Most lesson plans that get returned are not returned for the activities. They are returned for the first box. The Intentions either restate the competency code word for word, which tells the observer nothing, or they drift so far from it that the lesson no longer matches the curriculum.
This guide shows you how to turn a competency code into Intentions that are specific to your class, still traceable to the curriculum, and measurable by the assessment you actually plan to give. If the ILAW format itself is new to you, read our complete ILAW lesson plan guide first.
The 10-second answer: Keep the competency’s verb and content, then add what the code cannot know: the conditions your learners will work under and the evidence you will accept. Competency plus conditions plus evidence equals an Intention that survives observation.
What a competency code gives you, and what it withholds
A competency is written for every classroom in the country. That is its strength as a standard and its weakness as a lesson plan. It names the learning, but it cannot know that your section has thirty-eight learners, that half of them share five textbooks, or that this is the first period after lunch.
Read any competency as three parts.
| Part | What it tells you | Example from a typical competency |
|---|---|---|
| Verb | The cognitive or physical demand | solve, describe, compare, demonstrate |
| Content | The subject matter the verb acts on | problems involving rate, the water cycle, two informational texts |
| Scope | How far the learning goes this quarter | one variable only, within the local setting, using given data |
Your Intention must keep all three. What you add is everything the code left out.
The three-part formula
Write Intentions in this order. It reads naturally and it forces the parts that observers look for.
1. The behaviour. Use the competency’s verb, or a verb at the same cognitive level. Do not quietly demote it. If the competency says analyse and your Intention says identify, you have changed the curriculum, and your assessment will be easier than the quarterly exam that follows it.
2. The conditions. State what the learner will have while performing. With a calculator or without. Given a diagram. In pairs. From a text read aloud. Conditions are where your classroom reality enters the plan, and they are the difference between a generic Intention and yours.
3. The evidence. Name what you will accept as proof, in the form you will actually collect. Not “learners will understand,” which cannot be seen, but “learners will write the equation before solving,” which can.
Written out, it sounds like this: Given a word problem and a number line, learners can solve problems involving rate in one variable, showing the equation before the computation. The verb and content came from the competency. The number line and the required working came from you.
Verbs that can be observed, and verbs that cannot
The fastest way to fix a weak Intention is to replace an unobservable verb. Both columns describe real learning. Only one column can be assessed.
| Cannot be observed directly | Can be observed |
|---|---|
| understand | explain in own words, give an example, predict |
| know | list, label, state, recall |
| appreciate | choose and justify, rank with reasons |
| be familiar with | identify, match, classify |
| learn about | describe, compare, summarise |
Matching the verb to the right cognitive level matters just as much as making it observable. Our Bloom’s taxonomy question stems cheat sheet gives you the ready-made stems for each level, which is the quickest way to keep the assessment at the level the competency demands.
Worked example one: from code to Intention
The competency: compare and contrast the properties of solids, liquids, and gases.
The weak version: “The learners will understand the properties of matter.” This drops the verb, drops the scope, and cannot be assessed. An observer reading this has no idea what will happen in the room.
The copy-paste version: “Compare and contrast the properties of solids, liquids, and gases.” Accurate, traceable, and completely silent about your class. It is not wrong. It just does no work.
The working version: “Given samples of three familiar materials and a comparison table, learners can compare the properties of solids, liquids, and gases, citing at least two properties for each state. Learners who finish early will predict what happens to each property when the material is heated.”
That last sentence is differentiation written into the Intention rather than promised vaguely elsewhere. It costs one line and it answers a question observers always ask.
Worked example two: keeping the cognitive level honest
The competency: evaluate the effectiveness of an author’s argument.
The quiet demotion: “Learners can identify the author’s argument.” Identification is a lower demand than evaluation. Plan this, teach this, assess this, and your learners meet a quarterly exam item they were never prepared for.
The honest version: “After reading a short editorial, learners can judge whether the author’s evidence supports the claim, citing one supporting and one weak piece of evidence, in a written paragraph.”
Notice that the honest version is harder to teach and harder to score. That is the point. When the Intention stays at the competency’s level, the assessment follows it up, and the quarterly exam holds no surprises. If you are building that exam, blueprint it against the same competencies with a table of specifications.
Where the learner context belongs
ILAW asks for learner context explicitly, and this is where most plans go generic. “Learners have varied learning styles” is not a context. It is a phrase that fits any class in the country, which means it describes none.
A real context names something specific and changes something in the plan.
- “Six learners in this section joined after the topic was introduced, so the opener revisits the prerequisite before the new work begins.”
- “This section meets in the last period, when energy is low, so the investigation comes before the discussion rather than after it.”
- “Three learners read below grade level, so the text is available as an audio reading while the printed copy is in front of them.”
Each of these could only have been written by the teacher of that class. That is the test. If another teacher could paste your context into their plan unchanged, it is not context.
Checking alignment before you teach
Lay the three boxes side by side and read across. The verb in Intentions must appear, in substance, in Assessment.
| Intention says | Assessment must be | Assessment must not be |
|---|---|---|
| solve | problems to work out | definitions to match |
| explain | a written or spoken reason | a multiple-choice recall item |
| demonstrate | a performance with criteria | a quiz about the performance |
| compare | a task naming similarities and differences | a list of one side only |
| design | a produced plan or product | a description of someone else’s design |
When the verb is a performance, the scoring rule has to exist before the lesson, not after it. Our guide to building a rubric for a performance task covers the criteria that make scoring defensible when a parent asks.
The five failures that get plans returned
- Restating the code. Traceable but empty. Add conditions and evidence.
- Demoting the verb. Easier to teach, and it leaves learners short at the quarterly exam.
- Two competencies in one Intention. If the session genuinely covers both, write two Intentions and assess both. Usually it means the arc should span two sessions.
- Unassessable language. Understand, appreciate, be aware of. Replace with the observable equivalent.
- Generic context. A sentence that fits any class tells the observer you did not write it for yours.
How this connects to the rest of the plan
Get the Intentions right and the remaining boxes get easier, because each one now has something to answer to. The Learning Experience has to build toward that behaviour. The Assessment has to produce it. Ways Forward has to respond to whether it appeared.
For the subject-specific versions of this, with full plans written out, see our ILAW samples for Math, Science, English, Filipino, and MAPEH. For the timing question, the same Intention needs a different Learning Experience in a 50-minute and a 60-minute period, which we cover in fitting an ILAW lesson into 50 or 60 minutes.
Drafting Intentions faster
The conditions and evidence are yours to write. The first pass at the behaviour does not have to be. Skoolari’s DepEd mode takes your competency and topic and returns a complete ILAW plan with Intentions already stated at the competency’s cognitive level, and assessment items that match. What you spend your time on is the learner context, which is the part no tool can invent honestly. See the plans here.
Whatever you draft with, declare it. The MATATAG guidelines include an AI-use declaration field, and our review of AI tools for Filipino teachers covers where disclosure fits in professional practice.
A two-minute self-check
- Is the verb from the competency, or at the same level?
- Are the conditions stated, meaning what learners will have while working?
- Is the evidence named in the form you will collect it?
- Could another teacher paste your learner context into their plan? If yes, rewrite it.
- Does your assessment produce the verb, and not a lower one?
Five yeses, and the first box is doing its job. Everything else in the plan gets easier from there.