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.

Introduction

Language learning flourishes in dynamic, contextualized settings where students actively engage with the target language. One particularly effective tool in this process is the sketchpad—a structured role-play scenario that fosters authentic conversation while reinforcing key grammatical structures and vocabulary. However, the success of a sketchpad hinges on its design. Through trial and error, I have identified four essential strategies for optimizing sketchpads to maximize their effectiveness. This article explores these strategies, offering practical guidance on crafting clear, purposeful prompts that minimize ambiguity and promote meaningful language practice in real-life contexts. Additionally, we will examine ways to adapt sketchpads for different proficiency levels, ensuring their versatility across a diverse range of learners.

Four Best Practices for Structuring Sketchpads

a) Clearly Define Participants' Roles

Assigning specific roles to participants fosters structured yet flexible conversational interactions, enhancing both fluency and accuracy in language use. As Haugh (2012) explains, “Conversational interaction, defined in the broad sense as all face-to-face or technology-mediated forms of interaction that use language, encompasses a wide range of different types of talk.” For instance, one student may take on the role of an expert in a given field, while another assumes the role of a curious learner, creating a participation framework that promotes purposeful exchanges. This structured approach mirrors real-life interactions across various channels, such as conference calls or face-to-face discussions, making grammar usage more intuitive and context-driven by reinforcing practiced patterns of language use within specific communicative genres. Additionally, rotating assigned roles across different exercises broadens students' exposure to diverse communication styles and challenges, fostering adaptability in real-world conversations. When students understand the dynamics of conversational interactions, as Jacobs & Renandya (2019) suggest, collaborative learning becomes more engaging and efficient: “Groups can present to another group. That saves time, is less boring, and promotes the CL [communicative language] principle of maximum peer interactions (quantity).” This highlights the pedagogical benefits of structured role-play, ensuring meaningful communication practice that balances accuracy and fluency.

b) Provide Discussion Topics Instead of Questions

While direct questions can be useful, broader topics allow students to navigate conversations more naturally. Open-ended discussions encourage critical thinking and spontaneous dialogue rather than rehearsed responses. If we adhere strictly to the audio-lingual approach’s emphasis on repetition, students may struggle to explore themes in depth or use target grammar flexibly. As the British Council (n.d.) explains, drilling is based on the belief that “repeating phrases correctly lots of times would lead to mastery of the language.” However, research and practice have shown that mere repetition does not guarantee meaningful language acquisition.

To foster fluency and deeper engagement, students should be encouraged to expand on ideas and build upon each other’s points, further enhancing their critical thinking skills. Additionally, educators can introduce guiding phrases or discourse markers to help students sustain discussions while maintaining coherence. Though “we spend a lot of time either teaching new grammar or new vocabulary,” it is crucial to remember that “for students to be able to sustain a conversation, it is absolutely essential for them to learn whole, set phrases, and practice their correct pronunciation and intonation” (BusyTeacher, n.d.). Without these conversational tools, discussions may remain brief and disengaging, limiting students’ ability to think critically and express ideas with depth.

c) Include a List of Suggested Vocabulary

As the Academy for the Science of Instruction (n.d.) explains, “Oral communication is a two-way process, comprising both the receptive (comprehension) channel and the expressive (production) channel. With respect to spoken language, this typically means listening and speaking.” Ensuring that students have access to key vocabulary equips them with the linguistic tools necessary for both articulating their ideas (production) and understanding their interlocutors (comprehension). A structured vocabulary list serves as a scaffold, enabling learners to integrate new terms into discussions while reinforcing context-based usage.

Moreover, requiring students to respond to classroom discussions in complete sentences rather than isolated words or short phrases promotes the use of target vocabulary and grammatical structures within meaningful discourse (Academy for the Science of Instruction, n.d.). To further develop nuanced language skills, educators can incorporate synonyms and alternative expressions, allowing learners to explore relationships between words. As Penny Ur (1996) observes, “How the meaning of one item relates to the meaning of others can also be used in teaching.” Synonymy, for example, provides learners with multiple ways to express ideas, fostering linguistic flexibility. Additionally, encouraging students to personalize vocabulary lists by adding their own relevant terms enhances engagement and deepens their connection to the content.

d) Specify Grammar Points and Their Expected Use

Grammar should not be an afterthought in sketchpad activities but rather a central focus that guides meaningful language use. Explicitly indicating which structures students should practice—such as the future perfect versus the future progressive—ensures accurate application within conversations. As Penny Ur (1996) emphasizes, “One of our jobs as teachers is to help our students make the ‘leap’ from form-focused accuracy work to fluent, but acceptable, production, by providing a ‘bridge’: a variety of practice activities that familiarize them with the structures in context, giving practice both in form and communicative meaning.” In line with this, educators can incorporate brief grammar reminders or examples within sketchpads to support correct usage.

Additionally, integrating follow-up exercises that encourage students to reflect on their language use can reinforce learning. For example, students might review their conversations to identify instances where they successfully applied the target structures or areas that need improvement. Such metacognitive reflection not only strengthens grammatical accuracy but also enhances overall communicative competence.

Writing Effective Sketchpad Prompts

To avoid ambiguity and ensure that students engage meaningfully with the sketchpad, prompts should include the following elements:

By incorporating these elements, educators can ensure that sketchpads remain focused, engaging, and beneficial for learners at different proficiency levels.

Example Sketchpad Prompts

Example 1: The Robot Revolution (Acuña-solano, 2024)

Produced Sketchpad (From Planning Thread: Future of AI and Robotics) Participants: Student A: Robotics expert Student B: Concerned worker Discussion Topics: AI in workplaces: How will jobs evolve? AI in healthcare: Benefits and risks AI in smart cities: How daily life will change Grammar Focus: Future perfect: "By 2040, hospitals will have implemented AI-based diagnostics." Future progressive: "Self-driving cars will be reducing traffic congestion." Suggested Vocabulary: Automation, efficiency, adaptation, machine learning, regulation, human-AI collaboration Final Task: Summarize how AI will reshape society in 50 years.

 

Example 2: The Labels We Live By (Acuña-Solano, 2024)

Prompt: Create a sketchpad where two students discuss societal labels such as "baby boomer," "millennial," "blue-collar worker," "nerd," "hippie," and "middle class." One student is skeptical about the impact of labels, while the other believes they shape identity. Topics include the origins of labels, stereotypes, and how businesses use personality tests to classify consumers. The grammar focus is on the uses of 'will' for predictions and 'would' for hypothetical discussions (e.g., "People will always use labels to categorize others," "If we didn’t rely on labels, people would feel freer"). Include suggested vocabulary: identity, stereotype, bias, social class, generational divide, personality test, marketing. The discussion should end with students debating whether labels are ultimately beneficial or limiting.

 

Produced Sketchpad (From Planning Thread: Societal Labels and Identity) Participants: Student A: Skeptical about labels Student B: Believes labels are important Discussion Topics: How labels influence people’s choices and behavior How businesses use labels for marketing and personalization The impact of generational and social class labels Grammar Focus: "Will" for predictions: "In the future, businesses will use even more advanced personality profiling." "Would" for hypothetical discussions: "If people didn’t categorize others, we would see less bias." Suggested Vocabulary: Identity, stereotype, generational divide, bias, marketing, societal roles Final Task: Debate whether labels are beneficial or limiting.

 

Conclusion

By following these four best practices, educators can create sketchpads that facilitate meaningful conversations, reinforce grammatical structures, and expand students’ vocabulary. Well-crafted prompts ensure that learners engage in realistic interactions while naturally integrating complex language elements. Additionally, educators should adapt sketchpads to their students' specific needs, adjusting the complexity of vocabulary and grammar as needed. Encouraging self-reflection after the exercise—such as having students evaluate their language use—can further enhance learning outcomes. As language instructors continue to refine their approach, these strategies will help maximize the effectiveness of sketchpad-based learning activities.

📚 References

Acuña-Solano, J. (2024, February 8). English 6 Lesson Planning with Evolve 6 by Cambridge University Press. San José, Costa RIca.

Acuña-solano, J. (2024, March 1). English 6 Lesson Planning with Evolve 6 by Cambridge Unversity Press. San José, Costa Rica.

British Council. (n.d.). Drilling 1. Retrieved from Teaching English: https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/professional-development/teachers/knowing-subject/articles/drilling-1

BusyTeacher. (n.d.). 6 Keys to Helping Your ESL Students Sustain a Conversation. Retrieved from BusyTeacher: https://m.busyteacher.org/21707-help-esl-students-sustain-conversation-6-keys.html

Haug. (2012). Conversational Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from 2012: https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/32880155/Haugh2012_Conversational_interaction_postprint-libre.pdf?1391699362=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DConversational_interaction.pdf&Expires=1742684152&Signature=gFzo3wcL1zNnEuOmoX8u419P3oBMY

Jacobs, G. M., & Renandya, W. A. (2019). Cooperative Learning in Language Education. Malang, East Java, Indonesia: TEFLIN Publication Division in collaboration with Bintang Sejahtera Press.

The Academy for the Science of Instruction. (n.d). Vocabulary and oral language. Retrieved from The Academy for the Science of Instruction: https://fivefromfive.com.au/vocabulary/vocabulary-and-oral-language/

Ur, P. (1996). A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge, GB: Cambridge University Press.

 

Template for a Sketchpad

Ideas for Creating Sketchpads

Based on what you learned on this article, try to creating your own sketchpads with the following scenarios.

1.    Professional Scenarios for Workplace Communication o   Roles: A hiring manager and a job applicant o   Setting: A job interview o   Grammar Focus: Present perfect vs. simple past (e.g., "I have worked in marketing" vs. "I worked at XYZ company last year.") o   Vocabulary Focus: Job qualifications, experience, strengths, and weaknesses

2.    Problem-Solving in Daily Situations o   Roles: A customer and a store manager o   Setting: A customer returns a defective product o   Grammar Focus: Modals for polite requests (e.g., "Could I get a refund?" vs. "You should check the warranty.") o   Vocabulary Focus: Complaints, solutions, product descriptions

3.    Debating Social Issues o   Roles: A student in favor of a school policy change and a student against it o   Setting: A school debate about mandatory uniforms o   Grammar Focus: Expressing opinions and conditionals (e.g., "If students wore uniforms, they would feel more equal.") o   Vocabulary Focus: Agreement/disagreement phrases, argument structure, persuasive language