Sorry—and here is the new plan
Original fictional classroom material. The level is a teaching target, not a validated test result.
Teaching sequence
- 2 minutes: read the learner context and first draft. Ask what the writer wants the reader to understand or do.
- 3 minutes: answer the three decision questions. Require an explanation, not just a letter.
- 3 minutes: rewrite the original. Compare grammar, preserved meaning and communicative effect separately.
- 3 minutes: complete the new transfer task without copying the model.
- 1 minute: choose one reusable editing habit; revisit it in the linked activity.
Student task / print handout
Read the context on the learner page, then repair this message:
Sorry for the change. We are meeting another day. Let me know.
New situation: You cannot attend a study call. Propose 22 June at 09:00 UTC, apologise briefly and ask for confirmation. Do not present the new time as agreed.
Teacher answer guidance — separate before handing out
Use the learner page for Turkish instructions. These teacher notes and answer rationales are in English.
- The new plan is vague and sounds settled. — The timing is vague and sounds already settled.
- Could we meet on 18 May at 14:00 UTC instead? — Could we presents the date as a proposal.
- Please let me know if that works for you. — The closing requests a clear response without demanding agreement.
Original repair: one possible version
Sorry, I can’t make our planned call. Could we meet on 18 May at 14:00 UTC instead? Please let me know if that works for you.
The first email is largely grammatical; the repair addresses vague timing and an unconfirmed proposal.
Ask for agreement instead of treating the alternative time as settled. A useful apology need not be long or reveal personal information.
Transfer: one possible version
Sorry, I can’t attend our study call. Could we meet on 22 June at 09:00 UTC instead? Please let me know if that works for you.
Feedback without false precision
Review three dimensions separately: target-form accuracy, preservation of supplied facts, and suitability for the reader and purpose. Do not deduct points for a valid alternative wording. Ask the learner to explain one choice. The three-item recognition score is not a writing proficiency or CEFR score.
Delayed retrieval
At the next lesson, ask for a fresh two-sentence message using the same target. Then use the linked practice; ask the learner to identify where grammar alone is not enough.
Full unit extension: 30–40 minutes
Objective: use Could we, would and unconfirmed arrangements in a new context. Suggested sequence: compare forms (6 minutes), explain two worked examples (4), recognition questions (4), controlled production (6), original contextual repair (6), independent transfer and feedback (8). Timing is adjustable.
Student worksheet: controlled production
- Complete with meet: Could we ___ on 18 May?
- Complete with work: Would 14:00 UTC ___ for you?
- Complete: Please let me know ___ that works for you.
- Rewrite using Could we: Let’s meet tomorrow.
Independent task
Write a 60–90-word rescheduling email with a brief apology, two clearly proposed alternatives with time zones and a confirmation request. Do not invent an agreement or unnecessary personal excuses. Then say a 30-second voice-message version; self-assess clarity, not accent.
Controlled-production key
- meet — Could + base verb.
- work — Would + base verb.
- if / whether — If/whether uygunluğu dolaylı olarak sorar.
- Could we meet tomorrow? — Yeni teklifi soru olarak sun; meet yalın.
Accept other grammatical answers where they satisfy the stated constraint and preserve meaning. The short automatic checker accepts listed alternatives and normalised contractions; a non-match is a request to compare, not proof that all other wording is wrong. Assess independent production for target form, meaning and communicative purpose, not exact wording. No automatic CEFR score.