Twelve Periods to Fix 'More Better'
You teach English to 35 intermediate students, two periods a week for six weeks (12 periods) before their board examination. The board paper is 40% grammar MCQs and 60% composition. A diagnostic shows 22 students write 'more better', 'discuss about' and 'one of my friend'; 18 of the 35 reproduced the same memorised essay on 'My Ambition' with near-identical opening sentences; only 6 can write a paragraph on an unseen topic in 15 minutes. The principal wants grammar drilled daily with weekly tests; the parents' meeting falls in week four. You have no photocopying budget for the first three weeks and a class set of 30 textbooks for 35 students.
1. Allocate the 12 periods and justify the balance you choose, addressing the principal's demand for daily grammar drilling and the resource constraints.
Read the worked answer
Allocation.
- Periods 1–3 (error hunt, no handouts): six high-frequency errors only, taught as contrast pairs on the board ('He is taller' vs 'He is more taller'; 'discuss the plan', not 'discuss about'). Every period opens with a five-minute retrieval starter on the previous errors. No photocopies needed, so the budget gap does not bite.
- Periods 4–6 (unseen writing): 15-minute timed paragraphs on unseen prompts, then a model paragraph built collectively on the board rather than photocopied. Peer review against a four-point checklist written on the board.
- Periods 7–12 (exam format): timed grammar sets in board-paper style plus composition planning and editing; one full mock under exam conditions in period 11 and feedback in 12.
Justification. Twelve periods is roughly 60 minutes of student writing per week, which is the minimum for composition to move at all; it cannot be sacrificed to drilling. Grammar gains come from short, distributed retrieval (five minutes every period) rather than a whole period daily, because the errors are fossilised habits, not missing information.
Resources. Thirty books for 35 students means pairs with rotation and board-based shared text; photocopying resumes in week 4, at one sheet per student per fortnight.
2. What evidence would you collect across the six weeks, and how would you present it at the week-four parents' meeting so that it supports your method without ranking students publicly?
Read the worked answer
Evidence to collect.
- A pre-test and post-test of the same 15-minute timed paragraph, scored on a four-criterion rubric (task fulfilment, organisation, sentence control, accuracy) out of 4 each. Same task type, different prompt, so improvement is not prompt-specific.
- An error count per 100 words for the six targeted errors, measured on three samples across the six weeks - this is the cleanest number to show, because it is concrete and comparable.
- A one-line tally of how many students attempted an unseen prompt within 15 minutes (baseline: 6 of 35).
Presentation at week four.
- Show three anonymised scripts (strong, middle, weak) with the same rubric, never a ranked list.
- Quote two numbers: error rate per 100 words at baseline and now; number of students finishing an unseen paragraph in time.
- Address the memorised-essay habit directly: explain that 18 of 35 produced identical openings, and that an unseen prompt in the board exam will not reward recall of a rehearsed text.
- Ask parents for one thing they can actually give: 15 minutes of quiet writing time at home and a look at the error list, not purchased guidebooks.
- If the principal repeats the demand for daily drilling, offer a controlled comparison: same grammar starter daily, plus the writing block retained, and review the error-rate data at week six.