting of fifteen 90-min lessons, which are
conducted online twice a week.
Topic Lesson / Key Suggested lesson procedure Materials Interaction
L1. Setting goals; introduction to self-access Notion Class Set T – S

Problems, learning centre and learning log on Notion up
causes, (15 min)
Global solutions -
problems vocabulary Lead-in: what problems are in the news in ex.1 p, 71 Open class
your country? (5 min)
CO1.2
CO1.3 Elicit ways to express agreement and S–T
CO1.5 disagreement (5 min)
Students exchange opinions giving reasons Ex. 2a, b p.71 Pairs →

(10 min) Whole class
feedback
(WCF)
Vocabulary practice: similar words (5 min) Ex.1a, b p.74 S

Students discuss the questions (10 min) Ex. 1c p.74 Pairs →
WCF
Ex.2a, b p.74 S → peer
Vocabulary practice: collocations (10 min) Ex. 3a, b p.74 check
Vocabulary presentation: problems, causes, Vocabulary

consequences, promoting solutions. Peer hand-out for S →
teaching: students sort the phrases from the problems/ groups of
handout in three columns: Know - I’m not causes/ solutions three →
sure – I don’t know, then they compare their WCF
29
columns and assist each other with words
they don’t know – ask the teacher / whole
class feedback (15 min)
Students discuss problems from ex.3.

Encourage students to use the phrases from Ex. 3b, c p. 74 Pairs →
the handout. Which is the most worrying? WCF
What can it lead to? How can we solve it?
What effect will this have? (15 min)
Homework: ex. 4, p.74; learning log
L2. Owning a Checking HW: students discuss learning logs Pairs →
pet: Reading (5 min) WCF
for detail – R
& UoE Part 5 Recycling: problems and solutions based on
HW exercise (15 min) Groups
CO2.1
CO2.2 Lead-in: What are the advantages and Open class
CO2.3 disadvantages of owning a pet? What
CO3.1 problems may it lead to? (3 min)
CO3.2
Discussing strategies and common mistakes caeexamtips Open
(10 min) class, T– S
Avoiding multiple-choice traps (20 min) May, 1996: p. 53
The task – R&UoE part 5 (12 min) p. 72-73 S→

WCF
Reflection (10 min) Pairs
Using graphic organisers to summarise the S→

text (8 min). Slides with Peer-
Discuss how else we may use graphic graphic check
organisers (5 min) organisers from
Write Source
p.588
Homework: Exam Booster R&UoE part 5 p.38-39 based on an article about solving traffic
problems in cities; after completing the task, watch the video of me attempting the task and
talking through my thinking process and strategies employed. Complete post-reading
questionnaire
L3. HW check: students discuss reading task and Groups
Adjectives strategies they employed (10 min)
and adverbs
Modifying gradable and ungradable Ex.1,2 p.77 T–S→S
CO1.2 adjectives: presentation and practice (20 min)
CO1.3
CO1.5 Adverbs and adjective collocations: Ex.3a p.77 T – S → S
presentation and practice (20 min)
30
Present commenting adverbs to express
opinion. Students rewrite sentences about Slides with S → pairs
problems and solutions using adverbs and commenting
adverbial phrases to express students’ adverbs and
personal opinions (15 min); statements
Recycling: Students work in groups to

brainstorm ideas and pitch a presentation to
persuade a committee to allocate funds on
tackling one urgent problem in their city,
explaining its consequences and promoting
solutions. Students then pitch their ideas, ask
follow-up questions and decide whose
presentation was the most persuasive (30
min)
Homework: Listening / reading from self-access centre or other resources for learning log
L4. Natural HW check (7 min) Open class
disasters and
environment; Recycling: Adverb and adjective Matching S→
Adverbs and collocations (15 min) exercise WCF
adjectives;
R&UoE Part Present comparative structures (5 min) Slides with T – S
1 comparative
structures
CO1.2 Compare environment, education, pollution, Pairs →
CO1.3 stress levels, poverty, health today and 50 WCF
CO3.1 years ago (15 min)
CO3.2
How can we predict natural disasters? (3 min) Open class
Discussing strategies and common mistakes p. 167 + tips from Open class
(10 min) caeexamtips
The task – R&UoE Part 1 (5 min) ex.2b p.75 S → peer

check →
WCF
Responding to text (15 min) May, 1996: p. 53 Pairs
Discussion questions (15 min) Ex.4. p.75 Pairs
Homework: revise adjective and adverb collocation set on Quizlet; learning log on vocabulary
L5. Writing HW check (5 min)
an essay – Open class
Persuasive Lead-in: Why is tourism a threat to some An interactive
writing parts of the world? What can be done about video on
it? (5 min) Edpuzzle
CO1.1 S
CO1.5 Listening for gist based on a video "What
CO1.6 happens when nature goes viral?" (5 min)
Follow-up speaking: Students share their Slide with Pairs

impression and discuss whether they agree comments
31
with four comments on the video (7 min)
Recycling: what problems may geotagging

lead to? How can we solve it? (3 min) Open class
Introduce the task. Task analysis (3 min) ex. 1a , p.78
What makes writing persuasive – elicit ideas T – S

from students. Tell students we’ll focus on
building persuasive argument, addressing
objectives in a respectful way and using
knowledgeable-sounding voice (7 min) Pairs →
Open class
Discuss difference between topic thesis and ex. 1b, p.78

supporting sentences (5 min)
Brainstorm types of supporting sentences Open class

(reference to personal experience, quotations,
general facts, reference to study/research)
and write them (10 min) Pairs →
WCF
Text model analysis, students discuss which
paragraph is more persuasive. Elicit that Slides with two
putting the most important argument last may model
help make writing more persuasive. paragraphs
(10 min)
Pairs →
Elicit why it might be beneficial to show WCF
awareness of ideas one doesn’t necessarily Slide with
agree with (being able to argue in favour of sentence frames:
your position makes one’s writing). Present frame the issue
helpful sentence frames (10 min) → concede →
refute Open class
Students rewrite one of the supporting
sentences introducing and refuting the
opposite opinion (5 min) T–S
Slide with
Recycle commenting adverbs, present adverbs and S → WCF
tentative adverbs to pre-empty potential impersonal
criticisms and impersonal reporting structures;
structures (5 min)
Gap-fill exercise T – S
Controlled practice with adverbs, adverbial
phrases and impersonal structures (5 min)
32
Students rewrite one argument using adverbs S → peer
and impersonal reporting structures (5 min) check
S → WCF
Homework: write the essay and complete the post-writing questionnaire in the learning log
Science L6. Space Reflection on Module 1 (15 min) Reflection Groups of
and exploration, questions three →
research R&UoE Part open class
7 Lead-in: discuss questions (4 min) ex.2, p. 135 Pairs
Vocabulary connected to space: presentation ex.1a,b p.138
CO1.3. and practice (10 min) S → Pairs
CO1.5
CO2.1 As a pre-reading, students create K-W-L
CO2.2 chart on space exploration and compare their S → Pairs
CO2.3 charts (10 min) → WCF
Task introduction (1 min) Ex. 3 p.137 T–S
Discuss strategies and common mistakes: Ex.1 p. 136 Open class

finding clues, model one question as an
example (10 min)
Ex.1 p. 136 S → Open
The task - R&UoE - Part 7 (15 min) class
Create a mind-map of the text, showing how Pairs →

ideas are sequenced / related, identifying WCF
topic and supporting sentences and how they
are linked (13 min)
Discussion questions (4 min) Ex.4 p.137 Pairs

Students create their own discussion S → Pairs
questions on space exploration (9 min)
Homework: Students do some research online or using self-access centre to find the
information they highlighted in their KWL charts; ex.1-3 p.139 R&UoE part 3;
L7. What HW check: share their findings on space Groups →
makes exploration using impersonal reported WCF
inventive and structures + vocabulary revision (15 min)
intelligent?
Check ex. 1-3 and discuss ex.4 (5 min) ex.1-4 p.139 Open class
R&UoE Part → pairs
6 What does it take to invent something
ground-breaking (2 min)? Open class
CO1.3
CO2.1 Vocabulary work: the mind (10 min) ex.1a,b,c, p. 144 S → pairs
CO2.2 Students "advertise" their own brains, talking S → open
CO2.3 about how bright they are (10 min) class
CO3.1
CO3.2
Open class
33
Do you think adults are better or worse
learners than children? Why? (3 min)
ex. 2 p, 147 T–S
Task introduction (1 min)
p.168, + tips from Open class
Discuss strategies and common mistakes. caeexamtips
How useful are these tips? (10 min)
Model the task: inferring opinion; What does ex. 2 p, 147 Open class
blogger A mention about the advantages that
children are born with in relation to learning?
What words help us? What do they use to get
the message across? Do the same with other
texts;
Open class
Inferring attitude: who seems to be the most
optimistic? (15 min) ex. 2 p, 147
S
Students complete the other two questions
(10 min)
Pairs →
Students discuss the answers providing ex. 2 p, 147 WCF
textual evidence (5 min)
Pairs
Which blog do you agree with? Why? (5 min)
Homework: Watch a TED talk "Can technology solve our problems?" and complete the
worksheet focusing on language and comprehension from eslbrains.com
L8. HW check, discuss the question: In what way "Can technology Open class
Inventions, does making money hinder technological solve our → groups
cleft progress? Does capitalism make us less problems" ESL
sentences inventive? (15 min) brains
worksheet
CO1.1 Language work: present and practice cleft Pairs
CO1.2 sentences. Pay attention to different Slides with
CO1.3 intonation patterns (it-cleft sentences have a model sentences
CO1.4 falling intonation; other sentences have a S → peer
raising intonation on the first clause (15 min) Jumbled-order check
sentences
What areas of scientific research should
receive priority for governmental finding? Pairs
Why? What problems might it solve? Slides with
Encourage students to use cleft sentences (10 questions and
min) model sentences
Read a sample text on inventions that

changed the world. Discuss error codes (5
min)
34
Students correct mistakes and compare
corrections they made (10 min)
Slides with
Recycling: Compare life before / after target language,
inventions; using adjectives, adverbs and slides with
comparative structures (15 min) inventions from
ex.2b p.142
Revise commenting adverbs and introduce
adverbs of manner (5 min)
Students prepare a mini pecha-kucha

presentation (5 slides, 20 sec each) on one
ground-breaking invention which has
revolutionised our lives. Students vote for the
most persuasive presentation (15 min)
Homework: write an article about important invention covering content points, use self-access
centre for reference – ex. 3 p. 142 and log in answers to reflection questions in ex.4 p.142
L9. HW check, discuss some of common Pairs
Vocabulary - mistakes from writings submitted and Samples of
Scientific highlight examples of good language (15 students’ work Open class
research, min)
linkers of
cause, Lead-in: How good are you at interpreting Pairs
purpose and statistics? How often do you use math or
result statisitcs in your life? (5 min)
Matching / gap fill
CO1.2 Vocabulary work (15 min) exercises based of S → peer
ex. 2 p.66 in
CO1.3 Outcomes Advanced check
CO1.5 Discuss questions (10 min) Pairs
CO2.1 What is the most important question to ex.3 p.66 in
CO2.3 discuss when reading a research paper? (5 Outcomes Advanced
min) Open class
Do you believe that music can affect

intelligence? Why? In what way? (5 min)
Share 4 extracts based on authentic articles A compilation of

on whether music helps to boost cognitive four articles
skills. Divide students into two gropus: one (Edwards, 2019;
group should look for experts who think Hammond, 2013;
music improves cognitive skills, and the Reuell, 2013;
Musacchia, &
other will focus on finding those extracts who Khalil, 2020)
believe music is not linked to intelligence.
Students read the extracts, highlighting
language that help them identify author’s
opinion. Compare with students who had the
same task. Then students are put in new pairs
and discuss their findings. Students then
35
create their own R&UoE Part 6-style
comprehension questions. (25 min)
Which author is the most knowledgeable?

Persuasive? (5 min)
ex.6 p.66 in
Outcomes Advanced
Discussion questions (10 min)
Homework: Exam Booster R&UoE part 1 p.38-39 based on a text about research and
investigation; after finishing the task, complete the post-reading questionnaire in the learning
log
L10. Writing HW check (10 min) Matching S → WCF
a formal letter activities
to the editor –
research that Recycling: impersonal reporting p.4a,b,c p. 141 S → pairs
doesn’t stand structures (10 min)
up to scrutiny
Recycling: discuss spurious correlations; 3 graphs from
CO1.1 How might have commissioned this tylervigen.com Open class
CO1.3 research? What could be the causation
CO1.4 between the variables? What does the data
CO1.5 imply? (15 min)
CO2.1
CO2.3 Task analysis. Students read the task and
CO3.1 identify content points (5 min) Task card Open class
CO3.2
Students decide whether statements about the Slide with Pairs →
task are true / false (5 min) statements about WCF
conventional
norms and Open class
functions
Present and practice formal opening
salutations, language of making a suggestion Gap fill exercise S
(suggest a course of action) phrases for
signing off (5 min)
Sample main body paragraphs analysis. How

does the author convey their message? Which 2 model Open class
paragraph feels more emotionally engaged? paragraphs
(5 min)
Discussing which graphic would work for the Slides with

task best (7 min) graphic Pairs
organisers from
Write Source
Students brainstorm possible long-term p.588
effects of the publication and reasons they S →
believe it does not stand up to a scrutiny and groups
36
create a draft using graphic organisers (13
min)
Matching S
Recycling: commenting adverbs (5 min) exercise
Students write paragraphs related to two S → WCF

content points with thesis statements and
supporting them with sufficient evidence (15
min)
Proofread for register and content (5 min)
Homework: Finish writing the formal letter and complete post-writing questionnaire in the
learning log
Finance L11. Running Reflection on Module 2 (15 min) Reflection S →
and a business questions groups →
business R&UoE Part Tell students that we’ll work on the task that WCF
8 some didn’t have time to finish during the
first mock. Let students pool ideas on what Open class
CO1.2 might have caused it and how we could avoid Ex.1 p.120 +
CO1.3 it (8 min) extra questions
CO2.1
CO2.2 Lead-in and discussion (10 min) Ex. 2,3 p.120 Pairs
CO2.3 p.169
CO3.1
CO3.2 Discuss strategies and common mistakes. Caeexamtips Open class
What strategies do they find helpful? (5 min) R&UoE Part 8
Present the tip from caeexamtips to read

passages one by one, as it may potentially T–S
help them read faster, because there is no Ex. 2, p. 120-121
need to reread the texts several times (5 min)
The task – R&UoE Part 8 (12 min) S → peer

check →
Discussion questions (10 min) May, 1996: p. 49 WCF
Using text vocabulary. Students practise

using reading texts as a model for writing + S →
vocabulary work (25 min) groups
Homework: Write a short text about running a business using reading texts as models and log
in their learning log; listening / reading for learning log
L12. HW check. Use students’ writings to Open class
Business - highlight good models of the language (15
Vocabulary min)
CO1.2
CO1.3 Vocabulary work: Business (25 min) Ex.1-4, p. 122 S→
CO1.6
37
Group project: pitching a business idea (20 Ex. 5 p. 122
min)
Students discuss quotes related to business Ex.2 p.119 +

and money. Instruct students to build a slides from L5
persuasive argument by using supporting
sentences (quotes, personal experience,
research, general fact, etc) and refute
counterarguments (15 min)
Recycling: Compare running a business in

your country vs. abroad; running a business
alone vs. with family; running business today
with technology vs. 50 years ago (15 min)
Homework: revise vocabulary set on Quizlet; learning log on vocabulary; ex. p.2a,b p.123
L13. HW check and revision (15 min) Pairs
Emphatic
structures Elicit what emphatic strucutres we’ve
covered so far: gradable and ungradable Jumbled Open class
CO1.2 adjectives + modifiers of degree; adverbial paragraph → S →
CO1.3 modifiers; cleft sentences, comparative WCF
structures. Read a model paragraph on what
sets successful businesses apart and unjumble
and reorder sentences (10 min)
Review comparative and superlative Ex.1-3 p.130 S → Pairs

structures (20 min)
Present and practice negative introductory Ex. 1-2 p.125 S → Pairs

expressions (15 min)
Present and practice fronting clauses (10 Ex.3 p.125 S → WCF

min)
Students complete the sentence frames about

running a business with their own ideas, Slide with S →
adding more details. Students compare their sentence frames Groups
sentences (10 min)
What sets a successful business apart from an Pairs

unsuccessful one? (8 min)
Homework: Listening / reading from self-access centre or other resources for learning log
L14. HW check (10 min) Pairs
Planning a
budget Revision of emphatic structures (10 min) Quizziz test S
CO1.2 How has technology changed running a

CO1.3 business? How has technological Pairs →
CO3.2 WCF
38
development influenced your personal
buying habits / budgeting skills? (15 min)
Vocabulary T – S; S →
Vocabulary work: personal finance and handout on pairs
buying habits. Students attempt speaking part finance
2. Students create their own discussion p.128-129
questions with the target language and talk
together (20 min).
Brainstorm which areas should the Open class

governments invest more money into? Why? → groups
What problems it may solve? (20 min)
Pairs
Is there a place in your city that has been
neglected? Something that is flourishing?
Something that the government has invested
money into? (5 min)
Sample essay T–S
Set HW. Introduce the essay task. Discuss task Open class
strategies students may employ when writing
an essay (10 min)
Homework: write an essay on which facilities should receive money from local authorities
(Advanced computer-based writing sample)
L15. Revision: vocabulary and emphatic Quizziz test S
Reflecting on structures (10 min)
an essay –
proofreading Review writing criteria (10 min): purpose, Open class
and editing target reader, content points Checklist for
writing C1
Proofreading texts to see if it meets criteria S
(15 min)
Students discuss the corrections they made Pairs

(10 min)
Students swap papers and write essays

summary. Then students read and try to find S → open
matching essays and summaries (30 min) class
Reflection
Self-reflection on Module 3 (15 min) questions S → pairs
Homework: complete post-course mock exam test; overview of the learning log.
39
Appendix 1.3: Links / Recycling of content
CONTENT/
LESSON
L L L L L L L L L L1 L1 L1 L1 L1 L1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
Problems + + + + + + + + + + +
and
solutions
Technology + + + + +
Research + + +
Finance and + + + + + +
business
Impersonal + + +
reporting
structures
Adjectives + + + + + + + +
and adverbs
Cleft + + +
sentences
Linkers of + + + + + +
cause,
purpose and
result
Comparison + + + + + +
Using + + +
graphic
organisers
Identifying + + + + + +
key words
and ideas
Summarisin + + +
g texts
Inferring + + + + +
opinion and
attitude
Proofreading + + + + +
Brainstormi + + + + + + + +
ng
Identifying + +
distractors
Reflection + + + + + + + + + + +
activities
Independent + + + + +
learning
40
Appendix 2: Needs Analysis and Test Results
Appendix 2.1: Class profile
Number of students 6 females
Age 23-40
CEFR Level C1
Reasons for doing exam 3 – career prospects, 1 – prevent language from getting rusty,
2 – personal achievement
Occupations 1 – school owner, 3 – English teachers, 1 – stay-at-home
mum, 1 – student
Language learning history 4 – schools and universities in Russia, grammar-translation
being most prevalent teaching method and some group
classes; 2 – language exchange programmes and living abroad
(Turkey, Germany, The USA)
Appendix 2.2. Learner preference questionnaire results
Figure 1 Figure 2
41
Figure 3
Figure 4
42
Figure 5
Figure 6
43
Figure 7
44
Figure 8
Figure 9
45
Appendix 2.3: Diagnostic tests results (DTR)
Figure 10
Appendix 2.3.1: Reading results
Student Part 1 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8
Ekaterina 4 3 2 5 5
Alena 5 5 2 4 0
Yuliya 7 4 3 4 8
Olga 6 5 4 6 7
Anna 6 5 4 4 6
Mariia 6 5 2 5 0
Class average: 70% 75% 70% 77% 55%
Table 1
46
Appendix 2.3.2: Detailed results analysis of DTR for Reading and Use of English Parts 1-4
Ekaterina Alena Yuliya Olga Anna Mariia Class Average Language tested
Part 1 - 1 - - + - - - 16% Linking words / conjunctions
Part 1 - 2 - + + - + + 66% Synonyms
Part 1 - 3 - + + + - - 50% Phrasal verbs / verbs + prepositions
Part 1 - 4 + + + + + + 100% Synonyms
Part 1 - 5 + + + + + + 100% Synonyms
Part 1 - 6 + - - + + + 66% Synonyms / fixed expressions
Part 1 - 7 + + + + + + 100% Phrasal verbs / verbs + prepositions
Part 1 – 8 - - + + + - 50% Synonyms
Part 2 - 9 - + + + - - 50% Linking words / conjunctions
Part 2 - 10 - + + + + + 83% Linking words / conjunctions
Part 2 - 11 + + + + + + 100% Linking words / conjunctions
Part 2 - 12 + + + + + + 100% Linking words / conjunctions
Part 2 - 14 - - - + + + 50% Collocations / fixed expressions
Part 2 - 15 + + + + + + 100% Inversion
47
Part 3 - 17 + + + + + + 100% Word formation (WF): adjective +
negative prefix
Part 3 - 18 + + + + + + 100% WF adjective
Part 3 - 19 - - + + - - 33% WF verb
Part 3 - 20 + + + + + + 100% WF noun + negative prefix
Part 3 - 21 - + + + + + 83% WF adverb
Part 3 - 22 + - + + + + 83% WF noun
Part 3 - 23 + + + + + + 100% WF adjective
Part 3 - 24 + + + + + + 100% WF verb
Part 4 - 25 ++ ++ ++ + ++ ++ 91% Collocation / fixed expression
Part 4 - 26 ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ 91% Passive voice
Part 4 - 27 + - ++ + ++ ++ 66% Collocations / fixed expression
Part 4 - 28 ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ + 91% Pronouns
Part 4 - 29 + ++ ++ ++ + + 75% Verb patterns
Part 4 -30 ++ + ++ + - + 58% Collocation / fixed expression
Table 2
48
Appendix 2.3.3: Writing results
Part 1
Student Content C.A. Organisation Language Average Comments
Ekaterina 2 3 3 2 50% Some language mistakes which don’t impede communication,

not enough supporting sentences to keep target reader
informed
Alena 2 3 2 2 45% Some language structures (double comparative, inverted
sentence with "not only") and linkers are repeated several
times; language errors that make it difficult to understand what
she meant
Yuliya 3 2 4 4 65% Wrong register: too informal; a wide range of complex
structures attempted with some minor mistakes
Olga 2 3 3 3 55% Misinterpreted the task: compared all three ideas
Anna 2 2 2 3 45% Misinterpreted the task: didn’t express her opinion, cohesion
wobbles at times
Mariia 2 4 3 4 65% Too lengthy of an introduction – irrelevant, generally good
attempt
Table 3
Part 2
Student Content C.A. Organisation Language Average Comments
Ekaterina 5 4 3 3 75% Simple language with some more complex structures

attempted, good use of headings, text is generally connected,
target reader is fully informed
Alena 1 3 4 2 50% Simple mistakes find it hard to follow, missed one content
point
Yuliya 4 2 2 4 60% Wrong register: too informal; overrunning a word limit
49
Olga 2 2 4 2 50% Would add more range, conclusion derails a bit
Anna 5 4 2 4 75% Generally good attempt, linkers are a bit repetitive
Mariia 3 1 3 2 45% Report follows a layout of the essay, wrong register. Language
is too simple
Table 4
Appendix 2.3.4: Listening Results
Student Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4
Ekaterina 4 6 5 5
Alena 3 6 5 5
Yuliya 3 5 6 4
Olga 5 5 4 5
Anna 6 6 5 7
Mariia 6 5 5 5
Class average 75% 66% 83% 51%
Table 5
50
Appendix 2.3.5: Speaking Results
Student G&V P DM IC Global Average Comments
Ekaterina 3 5 4 5 4 84% Generally very good attempt, only a few mistakes
Alena 2 3 3 4 3 60% Occasional problems with stress, simple structures with generally good
accuracy
Yuliya 4 5 5 4 4 88% Advanced vocab and grammar throughout, very effortless and natural
Olga 3 3 3 4 3 64% Tries to make the conversation smooth, very attentive. Only a few complex
structures attempted, constant use of raising intonation
Anna 3 5 3 5 4 80% Few discourse markers used, excellent pronunciation used effectively to
enhance meaning
Mariia 3 4 4 4 4 76% Some simple errors, good task management and pronunciation
Group average 60% 83% 73% 86% 73%
Table 6
51
Appendix 2.4.1: Self-reflection questionnaire results (DTR) – Reading strategies
52
Appendix 2.4.2: Self-reflection questionnaire results (DTR) – Listening strategies
53
Appendix 2.4.3: Self-reflection questionnaire results (DTR) – Writing Strategies
54
Appendix 2.4.4: Self-reflection questionnaire results (DTR) – Speaking Strategies
55
Appendix 2.5: Summary of NA results
Motivation 3 – instrumental, 3 – integrative; All want to take C1
Advanced exam.
Perceived strengths 3 – listening, 1 – grammar/vocabulary/reading (A2.2 fig.1)
Perceived weakness 3 – writing, 1 – vocabulary/ reading/ speaking (A2.2 fig.2)
Learning preferences Group and pair work; speaking and vocabulary tasks; fast-
paced lessons (A2.2 fig.8)
Topics of interest Psychology, literature, culture, education (A2.2 fig.9)
Vocabulary areas to work on Social issues, finance, research, science and technology (A2.2
fig.6)
Homework per week 3 – 1-2 hours, 1 – 30 min-1 hour, 1 – 2-3 hours (A2.2. fig.5)
The most challenging part of Writing Part 2, writing letters (A2.2. fig.7)
the exam
Appendix 2.6: Summary of DT results
Strengths Weaknesses Strategies
Reading  Global  Reading for inference,  Poor time

understanding identifying tone; detail management:
enough time to
complete
Reading part 8
for 2/6 students
(A2.3.1)
Use of  Phrasal verbs  Collocations, synonyms,  Not
commonly confused words, proofreading to
English linkers check the
answer
(subject-
predicate
agreement,
opposite
meaning)
(A2.3.2)
56
Writing  Paragraphing  Communicative  Not creating
 Following achievement: wrong register plans/drafts
conventional layouts  Content: misinterpreting (A2.4.3)
 Language: full text-based output, not  Not
control of simple and including all the content proofreading
some complex points for register,
grammar structures  Organisation: simple linkers content or
 Language: limited range of organisation –
complex structures (A2.3.3) only for
language
(A2.4)
Listening  Global  Listening for specific  Not
understanding information; detail; proofreading
inferring attitudes for parts of
speech in part 2
(A2.3.4)
Speaking  Language accuracy  Minor pronunciation  Good use of
 Extent, relevance mistakes communicative
 Turn-taking,  Primarily using simple strategies
negotiating towards structures (A2.3.5) overall
an outcome
57

Module Three

Uploaded by

Module Three

Uploaded by

Module Three.

Extending Practice and ELT Specialism.

A learner-centered course for C1

Advanced writing and reading

Centre number: RU 006

statements of results of those students who attended my C1 Advanced preparation classes in

Key Issues (KI) and Implications (I) for Course Design

KI1. Sustaining students’ motivation

listing correct answers as in “1 – A, 2 – C” and try to foster meaningful communication.

strategies they attempted.

language in a meaningful context.

KI2. Promoting learner autonomy

Relating to KI1, another possible way to sustain students’ motivation is to foster

believe this could be achieved by implementing the Autonomy Approach’s principles

knowledge, strategic knowledge).

may use outside of our classroom time.

throughout the course to reflect on students’ learning progress.

I believe that discussing strategies to approaching exam tasks strategies may be

effective, as it provides numerous opportunities to practice the target language in a meaningful

therefore transfer it to their L2 (Kellerman, 1991). However, my experience is that Russian-

and combine them when completing different exam tasks.

I3.2. Use strategies training as a platform to work on students’ linguistic ability

addressing their learning needs.

KI4. Teaching Writing

According to some researchers, writing in a second language is arguably the most

difficult of the modalities in which to achieve communicative competence (Chamot, 2005:121),

I4.1. Focus on overlapping nature of categories of content to teach when teaching

strategies, and students’ language command.

Part 2: Needs Analysis and Commentary

Students 6 females aged 23-40

Occupations 1 – school owner, 3 –teachers, 1 – stay-at-home mum, 1 –

Language learning history 4 – Russian schools and universities (grammar-translation

method used); 2 – exchange programmes and living abroad.

NA Tools and Justification

NA2. Self-made written  It focuses on learning preferences → may increase

Motivation 3 – instrumental, 3 – integrative; All want to take C1

Perceived strengths 3 – listening, 1 – grammar/vocabulary/reading (A2.2 fig.1)

Perceived weakness 3 – writing, 1 – vocabulary/ reading/ speaking (A2.2 fig.2)

paced lessons (A2.2 fig.8)

Topics of interest Psychology, literature, culture, education (A2.2 fig.9)

Diagnostic Tests (DT)

chosen the following tools for DT:

DT Tools and Justification

DT1. A complete C1  All students want to take the exam according to NA

Navarro, 2014) (Doc 2 –

Strengths Weaknesses Strategies

Reading  Global  Reading for inference,  Poor time

Speaking  Language  Minor pronunciation  Good use of

Learning priority Justification

LP1. Vocabulary  To meet subjective needs to help

 LP1.1. Collocations  DT – A2.3.2

 LP1.4. Lexis related to unfamiliar  To address objective needs (NA –

LP2. Develop writing skills  Students identified writing as their

 LP3.1. For inference  DT – A2.3.1

 LP.3.4. For identifying layout  To focus on different linkers and

LP4. Exam strategies  KI3

Course goals (CG) and objectives (CO)

By the end of the course students will:

LP2, NA A.2.2 fig 1, fig. 7; DT A2.4.3, A2.3.5).

 CO1.1. Employ strategies such as brainstorming, drafting and proofreading

 CO1.2. Produce a broader range of complex language.

 CO1.3. Use topic-specific vocabulary on global issues, finance, research and

technology in their writing (LP1.4).

contrast, persuasion flexibility to make a text coherent and cohesive (LP2.4).

 CO1.6. Show awareness of a contrary opinion and be able to refute it (LP2.6)

fig.4, DT A2.3.1, A.2.3.2, A2.3.3).

 CO2.1. Practice inferring main ideas and supporting details.

 CO2.2. Practice summarising the texts.

 CO2.3. Practice inferring sequence and opinions.

CG3. Practice a range of learning strategies to foster autonomy (LP4)

 CO3.1. Widen an array of strategies they employ.

 CO3.2. Boost sense of autonomy and self-efficacy.

setting CG and CO, as mentioned by Brown (1995).

Approaches to course design

elements are interconnected and interdependent (ibid., 4).

Approaches to language teaching