Learning goals

I can follow rapidly developing proposals, reservations, and implied priorities in a meeting.
I can state a proposal, constraints, fallback position, and rationale precisely.
I can summarise positions, surface common ground, and reframe conflict into negotiable questions.

What you will be able to do

I can follow rapidly developing proposals, reservations, and implied priorities in a meeting.
Skill
reception
I can state a proposal, constraints, fallback position, and rationale precisely.
Skill
production
I can negotiate toward an outcome, disagree diplomatically, invite quieter participants, and confirm decisions.
Skill
interaction
I can summarise positions, surface common ground, and reframe conflict into negotiable questions.
Skill
mediation
I can gain and yield the floor, probe ambiguity, and repair an emerging misunderstanding.
Skill
strategies
I can check different expectations about hierarchy, silence, and directness before interpreting behaviour.
Skill
pluricultural competence

Core vocabulary

a non-negotiable constraint

A condition that a workable agreement must satisfy.

Accessible entry is a non-negotiable constraint.

a fallback position

An acceptable alternative if the preferred plan is unavailable.

Our fallback position is two smaller sessions.

common ground

An interest or proposition accepted by different participants.

The common ground is a reliable experience for every participant.

subject to availability

Dependent on whether a resource is available.

The extra room is subject to availability.

clarify the reservation

Ask someone to explain a concern or qualification.

Could you clarify the reservation about the afternoon slot?

make room for

Create space or opportunity for another contribution.

Let us make room for the access coordinator's view.

a conditional agreement

An agreement that applies only when specified conditions are met.

We have a conditional agreement pending room confirmation.

I take your point

Acknowledge another person's reasoning without accepting everything.

I take your point about setup time.

reframe the issue

Present a disagreement as a more useful question.

Reframe the issue as how to protect setup time and access together.

confirm the action owner

Identify who will carry out a recorded decision.

Confirm the action owner before closing the meeting.

Meaning through delivery

Use calm contrastive stress in conditional offers: “We can move the SESSION if setup time is PROTECTED.” Avoid a rising contour that makes a confirmed decision sound provisional.

Accessible entry is a non-negotiable constraint.
Our fallback position is two smaller sessions.
The common ground is a reliable experience for every participant.
The extra room is subject to availability.
Could you clarify the reservation about the afternoon slot?
Let us make room for the access coordinator's view.
We have a conditional agreement pending room confirmation.
I take your point about setup time.
Reframe the issue as how to protect setup time and access together.
Confirm the action owner before closing the meeting.

Extended listening · Three teams must agree a workable workshop schedule

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

Which apparent conflict disappears after clarification?
What did the quieter participant add?
What plan was conditionally agreed?
Why read the decision back?

Listening notes

Transcript

We began the meeting with three apparently incompatible demands: an early finish, enough setup time and practical participation for ninety people. Once we separated preferences from constraints, a more useful question emerged. Could the team protect all three essential needs without insisting on the original two o'clock start?

The access coordinator explained that a later session was not automatically unacceptable. What mattered was a realistic margin before the return transport. That clarification removed one false conflict. The workshop lead then accepted that a ninety-person talk would not be equivalent to the advertised hands-on activity. Changing the learning opportunity could be a fallback, but it would need to be acknowledged and agreed rather than hidden behind the same title.

At this point, one participant had said very little. The chair invited a specific contribution: 'What would you need to confirm before you could support this plan?' That was more helpful than interpreting silence as agreement. The participant explained that preparing two rooms simultaneously required another equipment trolley. The group had been discussing the facilitator shortage while overlooking a setup constraint.

The conditional agreement was a three o'clock parallel start, ending at half past four, provided the second room and setup resources were confirmed. The coordinator would check the room; the workshop lead would verify the trolley and setup plan; the access coordinator would check the departure route and practical margin. Each action had a deadline before the public announcement.

No one claimed that the meeting had solved every problem. The decision record distinguished what was agreed from what remained conditional. It also specified what would happen if a condition failed. For your simulation, listen for interests beneath a demand, invite a quieter participant and finish by reading the decision back. Ask whether every participant recognises both the agreement and its limits.

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 · Workshop planning brief

Event coordinator

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

[1] A learning festival expects ninety participants for a practical design workshop. The current plan is one ninety-minute session beginning at 14:00. The large room holds ninety seated participants, but safe worktables reduce its practical capacity to sixty. A second room can support thirty more participants, provided a second facilitator is available. The booking request for that room has not yet been confirmed.

[2] The event programme advertised the topic and date but described the time as provisional. The coordinator may therefore change the slot, but must communicate a confirmed time by Friday. The main aim is that each registered participant completes a practical task, not merely that ninety people attend a talk. Splitting the group into two sessions is acceptable if both groups receive the same core learning opportunity.

[3] There are three facilitators, but one is available only after 15:00. Equipment setup requires forty-five uninterrupted minutes and a short check before participants enter. Volunteers can distribute materials, but they cannot replace a qualified facilitator. The meeting must produce an agreed schedule, named action owners and a clear fallback if the second room remains unavailable.

S2 · Access and participant note

Access coordinator

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

[1] Twelve participants have requested step-free access, and several travel with a group whose return transport leaves at 17:00. These details are operational constraints, not reasons to make assumptions about anyone's ability to participate. Both proposed rooms have step-free entrances. However, the smaller room's accessible route is longer and needs clear directions. The activity must finish with enough time for participants to pack and reach the departure point.

[2] The access coordinator prefers the earlier slot because it leaves a margin before transport. This is a preference based on a concern, not an absolute rule that every later plan must be rejected. A later session finishing at 16:30 could work if the route, packing arrangements and departure support are checked. A session ending at 16:55 would not provide an adequate margin.

[3] The coordinator asks the group to consult participants about practical arrangements without publishing individual support requests. A decision record should say that the access plan was checked, not list private personal information. Where a participant's need is uncertain, the action should be a targeted clarification rather than a confident statement made on their behalf.

S3 · Facilitation and setup note

Workshop lead

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

[1] The workshop lead can run the large room with one other facilitator from 14:00, but cannot safely supervise ninety hands-on participants there. A third facilitator joins at 15:00 and could lead a smaller parallel group if the additional room is confirmed and already prepared. The lead's preferred plan is a 15:00 start in both rooms, finishing at 16:30. Its main vulnerability is that equipment must be ready before the late-arriving facilitator joins.

[2] A fallback is to offer a sixty-minute introductory session to all ninety participants followed by small-group practical work on another date. That would meet a different learning objective, so it should not be described as equivalent to the advertised workshop without participant agreement. Another fallback is two shorter rotations, but the lead has not yet established that each rotation gives enough time for the core task.

[3] The lead asks the meeting to distinguish an attractive schedule from a feasible one. An agreement is not complete until room confirmation, setup responsibility and accessible departure arrangements have owners and deadlines. If any required condition fails, the team must use a named fallback and explain its changed learning opportunity honestly.

Reading questions

Why can the large room not host ninety practical learners?
Is the smaller room already confirmed?
Which alternative changes the learning objective?
What information should be excluded from public minutes?

Language in use

Grammar and reformulation

Title

Conditional offers, separating preferences from constraints, indirect clarification and explicit decision summaries.

Examples

Accessible entry is a non-negotiable constraint.
Our fallback position is two smaller sessions.
The common ground is a reliable experience for every participant.
The extra room is subject to availability.

Local and daily-life application

Term
a non-negotiable constraint
Thai
ข้อจำกัดที่เปลี่ยนไม่ได้
Pronunciation
ɐ nˈɑːnnɪɡˈoʊʃɪəbəl kənstɹˈeɪnt
Example
Accessible entry is a non-negotiable constraint.
Term
a fallback position
Thai
ทางเลือกสำรองในการเจรจา
Pronunciation
ɐ fˈɔːlbæk pəzˈɪʃən
Example
Our fallback position is two smaller sessions.
Term
common ground
Thai
จุดที่เห็นร่วมกัน
Pronunciation
kˈɑːmən ɡɹˈaʊnd
Example
The common ground is a reliable experience for every participant.
Term
subject to availability
Thai
ขึ้นอยู่กับความพร้อมให้ใช้
Pronunciation
sˈʌbdʒɛkt tʊ ɐvˌeɪləbˈɪlɪɾi
Example
The extra room is subject to availability.

Place
Source workshop
Accessible entry is a non-negotiable constraint.
Pronunciation
æksˈɛsəbəl ˈɛntɹi ɪz ɐ nˈɑːnnɪɡˈoʊʃɪəbəl kənstɹˈeɪnt.
Tip
A condition that a workable agreement must satisfy.
Place
Source workshop
Our fallback position is two smaller sessions.
Pronunciation
ˌaʊɚ fˈɔːlbæk pəzˈɪʃən ɪz tˈuː smˈɔːlɚ sˈɛʃənz.
Tip
An acceptable alternative if the preferred plan is unavailable.
Place
Source workshop
The common ground is a reliable experience for every participant.
Pronunciation
ðə kˈɑːmən ɡɹˈaʊnd ɪz ɐ ɹɪlˈaɪəbəl ɛkspˈiəɹɪəns fɔːɹ ˈɛvɹi pɑːɹtˈɪsɪpənt.
Tip
An interest or proposition accepted by different participants.

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

We cannot move the session because transport leaves at five.

Participant B

Could you clarify whether any later start is impossible, or whether the finishing margin is the concern?

Participant A

The margin is the concern. Finishing at half past four could work.

Participant B

I take your point. We could use two rooms if setup and the second booking are confirmed.

Participant A

Who will confirm those conditions, and by when?

Participant B

Let us record the owners and agree a fallback before we announce the time.

Synthesis studio

Organise by issues, not by source order. Distinguish genuine contradictions from differences in scope, population, purpose or definition. Run a twelve-minute three-role meeting. State a proposal and fallback, invite a quieter participant, code four distinct interaction moves, and produce a jointly validated decision record.

Output

Run a twelve-minute three-role meeting. State a proposal and fallback, invite a quieter participant, code four distinct interaction moves, and produce a jointly validated decision 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

Run a twelve-minute three-role meeting. State a proposal and fallback, invite a quieter participant, code four distinct interaction moves, and produce a jointly validated decision record.

Target words min

250

Target words max

350

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

Three teams must agree a workable workshop schedule

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 negotiate toward an outcome, disagree diplomatically, invite quieter participants, and confirm decisions.
I can summarise positions, surface common ground, and reframe conflict into negotiable questions.

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

720

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. Facilitator segment plus agreed decision record validated by all participants.

Source en

Three teams must agree a workable workshop schedule — 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-w06-S1
esl5-w06-S2
esl5-w06-S3

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

Run a twelve-minute three-role meeting. State a proposal and fallback, invite a quieter participant, code four distinct interaction moves, and produce a jointly validated decision record.

Prompt

Run a twelve-minute three-role meeting. State a proposal and fallback, invite a quieter participant, code four distinct interaction moves, and produce a jointly validated decision record.

Preparation seconds

120

Speaking seconds

180

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

Run a twelve-minute three-role meeting. State a proposal and fallback, invite a quieter participant, code four distinct interaction moves, and produce a jointly validated decision record.

I can negotiate toward an outcome, disagree diplomatically, invite quieter participants, and confirm decisions.

I can summarise positions, surface common ground, and reframe conflict into negotiable questions.

Speaking secondsReady

◆ Meetings, negotiation, and diplomatic disagreement

Learning goals

Core vocabulary

a non-negotiable constraint

a fallback position

common ground

subject to availability

clarify the reservation

make room for

a conditional agreement

I take your point

reframe the issue

confirm the action owner

Meaning through delivery

Extended listening · Three teams must agree a workable workshop schedule

Transcript

Reading and source dossier

S1 · Workshop planning brief

S2 · Access and participant note

S3 · Facilitation and setup note

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