Rachid Chfirra English Teacher

What "flexibility in lesson planning" looks like during observed teaching practice

Flexibility is not the same as abandoning the plan.

In observed teaching practice, that is the mistake many trainees make. They think flexibility means changing direction at the first sign of trouble, so the lesson becomes improvised and unfocused. Or they do the opposite: they cling to the plan even when the class is clearly not following it.

A real classroom moment makes the issue obvious. The teacher opens with a pair activity, but the class is not used to it. One pair starts. Another waits. A third looks at the teacher for confirmation. If the teacher pushes on without adjusting, the task falls flat. If the teacher tears up the stage completely, the lesson loses shape.

In teacher training, flexibility means noticing what the class actually needs and making a small, intelligent adjustment. It might mean giving a brief open-pair model before the closed pair stage. It might mean making the task shorter and more structured. It might mean moving from whole-class elicitation to a clearer board example or a more guided prompt.

That is where pairwork becomes useful. It gives students more talking time and allows the teacher to monitor individual performance, but only if the setup matches the class. At lower levels, tasks often need to be limited, more structured, and shorter. A short model can make the difference.

For example:

“Look at the example.
Student A asks first.
Student B answers.
Then swap.”

ICQs:
“Who starts?”
“Do you speak at the same time?”
“What do you do after the first round?”

Before:
A long task with minimal support.
The teacher expects the class to work it out immediately.

After:
A brief model, a clearer instruction, and a closed pair stage that has been prepared properly.

That is flexibility in practice. Not improvisation for its own sake, but a planned response to what the class is showing you. The plan is still there. You are simply changing the route, not the destination.

When I review observed teaching practice, I am looking for that kind of judgement. Does the trainee adapt the lesson in a way that supports learning, or do they just keep pushing the original sequence?

If you are preparing for CELTA, build flexibility into the plan before you need it. That is what makes the teaching look controlled rather than brittle.

RACHID CHFIRRA
From Teacher to Trainer | BA in Linguistics | DELTA M2 Candidate | CELTA | TESOL

Board work that supports learning instead of decorating the room

If your board is beautiful but learners cannot use it, it is not helping the lesson.

That is the real problem. Many teachers write too much, write too small, or try to make the whole board look complete before the lesson even starts. The result is neatness without usefulness.

You can see it in the classroom immediately. The teacher writes a full block of text on one side, explains the task, then has to keep pointing back to it while learners try to copy. By the time pairwork begins, the board is already doing too much and helping too little.

In teacher training, board work matters because it is a central teaching tool. It should help learners see, read, copy, and follow the lesson. It should not just hold information. It should support the sequence of the lesson.

A stronger board starts before the lesson begins.

Divide the board into sections.
Plan what goes where.
Keep the administration separate from the language.
Use one part for the model, one for examples, one for pronunciation, and one for anything learners need to copy.

Use colour with a purpose. Use strong, clear writing. If needed, add phonemic transcription or highlight the problem letters in a different colour. And go to the back of the room once in a while to check whether the board can actually be read.

For example:

Before:
Everything goes on the board in one long block.
The model, the instructions, the examples, and the phonemic transcription all fight for space.

After:
Left side: lesson admin and brief notes
Middle: model sentence and guided analysis
Right side: new language, pronunciation, or homework
Lower middle: examples for learners to copy

That small change does more than tidy the room. It makes the board easier to access, easier to erase in parts, and easier for learners to follow without confusion.

A clean board can still be useless. A planned board helps the lesson move.

When I review TP, I look at the board very early. If the board is not organised, the lesson often is not either.

If you are preparing for CELTA, treat board work as part of your teaching, not as decoration after it.

RACHID CHFIRRA
A Certified Teacher Trainer | BA in Linguistics | DELTA M2 Candidate | CELTA | TESOL

How to analyse meaning, form, and pronunciation on one CELTA planning sheet

If your planning sheet only says “MFP,” you have not really analysed the language yet.

You have named the job, but you have not shown the thinking behind it.

That is where many trainees lose control of the lesson. The plan looks tidy, but when you look closely, the meaning is vague, the form is unfinished, and the pronunciation point is just left as a label. Then the teacher reaches the classroom and has to think on the spot.

A real classroom moment makes this obvious. The teacher presents the language, writes one example on the board, and moves on quickly. The class copies the sentence, but nobody has made the meaning, pattern, and sound shape visible. Later, learners can repeat it, but they still do not really know what it means, how it is built, or how it should sound.

In teacher training, this matters because lesson planning is never just a list of stages. It reflects the beliefs behind the lesson. If you want the lesson to work, you need to show how the language will be unpacked, not just what language item you intend to teach.

A useful way to think about this is to put the analysis on the same sheet, in a clear structure. One section for meaning: what the language is used to express. One section for form: the pattern learners need to notice and reproduce. One section for pronunciation: the feature you want them to hear or produce, such as stress, weak forms, or a sound problem worth highlighting.

For example:

Meaning: Is it finished or ongoing?
Form: subject + am/is/are + verb-ing
Pronunciation: highlight the stressed parts on the board and use phonemic transcription where useful

Before:
Meaning: present continuous
Form: grammar
Pronunciation: pronunciation

After:
Meaning: temporary action around now
Form: subject + am/is/are + verb-ing
Pronunciation: stress the key content words, show the sentence on the board clearly, and model it once before choral or individual repetition

That small change forces the plan to do real work. It helps you see what the learners need to understand, what you need to write on the board, and what you need to model before they practise.

When I review a lesson plan, I look for exactly that: not whether the sheet is full, but whether the analysis is precise enough to guide the teaching.

If you are preparing for CELTA, make your planning sheet do more than organise the lesson. Make it show the thinking inside the lesson.

RACHID CHFIRRA
A Certified Teacher Trainer | BA in Linguistics | DELTA M2 Candidate | CELTA | TESOL

How to handle the moment when your elicitation goes nowhere

The worst thing you can do in that moment is keep asking the same question louder.

That is usually when the lesson starts to feel shaky: the teacher wants learners to give the answer, but the class is not there yet. The board is still empty, the question is too open, and the silence gets longer than it should.

A real classroom moment looks like this. The teacher asks, “What do you think this means?” and gets nothing useful back. One learner guesses. Another stays quiet. The teacher tries again, then rephrases, then asks one more question. The class is not refusing to participate. It simply needs a clearer route in.

In teacher training, this is not a failure of personality. It is usually a planning issue. Good lessons are built on the teacher’s beliefs about how learners get to meaning, but those beliefs have to show up in the sequence. If the class cannot reach the idea through elicitation alone, the lesson needs more support, not more pressure.

That is where a stronger procedure helps.

Instead of staying stuck in whole-class questioning, move to something the learners can actually do:
show a model on the board,
give a short open-pair example,
then let them work in closed pairs.

For example:

“Look at the example first. Student A asks, Student B answers, then swap.”

That is much more useful than repeating, “Any ideas?”

You can also make the purpose clear before the task starts. Pairwork is more likely to work when the task is clearly defined and the students know why they are doing it. At lower levels, the task may need to be shorter and more structured. A quick open-pair start can help the closed pairs get going.

Before:
“What do you think it means?”
“Any ideas?”
Silence.
Another question.
More silence.

After:
“Look at the example on the board.”
“Student A asks first.”
“Student B answers.”
“Then swap.”

That small shift changes the lesson from unsuccessful elicitation to supported learning. It gives learners a path, gives you something to monitor, and keeps the lesson moving.

When I review a lesson, this is one of the first things I look for: does the teacher have a clear fallback when elicitation does not work, or do they keep asking the same question and hoping the class will suddenly find the answer?

If you are preparing for CELTA, plan the next move before you need it. That is what good TP control looks like.

RACHID CHFIRRA
A Certified Teacher Trainer | BA in Linguistics | DELTA M2 Candidate | CELTA | TESOL

PPP, TTT, or task-based: when each lesson framework fits your TP lesson

Choosing the framework before you understand the learning problem is where many TP lessons go wrong.

The lesson looks planned, but the logic is off. A trainee uses PPP for everything, or starts with a task too early, or leads the lesson so tightly that learners never really get the chance to work.

In the room, this usually shows up fast. The teacher explains, gives a long instruction, and then asks students to work in pairs. Half the class is still unclear. One pair starts immediately. Another waits for a model. The teacher ends up repairing the activity instead of teaching through it.

The useful question is not “Which framework sounds strongest?”
It is “What does this lesson need the learners to do first?”

A PPP lesson begins with a pre-selected grammar item. That makes sense when you need presentation, controlled practice, and then a chance for learners to use the language more freely.

A task-based lesson begins with a communicative activity. That fits when the activity itself is the starting point and the language work follows from what learners needed to do the task well.

A more teacher-led lesson fits when learners need clearer structure, especially if the class is not used to interactive work. In that case, a short open pair model first can make the closed pair stage run much more smoothly.

For example:

“Look at the example. Student A asks first. Student B answers. Then swap.”

ICQ:
“Who asks first?”
“Do you both speak at the same time?”
“What do you do after the first round?”

Before:
“Teach the language, then let students practise it somehow.”

After:
“Use PPP when the language is pre-selected and needs shaping.
Use a task-based lesson when the task should come first.
Use a more teacher-led start when the class needs support before pairwork can run smoothly.”

When I review a lesson plan, I am not just looking for an activity sequence. I am looking for whether the framework matches the aim, the level, and the amount of support the learners need.

If you are preparing for CELTA, stop asking which framework looks better on paper. Ask which one will help this particular lesson work in the classroom.

RACHID CHFIRRA
A Certified Teacher Trainer | BA in Linguistics | DELTA M2 Candidate | CELTA | TESOL