Abstract This paper presents a reflective manifesto on lesson design rooted in outcome-oriented planning, constructive alignment, learner-centered approaches, scaffolding through the Gradual Release of Responsibility model, reflective praxis, dialogic feedback, and iterative evaluation. Drawing on Schön’s (1983) concept of the reflective practitioner and Biggs and Tang’s (2011) constructive alignment, among others, the manifesto outlines how intentional planning enhances student engagement and promotes long-term language acquisition. The framework offered provides both philosophy and praxis, enabling teachers to compare and refine their own plans to achieve meaningful learning outcomes.	Keywords: Lesson Design, Reflective Practice, Constructive Alignment, Scaffolding, Learner-Centeredness, evaluation, Language teaching
	Resumen Este artículo presenta un manifiesto reflexivo sobre el diseño de lecciones fundamentado en la planificación orientada a resultados, la alineación constructiva, los enfoques centrados en el estudiante, el andamiaje mediante el modelo de Liberación Gradual de Responsabilidad, la praxis reflexiva, la retroalimentación dialógica y la evaluación iterativa. Inspirado en el concepto del “profesional reflexivo” de Schön (1983) y la “alineación constructiva” de Biggs y Tang (2011), el manifiesto describe cómo la planificación intencional puede mejorar la participación de los estudiantes y favorecer la adquisición duradera de la lengua. El marco propuesto combina filosofía y praxis, permitiendo a los docentes comparar y perfeccionar sus planes de clase para lograr resultados de aprendizaje significativos.
	Resumo Este artigo apresenta um manifesto reflexivo sobre o design de aulas baseado no planejamento orientado para resultados, no alinhamento construtivo, nas abordagens centradas no aluno, na aprendizagem apoiada pelo modelo de Liberação Gradual da Responsabilidade, na práxis reflexiva, no feedback dialógico e na avaliação iterativa. Inspirado no conceito de Schön (1983) do “profissional reflexivo” e no modelo de “alinhamento construtivo” de Biggs e Tang (2011), o manifesto mostra como o planejamento intencional pode aumentar o engajamento dos estudantes e favorecer a aquisição duradoura da língua. O quadro proposto integra filosofia e prática, permitindo que professores comparem e aprimorem seus planos de aula para alcançar resultados significativos de aprendizagem.

Introduction

Lesson planning is not a mechanical act but a deliberate, reflective, and academic endeavor. It requires educators to carefully consider outcomes, learners, methods, and reflection cycles. As Schön (1983) emphasized, the teacher is a “reflective practitioner” who must continuously think in action and on action to refine instructional practices. This manifesto outlines my philosophy of lesson design: a commitment to outcome-oriented, learner-centered, constructively aligned, scaffolded, and reflective teaching that is consistently evaluated and improved when adversity gives me the chance to reconsider what I planned after a class has been taught.

Outcome-Oriented Planning

Effective lessons begin with clear and measurable learning outcomes (LOs). Anderson (2021) stresses that “stating the learning outcome, designing learning opportunities to achieve it, and including formative assessments to evidence achievement” form the triad of purposeful planning (p. 3). I have adopted this principle by articulating specific outcomes before selecting content from thematic units I have to cover or methods to approach content. For example, if the goal is for learners to engage in workplace English communication, every activity and assessment is aligned with that communicative aim. Without this clarity, lessons risk becoming a sequence of disjointed activities rather than a coherent path toward mastery of grammar points and lexical units.

Constructive Alignment

Building on this, I embrace Biggs and Tang’s (2011) concept of constructive alignment, which insists that “students construct meaning through relevant learning activities, and the teacher’s job is to align the planned teaching/learning activities with the intended learning outcomes” (p. 97). In my planning, I ensure that the design of activities, whether role-play, discussion, or reading tasks, corresponds directly to the stated objectives. This alignment guarantees that learners are not merely exposed to content but actively building knowledge toward outcomes. This alignment guarantees that learners assimilate new grammatical structures and vocabulary along with the communication context where learners can apply this content.

Learner-Centeredness

The foundation of my planning lies in a learner-centered approach. According to Spector (2023), “learner-centered approaches engage students more deeply, motivating them to regulate their own learning and enhancing long-term retention” (p. 4). I design lessons that invite learners to think critically, collaborate, and connect content to their lived experiences or in preparation for experiences they are bound to have in their future. IntechOpen (2021) also underscores that “shifting the focus from teaching to learning demands a reorientation of the classroom dynamic” (p. 2). This means I prioritize activities where students are not passive recipients but co-constructors of meaning and where they actively find themselves using the target language in everyday life contexts.

Scaffolding Through Gradual Release of Responsibility

Equally central to my philosophy is the Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR) model. Pearson and Gallagher (1983) explain that “responsibility for task completion shifts gradually from teacher to student” (p. 337). This scaffolding structure “I do, we do, you do” allows learners to build independence progressively. In practice, I begin by modeling language use usually with one of the students in class, then guiding my learners into structured practice, and finally stepping back as they take ownership of communicative tasks and produce based on what has been studies. This ensures that students feel supported while gaining autonomy and that they can sense that they can use the language meaningfully.

Reflection as Praxis

My planning also rests on a continuous cycle of reflection. Schön (1983) highlights that professionals must engage in “reflection-in-action,” the ability to adjust in real time, and “reflection-on-action,” the retrospective analysis of practice (p. 68). I try to always integrate both modes. Immediately after lessons, I record observations about student engagement, pacing, and task effectiveness. Later, I revisit these notes to reframe lessons in light of broader pedagogical insights. Fletcher and Zwart (2021) describe this anticipatory process as “reflection-for-action, where teachers envision how their decisions will influence future learning trajectories” (p. 164). In this way, reflection is not peripheral but central to planning helping me to cater for learners’ communication needs.

Dialogic Feedback and Professional Growth

Lesson planning is not solitary. Wang and Zheng (2024) emphasize that “teachers’ professional growth is strengthened when reflective practice is dialogic, involving mentors or colleagues in the evaluation of teaching” (p. 53). For me, sharing plans and reflections with peers allows blind spots to be revealed and teaching assumptions to be challenged. In doing so, lesson design becomes a collaborative act of professional inquiry, deepening pedagogical content knowledge.

Evaluation and Iteration

Finally, I see planning as part of an iterative cycle of evaluation. Winn (2023) reminds us that “evaluation is inseparable from design; it provides the evidence to refine and adjust both content and process” (p. 2). By gathering evidence from formative assessments, student feedback, and personal reflection, I adapt lessons for future iterations. This iterative loop transforms lesson design into a form of practitioner research, where every class informs the next based on student performance and spotted needs too pedagogical reinforcement of communication tasks to boost mastery of the target language..

Conclusion

This manifesto of mine is both philosophy and praxis embroidered into my teaching practice. It is grounded in theory, validated by scholarship, and lived through classroom application. By committing to outcome-oriented design (Anderson, 2021), constructive alignment (Biggs & Tang, 2011), learner-centered practices (Spector, 2023; IntechOpen, 2021), scaffolding through GRR (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983), reflection as praxis (Schön, 1983; Fletcher & Zwart, 2021), dialogic feedback (Wang & Zheng, 2024), and iterative evaluation (Winn, 2023), I uphold a planning ethos that is intentional, reflective, learner-focused, and ever-evolving.

In essence, my lesson design is:

• Outcome-oriented—with well-articulated goals.
• Reflectively anchored—anticipating and then evaluating with care.
• Learner-centered and constructively aligned—where every activity supports deep learning.
• Scaffolded via GRR—so learners gradually assume ownership.
• Collaboratively refined—through peer dialogue and evidence-informed reflection.

References

Anderson, L. W. (2021). Principles for lesson planning. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373241022_Principles_for_Lesson_Planning

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Cornell University. (2023). Learner-centered teaching and active learning strategies. eCommons. https://ecommons.cornell.edu/items/b13fb424-9490-4c9f-8a94-66dc1a21f783

Fletcher, T., & Zwart, R. C. (2021). Reflection for action: The importance of reflection in teacher education. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 33(2), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-017-0211-9

IntechOpen. (2021). Learner-centered teaching: A practical guide to engaging students. IntechOpen Journal. https://www.intechopen.com/journals/1/articles/180

Kember, D., & McNaught, C. (2007). Constructive alignment. In R. Nata (Ed.), Progress in education (Vol. 18, pp. 1–23). Nova Science Publishers.

Ovens, A., & Fletcher, T. (2022). Reflective practice in teaching: Schön revisited. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 56(2), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/10567879221094298

Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(83)90019-X

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

Spector, J. M. (2023). Active learning, engagement, and self-regulation. Cogent Education, 10(1), 2202123. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2202123

Wang, Q., & Zheng, Y. (2024). Teacher reflection and professional growth in practice. Journal of Teacher Education and Sustainability, 26(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-024-00114-8

Winn, W. (2023). Evaluation and reflection in instructional design. Teaching and Teacher Education, 124, 104012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104012

My Lesson-Design Planning Framework

(Focused Template)

A structured template you might employ when planning lessons:

A. Before Planning

• Define Clear Learning Outcomes (LOs): Begin by articulating specific, measurable objectives—what students should know or be able to do. This aligns with Anderson’s triad: stating the LO, designing learning opportunities to achieve it, and including formative assessments to evidence achievement.
• Engage in Reflection-for-Action: Anticipate student responses and potential pitfalls informed by previous experiences—this prepares you to refine examples and anticipate learning trajectories.

B. During Planning

• Apply Constructive Alignment: Ensure every activity and assessment is deliberately aligned to support the LOs. As Biggs and Tang emphasize, learners construct meaning through activities, and teaching must align them explicitly with outcomes.
• Emphasize Learner-Centered Design: Situate planning around student needs, interests, and contexts—this leads to higher engagement and deeper learning.
• Adopt Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR): Sequence instruction—from teacher modeling to guided practice, gradually transferring ownership to learners—to scaffold independent competence.
• Choose Exemplary Examples Mindfully: Reflection‐for‐action informs the selection/design of examples that clarify concepts and connect with learners effectively.
• Implement Learner-Centered Active Strategies: Integrate active, reflective tasks that foster deeper engagement and self-regulation.

C. After Planning (Reflection & Evaluation)

• Immediate and Delayed Reflection: Reflect promptly (reflection‐in‐action) and again later (reflection‐on‐action) to deepen insight; both modes enhance accuracy of self-assessment and emotional clarity.
• Facilitate Dialog and Feedback: Share reflections with peers or mentors and use feedback to refine pedagogical content knowledge and adaptivity.
• Evaluate Learning and Practice: Use evidence from observations, student performance, and your own teaching to assess what worked—or didn’t—and inform future iterations.

In Jules Verne's Around the World in 80 Days, an ostensibly straightforward tale of global adventure unfolds as the enigmatic Englishman Phileas Fogg accepts a wager to circumnavigate the globe in just eighty days. At first glance, Jules Verne’s novel is a product of its time (the 19^th Century); the plot is an ode to technology, exploration, and British punctuality. However, by employing a dual theoretical lens, Erich Fromm's humanist psychology and Roland Barthes' semiotic critique, the characters emerge as vessels of deeper truths. Through these perspectives, we can interpret the novel not only as a travel story but as an exploration of love, identity, and the symbolic operations of narrative.

The Exterior and Interior Protagonists

Mr. Phileas Fogg, with his clockwork routine and emotionless disposition, initially appears as a flat protagonist. His actions drive the plot, but his personal transformation remains subtle. In contrast, his French valet, Jean Passepartout, provides the emotional arc of the novel. Verne introduces Fogg as a man who "never hurried and was always ready" (Verne, ch. 1), a figure ruled by reason. Passepartout, however, is the relatable counterpart: reactive, humorous, and often overwhelmed by the chaos of the journey.

While Fogg is the external agent of the story plot’s motion, Passepartout is the internal witness, growing visibly throughout the narrative. Their dynamic mirrors Fromm’s dialectic between sterile conformity and authentic engagement with life. Both characters complement each other having the reader question who the real protagonist of the story is; both can be a good response to the doubt their interaction in the plot presents.

Frommian Love and Human Transformation

In The Art of Loving, Erich Fromm posits that love is not a fleeting emotion but an art, one requiring maturity, discipline, and the overcoming of narcissism. Dr. Fromm writes, "Love is the active concern for the life and the growth of that which we love" (Fromm, 1956, p. 25). Early in Verne’s novel, Fogg embodies what Fromm would label as automaton conformity, a state in which man suppresses individuality to fit societal mechanisms. This is evident in Fogg's regulated lifestyle and emotional aloofness. Based on the idea of Victorian society, Phileas fits society and its mechanisms thoroughly.

However, as the journey unfolds, Fogg undergoes a subtle evolution catalyzed by two essential figures in the story’s plot: on the one hand we have Passepartout, and, on the other hand, there we have Aouda. Passepartout exhibits Frommian brotherly love through his loyalty, concern, and emotional responsiveness toward Phileas. Passepartout often chooses conscience over convenience, such as when he intervenes in Aouda's rescue from suttee in India, an act that disrupts Fogg’s schedule but aligns with moral duty and the way an English gentleman is meant to behave under the circumstances described in the novel.

Aouda, the rescued Parsi widow, becomes the emotional catalyst for Phileas Fogg. Her presence introduces vulnerability and mutual care. When Fogg learns that he has seemingly lost the wager, his first instinct is not despair but to ensure Aouda's well-being and her peace of mind. In her words, "You are more than brave; you are good" (Verne, ch. 35), affirming Fogg’s latent emotional depth that is only emerging through, at the beginning, his relationship with Aouda. His eventual proposal to Parsi widow suggests that Fogg has finally learned Fromm’s productive love, rooted in care, respect, and responsibility, rather than passion or possession.

Semiotic Structures and Barthesian Myth

While Fromm emphasizes inner transformation, Roland Barthes invites us to read the novel as a system of signs, revealing how characters function less as individuals and more as ideological symbols. In Mythologies, Barthes argues that myth is a type of speech: "Myth transforms history into nature" (Barthes, 1972, p. 129). In this sense, narratives like Jules Verne’s mask their ideological underpinnings by presenting them as neutral or universal individuals.

Phileas Fogg, in this light, is the mythic subject of imperial rationality: self-possessed, efficient, and in control of what happens in his life. He is not merely an Englishman; he is England or rather, what England imagines itself to be at that moment in history. His mastery of time and space, epitomized by his calm response to calamities and unexpected events, enacts the colonial fantasy of global domination through logic and machinery that the Brits projected at that moment in time.

Jean Passepartout, by contrast, is a semiotic disruptor. He constantly interferes with Fogg's plans, unintentionally introducing chaos and thereby injecting spontaneity into the text, something that can be described as the opposition of what Phileas is or represents. Barthes would likely interpret Passepartout as the reader's surrogate, puncturing the illusion of control and revealing the constructed nature of the narrative. Passepartout is the foil character that makes sense for the story in the plot’s narrative.

Aouda, in Barthes' framework, is a problematic figure. Though she provides emotional depth to the story, she also represents the Orientalist trope, the exotic woman rescued and civilized by the Western man. As Edward Said notes in Orientalism, the West often constructs the East as "a passive object of representation" rather than a subject with agency (Said, 1978, p. 108). Aouda’s symbolic function is less about autonomy and more about fulfilling narrative closure through romantic resolution.

Detective Fix, the comic and obnoxious antagonist, embodies the paranoia of the modern surveillance state that wants to know what individuals are up to. His relentless suspicion of Phileas Fogg, despite mounting evidence of his innocence, operates as what Barthes calls a hermeneutic code, a narrative delay that sustains tension while masking deeper ideological patterns.

Synthesis: Love and Ideology in Motion

By marrying Fromm's ethics of love with Barthes' structuralism, we gain a fuller understanding of Verne's novel. Fromm helps us see Fogg’s journey not just as physical but spiritual, a movement from detachment to connection. Barthes, on the other hand, exposes the ideological undercurrents of that same journey, revealing how cultural myths of Western supremacy, gender roles, and progress are embedded in the text.

As Terry Eagleton notes, "Literature does not exist in some aesthetic realm divorced from ideology. It is itself a form of ideology" (Eagleton, 2008, p. 19). Around the World in 80 Days is therefore both a narrative of emotional awakening and a map of 19th-century semiotic ideologies. Phileas Fogg becomes a man capable of love, but he remains a signifier of empire. Passepartout grows as a human but also functions as a comic safety valve for the story's tensions. Aouda catalyzes moral growth but also reflects cultural reduction.

In the end, Verne’s novel, like the journey it depicts, oscillates between freedom and control, between authentic love and cultural myth. The question is not simply whether Fogg wins his wager, but whether he becomes more fully human. And through the eyes of Fromm and Barthes, we see that perhaps he does but only just.

References

Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies (A. Lavers, Trans.). New York: Hill and Wang.

Eagleton, T. (2008). Literary Theory: An Introduction. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Fromm, E. (1956). The Art of Loving. New York: Harper & Row.

Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books.

Verne, J. (1873). Around the World in 80 Days (translated by George Makepeace Towle). Public domain translation available via Project Gutenberg. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/103

10 Possible Topics for Literary Criticism Enthusiasts

1	Passepartout as the true protagonist: emotional arc versus mechanical precision.
2	Time, clocks, and punctuality: Verne’s obsession with mechanized life.
3	Aouda and Orientalism: rescuing or silencing the “other”?
4		Inspector Fix as the embodiment of the surveillance state.
5		Colonial geographies: what does it mean to “travel the world” in the 19th century?
6		The wager as existential metaphor: is Fogg betting against life itself?
7		Technology and transportation: progress or illusion of control?
8		Humor and chaos: Passepartout as Barthesian punctum in a structured narrative.
9		Fromm’s art of loving: Fogg’s transformation into a man capable of intimacy.
10		Adventure fiction as ideology: Eagleton and Said on Verne’s narrative of empire.

Literary Reflective Journaling on Jules Verne’s novel, August 2025: My Notes

Phileas Fogg: The Exterior Protagonist	Function: Fogg is the novel's driving force. He makes the wager and sets the journey in motion. Personality: Stoic, precise, emotionally restrained — almost machine-like. Role in Narrative: He is the external protagonist whose actions dictate the plot's structure (locations, pacing, deadlines). Transformation: Subtle. His rigid logic begins to soften through the journey, especially after meeting Aouda.
Jean Passepartout: The Interior Protagonist	Function: Passepartout is the reader’s surrogate — curious, emotional, reactive, and constantly evolving. Personality: Loyal, impulsive, comic, human. He reflects the chaos that Fogg’s structure tries to suppress. Role in Narrative: While Fogg moves the plot forward, Passepartout generates conflict, humor, and character development. Transformation: He undergoes more visible growth. He learns from Fogg’s composure but also helps Fogg rediscover humanity.
Interplay Between Fogg and Passepartout	Their relationship mirrors order vs. spontaneity, reason vs. instinct, British stoicism vs. French vitality. Passepartout often complicates Fogg’s schedule — yet his errors and intuition often lead to eventual success (e.g., rescuing Aouda). The bond between them evolves from formality to deep friendship, with Passepartout becoming emotionally invested in Fogg’s success.
Aouda: The Catalyst	Role: Adds an emotional dimension to Fogg’s life. Her presence brings out his compassion. She is symbolic of the human consequences of Fogg’s rational decisions. Her growing closeness to Fogg causes both men (Fogg and Passepartout) to reevaluate their priorities.
Detective Fix: The Antagonistic Foil	His misunderstanding of Fogg as a bank robber introduces suspense. He reflects the limits of logic without context, a contrast to Passepartout’s intuitive understanding of Fogg’s character. While he opposes Fogg’s goal, he ironically aids in achieving it.
So, Who’s the Central Character?	Technically, Phileas Fogg is the protagonist — he makes the bet, the story revolves around his deadline, and he experiences personal change by the end. However, Passepartout is arguably the central narrative consciousness: He’s more emotionally accessible to the reader. We see Fogg’s transformation partly through his eyes. He provides the tension, the comic relief, and many of the moral stakes.
In Literary Terms	Fogg = flat character with slow but meaningful growth (a classic Verne archetype of reason and progress). Passepartout = round character who actively changes, feels, fears, and learns — more relatable and dynamic.
Conclusion Both are central, but in different ways: Role Phileas Fogg Passepartout Drives the Plot ✅ ⚪ Provides Perspective ⚪ ✅ Changes the Most Emotionally ⚪ ✅ Controls the Stakes ✅ ⚪ Emotional Anchor ⚪ ✅

 

Final Juxtaposition: Fromm vs. Barthes

Final Juxtaposition - Fromm vs. Barthes by Jonathan Acuña