The ILAW format is the same in every subject. What changes is what counts as evidence of learning — and that difference is exactly where teachers get stuck. A Science teacher and a Filipino teacher fill the same four boxes with very different material, and a sample written for one subject rarely helps the other.
This guide gives you a complete ILAW sample for five subjects: Mathematics, Science, English, Filipino, and MAPEH. Each one is written out in full, not summarized, so you can see how the same structure carries different content. If you are new to the format itself, start with our complete ILAW lesson plan guide and come back here for the subject-specific version.
The 10-second answer: ILAW is Intentions, Learning Experience, Assessment, Ways Forward. The structure never changes across subjects. What changes is the kind of evidence in the Assessment box — a computed answer in Math, an observed procedure in Science, a produced text in English and Filipino, a performed skill in MAPEH.
The one rule that makes every subject sample work
Before the samples, the principle that decides whether your plan survives observation: the Assessment box must produce the exact behaviour named in the Intentions box.
If your Intention says learners will solve problems involving rate, the assessment cannot be a matching type on vocabulary. If your Intention says learners will demonstrate a folk dance step, the assessment cannot be a written quiz about the dance. This sounds obvious written down, and it is the single most common reason a plan gets sent back.
Observers check this alignment before they check anything else. Our breakdown of what COT indicators actually measure covers how that judgment is made in practice.
Sample 1 — Mathematics
Grade 7 · Quarter 1 · One session, 60 minutes
Intentions
By the end of the session, learners can represent a real-life situation as a linear equation in one variable, and solve it using the properties of equality. Learners who already solve one-step equations confidently will extend to two-step equations using the same reasoning.
Learner context: Two learners in this section are still building fluency with integer operations. They will work the same problems with a number line available, so the arithmetic does not hide whether they understand the equation.
Learning Experience
Open with a situation the class recognises: a tricycle fare with a flag-down rate plus a per-kilometre charge. Ask what stays the same and what changes as the trip gets longer. Name the changing quantity as the variable.
Model one full solution on the board, speaking the reasoning aloud rather than only the steps: what you know, what you are looking for, the equation that connects them. Solve, then check by substituting the answer back into the original situation, not just the equation.
Learners then work three problems in pairs, with the second problem deliberately using different wording for the same structure. Circulate and look for one specific thing: are learners writing an equation before they start computing, or are they guessing and checking? Guessing and checking is the signal to slow down.
Close with two learners presenting different-looking but equivalent equations for the same situation, and the class deciding whether both are correct.
Assessment
A three-item exit slip. Item 1 gives a situation and asks only for the equation, not the answer. Item 2 gives an equation and asks for the solution. Item 3 gives a situation and asks for both. The split matters: it tells you whether a wrong final answer came from a modelling failure or an arithmetic slip.
Scoring is two points per item, one for the correct set-up and one for the correct solution. That split is what makes the data useful the next morning.
Ways Forward
Learners who lost points only on Item 2 need computation practice, not re-teaching. Learners who lost points on Items 1 and 3 need another modelling session before the class moves to two-step equations. Plan a ten-minute opener for the next session addressing whichever group is larger.
Sample 2 — Science
Grade 8 · Quarter 2 · One session, 60 minutes
Intentions
Learners can describe how unbalanced forces change the motion of an object, and can predict the direction of motion given a diagram of forces acting on a body.
Learner context: The section has no laboratory period this week, so the investigation uses materials available in the classroom.
Learning Experience
Begin with a demonstration rather than a definition: a book pushed across the table by two learners from opposite sides, first with equal effort, then with one pushing harder. Ask what the class saw, and write their words on the board before introducing the terms balanced and unbalanced.
Groups then run a simple investigation with a cardboard box and two lengths of string, pulling in opposite directions and recording what happens at equal and unequal pulls. They draw a force diagram for each trial using arrows whose length shows the strength of the pull.
The discussion focuses on the diagrams, not the activity. Ask a group to defend a prediction from their own diagram before testing it.
Assessment
Each learner receives four force diagrams and states, for each, whether the object moves and in which direction, plus a one-sentence reason. The reason is what you are actually scoring. A correct direction with no reasoning earns partial credit only.
Ways Forward
Collect the reasons and sort them into three piles: correct reasoning, correct answer with circular reasoning (“it moves because the force is unbalanced”), and incorrect. The middle pile is the target for the next session’s opener, because those learners look fine on a multiple-choice test and will struggle in the quarterly exam.
If you are building that quarterly exam now, blueprint it first with a table of specifications so the reasoning items get real weight instead of being crowded out by recall.
Sample 3 — English
Grade 9 · Quarter 1 · One lesson arc, two sessions
Intentions
Learners can identify the claim and supporting evidence in a short argumentative text, and can write a paragraph that states a claim and supports it with two pieces of evidence.
Learning Experience
Session 1. Read a short opinion piece on a topic the class has opinions about, such as a school policy. Learners underline the sentence they believe is the writer’s claim. Compare underlinings: disagreement is the lesson, not a problem. Work out together why one sentence is the claim and another is only a supporting detail.
Session 2. Learners draft their own paragraph on a given prompt. Mid-draft, pause the class and have them exchange papers to find each other’s claim sentence with a single underline. If a partner cannot find it, the writer knows what to fix before submitting.
Assessment
The paragraph, scored with a three-criterion rubric: claim clearly stated, two pieces of relevant evidence, and sentences that connect the evidence to the claim. Share the rubric before they write. A rubric revealed after the fact is a grading tool; a rubric shared beforehand is a teaching tool.
If you have not built one for written work before, our guide on making a rubric for a performance task has a sample you can adapt in a few minutes.
Ways Forward
Sort paragraphs by which criterion failed, not by score. Learners who state a claim but cannot connect evidence need sentence-level work on transitions. Learners with no clear claim need the Session 1 activity again, with a shorter text.
Sample 4 — Filipino
Baitang 8 · Ikalawang Markahan · Isang sesyon, 60 minuto
Intentions
Natutukoy ng mga mag-aaral ang pangunahing kaisipan ng isang maikling kuwento, at naipapaliwanag nila ito gamit ang mga detalye mula sa teksto.
Learning Experience
Simulan sa isang maikling tanong na may kinalaman sa buhay ng mga mag-aaral bago pumasok sa teksto. Basahin ang kuwento nang malakas, pagkatapos ay hayaang basahin muli ng mga mag-aaral nang tahimik habang naghahanap ng dalawang detalyeng sa tingin nila ay mahalaga.
Sa pagtatalakay, huwag agad itanong ang pangunahing kaisipan. Magsimula sa mga detalye, at hayaang ang klase ang bumuo ng pahayag mula rito. Isulat sa pisara ang bawat bersyon, at pag-usapan kung alin ang sinusuportahan ng teksto.
Assessment
Isang maikling pagsulat: isang pangungusap na naglalahad ng pangunahing kaisipan, at dalawang pangungusap na nagpapaliwanag nito gamit ang detalye mula sa kuwento. Ang sinusukat dito ay ang koneksiyon sa teksto, hindi ang haba ng sagot.
Ways Forward
Kung karamihan ay nakakuha ng tamang kaisipan ngunit walang ebidensiya mula sa teksto, ang susunod na sesyon ay dapat tumuon sa paghahanap ng patunay, hindi sa muling pagbasa ng kuwento.
Marami pang gabay sa Filipino ang paparating sa blog na ito, kasama na ang paano gumawa ng lesson plan para sa baguhang guro at ang pagkompute ng grado sa MATATAG.
Sample 5 — MAPEH
Grade 7 · Physical Education · One session, 60 minutes
Intentions
Learners can execute the basic steps of a Philippine folk dance in correct sequence and timing, and can explain the cultural origin of the dance in two or three sentences.
Learner context: One learner is recovering from an ankle injury and will take the observer-analyst role, scoring peer performances against the same criteria. This is a genuine participation route, not a consolation task.
Learning Experience
Show the dance once at full speed, then break it into three movement phrases. Teach each phrase separately, then join them. Learners practise in small groups with one member calling the count.
Between practice rounds, give the cultural background in short segments rather than one lecture at the start, so the movement and the meaning arrive together.
Assessment
A performance task scored on three criteria: sequence, timing, and coordination, plus a short oral or written answer on origin. MAPEH assessment lives mostly in the performance column, which affects how the grade is computed. Our MAPEH grade computation walkthrough shows how the four components combine into one grade.
Ways Forward
Note which movement phrase produced most of the errors. If the same phrase fails across groups, the problem is the instruction, not the learners, and the next session reteaches that phrase before adding new material.
What stays the same across all five
| ILAW part | What it must contain, in any subject | The mistake to avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Intentions | An observable behaviour, plus the learner context that changes how you teach it | Copying the competency word for word with no local detail |
| Learning Experience | A narrative of what happens, including what you will look for while circulating | Listing activities with no indication of what you are watching for |
| Assessment | Evidence of the exact behaviour in Intentions, with a scoring rule | An assessment that measures recall when the intention was a skill |
| Ways Forward | A decision for the next session, based on what the assessment shows | Writing “remediation for those who did not pass” with no plan |
Choosing the right format before you write
ILAW is not always what your school expects. Some schools still collect a weekly DLL, and new teachers are often asked for a fully scripted DLP. Our comparison of DLL, DLP, and ILAW gives a decision rule, and the semi-detailed lesson plan covers the middle ground many teachers actually use day to day.
Once you know the format, the timing question comes next, and it is a real one: the same lesson arc does not fit a 50-minute and a 60-minute period without adjustment. We cover that in fitting an ILAW lesson into 50 or 60 minutes.
Writing five of these a week
Five subject plans a week, each with a genuine learner context and a real assessment, is a heavy evening load. Two things make it manageable.
First, a routine. Batching the week’s planning into one focused block beats writing a plan each night, and we lay out one approach in the weekly ILAW planning routine.
Second, a draft to start from. Skoolari’s DepEd mode produces a complete ILAW plan in the official structure from your competency and topic, including assessment items that match your stated intention. You edit the learner context and the parts only you can know, which is where your time belongs. You can see the plans here, or read our honest map of AI tools for Filipino teachers first if you want the wider view before committing to anything.
One caution worth repeating: the MATATAG guidelines include an AI-use declaration field. If you draft with any tool, declare it. Disclosure is part of the format, and observers know what an undeclared generated plan reads like.
Before you submit
Run this check on any subject plan, in under a minute.
- Does the assessment produce the exact behaviour in the Intentions?
- Is there one sentence of genuine learner context that could only apply to your class?
- Does Ways Forward name a decision, not a wish?
- Can a substitute teacher run your Learning Experience from what you wrote?
- If you used an AI tool, is it declared?
Four yeses and a declaration, and the plan is ready.