Taking into account the students' background, I developed this lesson to help them understand the targeted grammatical features (gerunds and infinitives) and enable them to use these features in communicating with others. Students, as mentioned in the lesson plan, attend this course in the evening, which means that they most likely work during the day and probably need to communicate using the language in their work environment. Therefore, it is important to give as many opportunities as possible for students to use the targeted features in interactive activities, such as interviews and group work. I expect that these activities not only promote the negotiation of meaning useful for language learning (Long, 1996), but also push them to produce comprehensible results, which also facilitate learning (Swain, 1993). Consequently, with the communicative objective as the main focus, writing activity in class is reduced to a minimum. Students will use writing as a means to assist in their speaking activities (e.g. writing interview questions, writing partners' answers and writing their preferences, etc.). This, however, does not mean that writing is a less important form of communication. Students probably also need writing in their work environment, so it becomes important to teach them how to use targeted features in written communication. Therefore, to maintain balance, writing is given as homework and to make it relevant to the objective, students will be asked to write a short email, which is an example of the way people write to communicate in real life The lesson is designed to provide students with implicit exposure to grammatical features. In some sections of the lesson (e.g. warm-up activities and transitions...... half of the article ......mmar: An empirical study. Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 168-184.Hernandez, T .(2011).Reexamining the role of explicit instruction and input flow in the acquisition of Spanish discourse markers, 15(2), 159-182.Long, M. (1996). In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (eds.) Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (San Diego, CA: Academic Press), 413-68.Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). of L2: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis of language learning, 50, 417-528. Scheffler, P., & Cinciaa, M. (2011. Explicit grammatical rules and L2 acquisition), 13 -23. Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Speaking and writing are not enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 50(1), 158-164.