DELTA Module Three common mistakes
DELTA Module Three · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Writing the assessed lesson plan as a sequence of activities ('first I do a warmer, then I present the vocabulary, then pair work') without stating a diagnostic rationale for why each stage is needed for this group of learners.
Candidates import habits from everyday planning, where the activity list is the working document, and they underestimate that Module Three assesses principled reasoning about a specific group rather than the plan itself; the word limit also tempts them to spend words describing procedures.
What to do instead
For every stage, write one sentence of evidence-based justification before the procedure: what the needs analysis or diagnostic task showed, and why this stage addresses it. Draft the rationale first, then trim the procedure to a bare summary, and check that no stage appears without a stated learner need behind it.
Choosing a needs analysis instrument that cannot produce the information the course will actually be built on, for example a single self-report questionnaire asking 'What do you want to improve?' for a group of adult learners who need English for workplace meetings.
Candidates treat needs analysis as a box to tick and pick the easiest instrument to describe, rather than selecting the instrument that yields data about target tasks, current performance and learner gaps; they also conflate 'wants' with 'needs'.
What to do instead
Justify instrument choice against the information required: state which target tasks you must observe, which you can only ask about, and which you can test. Combine at least two instruments (for example a task-based diagnostic plus a structured interview) and explain what each supplies that the other cannot.
Designing a course or lesson for young learners that is built around grammar explanation and written accuracy, with a brief mention of songs or games appended as motivation rather than as the vehicle for language use.
Candidates write what they know from their own secondary or adult teaching and then bolt on child-friendly activities, instead of reasoning from how children of the stated age develop cognitively, socially and physically.
What to do instead
Start the plan from the learners' developmental profile: state the age band, attention span, literacy stage and motor skills, then show how each activity matches them. Make play, story, song or hands-on task the core of the language work, and justify every activity by reference to a named developmental characteristic rather than to 'fun'.
Proposing a digital tool in the lesson or course plan without stating what it does that a non-digital alternative cannot, and without addressing access, device or connectivity constraints for the specified learners.
Candidates equate 'digital' with 'modern and motivating' and describe tool features rather than learning affordances; they also plan for an ideal classroom rather than the one described in the assignment scenario.
What to do instead
For each tool, write a two-part justification: the pedagogical affordance (for example asynchronous peer feedback, immediate automated feedback on form, authentic audience) and the practical condition that makes it feasible for this group. Add a named low-tech fallback for each tool and state how you would check access before the course starts.
Treating the multilingual classroom as a problem to be minimised, planning an English-only lesson and mentioning learners' other languages only as a source of interference errors.
Candidates carry over an assumption that the target language should be maximised and the first language excluded, and they lack a framework for planned, purposeful use of the learners' repertoires; the assignment wording about multilingual contexts is also easy to read as merely descriptive.
What to do instead
Plan specific, bounded uses of the shared languages: eliciting and comparing concepts, cross-linguistic noticing of a structure, planning before speaking, or peer explanation of a difficult term. State the purpose, the moment and the language to be used, and explain how the teacher will manage a class where several different languages are present.
Writing a background analysis of the learners that lists general characteristics ('they are adults, they are motivated, they like technology') without linking any characteristic to a concrete design decision in the plan.
Candidates produce a profile as a separate section and then write the plan as a separate section, so the two never meet; the word limit encourages short, safe, generic statements that cannot be challenged.
What to do instead
Use a two-column working format while drafting: each learner characteristic on the left, the specific plan decision it forces on the right. Delete any characteristic that generates no decision, and make the cross-reference explicit in the plan ('mixed literacy in L1, therefore the reading text is supported by an audio version and a glossary').
Describing assessment in the assignment only as a final test, with no diagnostic or formative component and no statement of what the teacher will do with the results.
Candidates think of assessment as grading rather than as information for teaching, and they run out of words before reaching the assessment section because they over-described procedures earlier.
What to do instead
Build a three-point assessment narrative: initial diagnostic that shapes the course, ongoing formative checks embedded in lessons, and a final task-based measure aligned to the stated objectives. For each, state the evidence collected, the decision rule and the planned response if learners have or have not met the criterion.
Producing a lesson plan whose stated aims are vague ('to practise speaking', 'to improve reading skills') and whose stages cannot be checked against any outcome.
Candidates write aims as topic labels rather than as observable outcomes, often because they have not decided what evidence would show the aim had been met; this then undermines the assessment section too.
What to do instead
Write each aim as an observable outcome with a condition and a criterion: what learners will do, with what support, to what standard. Then check that at least one stage produces evidence of each aim and that the assessment section names that evidence. Delete or rewrite any aim you cannot evidence.
Designing an ESP course around a published general or business coursebook sequence instead of around an analysis of the target situation and its discourse.
Candidates are more confident selecting and sequencing materials than conducting a target-situation and discourse analysis, and they assume a coursebook labelled for the field is already specific enough.
What to do instead
Carry out and report a short target-situation analysis (the tasks, participants, settings and genres the learners must handle) and a sample discourse analysis of one authentic text or interaction from that setting. Then select or adapt materials to match the features you found, and state which coursebook units you rejected and why.
Writing the assignment without a visible thread from needs analysis to aims to activities to assessment, so that a reader cannot trace why any activity is there or how success would be judged.
Candidates draft sections in the order the assignment presents them and treat each as a standalone answer, leaving the coherence check until the end when there is no word budget left to repair it; the word limit rewards section-by-section compression over integration.
What to do instead
Draft the aims and assessment first, then the needs analysis that justifies the aims, then the activities that lead to the assessment. Before submitting, build a one-line-per-stage map showing need, aim, activity and evidence of success in a single row, and rewrite any row that breaks the chain.