Learning goals

I can independently comprehend and evaluate a set of lengthy complex sources, including implied stance and relevant detail.
I can present and write a clear, well-structured response to a complex issue, integrating sub-themes, evidence, and an appropriate conclusion.
I can mediate source ideas and differing perspectives so another group can make an informed decision.

What you will be able to do

I can independently comprehend and evaluate a set of lengthy complex sources, including implied stance and relevant detail.
Skill
reception
I can present and write a clear, well-structured response to a complex issue, integrating sub-themes, evidence, and an appropriate conclusion.
Skill
production
I can sustain spontaneous discussion, respond precisely, manage turns, and reformulate effectively under challenge.
Skill
interaction
I can mediate source ideas and differing perspectives so another group can make an informed decision.
Skill
mediation
I can select, monitor, explain, and evaluate my reception, production, interaction, and mediation strategies.
Skill
strategies
I can anticipate cultural assumptions and create respectful shared space without stereotyping or erasing disagreement.
Skill
pluricultural competence

Core vocabulary

converging evidence

Different relevant performances that support a consistent judgement.

Exit readiness requires converging evidence across several tasks.

a defensible position

A position that can withstand evidence-based challenge.

Present a defensible position rather than an unqualified promise.

acknowledge the limitation

State what the evidence cannot establish.

Acknowledge the limitation before proposing the next investigation.

integrate perspectives

Connect relevant views without erasing their differences.

Integrate perspectives around issues, not in separate unconnected summaries.

an evidence trail

A record linking claims, sources, feedback and revisions.

Keep an evidence trail for every major revision.

respond spontaneously

Give an immediate relevant response to an unexpected contribution.

Respond spontaneously, then qualify any uncertain detail.

a readiness profile

A skill-by-skill account of demonstrated and developing abilities.

A readiness profile can show uneven strengths.

a reflective judgement

An evaluation grounded in analysis of one's performance.

Make a reflective judgement using timestamps and draft changes.

transfer the learning

Apply a skill beyond the rehearsed task.

Transfer the learning to an unfamiliar audience.

not yet demonstrated

A judgement that current evidence does not establish an outcome.

Not yet demonstrated identifies the next evidence needed.

Meaning through delivery

Sustain clear phrasing across a longer defence. Use pauses to plan a response rather than filling uncertainty with an unsupported claim.

Exit readiness requires converging evidence across several tasks.
Present a defensible position rather than an unqualified promise.
Acknowledge the limitation before proposing the next investigation.
Integrate perspectives around issues, not in separate unconnected summaries.
Keep an evidence trail for every major revision.
Respond spontaneously, then qualify any uncertain detail.
A readiness profile can show uneven strengths.
Make a reflective judgement using timestamps and draft changes.
Transfer the learning to an unfamiliar audience.
Not yet demonstrated identifies the next evidence needed.

Extended listening · Design and defend a learning-hub access pilot

First listen for the situation and stance. Then record details, inference and uncertainty separately. Attempt the questions before revealing the transcript.

Why do equal opening hours not settle the operational comparison?
How should participant panels be used?
What should happen when a question needs unavailable evidence?
What evidence is required beyond Week 10?

Listening notes

Transcript

At the end of the course, you are not being asked to repeat your most polished presentation. You are being asked to show that your communication can adapt when the audience, evidence and questions change. The learning-hub case gives everyone a common starting point, but a good performance depends on what you do with its uncertainties.

Begin by defining the decision. The hub can currently support two evenings or one weekend session. Equal opening hours do not mean identical staffing arrangements, and enquiry events do not mean distinct people. If your presentation overlooks those distinctions, elegant language will not make the recommendation accurate.

The participant panels give perspectives, not a population vote. Use them to identify design questions: transport, journey length and the availability of advice. Explain which question your proposed pilot would answer and which questions would remain. A conditional recommendation can be strong when its conditions are explicit and operationally feasible.

During the discussion, expect an audience member to challenge your source weighting or propose a different target group. Restate the challenge fairly before responding. You may defend your original position, qualify it or revise it. Do not invent a figure because you feel pressure to answer immediately. Saying what would need to be checked is often the most precise response.

Your written synthesis should connect issues across sources. Your reflection should connect claims about your learning to actual evidence: a timestamp, a first and second draft, a recipient's misunderstanding and the repair that followed. Choose at least four earlier artifacts that broaden the evidence profile rather than merely repeating your strongest skill.

Finally, keep readiness and certification separate. The course can support a teacher-reviewed C1-readiness judgement. It cannot turn attendance or a game score into an official language award. Your portfolio should make both achievement and the next learning needs visible. That is more informative, and more useful, than a single label unsupported by the full record.

Reading and source dossier

Read all source cards. Track authorship, purpose, definitions and limitations. Cite source and paragraph IDs in the answers. All sources are fictional practice material.

All source people, organisations, figures and quotations in this pack are invented for learning.

S1 · Learning-hub access brief

Hub planning team

Invented for this course. Not a real organisation, study, quotation or public announcement. Cite the source ID within this exercise only.

[1] The hub offers quiet workspaces, peer study groups and a weekly advice session. Its next pilot must address an identifiable access problem without weakening essential support. The team has capacity for either two additional evening openings or one weekend opening each week, but not both at the existing staffing level. A mixed model would require a different resource proposal and should not be assumed available.

[2] A four-week observation recorded 120 evening enquiries and 90 weekend enquiries. These are enquiry events, not unique people. Staff did not record whether one person asked more than once or whether an enquiry led to a visit. A short member questionnaire drew 60 responses from 300 invitations. Thirty respondents preferred evenings, twenty preferred weekends and ten had no preference. The response pattern may not reflect nonrespondents.

[3] The planning team asks for a pilot with a clearly stated target group, feasible staffing, accessible participation and a review date. It wants a record of what would count as useful evidence, not a promise of a predetermined outcome. The final proposal must distinguish the case for testing a service from a claim that the service has already been shown to work.

S2 · Access perspectives

Three fictional participant panels

Invented for this course. Not a real organisation, study, quotation or public announcement. Cite the source ID within this exercise only.

[1] Panel A includes people with irregular weekday commitments. They value evening access but warn that an opening finishing too late could leave some members without convenient transport. Panel B includes people who travel from outside the immediate area. They prefer a longer weekend session because a short visit may not justify the journey. Panel C prioritises access to a trained adviser and is less concerned with the particular day.

[2] These panels were convened to explore experiences, not to estimate how common each preference is. Membership overlaps, and the organisers did not attempt a representative sample. The statements therefore identify design considerations rather than three precisely sized population groups. A proposal should not convert the panels into equal voting blocs or assume each panel has a single view.

[3] All three ask for clear information about what will actually be available during extra hours. An open workspace without advice is a different service from a staffed learning session. The access problem may therefore concern service content as much as clock time. Learners should invite clarification rather than claim to speak on behalf of every potential participant.

S3 · Operational constraints and evaluation options

Hub service coordinator

Invented for this course. Not a real organisation, study, quotation or public announcement. Cite the source ID within this exercise only.

[1] Two evening openings would each last three hours. A weekend opening would last six hours. These models use the same six additional opening hours, but preparation, closing and staff availability differ. At least one trained coordinator is required throughout either model. A peer volunteer may support study groups but cannot replace that coordinator.

[2] For the pilot, the service could count distinct visitors using a privacy-preserving method, record the service they sought and ask whether an alternative time was available to them. It could also collect short accounts from people who wanted to use the service but could not attend. The coordinator warns that collecting more data is not automatically better: every item should have a clear purpose and avoid unnecessary personal detail.

[3] The evaluation should report attendance, access barriers and service use separately. It should not award language readiness or academic improvement simply because a participant attended. If the chosen model cannot be staffed reliably, the contingency should protect users from arriving at an unavailable service. A recommendation should identify what evidence would support continuation, redesign or ending the trial.

S4 · Portfolio assessment brief

Independent teaching panel

Invented for this course. Not a real organisation, study, quotation or public announcement. Cite the source ID within this exercise only.

[1] The capstone combines a researched presentation, discussion, written synthesis and reflection. Learners may use this fictional packet for the common rehearsal and should identify it as a simulation. Where a task asks for additional public sources, those sources must be located, dated, checked and cited by the learner; invented titles or unverifiable references are not acceptable. A teacher checks whether the added evidence is relevant to the actual claim.

[2] The presentation is followed by questions the learner has not memorised. The written synthesis should organise evidence around the decision rather than repeat each source in sequence. The reflection must point to concrete changes: a corrected inference, a revised paragraph, an interaction repair or a clarified source distinction. Routine Thai prompts are not provided during the assessed capstone, although accessibility and safeguarding exceptions remain available and are recorded.

[3] The exit review includes the Week 10 portfolio and at least four earlier artifacts spanning reception, production, interaction, mediation, strategies and pluricultural competence. Completion alone does not establish C1 readiness. The teaching panel reports demonstrated, partly demonstrated or not yet demonstrated by area, explains the evidence and names the next learning priority. It does not issue CEFR certification.

Reading questions

Why cannot 120 enquiries be reported as 120 people?
What proportion of invited members responded to the questionnaire?
What kind of extra source is prohibited by S4?
What does the exit decision not provide?

Language in use

Grammar and reformulation

Title

Integrated argument, source attribution, spontaneous qualification, concise synthesis and evidence-based reflection.

Examples

Exit readiness requires converging evidence across several tasks.
Present a defensible position rather than an unqualified promise.
Acknowledge the limitation before proposing the next investigation.
Integrate perspectives around issues, not in separate unconnected summaries.

Local and daily-life application

Term
converging evidence
Thai
หลักฐานหลายส่วนที่สนับสนุนกัน
Pronunciation
kənvˈɜːdʒɪŋ ˈɛvɪdəns
Example
Exit readiness requires converging evidence across several tasks.
Term
a defensible position
Thai
จุดยืนที่อธิบายเหตุผลรองรับได้
Pronunciation
ɐ dɪfˈɛnsəbəl pəzˈɪʃən
Example
Present a defensible position rather than an unqualified promise.
Term
acknowledge the limitation
Thai
ยอมรับข้อจำกัดอย่างชัดเจน
Pronunciation
ɐknˈɑːlɪdʒ ðə lˌɪmɪtˈeɪʃən
Example
Acknowledge the limitation before proposing the next investigation.
Term
integrate perspectives
Thai
นำมุมมองต่าง ๆ มาพิจารณาร่วมกัน
Pronunciation
ˈɪntɪɡɹˌeɪt pɚspˈɛktɪvz
Example
Integrate perspectives around issues, not in separate unconnected summaries.

Place
Source workshop
Exit readiness requires converging evidence across several tasks.
Pronunciation
ˈɛɡzɪt ɹˈɛdɪnəs ɹɪkwˈaɪɚz kənvˈɜːdʒɪŋ ˈɛvɪdəns əkɹˌɑːs sˈɛvɹəl tˈæsks.
Tip
Different relevant performances that support a consistent judgement.
Place
Source workshop
Present a defensible position rather than an unqualified promise.
Pronunciation
pɹˈɛzənt ɐ dɪfˈɛnsəbəl pəzˈɪʃən ɹˈæðɚ ðˌænən ʌnkwˈɑːlᵻfˌaɪd pɹˈɑːmɪs.
Tip
A position that can withstand evidence-based challenge.
Place
Source workshop
Acknowledge the limitation before proposing the next investigation.
Pronunciation
ɐknˈɑːlɪdʒ ðə lˌɪmɪtˈeɪʃən bɪfˌoːɹ pɹəpˈoʊzɪŋ ðə nˈɛkst ɪnvˌɛstɪɡˈeɪʃən.
Tip
State what the evidence cannot establish.

Independent practice

Trace each material claim to a source ID and paragraph.
Complete the required performance task; keep the first attempt.
Review using the analytic criteria, revise and explain one important change.

Interaction model

Participant A

Your proposal assumes the evening enquiries came from different people.

Participant B

That assumption is not supported. The records count enquiry events.

Participant A

Does correcting it change your recommendation?

Participant B

It changes the strength of my demand claim. I would retain only a bounded pilot recommendation.

Participant A

What evidence would you collect next?

Participant B

Distinct use, the service sought, unavailable alternatives and practical barriers, without unnecessary personal detail.

Synthesis studio

Organise by issues, not by source order. Distinguish genuine contradictions from differences in scope, population, purpose or definition. Complete the researched presentation, unrehearsed discussion, written synthesis and reflection portfolio. Add at least four earlier artifacts; report readiness by evidence area and retain any support-use record.

Output

Complete the researched presentation, unrehearsed discussion, written synthesis and reflection portfolio. Add at least four earlier artifacts; report readiness by evidence area and retain any support-use record.

Citation policy

Use [S1-P1] style local references. These invented sources must never be represented as external research. Clearly identify any permitted external source and its permission separately.

Your notes

Write, review, revise

Target words min

1000

Target words max

1000

Checklist

State the decision, audience and claim boundaries.
Trace factual claims and distinguish source evidence from interpretation.
Address the strongest relevant alternative fairly.
Revise a material weakness and explain the change.

Drafts

argument plan
first draft
peer feedback
revised final version

Revision focus

argument and inference
global structure
evidence and attribution
style and reader usability

Feedback cycle

Self-check → peer feedback → revise and explain your changes.

Your notes

Unrehearsed interaction

Read your role card separately. Make a bounded proposal, respond to an unexpected challenge, check one interpretation and seek a precise next step. Keep the disagreement visible when it remains unresolved.

Scenario

Design and defend a learning-hub access pilot

Roles

Role
Evidence presenter
Brief
Explain the most defensible proposal from the dossier. State one limit you will not conceal.
Constraint
Do not invent an observation to close a gap.
Role
Critical reviewer
Brief
Choose a material definition, alternative explanation or source limitation and challenge the proposal.
Constraint
Acknowledge one valid part of the opposing case before challenging an inference.
Role
Recipient and mediator
Brief
Ask what the proposed action means for someone who has not read the sources. Test whether all participants attach the same meaning to a key term.
Constraint
Do not decide what someone intended without checking.
Role
Observer
Brief
Record exact moments of clarification, qualification, repair and recipient understanding.
Constraint
Assess the observed move, not confidence, accent identity or personality.

Goals

I can sustain spontaneous discussion, respond precisely, manage turns, and reformulate effectively under challenge.
I can mediate source ideas and differing perspectives so another group can make an informed decision.

Negotiation moves

Acknowledge a supported point.
Name the particular inference you question.
Request a targeted clarification.
Offer a conditional next step.
Read back a shared understanding without forcing agreement.

Duration seconds

600

Your notes

Audience and pragmatic effect

Reformulate one important claim for a specialist colleague, a new participant and a decision-maker. Test the received effect and preserve the factual boundary.

Contexts

specialist peer review
new participant orientation
decision briefing

Target functions

qualify a claim
request clarification
disagree diplomatically
repair an unintended implication

formal and explicit
neutral and action-oriented
collegial but bounded

Repair

Ask what the recipient understood, acknowledge the effect, clarify the intended proposition, and test the revised wording.

Your notes

Make the evidence usable

Brief a recipient who has not read the dossier. Preserve critical qualifications, explain one difficult concept, invite a check-back and revise the explanation if the recipient misunderstands. Live mediation task and decision brief; recipients complete an understanding/usefulness check.

Source en

Design and defend a learning-hub access pilot — Use the identified sources, not memory or invented facts.

Mode

text-concepts-and-communication

Audience

A peer decision group unfamiliar with this dossier; later repeat for a specialist reader.

Source ids

esl5-w10-S1
esl5-w10-S2
esl5-w10-S3
esl5-w10-S4

Constraints

Do not invent missing results or permissions.
Retain material uncertainty and disagreement.
Ask recipients to state a decision and what remains uncertain.
Do not speak for a cultural group or infer private motives.

Your notes

Timed speaking and defence

Prompt

Preparation seconds

120

Speaking seconds

600

Follow up

Which source most strongly supports your central claim, and why?
Which limitation would materially change your proposed action?
A recipient has misunderstood one condition. Reformulate it without adding a new promise.

Your notes

Spoken task prompts

I can sustain spontaneous discussion, respond precisely, manage turns, and reformulate effectively under challenge.

I can mediate source ideas and differing perspectives so another group can make an informed decision.

Speaking secondsReady

◆ C1-readiness capstone

Learning goals

Core vocabulary

converging evidence

a defensible position

acknowledge the limitation

integrate perspectives

an evidence trail

respond spontaneously

a readiness profile

a reflective judgement

transfer the learning

not yet demonstrated

Meaning through delivery

Extended listening · Design and defend a learning-hub access pilot

Transcript

Reading and source dossier

S1 · Learning-hub access brief

S2 · Access perspectives

S3 · Operational constraints and evaluation options

S4 · Portfolio assessment brief

Reading questions

Language in use

Interaction model

Synthesis studio

Write, review, revise

Unrehearsed interaction

Audience and pragmatic effect

Make the evidence usable

Timed speaking and defence

Spoken task prompts

Support and access

My portfolio

Check your interpretation