3.1 Interaction Patterns in the Lesson Plan

Why interaction pattern is a Module 2 planning decision

TKT Module 2 (Lesson planning and use of resources for language teaching) asks whether you can plan a lesson on paper. One standard heading on that plan is interaction pattern: who speaks to whom, and who is silent, during each stage. Independent OpenExamPrep teaching treats the heading as a design choice, not a decoration. The code you write—T–S, T–class, S–S, groupwork, individual work—must match the stage aim, the language system or skill you are teaching, and the classroom conditions you can actually manage.

Cambridge Assessment English owns the Teaching Knowledge Test. This chapter is independent commentary for teachers sitting Module 2. It does not claim official approval. On the paper you will often match a short stage description to a plan heading or to an interaction code. Candidates lose marks when they write pairwork because it feels communicative, or groupwork because several learners will eventually speak. The examinable skill is to name the pattern the procedure really creates.

What an interaction pattern is

An interaction pattern is the social arrangement of talk and attention in a stage. It is not the activity type. A gap-fill can be individual, pair-check, or teacher-led on the board. A so-called discussion can be genuine student-to-student talk or a disguised teacher question chain. On a Module 2-style plan you record the pattern in its own column beside procedure, timing, and stage aim so an observer (or you, teaching from the plan next week) knows when the teacher should stop talking.

Plan codes and meanings

Learn the codes as they appear on lesson plans, then attach a typical purpose.

• T–S / T–Ss / T–class — the teacher addresses one learner, several learners, or the whole class. This is plenary mode: everyone is notionally attending to the same input. Typical uses: setting context, giving instructions, clarifying meaning, form, and pronunciation (MFP), conducting plenary feedback after practice.
• S–T — a student speaks to the teacher. Typical uses: answering a nominated question, reporting a group's decision, asking for clarification. S–T is not pairwork; it is a public sample of one voice.
• S–S / pairwork — two learners work together. Default classroom pairwork is closed pairs: every pair works at the same time. Open pairs are different (see below).
• Groupwork (GW) — three or more learners share a task. Groupwork needs a product (a ranking, a poster, a booking, a decision) or assigned roles. Without those, it collapses into social chat or one dominant speaker.
• Individual work (IW) — each learner processes input or produces language alone. First reading of a dense text, a diagnostic test, a first written draft, and many controlled written exercises belong here.
• Whole-class mingle — learners stand, move, and speak to several classmates. Typical tasks: Find someone who, surveys, short opinion exchanges before a report-back. A mingle is not pairwork with extra walking; partners rotate.
• Plenary feedback — the class reconvenes as one group so answers, language, or task outcomes can be shared and upgraded. Interaction is often T–class with nominated S–T contributions.

Open pairs, closed pairs, mingling, and plenary

Closed pairs maximise student talking time (STT) and let the teacher monitor several conversations by walking a route. They also raise noise. Use them when the stage aim is oral practice, peer checking after individual work, or preparing a short report.

Open pairs reduce STT for everyone who is only watching. Two learners perform across the room; the rest listen. Use them sparingly: to model a dialogue before closed pairs, to check one item publicly, or to build confidence when learners are not ready to work unseen. If a plan labels a twelve-minute fluency discussion as open pairs, the pattern cannot deliver the aim.

Mingling has a rotating partner pattern and a simple information-exchange goal. Instructions must say how to move, how many people to speak to, and what signal ends the stage. Without that, mingling becomes a corridor conversation with one friend.

Plenary is not automatically a lecture. A useful plenary still uses T–class for instructions and then nominates S–T answers so more than two confident voices are heard. A weak plenary is teacher talk that the plan politely calls discussion.

Watch for IRF (Initiation–Response–Feedback): the teacher asks, one student answers, the teacher evaluates. IRF is honest T–S / S–T. It is a reasonable checking pattern. It is not a discussion, not groupwork, and not fluency practice.

Why teachers choose a pattern

The choice is driven by accuracy versus fluency, confidence, monitoring, noise, and mixed ability.

Accuracy-focused stages—clarifying a structure, drilling, a tightly controlled written exercise—need a clear model. They usually sit in T–class plus individual work or tightly monitored closed pairs. Fluency-focused stages need S–S, groups, or a mingle so learners assemble language under time pressure with less immediate correction.

Confidence matters as much as the language aim. Shy learners often need closed pairs before any open-pair display. Forcing a quiet class into a mingle as the first speaking stage can freeze output; a two-minute closed-pair rehearsal first is a planning decision, not a luxury.

Monitoring is a reason to choose a pattern, not an afterthought. You cannot hear twelve pairs at once in a noisy mingle. If the main aim is accurate some/any with countable and uncountable nouns, closed pairs plus a planned monitoring route (and notes for delayed plenary feedback) serve the aim. If the main aim is to collect lots of Have you ever… answers, a mingle serves quantity; you accept that you will only sample errors.

Noise and the room constrain the code. Thin walls, a shared primary classroom, or very young learners may rule out a long mingle even when the activity type looks ideal in a coursebook.

Mixed ability should show in the pattern, not only in a class-profile sentence. Groups with roles—scribe, reporter, language monitor, timekeeper—stop the strongest student from answering for everyone. Pairing a stronger and weaker learner can support a form-focused oral drill. Pairing two weak learners on that same drill may rehearse the error. Pairing two strong learners on a simple drill may finish in ninety seconds and go off-task; give them an extra challenge card or a reporter role for plenary.

Classroom scenarios the Module 2 paper will recognise

Scenario A — first reading. A B1 class will read a 400-word article on urban farming before a vocabulary focus. The first stage aim is to read for gist. Interaction should be individual, then closed pairs to compare gist questions, then plenary to confirm. Putting pairwork on the first silent reading of a hard text means the stronger reader processes the input and the partner nods. The plan would then show S–S where the stage aim needs IW.

Scenario B — after clarification. The teacher has just clarified second conditional. The next stage aims to give controlled oral practice of If I were mayor, I would…. Closed pairs with a substitution table serve accuracy and monitoring. A whole-class discussion that is actually T–S IRF gives two confident speakers most of the turns and should not be coded as groupwork.

Scenario C — mingle then feedback. A Find someone who task on present perfect Have you ever… needs a mingle code, not S–S. Learners must change partners. Plenary feedback afterwards harvests interesting answers and delayed correction of form (I have went, missing ever, present simple with a life-experience meaning).

Scenario D — instructions. Before any of those stages, instructions are almost always T–class, often followed by instruction-checking questions (ICQs) and one open-pair demonstration. Writing S–S for the instruction stage is a mismatch: learners cannot start a pair task they have not understood.

Traps that lose marks on the paper

1. Pairwork during first silent reading of a hard text. Gist or detailed reading requires individual processing first. Pairwork is a later check, not the first encounter with the words on the page.
2. Teacher-fronted discussion. If the procedure is Teacher asks questions and students answer, the pattern is T–S / S–T, not group discussion. Name it elicitation or oral checking.
3. Groupwork with no role and no product. Four learners and talk about holidays produces one speaker and three passengers. Plan a recorder, a timekeeper, and an outcome to report in plenary.
4. Open pairs for a long fluency stage. Two students perform; twenty watch. That is a demonstration, not fluency practice.
5. S–S on a teacher clarification stage. If you are presenting form on the board, the honest code is T–class until learners try the form themselves.

How the pattern sits on the plan

A Module 2-style plan row might read:

• Stage aim: to give controlled oral practice of countable/uncountable noun + some/any
• Procedure: Learners use a kitchen picture and ask Is there any…? / Are there any…?
• Interaction: S–S (closed pairs)
• Timing: 6 minutes
• Anticipated problem: learners may pluralise uncountables (any breads)
• Solution: leave a count/uncount list on the board; monitor and note examples for plenary

The interaction code is doing work. It tells you when to talk, when to be quiet, and how you will hear enough language to give feedback. That is why Module 2 treats it as a named component of the plan, not a slogan you add after the procedure is written.