Planning with the photocopier broken

The binding constraint is not 'authentic materials'. It is: no photocopier, no projector, 31 learners in rows, 15 minutes' preparation, and a non-negotiable 10-minute assessment. Start from what cannot move.

Decisions and reasoning:

• Do not use the two-page coursebook text. Without photocopies it cannot reach 31 learners except by reading aloud, which turns a reading lesson into a listening lesson and eats 10+ minutes.
• Do not chase 'authentic' at the cost of the assessment. 'Authentic' in the scheme of work is a means, not an end. A defensible reading of it is authenticity of task: learners describe a real process they know (how their local bread, tea or a school certificate is made). That satisfies the intent without a text.
• Use the phone photos as teacher reference only, not as a class resource. Passing a phone round 31 learners in rows costs more time than drawing.
• Draw an eight-box flow on the board instead. Cheap, visible to all, and it is the sequencer frame.

Sequence: 3 min elicit processes they know → 6 min build the board flow and elicit sequencers and passive forms → 8 min pairs describe the process to each other, then swap partners and repeat → 10 min assessment → 5 min feedback. What is squeezed is the reading, not the assessment and not the oral rehearsal, because the assessment has a deadline and the rehearsal is what the assessment tests.

The risk is row seating plus a whole-class board elicitation. With 31 learners facing forward, the board phase will be carried by a handful of confident learners at the front, the back half will disengage, and the pair phase will then run on very little language - you will get eight sequencers on the board and no one using them.

Contingency, decided in advance rather than improvised:

• Turn the pair phase into a two-way information task: A describes a process, B draws it in their notebook; then they compare with A's intended order. Drawing forces comprehension and gives B something to do while A talks.
• Seat pairs as front-with-back where possible (turn and face), so the back of the room is inside a pair rather than outside the lesson.
• Keep a short backup: if the pair phase collapses, drop to four-line writing in notebooks using a board substitution table, which still feeds the assessment.

Second-order risk: if the assessment task is a gap-fill on sequencers, it will not measure describing a process, and Friday's reports will tell you nothing about the syllabus item.

Syllabus item: 'use sequencers and the passive to describe how something is made'.

Objective, written so it can be observed: By the end of the lesson, learners will describe a familiar process in speech and in 4–5 written sentences, ordering the stages correctly, using at least three sequencers (first, then, after that, finally) and the passive for at least two stages, with meaning clear to a partner who has not heard the process before.

That unpacking matters because the original item does not say how much, in what mode, or to what standard - so any activity can be claimed to 'cover' it.

Alignment check:

• A sequencer gap-fill matches 'use sequencers' only as recognition. It does not match describing.
• A written description of a process, marked on order, sequencer range and passive use, matches the objective directly, and can be completed in 10 minutes.

Judgement point: if the assessment must serve Friday's reports, it should test the same performance the lesson rehearsed. Otherwise the lesson is planning and the assessment is a separate event, and neither tells you whether the objective was met.