1)  The project seems rushed and poorly conceived.  The lesson here is to start early, at least for the sections devoted to your articulation of your targeted student population.  Then, continue generating, revising, and sharing drafts (with both your peers and as possible with the instructor) throughout the course.

2)  The target population seems very unlikely (i.e., unrealistic).  Try to target your work for an L2 population with whom you actually foresee yourself working at some point in the future.

3)  It's Retrospective:  The project merely seems to be looking back to what the writer had been doing as an L2 teacher in the recent past, while the TSLP 845 course was still unfolding, or even further back in the past.  Rather than being a retrospective account of previous (or even concurrent) teaching experiences, as a writer for the project you should be looking to the future and keeping you eye on future possibilities.  Though "looking back" might strengthen sections in which you identify a target population (if appropriate) the overall project needs to reflect (at least) some of the themes incorporated into the TSLP 845 course.  Even if you decide to address a course you are teaching concurrent with your participation in TSLP 845, as a writer you should be articulating your ideas for such a course as if you were provided with an opportunity to teach once again, from the beginning, after having completed TSLP 845.  In other words, you should be articulating plans for the future, and not merely revisiting the past.

4)  Lack of coherence:  The various sections of the project are not consistent with each other.  For example, a writer explains in a "learning theory" section that s/he believes in underlying principles of communicative (or task based, or theme-based, etc.) language teaching.  But in a subsequent section on "activity types," the same writer relies on an overabundance of highly mechanical and manipulative classroom activity descriptions.  The point is not that any particular underlying theory is called for in your project (that's up to you as a writer) but that the concepts and ideas you discuss in one section of the course project makes sense in relation to positions you develop in other sections.

5)  Too much listing:  The writer tends to present ideas as lists (i.e., merely as listings of ideas) when more connected and coherent prose discussion is needed in the project.  Even is places where some listing seems appropriate (e.g., perhaps in parts of the syllabus section) such listings need to be prefaced (i.e.,  contextualized) with some connected prose discussion.

6)  Too many sections are excessively underdeveloped (e.g., , too brief; empty of meaningful content).  There is not much substance to them.

7)  Too Generic:  Some sections are too broad and generic.  For example, the "role of the teacher" is discussed in very generalized terms (i.e., terms that could be applied to absolutely any L2 instructional setting) when the project calls for you to discuss the teacher's role as it applies specifically to your targeted student population.

8)  Targeted tasks for the kinds of learners you specified in the project are poorly identified and difficulty for a reader to figure out.  Through your thinking about and writing of the project, you need to be asking yourself such questions as, "what am I going to be expecting learners to be able TO DO" (i.e., on their own; outside the classroom; in the real world) as a result of their having participated in (a) this specific activity, (b) this day's overall lesson, (c) this week's curricular unit, (d) this course overall, etc.?

9)  Possible Procedures for Needs Identification: Completely missing from the project is (at least some) discussion of ideas and procedures for conducting either (a) initial student needs identification/analysis prior to the start of your targeted course, and/or (b) some discussion of ideas and procedures for conducting on-going needs identification as integral parts of the course (i.e., in-process, as the course unfolding).

10)  Awareness of Syllabus Type:  The "syllabus" section lacks connected discussion of the syllabus-type being followed for the course.  Even though some discussion the underlying rationale for the syllabus-tupe may also be appropriate for inclusion in the project section on "Theory of Learning," the "syllabus" section itself should include at least some acknowledgment of (or references to) the type of syllabus structure you are developed for the course (i.e., does it tend to fall relatively closer to a "synthetic" or "analytic" end of the syllabus type continuum; relatively more like a "Type A" or "Type B" syllabus type).  These parameters are discussed in the very first pages of the Long and Crookes article (and elsewhere).

11)  Too many outside references:  The writer has taken the initiative to include what seems like an overabundance of citations of sources not included as required reading material in the TSLP 845 course.  A couple of references of this kind are OK and to be applauded, but if there are too many of them, as a reader, I left wondering whether or not the writer has really taken the time to consider thoughtfully the assigned readings already incorporated, examined, and discussed in the TSLP 845 course.  As a writer you do not want to give the impression that you are unable to work effectively/efficiently with resources already provided to you as integral aspects of our shared readings.

12)  Too few TSLP 845 specific references:  Similarly, there are few (if any) references to assigned readings included in TSLP 845.  As a reader of your work, it would seem a waste for you to have developed an end of the term project that fails to reflect thoughtful engagement with assigned readings and themes already incorporated into TSLP 845 resources (and our related discussions of them).  For example, if your targeted setting is one devoted to the teaching of ESL writing then it seems important for you to make efficient use of assigned readings treating this area in the TSLP 845 course plan (e.g., relevant chapter(s) from the Brown text; journal articles that treat this topic; themes from our classroom discussions' relevant e-mail exchanges, etc.).  You want to avoid leaving me (as a reader) with impressions such as, "where did this idea come from? or "Brown, or Zamel, or some other specialist whose work we have examined had something to say of relevance to this topic. . . . So why did this writer fail to realize this?"

14) Submission:  For the completed project, the writer has forgotten to submit both a hard copy and an electronic version (e.g., on disk, or through an e-mail posting).