The Digression That Ate the Lesson
Aisha is teaching a 45-minute observed lesson to 12 adult learners at A2/B1. The aim is present perfect for experience. She is at stage 3 of 6, and 18 minutes remain for controlled practice, freer speaking and feedback. A learner asks: ‘What’s the difference between “I’ve been to Paris” and “I’ve gone to Paris”?’ The question is relevant, but only three learners are ready for it; the rest are still confusing present perfect with past simple. The observer is the Director of Studies, whose feedback form includes ‘responds to emergent language’ and ‘keeps to planned timing’. Aisha has a whiteboard and the coursebook. The plan says the next stage is a mill-drill, followed by a group speaking task and feedback.
1. What are the options, and what would you do?
Read the worked answer
Options. (a) Full explanation of been/gone, 5–8 minutes, with examples and a quick check. (b) Park it and return next lesson. (c) A 60–90 second board note, then move on and use it in feedback. (d) Ignore it.
Decision. I would choose (c). The question is relevant and learner-generated, so ignoring it damages engagement. But a full treatment would consume nearly half the remaining time, and only three learners are ready for it. A brief board note can satisfy the immediate curiosity and create a record: write ‘She’s been to Paris’ and ‘She’s gone to Paris’, ask ‘Which one means she is still there?’, elicit ‘gone’, give one example, and say ‘we’ll look at this properly on Thursday’. That is responsive without hijacking.
Reasoning. The lesson aim is present perfect for experience, not the been/gone distinction. A short response meets the learner’s need without reorienting the whole lesson. It also gives the observer evidence for ‘responds to emergent language’. I would not pretend the difference is simple; I would signal that it is a real question with a real answer coming later.
2. How would you justify the decision to the observer?
Read the worked answer
To the observer. I would say: ‘The question was relevant but not the lesson aim. I timeboxed it to 90 seconds, recorded it on the board, and kept the practice stages intact. I will follow up next lesson with a contrastive task.’ The justification is principled, not defensive: the aim was present perfect for experience, and a full digression would have shifted the focus to a different distinction that only three learners could use.
Meeting both criteria. The observer’s criteria pull in two directions. The judgement call is to meet both partially rather than one fully: a brief, visible response shows responsiveness; keeping the mill-drill and feedback shows planned timing. I would show the observer the board note and the follow-up plan, so the responsiveness is documented rather than claimed.
If challenged. If the observer wanted a full emergent-language stage, I would ask what evidence they would accept for ‘planned timing’ in a 45-minute lesson. I would also point out that the three learners who asked can become resources in the follow-up, while the rest are not forced into a distinction they are not ready for.
3. How would you follow up in the next lesson?
Read the worked answer
Follow-up. Ten minutes at the start: a contrastive task with a simple map or set of photos. Learners decide whether the person is still there; then they write two sentences about their own travel. I would listen for the same distinction in the freer speaking and note examples.
Design principle. The follow-up should not be a full grammar lecture; it should be a short, concrete contrast with a clear context. I would add the item to the class’s ‘questions we owe you’ board, which makes learner questions visible and shows that they are followed up. If the three learners who asked are ready, they can lead the example; the others can work with the meaning question first.
Link to the observed lesson. This turns the digression into a planned sequence rather than a lost moment. It also gives Aisha evidence for the next observation: she can show that she notices emergent language, records it and recycles it, without sacrificing the planned aim of the original lesson.