BTW, as a teacher myself (though of a different discipline, though it is related to what you're trying to tutor), I find that what, where, and how questions are good (What do you start this sentence with? How does this word fit into this sentence? Where does this word go?) but why questions (Why does this word go here? Why is the sentence constructed in this way? Why does the sentence start this way?) are better.
Teach principles and rules, rather than specifics. Use specifics to practise. For example, with the packing question, he's trying to teach one word with a system that involves present continous, question forms and first person verbal formation. If his student knew all that, she could properly use pack and other verbs as she learns them.
Also, he doesn't give any indication as to why you form the question as we do. What are you doing? Why start with what, why invert the subject with the auxiliary? Do other auxiliaries work the same way?
Mon frere is an English teacher. I showed him this page. He says it's a little too "teacher centred and rote" for his liking. Have you had a go at student-centred learning to see how that works for you both?
There are lots of ways to make English interesting. Many of them involve physical activity, so you're playing a fun, physical game while learning. Over the internet, this is more difficult than when you're in a classroom, but use your imagination, and it can be done. The teacher's personality helps massively, too.
Speaking of poetry, I listened to an opera yesterday of "A Midsummer Nights' Dream."" It was spectacular. I followed it against Shakespeare's text; a number of liberties were taken, including omissions and rearrangements, proving that art, even something seemingly as set in stone as Shakespeare, is malleable and re-interpretable. But boy, Shakespeare was good!
An excellent example of the above is Akira Kurosawa's Throne of Blood. If you haven't seen it yet, you should; it's a fantastic adaptation of Macbeth.