A teacher can collect pages of learner information and still design the course they had already planned. The questionnaires look thorough, the timetable looks tidy, and the connection between them remains surprisingly hard to explain.
For Cambridge DELTA Module Three Option 1, turn needs analysis into explicit course priorities: show which evidence supports each priority, what learners should be able to do, why the sequence and time allocation make sense, and how assessment will check the intended learning. A course proposal becomes defensible when someone can trace its decisions back to the actual learners.
This guide concerns Extending Practice and ELT Specialism, not the separate English Language Teaching Management option. Official information was checked on 24 October 2026. The workplace case, diagnostic examples and planning routines are original illustrations, not a candidate assignment, authentic learner data or a promised assessment result.
Find your next learning step
Connect learner evidence with course priorities, sequencing and assessment in Cambridge DELTA Module Three Option 1, using an original worked case.
ROUTE 1 · CHAPTERS 1–3
Establish the evidence
Confirm the task, target demands and evidence sources.
ROUTE 2 · CHAPTERS 4–6
Choose priorities
Compare preferences, justify priorities and define outcomes.
ROUTE 3 · CHAPTERS 7–9
Design the programme
Sequence learning, allocate time and align assessment.
ROUTE 4 · CHAPTERS 10–12
Examine the whole plan
Work through competing evidence, individual needs and evaluation.
ROUTE 5 · CHAPTERS 13–15
Check transfer
Change the context, resolve questions and use the sources.
Full chapter index · Independent learning check · Education parent guide
Full chapter index
Establish the evidence · Chapters 1–3
Choose priorities · Chapters 4–6
Design the programme · Chapters 7–9
Examine the whole plan · Chapters 10–12
CHAPTER 1 OF 15 · Establish the evidence
1. Establish the option and the task before planning
Cambridge’s current DELTA module overview distinguishes two Module Three options. Option 1 involves an independent investigation leading to a course programme. Option 2 involves situation analysis and a management change proposal. Their purposes should not be blended because both involve writing.
Use the official DELTA syllabus and current centre instructions to establish the applicable task. A provider’s timetable, an older candidate’s document and a general article each have different authority.
The 2022 Module Three examination report is useful historical examiner guidance. It describes a 4,000–4,500-word assignment and a course of at least twenty hours. It concerns submissions from December 2021 and June 2022; it should not be presented as a newly issued 2026 report.
This article concentrates on the reasoning connecting learner evidence with a course. Confirm current submission requirements through the authorised route rather than treating an illustrative planning table as an official form.
A useful starting sentence is: these learners need to accomplish this kind of language task in this setting, and the evidence suggests these particular barriers. If the sentence could describe almost any group, the investigation is probably not yet specific enough.
Do not begin with an attractive coursebook contents page and search afterwards for learner information that justifies it. Resources can help deliver a course, but they should not silently determine its priorities.
The Education parent guide on learning that transfers into life provides the wider purpose. The teacher is learning to make a better planning decision when a new group presents a different combination of needs.
CHAPTER 2 OF 15 · Establish the evidence
2. Separate the destination from the starting point
A target need concerns what learners must do with English. A present difficulty concerns what they can currently do, under particular conditions. A useful course connects those two descriptions without pretending they are the same thing.
Imagine a fictional workplace group that must hand over unresolved customer enquiries between shifts. The destination is not simply “better speaking.” It includes identifying the unresolved issue, explaining what has already been checked and making the next action clear.
The starting point must be investigated. Perhaps learners understand enquiries accurately but omit the next action. Perhaps they know the action but cannot distinguish completed checks from planned checks. Another possibility is that they are unfamiliar with the organisation’s handover procedure rather than lacking the necessary English.
Those possibilities lead to different teaching choices. A grammar lesson cannot fix an unclear company procedure by itself. A new form cannot establish whether learners can explain the status orally.
Describe the target situation in enough detail to reveal its language demands. Who communicates with whom? What information must travel? Is there time to prepare? What happens when the listener asks a question? Which parts of the task depend on specialist workplace knowledge?
Then investigate current performance through tasks that are relevant but manageable. A learner’s broad level label is helpful background, not a complete account of their ability to perform this particular task.
The distinction also prevents deficit thinking. Learners may bring strong technical knowledge, experience and multilingual resources while needing support with one recurring communication demand.
A good analysis identifies capabilities already available as well as gaps. The course can then build from those strengths rather than treating the group as an empty container waiting for a syllabus.
CHAPTER 3 OF 15 · Establish the evidence
3. Choose evidence that can answer a planning question
An instrument is useful because of the information it can provide. Its appearance as a questionnaire, interview or test does not make it automatically appropriate.
For the fictional handover group, a short questionnaire might reveal which situations learners find difficult. A sample handover task can show what information they actually convey. A discussion with a relevant workplace contact can clarify the task’s requirements, where appropriate and permitted.
Each source has limits. Learners may describe low confidence while performing accurately. A manager may prioritise speed while overlooking the language needed to make a handover complete. A short test may reveal a form distinction but say little about interaction.
Choose a question first. If you need to know whether learners can distinguish completed checks from future actions, design or select a task that makes that distinction visible.
Do not collect every possible kind of data simply to make the investigation look substantial. Unused evidence adds work without improving the course decision.
Keep collection proportionate and follow the setting’s consent, privacy and access requirements. A teacher does not need identifiable customer records to create a fictional diagnostic enquiry.
Avoid assuming that a recording is essential. A carefully structured observation note may be sufficient for a particular question. Where recordings are used, the relevant permissions and handling arrangements matter.
The observed, inferred and unknown guide offers a useful vocabulary for the analysis. It helps separate a recorded behaviour from the explanation a teacher proposes.
A strong evidence choice makes the next decision clearer. It should reduce uncertainty about what to teach, how to support it or what needs further investigation.
CHAPTER 4 OF 15 · Choose priorities
4. Distinguish a learner preference from a learning priority
Learner preferences deserve attention, but a course cannot simply rank topics by popularity. A requested activity and a demonstrated need may point in different directions.
In the fictional group, several learners request more vocabulary. Their handovers, however, include most of the necessary technical terms. The repeated problem is that listeners cannot tell which actions have already happened.
The teacher should not dismiss the vocabulary request. It may reflect difficulty retrieving words under pressure, unfamiliarity with the task or a learner’s available language for describing a broader problem.
Investigate the relationship. Ask learners to explain what they mean by needing more vocabulary, and compare that account with actual task performance.
A useful priority may combine both findings: reliable language for reporting status, including a small set of high-value expressions, used inside complete handovers. That is more precise than choosing between “teach vocabulary” and “ignore what learners want.”
Likewise, a diagnostic score should not automatically become the course’s priority list. A grammar item may be difficult but peripheral to the target task. A recurring omission with a modest test footprint may have greater practical importance.
Use criteria that can be explained: relevance to the target task, strength of evidence, importance across the group, prerequisite value and what can reasonably be addressed in the available course.
These are suggested planning considerations, not an official DELTA scoring formula. Their purpose is to make the teacher’s judgement visible.
When evidence conflicts, keep the conflict in the explanation. A defensible decision does not require every source to agree. It requires showing why one interpretation is more useful for this course and what uncertainty remains.
A needs analysis is not finished when the evidence has been summarised. It must change the proposed course in a way a reader can inspect.
The following table develops the fictional handover case. It is an original planning illustration, not Cambridge’s assignment template or a report of actual participants.
| Evidence or question | Proposed learning priority | Course implication | Check to plan |
|---|---|---|---|
| Completed and planned actions become mixed | Make status clear | Practise contrasting status within whole handovers | Listener identifies what remains to be done |
| Next actions are frequently omitted | Close the information gap | Include a final action-and-responsibility step | A fresh handover supports an accurate next step |
| Technical terms are mostly available | Retain targeted vocabulary support | Avoid making the entire course a terminology list | Check retrieval within communication |
| Some participants understand but rarely contribute | Investigate participation conditions | Use supported turns before broader interaction | Observe contribution with reduced prompts |
The important work happens in the explanation around the table. Why does this evidence support this priority? What alternative interpretation was considered? Why is the implication suitable for these learners?
A row saying “weak speaking, practise speaking” leaves almost every educational decision unresolved. A stronger row identifies a particular relationship the communication must preserve.
State exclusions too. The course may not address advanced presentation skills, extensive report writing or every grammar difficulty identified. Explain why those matters are deferred, referred elsewhere or outside the immediate scope.
Exclusion is not the same as denying a need. It recognises that time, access and course purpose create boundaries.
A reader should be able to remove the proposed course plan and reconstruct its main priorities from the evidence discussion. If that is impossible, the analysis and design may still be running along separate tracks.
CHAPTER 6 OF 15 · Choose priorities
6. Turn priorities into outcomes learners can demonstrate
An outcome should describe a meaningful capability, not only an activity or a textbook unit. “Complete Unit Four” says what material was covered; it does not establish what learners can now do.
For the fictional group, one outcome might be to communicate the unresolved issue, completed checks and next action clearly enough for a colleague to continue the task.
That outcome contains several decisions. The speaker must select relevant information, distinguish status and make a next step explicit. The listener must be able to recover the important relationships.
Do not make the outcome so broad that a short course cannot plausibly address it. “Communicate professionally in all workplace situations” offers little guidance for teaching or assessment.
Equally, do not fragment the task until the practical purpose disappears. A learner can complete isolated tense exercises without producing a useful handover.
A helpful design works at two levels. Component practice develops an uncertain skill. Whole-task practice shows whether that component can be used where it matters.
Use language that learners and colleagues can understand. An outcome does not become more rigorous because it contains several specialist labels.
Then identify evidence appropriate to the outcome. If the goal concerns a listener’s understanding, inspect what the listener can recover rather than judging only the speaker’s fluency.
The guide to reading evidence and answer scope offers a related discipline: a conclusion should remain within what the task and evidence support.
The outcome gives assessment a destination. It also gives the teacher a way to decide which activities belong in the course and which merely look attractive.
CHAPTER 7 OF 15 · Design the programme
7. Sequence learning through dependencies
A course is more than a collection of good lessons. Its sequence should explain how one learning opportunity prepares learners for another.
In the handover example, learners may first need to recognise the difference between an unresolved issue, an action already completed and a proposed next action. Without that distinction, a more demanding role-play may rehearse confusion.
A possible sequence begins with interpreting brief handovers, moves to reconstructing missing information and then asks learners to produce and respond to fresh handovers. Support can reduce as the underlying decisions become more reliable.
This is one original planning possibility, not a prescribed DELTA sequence. A different group’s evidence could justify a different starting point.
For example, learners who already interpret status accurately may need more work on spoken delivery under time pressure. Repeating a long recognition stage would spend time on a capability they have already demonstrated.
Build in returns to important learning. A distinction introduced early should reappear in later tasks, where it must survive more information or less preparation.
Do not confuse increasing difficulty with adding length. A shorter task with an unexpected listener question may test a new capability more effectively than a longer familiar script.
The mathematics guide to prerequisite versus method errors provides a useful general question: which earlier decision needs to become stable before the next task can work?
A strong sequence allows the teacher to explain why these learners meet this task at this point. Its logic should remain visible even if the coursebook changes.
CHAPTER 8 OF 15 · Design the programme
8. Allocate time according to the learning demand
Time allocation expresses educational priorities. A course that claims interaction is central but gives almost every hour to explanation sends two different messages.
Begin with the available course time and the outcomes that can reasonably be addressed. Include practice, feedback, independent checks and the practical transitions between activities.
Do not allocate equal time to every topic merely because equal boxes look orderly. A foundational distinction may need concentrated attention; an established strength may need proportionate maintenance.
In the fictional case, a teacher initially plans many vocabulary sessions because those materials are ready. The needs evidence instead suggests that status and next-action relationships require repeated use across the course.
The repair is not to remove vocabulary altogether. It is to place necessary language inside the communication task and protect time for interpretation, production and response.
Explain the trade-off. What will learners gain from spending this time here, and what will not be covered as a result?
A timetable should also acknowledge the setting. Learners attending after a shift may need a different rhythm from learners studying intensively during a working day. That is a contextual consideration to investigate, not a universal claim about adult attention.
Avoid promising that a particular number of hours guarantees competence. The planned time is an opportunity for learning under stated conditions, not a measured outcome.
A course proposal becomes more credible when it recognises capacity. The teacher should be able to deliver the materials, gather the intended evidence and respond to difficulties within the actual schedule.
The allocation should answer a learning question, not simply fill the hours required by an assignment.
CHAPTER 9 OF 15 · Design the programme
9. Plan assessment alongside the course
Assessment should be designed with the outcomes, not added after the timetable is complete. Otherwise, the final task may reward something different from what the course claims to develop.
For a handover outcome, an assessment could use a fresh fictional enquiry and ask a listener to identify the current issue, completed checks and next action. The precise design should suit the learners and intended purpose.
A written grammar test might contribute useful evidence about one distinction, but it cannot automatically establish successful spoken handover performance.
Likewise, a confident role-play does not prove that every important detail was communicated accurately. Inspect the information that travelled.
Keep initial, formative and end-point purposes distinguishable. An initial task helps identify priorities. A formative task helps teacher and learners choose a repair. An end-point task examines what can be demonstrated after the planned learning.
If the same task is reused, consider what familiarity adds. Improvement may partly reflect remembered wording or content. A fresh related task can offer a different view of transfer.
State the conditions: preparation time, prompts, materials, partner arrangement and permitted support. A result without those conditions can look more general than it is.
Do not invent an official pass mark for a locally designed exercise. Any local success criteria should be explained as part of the proposed course, separate from Cambridge’s judgement of the candidate’s assignment.
Assessment becomes useful when the evidence can change a decision. The teacher should know what they would do if learners perform differently from the expectation.
CHAPTER 10 OF 15 · Examine the whole plan
10. Work through conflicting evidence
Consider a fuller fictional case. A group of six staff members completes a short self-report, a diagnostic handover and a discussion of common communication demands. These are invented participants and findings, not research results.
Most participants ask for more technical vocabulary. The diagnostic shows that the main terms are generally available, but several handovers do not make clear whether an action has already happened. One participant communicates status accurately but omits who should act next.
The teacher considers three interpretations. Vocabulary retrieval may be the main barrier. Status distinctions may be the main barrier. The task procedure itself may not be sufficiently clear.
Rather than choosing immediately, the teacher uses a small follow-up. Learners sort short statements into completed, unresolved and planned categories, then explain a handover with the technical words supplied.
Suppose the status confusion remains even when terminology is available. That supports making the distinction a course priority. It does not prove that vocabulary is irrelevant or that all participants share the same difficulty.
The teacher proposes a course focused on complete handovers, supported by targeted language work. The plan includes opportunities to identify status, produce a handover and respond to a clarification question.
The assessment proposal examines whether a colleague can recover the necessary information from a fresh case. The course evaluation also asks whether materials and procedures were feasible.
Notice how each stage changes the next decision. The self-report is respected, the diagnostic is investigated and the follow-up narrows the uncertainty.
The teacher has not turned a questionnaire into a decorative appendix. The evidence has altered the course’s centre of gravity.
Compare two plausible course plans
A useful way to test the rationale is to construct a reasonable alternative. Suppose Plan A gives the opening sessions to technical vocabulary and moves towards handovers later. Plan B introduces complete handovers early, then revisits language distinctions as problems appear.
Neither plan is automatically correct. The teacher needs to compare them against the actual evidence, learners and constraints.
If terminology is genuinely unavailable, beginning with unsupported whole tasks may frustrate learners and produce little useful interaction. If terminology is already accessible but the information structure is unreliable, several vocabulary-only sessions may postpone the main learning demand.
The comparison should identify the trade-off. Plan A might make an early activity easier while leaving less time for integrated practice. Plan B might reveal the target problem sooner while requiring carefully selected support.
A teacher can also combine features without pretending the compromise removes every risk. A brief vocabulary preparation stage can support an early handover task, followed by analysis and further practice. The reason for that combination should remain visible.
This exercise discourages a familiar writing habit: describing the selected plan so positively that no alternative could appear reasonable. Professional judgement is clearer when it explains why one feasible option was preferred under stated conditions.
Treat an exclusion as a real decision
The fictional needs analysis might also reveal difficulty writing long technical reports. That could be important in the workplace while remaining outside the proposed handover course.
A weak proposal quietly drops the finding because it complicates the timetable. A stronger explanation acknowledges it, states why it is outside this programme and identifies an appropriate follow-up question.
For example, the course may concentrate on short shift handovers because that is the agreed immediate purpose. Extended reporting may require a separate investigation, different source material and additional teaching time.
Do not promise that another department or provider will solve the need unless that arrangement exists. A proposed referral and a confirmed learning route are different things.
The exclusion should also remain open to revision. If further evidence shows that the handover routinely requires a substantial written report, the boundary may have been drawn in the wrong place.
Check whether the assessment can distinguish learning from familiarity
Imagine that learners practise one fictional enquiry repeatedly and meet exactly the same enquiry at the end. Their improved performance may reflect useful learning, remembered content or both.
A fresh related enquiry helps examine whether the important relationships can be preserved beyond the rehearsed example. Keep the difficulty appropriate: changing every feature at once can make the comparison uninformative.
The teacher might retain the same broad task and preparation conditions while changing the customer issue and the actions already completed. The learner then needs to select and organise information again.
The listener’s account becomes valuable evidence. If the speaker sounds fluent but the listener still cannot identify what remains unresolved, the intended communication outcome needs further attention.
This does not establish a scientifically controlled estimate of course impact. It provides a more relevant local check than familiarity with one script alone.
The professional question is what the result permits the teacher to conclude. A careful assessment plan names both the capability demonstrated and the conditions under which that demonstration occurred.
CHAPTER 11 OF 15 · Examine the whole plan
11. Keep individual differences visible within a group plan
A group course needs shared priorities, but shared priorities do not mean identical needs. Averages can conceal both established strengths and significant barriers.
In the fictional group, one learner may understand the information but need help initiating a turn. Another may speak readily while omitting essential status details. The same whole-task outcome can require different support.
Describe how a common activity can provide differentiated entry points without becoming several unrelated lessons. Some learners might use a short planning frame initially, while others receive a more demanding clarification question.
Check what happens when support is reduced. A successful performance with a detailed prompt should not be described as independent performance without qualification.
Do not assign permanent labels from one task. Participation can vary with familiarity, partner dynamics, access conditions and the particular day.
A course proposal should also consider who might be disadvantaged by its chosen format. If all evidence comes from rapid public speaking, a learner’s ability to prepare an accurate written handover may remain invisible even where that ability matters to the target setting.
This does not mean abandoning the intended outcome. It means distinguishing the capability being developed from incidental barriers and selecting appropriate support.
The CertTESOL learner-profile guide offers a related diagnostic perspective. Module Three course design operates across a different scale: priorities must remain coherent across a programme and a learner group.
A useful plan can explain both what the group will share and how individuals will receive a fair opportunity to develop and demonstrate the intended learning.
CHAPTER 12 OF 15 · Examine the whole plan
12. Evaluate the course without inventing success
A proposal is a reasoned design. It is not evidence that the course has already worked. Keep planned procedures, observed events and predicted benefits separate.
If a course has not been taught, do not write fictional learner progress as if it were an authentic evaluation. Explain how effectiveness would be examined and what evidence would be needed.
If some elements have been tried, describe the scope accurately. A successful pilot activity does not establish the effectiveness of the whole programme.
Course evaluation may consider learning evidence, learner experience, teacher feasibility and the fit between priorities and delivery. These perspectives should inform one another without being collapsed into a single satisfaction score.
Learners may enjoy an activity that does little for the intended outcome. A demanding activity may support useful learning while revealing that instructions need improvement.
Keep causal claims proportionate. If several changes occur together, an improvement cannot automatically be attributed to one resource or sequence.
The essay on a qualification as a signal helps maintain the distinction between a credential and the capabilities it is intended to communicate.
Similarly, a pass in a teacher qualification should not be used to promise every future learner a particular outcome. Professional competence includes continuing to inspect evidence and revise decisions.
A useful evaluation plan identifies what would count as a reason to retain, change or replace part of the course. It should make revision possible rather than serve only as a paragraph asserting that the design is effective.
Honest uncertainty strengthens a proposal when it is connected with a sensible plan for learning more.
CHAPTER 13 OF 15 · Check transfer
13. Test the proposal under changed conditions
A strong course design can explain how it would respond when the context changes. That does not mean it should be transplanted unchanged.
Move the fictional handover course online. Learners may be able to prepare text more easily, while shared screens or audio delays alter interaction. The same outcomes may remain worthwhile, but the task conditions and evidence collection need reconsideration.
Now change the target task from oral shift handover to a written update for a colleague in another time zone. Status and next actions still matter, but opportunities for immediate clarification are reduced.
The teacher should identify what remains central and what changes. A successful oral role-play cannot be treated as direct proof of accurate asynchronous writing.
Change the group’s starting point too. If new learners already distinguish completed and planned actions, the original priority may no longer deserve the same time allocation.
These comparisons reveal whether the proposal is genuinely based on needs or merely attached to a preferred set of materials.
The CertPT resource-adaptation guide examines a related decision at resource level. DELTA course design adds programme-level questions about priorities, sequence, allocation and assessment.
The Punggol guide to making case details change an explanation offers another useful transfer habit. Details matter because they alter what can reasonably be concluded or recommended.
A changed-context check should produce a justified adjustment, not a ritual statement that the teacher would “differentiate.” Name the condition, the implication and the evidence needed to judge the revised design.
CHAPTER 14 OF 15 · Check transfer
14. Questions candidates and colleagues often ask
Is a questionnaire enough for needs analysis?
It can provide useful information, but ask whether it answers the actual planning questions. Self-report alone may not show what learners can demonstrate in the target task.
Must the most frequently requested topic receive the most time?
Not automatically. Interpret preferences alongside performance, target demands and the course’s constraints. Explain the priority decision rather than dismissing learner views.
Should every diagnosed difficulty appear in the course?
A bounded programme cannot address everything. State what is prioritised, what is deferred and why. An exclusion should be justified rather than silently omitted.
Is a coursebook sequence already a course rationale?
No. The teacher still needs to explain why its selection and order suit these learners. A useful resource does not replace the design decision.
Can the fictional handover case become my assignment evidence?
No. It illustrates reasoning. Candidate work must truthfully represent the candidate’s own investigation and comply with current assessment and centre instructions.
Does a successful diagnostic prove the whole skill is secure?
It supports a conclusion about performance on that task under those conditions. Wider claims require further evidence, including changed contexts where relevant.
Is this guidance for the management option?
No. The article concerns Option 1. Check the separate official requirements for English Language Teaching Management.
Where should a candidate resolve a procedural uncertainty?
Use current Cambridge documents and the authorised centre’s instructions. Do not treat another candidate’s old submission arrangements as confirmation.
CHAPTER 15 OF 15 · Check transfer
15. Sources and an independent planning check
Official sources checked on 24 October 2026: Cambridge’s DELTA module overview, DELTA syllabus, preparation page, and 2022 Module Three examination report. The report is historical guidance; current requirements and centre instructions should be checked before submission.
Try this original planning check. Choose one proposed outcome and trace it backwards: what target demand does it serve, what learner evidence supports it and what alternative priority was considered?
Then trace it forwards. Which tasks develop the capability, why are they ordered that way, how much time is protected and what assessment could reveal independent use?
Finally, name one condition that would make you revise the plan. If no plausible evidence could change a decision, the rationale may be defending a preference rather than investigating a need.
The Education parent returns to the larger purpose: learning becomes valuable when it changes what someone can understand and do in a new situation.
For a teacher, that includes the ability to design a different course when the learners are different. A clear evidence-to-decision chain makes that professional judgement visible, discussable and open to improvement.