Delta Module Three

Standard and ELTM Options

Examination Report

2016
Contents
1. REPORT ON THE STANDARD OPTION ............................................................................... 3
1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3
1. 2 Purpose of Report .............................................................................................................................. 4
1.3 Examiners comments ......................................................................................................................... 4
1.3.1 Overall comments on the work of candidates ............................................................................ 5
1.3.2 Specific strengths ......................................................................................................................... 6
1.3.3 Specific weaknesses ..................................................................................................................... 7
1.4 Advice to centres and candidates ....................................................................................................... 9
2. REPORT ON THE ELTM OPTION ........................................................................................ 12
2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 12
2.2 Purpose of Report ............................................................................................................................. 12
2.3 Overall comments on the work of candidates .................................................................................. 12
2.3.1 Overall strengths and weaknesses............................................................................................. 12
2.3.2 Specific strengths and weaknesses ............................................................................................ 13
2.4 Advice to candidates and centres ..................................................................................................... 15

2
 Delta Module Three Principal Examiners Report September 2016

1. REPORT ON THE STANDARD OPTION

1.1 Introduction
Delta Module Three aims to develop candidates knowledge of and competence in assessment and
course planning in relation to a specialist area, and includes: research into a specialist area; approaches
to needs analysis; curriculum and syllabus design principles and different types of syllabus; course design
and evaluation; and assessment of learners. The module is assessed by means of a 4,000-4,500 word
Extended Assignment (EA), submitted in June or December of each year, in which candidates carry out
an independent investigation leading to the design of a course programme related to their chosen
specialist area. Candidates choose a specialism which is relevant to their current or intended teaching
context (for example, Business English, Young Learners, ESP, EAP, Exam Classes, One-to-One, etc.).
The EA consists of five parts: (1) specialist topic area (2) needs analysis (3) course proposal (4)
assessment and (5) conclusion. To complete the assignment, candidates need to:
review the relevant literature of their chosen topic area and identify key issues
explain how they identified the needs of a chosen group of learners, and how they used
diagnostic tests to establish learning priorities
design a course of at least 20 hours, providing a rationale for its design, goals and teaching
approach
explain how the course will be assessed and evaluated
outline how the proposed course design relates to the issues identified in the introduction.
In doing so, candidates are expected to demonstrate an informed understanding of: their chosen topic
area; key principles of needs analysis and diagnostic testing; key principles of and types of course and
syllabus design; as well as key principles and roles of assessment.
The EA is assessed according to a detailed Mark Scheme which allocates marks for each of the five
assessment categories each of which is divided into three sub-categories.
Grasp of topic
Review of the relevant literature in the topic area
Understanding of key issues in the topic area
Application of knowledge to practice and identification of key issues

Needs analysis and commentary

Key principles of needs analysis and diagnostic testing
Analysis of the diagnostic test and identification of learner needs
Discussion and justification of priorities supported by the needs analysis

Course proposal
Key principles of syllabus and course design
Justification of learning aims, teaching approach and the course in terms of learner needs
Design of the course

Assessment
Key principles of different types of assessment
Justification of assessment procedures in terms of course design and learner needs
Application of assessment procedures

Presentation and organisation

Academic writing, language and referencing
Presentation, coherence and organisation
Clarity of argument and quality of ideas

3
These categories are marked in line with the grade descriptions as outlined in the Delta Modules
Handbook (page 70). Marks are awarded for each category and then totalled to form an overall grade
(Distinction, Merit, Pass or Fail). The weighting for the assessment categories is as follows:
Grasp of topic (25%)
Needs analysis and commentary (20%)
Course proposal (25%)
Assessment (20%)
Presentation and organisation (10%).

1. 2 Purpose of Report
This Delta Module Three Report is based on Extended Assignments submitted in June and December
2015. These assignments are independent research projects owned by candidates, so it is not
appropriate to provide model sample assignments. However, this report highlights some of the areas
which were considered by examiners to be particularly strong or weak so as to give clearer guidance to
candidates and centres. A separate ELTM option section is included at the end of this report.

1.3 Examiners comments

The topic areas focused on (and the percentage of candidates who chose these) were as follows:
Teaching exam classes (30%)
EAP (16%)
Teaching young learners (10%)
Teaching one-to-one (13%)
Business English (5%)
Teaching monolingual classes (4%)
CLIL (2%)
ESOL learners with literacy needs (2%)
Teaching in an non-English-speaking environment (2%)
Teaching in an English-speaking environment (1.5%)
LDT (1%)
ESP (1%)
Distance learning (1%)
Teaching multilingual classes (1%)
Blended learning (0.5%)
Language support (0.5%)

A further 6% of candidates chose the ELTM (English Language Teaching Management) option.

There was again a good range of chosen topics this time, although EX, EAP, YL and 1-1 constitute the
four most popular topics and are still chosen by nearly three out of every four candidates.

4
1.3.1 Overall comments on the work of candidates
For the past seven years the standard of assignments has continued to improve with each session, as
centres have become more familiar with the assignment and are able to provide more effective support
and guidance. More and more candidates are following the guidelines carefully and are able to
demonstrate a good understanding of the requirements for this assignment. Assignments generally meet
the formatting requested, while the main assignment and appendices are generally presented as
stipulated in the handbook. Nevertheless, there are still some candidates who do not follow the guidelines
carefully, and as a result are unable to pass.

Overall, stronger candidates continued to be clear about the focus of their chosen specialism. Few
candidates focus part 1 too narrowly, although again there were still some candidates who seem less
clear about this.

Part 2 continued to pose problems for weaker candidates who tended to be less clear about its purpose
and how to satisfactorily diagnose learner needs. Stronger candidates again were able to successfully
summarise the main principles of NA and DT and make informed choices about which instruments to use,
and analyse the results in-text logically while referring explicitly to the actual data in the appendices. They
also then clearly summarised the main learning priorities at the end of Part 2 and showed explicitly how
these priorities emerged from the results and the actual data, showing a logical progression from
diagnosis, analysis through to priorities and subsequent identification of course objectives.

Course proposals continued to improve, with stronger candidates able to clearly show how their course
objectives derived from the needs analysis in the previous section, and how they related to the priorities
identified. They were also able to demonstrate clearly how lessons related to course objectives and how
they built on and related to each other.

Assessment principles continued to be well understood by stronger candidates who were able to show
clearly how the principles influenced their choice of instruments. They were also able to clearly show
which course objectives are to be met, when and how.

Stronger candidates linked their sections together well with a clear sense of progression between each
part. Layout was generally good, with stronger candidates making effective use of headings and sub-
headings, and clearly signposting their appendices in the main body of the assignment. Stronger
candidates were able to maintain a development of clear argument both within sections and between
different parts of the assignment.

The word-limit was mostly adhered to by candidates both overall and for each section, with hardly any
candidates still using footnotes. However, there is a tendency among a few candidates to try to
circumvent the overall word limit through excessive use of charts or over-use of bullet points at the
expense of prose. Candidates who radically departed from the suggested word-limit for each section
again tended to do poorly overall. There is also a growing incidence of tables being saved as pictures
with the result that content cannot be counted by the automatic word count tool. Candidates should be
advised that content within pictures in the main body of the work do count in the word limit and over-
length assignments will be penalised or returned unmarked even if some written content is in picture form.

5
1.3.2 Specific strengths
There were many excellent assignments which:
researched the chosen specialism in insightful ways and critiqued the relevant literature
identified key issues in the specialism and their practical implications
used a range of tools, whose choice was justified, to identify needs
analysed the results thoroughly, and summarised the key findings in the text itself
clearly identified learning priorities which informed the subsequent choice of course objectives
designed innovative and comprehensive course plans which were well justified
were complemented by useful, logical, creative and relevant assessment procedures
were well-written and clearly organised with plentiful reference to key sources in each section.

Most assignments kept to the word limit; those that did not were penalised. Centres should remind
candidates that the total word length is 4,500 and range is already allowed for (4,000-4,500). Candidates
who wrote significantly less than 4500 words, however, tended to struggle to provide sufficient depth of
discussion.

Some specific strengths were as follows:

OVERALL
Stronger candidates tended to integrate their background reading into principled decisions,
whereas weaker candidates often summarised their reading without explicitly linking it to their
decisions.
Stronger candidates again made clear links between sections such that there was a logical thread
running throughout the assignment, something which weaker candidates were often unable to do.

PART 1
Candidates who narrowed in part 1 did so sensibly e.g. EAP to writing where the focus on writing
was clearly situated within EAP rather than being general.
Strong candidates showed in Part 1 how they had understood what they had read well enough to
take a stance, to have a personal opinion on different authors or to show how ideas should be
interpreted.
Generally, key issues were covered and candidates remembered to consider implications for
course design.

PART 2
The principles of NA/DT were generally understood well, with stronger candidates showing
explicitly how this understanding informed their choice of instruments.
Stronger candidates clearly showed how their NA results logically informed the design of their DT
instruments.
Some candidates presented a useful overview of the tools and instruments used for NA/DT which
provided the reader with a clear summary.
Stronger candidates presented their data in a reader-friendly way and showed explicitly how their
learning priorities were arrived at, often using numbering/coding to make the links clear.
Stronger candidates generally justified their choices in part 3 with clear reference back to the data
from part 2 and the specialism in part 1.

6
PART 3
The principles of course design and types of syllabus were mostly well understood, with stronger
candidates showing explicitly how their understanding of these principles influenced the design of
their subsequent course.
More candidates seem to be building assessment into the course proposal - some colour coded
this to make it clearer for the reader - and referring back to this in part 4.
Most courses were well planned with clear links to the course objectives.
Good assignments gave some appended support for their course plans in the form of materials to
be used in some of the lessons, to usefully exemplify how the course would work in practice.
Stronger assignments again made good use of colour-coding and arrows to show the
development of strands of the syllabus and links between individual lessons.

PART 4
Stronger candidates were able to integrate their discussion of principles of assessment well into
their chosen assessment procedures.
More candidates seemed to be explicitly linking their assessment procedures to the course by
showing how each of the course objectives is to be tested, and indicating where assessment will
take place on the actual course plan.
Some candidates even included an assessment overview table which is particularly helpful when
many different assessment tools are used.
Stronger assignments successfully justified assessment decisions made with reference back to
the specialism, learner needs, course design principles.
Good assignments offered appended support for assessment tools.

WRITING
Many assignments were clearly organised, well-linked within and across sections, well-written,
with appropriate use of referencing conventions in-text and in the bibliography.
Presentation was generally very good with clear, accurate writing, logical organisation, good
cross-referencing between sections and signposting of appended documentation.
Most candidates presented their essays well with good signposting, clearly organised, sequenced
and labelled appendices, and an appropriate number of relevant appended materials.
Stronger assignments again showed good coherence overall and logically developed a sense of
argument throughout each part of the assignment.

1.3.3 Specific weaknesses

The main areas of weaknesses continue to be issues such as:

not basing the whole assignment and course on the chosen specialism
not adequately researching the chosen specialism
lack of theoretical underpinning in some or all sections
not linking the background reading to specific decisions taken
failure to analyse learners needs adequately and identify learning priorities from the analysis
failure to link the design of the course to the needs identified
lack of clarity as to what is to be tested, when and how during the course
lack of clear development of argument within sections and links between sections.

A consistently common feature of some weaker assignments was that they appeared to be based on an
already prepared course and assessment, and were therefore not convincingly linked to a principled
analysis of learner needs and/or a clear understanding of the specialism. Candidates who produced such
assignments were evidently unclear about the specifications and requirements for this assignment, and in
some cases appeared not to have read and understood the information in the Handbook.

7
Weaker candidates failed to make sufficient reference to research, in some or all sections of the
assignment, to support their discussion and/or failed to integrate this into an analysis of their own course.
Some candidates did not refer to reading they had done, while others seemed not to have done much
reading at all. Weaker assignments tended to rely too much on general methodology books, such as
Thornbury, Harmer, Scrivener and Hedge, to discuss the specialism, course design and/or assessment.

Failing candidates tended to have the following common problems.

PART 1
There were again candidates who seemed either unclear what their specialism was, or failed to
link the whole assignment to their chosen specialism.
Some candidates narrowed the specialism without integrating this with a general discussion of
the overall specialism, for example, by writing too extensively about how to teach writing, without
going into enough depth about teaching EAP.
There was still a general lack of critical response to reading. Few candidates demonstrated an
ability to contrast positions in the literature and say which point of view they agree with and why.
As experienced practitioners, their response to theoreticians counts, and they shouldnt shy away
from this where relevant.

PART 2
Weaker assignments made little reference to theory, and failed to use relevant terminology.
Occasional assignments focused on one skill with no comment as to why, and without adequate
justification for this from their NA.
In some weaker assignments there was very little data either collected, analysed or collated. In
some cases data was in appendices but not discussed in the main body, while in others the data
was reported in the body without any support in either document.
Sometimes it seemed that the data was made to fit predetermined decisions about focus of
course/content. This led to some weak or unfocused priorities.
Some candidates tended to briefly list the priorities identified, with limited discussion about how
these were chosen or how they linked back to the findings of the NA/DT; some failed to list
priorities at all, leaving the reader to surmise from the discussion of the findings what the priorities
might be.

PART 3
Some candidates discussed course design principles without showing how these principles
informed their decisions about the course content and sequencing of objectives. Others simply
failed to explicitly discuss principles, while others discussed them without any reference to key
sources.
Weaker assignments spent most of their words on far too lengthy goals and objectives which
tended to leave too few words left to discuss the rationale for the course.
In some cases it was unclear how the course objectives linked back to the priorities identified in
Part 2, while in others there seemed to be a mismatch between the two.
Course plans rarely made explicit the links between the various elements of the course to show,
for example, how recycling would take place or how language or receptive skills work would help
learners to prepare for later productive work.
Some course plans were disappointing in their level of detail, and weaker assignments generally
failed to discuss the course plan sufficiently in terms of sequencing of content/interplay of
threads.
Some course plans lacked sufficient detail which made it difficult to ascertain what would be
taught and how course objectives are to be met.

PART 4
For many weaker candidates, part 4 continues to be problematic; in some cases it remains under-
length and gives a sense of being incomplete, possibly due to a rush to complete the assignment
on time.

8
 Some candidates failed to adequately distinguish between formative and summative assessment
tools, and this led to confusion as to what was to be tested, and why.
Weaker assignments needed to link the assessment procedures more explicitly to the course
objectives in order to show how these were to be assessed.
Weaker assignments tended to list what would be done when, with only limited justification of
why.
Some assignments lacked samples which would have better clarified the procedures to be used.

WRITING
Poor or lack of proof-reading continues to be an issue for weaker submissions. Some contain
language inaccuracies, problems with inconsistent margins, font size, line spacing between
sections and sub-sections, etc. Spelling of author names seemed to go unchecked sometimes.
Weaker candidates tended to poorly signpost/acknowledge appended materials, while others
tended to put too much discussion in the appendices rather than in the main body.
A few candidates appeared to knowingly state under-length/over-length essays on cover pages.
There are still candidates who are spending an inordinate amount of time scanning in pages from
course books.

1.4 Advice to centres and candidates

The majority of assignments submitted for assessment again met the criteria and represented work which
demonstrated a sound grasp of candidates chosen specialism, principles of needs analysis, course
design and assessment. There was again a good range of assignments which met the criteria for a Merit
and Distinction.

Greater care should be given in advising candidates how to approach the assignment, in particular:
Centres should encourage candidates to thoroughly proof read assignments to ensure:
a high degree of accuracy
language which is stylistically appropriate
clear and cohesive writing
consistent referencing (where all sources used in-text are fully detailed in the references
list).
Make sure that candidates are writing about the specialism as a whole in Part 1, rather than
about the specific course. Help them avoid narrowing the specialism too much.
Make sure the candidates explicitly demonstrate their understanding of principles, rather than
letting the reader assume they know. Encourage more specialist reading for each of Parts 1-4
rather than using general sources (such as Hedge, Thornbury, Harmer, etc.) for each.
Reference to the literature must be evident in all sections and discussion of principles needs to be
closely tied to the decisions the candidate has made.
Recommend much broader reading for each of the sections so that specialism-writers are not the
only sources used in P2-4 - e.g., for EAP, YL assignments, 1:1.
Encourage candidates to challenge what they have read in the literature, using their not
inconsiderable experience to do so, and to reflect on these in light of their own experience.
It needs to be impressed on candidates that applying theory to practice is a fundamental part of
this assignment. Analyse real NA tools, course plans and assessment tools in light of theoretical
areas to reinforce this e.g. look at a questionnaire and decide what kind of data it will yield; look at
plans and identify syllabus and sequencing principles etc.
In Part 2, make sure candidates refer to reading here, using appropriate terminology, e.g.
necessities/wants/lacks, subjective/objective needs, PSA/TSA, etc.
Remind candidates to provide sufficient information for an external reader to see links - i.e., by
reporting key data for NA/DT results in the body; by providing collated data in appendices; by
showing a fuller course plan; by giving samples of stated assessments, especially at FA stages

9
 Show examples of how to present analysed data in appendix 2 each tool used must be
analysed and data presented in a reader-friendly fashion. If bar charts/graphs are used,
encourage candidates to add brief commentary underneath these to indicate what the data
reveals to be important. If productive samples are used for the DT, ensure there is a clear
assessment criteria and that the samples are analysed against these to identify strengths and
weaknesses. Highlight data in appendix two (through e.g. colour coding) that is mentioned in the
part 2 summary of priorities. This helps keep the link between analysis and conclusions
transparent.
Ensure there is a clear link between priorities in Part 2 and course objectives in Part 3. Learner
needs should then be the point of departure in Part 3.
Make sure the course objectives chosen on Part 3 are specific enough to be able to be tested
through the assessment procedures chosen in Part 4.
It is important that course content is sequenced and that the rationale for such sequencing is both
principled and explicit. The course plan should cross-reference objectives, materials and lesson
content.
Candidates should be advised to ensure that all details necessary to interpret the course plan
itself (e.g., lesson lengths, keys explaining acronyms, course objectives etc.) should be presented
along with the plan.
Encourage candidates to include some actual teaching materials/assessment tools in appendices
and explicitly refer to these in-text when they explain/justify their choices in these areas.
It is important that a practical picture of assessment emerges when, how often, etc. - therefore
an overview table should be appended, or a column devoted to assessment in the course plan.
Objectives must be referenced and all tools require appended support. Remind candidates about
the need to proof read carefully.
Encourage candidates to incorporate discussion of course design, teaching methodology and
assessment theory with discussion of what will happen on their course and what their learners
need, as well as with the key principles of the specialism itself.
Make sure that links between the sections are clear. Candidates would be advised to go back to
earlier parts once later parts are written. Stronger assignments are coherent, shaped all into a
whole, where weaker ones come across as linear.
Help candidates to explore practical ways in which the entire paper can be made more cohesive.
Implications from Part 1, and priorities identified in Part 2 should be referenced in later sections to
clearly show how they influence course design, teaching approach and assessment.
Candidates are advised to use the following checklist as a final check before submitting their assignment.

Have I clearly chosen a specialism from the list provided, and indicated this on the cover yes/no
page?
outlined key features of the specialism and indicated what distinguishes it from
other forms of teaching, such as general English?
referred to and commented on background reading and key sources throughout?
discussed principles underlying NA/DT, CSD, assessment, etc.?
clearly justified my choice of needs analysis tools?
included completed samples of diagnostic tests used in the appendix?
analysed the results of the diagnostic tests adequately?
justified the learning priorities I have identified clearly in relation to my needs
analysis?
justified my course objectives in terms of learner needs?
added my course plan and Needs Analysis/Diagnostic Test summary results as an
appendix to the main body of the text?
included sufficient detail in my course plan?
made it clear what I will assess and how, with samples in the appendix?
outlined how the course will be evaluated?
respected the word-limit and indicated the word count on the cover page?
linked all parts of the assignment coherently to one another?
signposted all the appendices clearly in the main body of the text?

10
Centres are advised to continue to monitor candidates progress in this assignment, through individual
tutorials and by commenting on drafts, in order to ensure that they are meeting the criteria before they
complete the whole assignment (although the final submission should be checked to make sure tutor
comments have been removed and addressed). Some candidates might require additional advice, such
as how to include quotes within the text.

Centres should also continue to advise candidates that all assignments are automatically checked
electronically for plagiarism and that plagiarism has already been and will be penalised. Plagiarism
checks include checks against previously submitted assignments as well as assignments or parts of
assignments which include passages copied from online resources or books, or from assignments
obtained from colleagues or given by centres as a model. Centres should inform candidates that
submission of assignments which have been plagiarised may lead to the candidates disqualification and
a ban on re-entry of up to three years.

11
2. REPORT ON THE ELTM OPTION

2.1 Introduction

This Delta Module Three ELTM Principal Examiner (PE) Report is based on Extended Assignments
submitted in June 2015 and December 2015 which focused on ELTM (English Language Teaching
Management). It highlights areas which were considered by examiners to be particularly strong or weak
and also provides specific comments in order to help centres and future candidates.

2.2 Purpose of Report

The assignments submitted for assessment are independent research projects owned by candidates, so
it is not appropriate to provide model sample assignments. However, this report highlights some of the
areas which were considered by examiners to be particularly strong or weak so as to give clearer
guidance to candidates and centres.

2.3 Overall comments on the work of candidates

The number of ELTM assignments submitted ranged between 20-30 per marking session. Most
candidates chose to focus on Academic Management, with approximately 85% of candidates choosing
this option.

Most assignments were well done, and candidates continued to make good use of guidance from their
centres and the Module Three ELTM Handbook, although there were again some candidates who
seemed to have limited experience and understanding of ELTM issues, and who consequently found it
challenging to produce a satisfactory assignment. Nevertheless, most candidates followed the
assignment guidelines well, adhered to the word-limit and made effective use of appendices to support
their assignments.

2.3.1 Overall strengths and weaknesses

There were some very good assignments which:

reviewed and critiqued the relevant literature on ELTM in general, and the chosen area (i.e., HRM
or Academic Management, etc.) in particular, and also identified key issues and their practical
implications
used a range of tools to analyse the educational context of their chosen LTO and to identify and
prioritise areas for improvement
presented innovative and well considered change proposals which were well justified by the
findings from the analysis
explained clearly and in detail how their proposed change(s) would be implemented in different
stages over time
were well-written and clearly organised with plentiful reference to key sources.
Some had done extensive reading, were able to juxtapose different writers views and draw their own
conclusions, and used their reading to underpin decisions taken in parts 2, 3 and 4 of the assignment.

A common theme among weaker candidates continued to be a tendency to focus the assignment too
narrowly from the start, and to choose the specific focus of the proposal before conducting the situation
analysis. Such proposals then often tended to concentrate on improving one specific area of the LTO
without providing a convincing rationale for how this would improve the overall performance of the
organisation or solve problems identified in the analysis. Candidates undertaking the ELTM specialism
should be aware that the change proposal they suggest should be clearly justified in their customer

12
analysis/situation analysis. They should avoid simply describing a pet project or a change which they
have seen implemented at another LTO, but which may not answer the needs of the LTO they describe.

The weakest section of many assignments continued to be part 2, with a number of candidates failing to
adequately discuss principles of customer and stakeholder analysis, and to refer to sufficient number of
key sources. Other main areas of weaknesses were:
lack of awareness of management issues
lack of theoretical underpinning in some or all sections
failing to analyse the educational context of the chosen LTO adequately
not linking the change proposal to the needs identified
not adequately justifying the implementation plan.

The following comments made by examiners reflect specific strengths and weaknesses related to the five
assessment categories:

2.3.2 Specific strengths and weaknesses

Grasp of Topic
Some specific strengths were as follows:
demonstrating a sound understanding of ELTM issues and awareness of key sources
demonstrating good awareness of the chosen area within ELTM (e.g., Academic Management,
Human Resource Management, Customer Service, and Marketing)
integrating a discussion of general ELTM issues with specific issues related to their chosen area
(e.g., AM, HRM, etc.)
building own experience and/or observation of ELTM into the discussion of issues.

Some specific weaknesses were as follows:

limited review of the literature with few key sources referred to and/or an over-reliance on a small
number of sources
focusing solely on the chosen area without discussing ELTM in general or situating the chosen
area within ELTM
failure to explain why they had chosen a particular area within ELTM, such as Academic
Management
lack of a management perspective on the issues discussed
lack of organisation of ideas or development of argument within this section.

Situational Analysis
Some specific strengths were as follows:
good understanding of principles of customer analysis and stakeholder analysis with reference to
the literature which clearly informed the choice of instruments used
good use of detailed breakdowns and/or summary charts of the situation analysis data to
summarise the instruments used and/or the main results
clear conclusions drawn from the analysis and prioritisation of areas for improvement which
enabled the reader to follow the links from the data to the conclusions.

Some specific weaknesses were as follows:

discussing the prioritised areas in part 1 before the analysis, thus giving the impression that the
data has not in fact informed the choice of change proposal
lack of explicit discussion of principles of customer analysis/stakeholder analysis with few key
sources referred to
weaker candidates tended to use tools without explaining why they had chosen them and without
reference to key principles of customer analysis/stakeholder analysis
lack of thorough analysis of the data collected, and lack of visual presentation of the findings

13
 little in-text discussion of the findings with over-reliance on data in the appendices
lack of clarity as to how areas for improvement were prioritised from the analysis
lack of a management persepective throughout the section, instead focusing on issues purely
from a teacher's perspective.

Proposal
Some specific strengths were as follows:
good understanding of principles of strategic management and school improvement with
reference to the literature which clearly informed the change proposal
comprehensive proposal for change, with sufficient detail to show what was intended and why
clear justification for the proposal in terms of its impact on the LTO, with detailed indication of the
benefits of the proposal to the various stakeholders.

Some specific weaknesses were as follows:

lack of explicit discussion of principles of strategic management and school improvement, with
few key sources referred to
briefly mentioning some key sources, but failing to integrate the reading convincingly into the
decisions taken
failing to show how the change proposal was informed by the analysis and failing to convincingly
show why this proposal was key to improving the LTO's performance
lack of detail as to how the changes would impact different stakeholders
lack of a management persepective throughout the section: some candidates tended to describe
the proposal simply from a teacher's perspective.

Implementation
Some specific strengths were as follows:
good understanding of principles of change management and decision-making with reference to
the literature which clearly informed the implementation plan
clear justification for the decisions taken in the implementation plan in relation to the literature as
well as the results of the situation analysis
clear demonstration of how the proposal would work in practice and how it would be received by
different stakeholders
good discussion of issues such as resistance, and of practical ways to overcome them.

Some specific weaknesses were as follows:

lack of explicit discussion of principles of change management and decision-making, with few
key sources referred to
briefly mentioning some sources, but failing to integrate the reading convincingly into the
decisions taken
lack of clear justification for the choice of the implementation plan in terms of the results of the
situation analysis
basic plan which lacks detail as to how different stages are required over time to implement the
whole proposal; action plans need to be more tangible and detailed
lack of a management persepective: simplistic assumptions that a proposal will be successfuly
implemented without needing to consider change management.

Presentation and Organisation

Some specific strengths were as follows:
most candidates made good use of the headings and sub-headings suggested in the DM3 ELTM
section of the Handbook to organise their writing
most candidates took care to present their assignment effectively using tables, charts and other
visuals to support their arguments or present data
stronger candidates made explicit links between the different sections of the assignment to
present a coherent, logical and consistent argument throughout.

14
Some specific weaknesses were as follows:
lack of proof-reading and failure to signal appendices in the main body of the assignment
poor and/or inconsistent use of referencing conventions
poor presentation with unnecessary line spaces between sections and/or sudden changes in font
size or layout in certain sections
lack of logical development of argument within sections
lack of explicit links between sections.

2.4 Advice to candidates and centres

Many ELTM candidates would clearly benefit from more help in all areas: in particular, situation
analysis-bench marking, stakeholder analysis, and other means of data gathering. In part 3 they need
help tying their change in with LTO strategy. They need to be clear on how the change proposal helps
the LTO.

Candidates considering whether to choose the ELTM option would be advised to:
consider whether they have sufficient knowledge or understanding of ELTM from their own
experience or observations, and thus whether they might be better placed to choose another
specialism for the Delta Module Three Extended Assignment.
ensure that they have access to an LTO in order to obtain the data required for the analysis
section of the assignment.
read more widely about ELTM in general, and about customer/stakeholder analysis, strategic
management/school improvement, change management and decision-making, in particular.
think through in detail how to design a proposal which strategically addresses some of the
fundamental weaknesses identified in the analysis.
consider how the change would be implemented in detail in order to satisfactorily improve the
LTO, again with reference to the weaknesses identified in the analysis section.

Centres are advised to continue to monitor candidates progress in this assignment, through individual
tutorials and by commenting on drafts, in order to ensure that they are meeting the criteria before they
complete the whole assignment (although the final submission should be checked to make sure tutor
comments have been removed and addressed). Some candidates might require additional advice, such
as how to include quotes within the text.

Centres should also continue to advise candidates that all assignments are automatically checked
electronically for plagiarism and that plagiarism has already been and will be penalised. Plagiarism
checks include checks against previously submitted assignments as well as assignments or parts of
assignments which include passages copied from online resources or books, or from assignments
obtained from colleagues or given by centres as a model. Centres should inform candidates that
submission of assignments which have been plagiarised may lead to the candidates disqualification and
a ban on re-entry of up to three years.

15