Learning goals

I can extract decision-relevant findings, limitations, and implications from long professional sources.
I can produce a well-structured proposal with an executive summary, options, evaluation criteria, recommendation, and conclusion.
I can condense a long report into a concise executive summary without losing critical qualifications.

What you will be able to do

I can extract decision-relevant findings, limitations, and implications from long professional sources.
Skill
reception
I can produce a well-structured proposal with an executive summary, options, evaluation criteria, recommendation, and conclusion.
Skill
production
I can respond constructively to reviewer comments and justify or revise a recommendation.
Skill
interaction
I can condense a long report into a concise executive summary without losing critical qualifications.
Skill
mediation
I can use a genre checklist, prioritise information, and revise for consistency and ambiguity.
Skill
strategies
I can identify where a recommendation depends on local cultural or institutional assumptions.
Skill
pluricultural competence

Core vocabulary

an executive summary

A concise account of purpose, main findings, recommendation and material limits.

The executive summary must preserve the conservation limitation.

evaluation criteria

Explicit standards used to compare options.

Agree the evaluation criteria before choosing a scanner.

implementation risk

A possible obstacle to carrying out a plan.

Staff availability is an implementation risk.

a phased approach

Introducing a plan in bounded stages.

A phased approach lets the team test quality before expanding.

resource implications

The time, staffing or equipment consequences of a choice.

Explain the resource implications rather than quoting a purchase price alone.

a material qualification

A limit that would change a reader's interpretation or decision.

Do not cut a material qualification merely to shorten the summary.

fit for purpose

Suitable for the actual intended task.

A fast scan is not fit for purpose if key detail is unreadable.

review against

Assess work using a specified reference or standard.

Review the pilot against the agreed image-quality criteria.

a revision rationale

An explanation of why changes were made.

The revision rationale should connect each major edit to feedback.

contingency provision

A planned response or resource for a possible problem.

Include a contingency provision for specialist handling.

Meaning through delivery

Chunk executive-summary sentences around purpose, finding and condition. Do not bury the main recommendation in a long opening clause.

The executive summary must preserve the conservation limitation.
Agree the evaluation criteria before choosing a scanner.
Staff availability is an implementation risk.
A phased approach lets the team test quality before expanding.
Explain the resource implications rather than quoting a purchase price alone.
Do not cut a material qualification merely to shorten the summary.
A fast scan is not fit for purpose if key detail is unreadable.
Review the pilot against the agreed image-quality criteria.
The revision rationale should connect each major edit to feedback.
Include a contingency provision for specialist handling.

Extended listening · A small archive must choose a document-digitisation approach

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

How does an executive summary differ from a short introduction?
What is wrong with using supplier scanning speed as throughput?
Which exclusion belongs in the summary?
What should a feedback response explain?

Listening notes

Transcript

An executive summary is not a shortened introduction. It should let a busy reader understand the decision, the reasons for it and the qualifications that could change it. In the archive case, a summary that says 'Choose the modern overhead system and digitise everything this term' would be concise, but it would not be faithful to the evidence.

Start with purpose. The immediate priority is access to frequently requested loose pages. Next, identify the decision criteria. Image quality, handling, workload and reversibility matter alongside the purchase allocation. Only then compare the options. The cheapest device is not automatically the most suitable, and the newest device is not automatically necessary.

The reviewer identifies two reasoning problems. The first is a mismatch between the chosen technology and the immediate task. The second is a throughput calculation that treats supplier scanning speed as end-to-end production. Preparation, naming and quality checks do not disappear because the scanner is fast. A credible proposal should explain how those tasks will fit into six weekly staff hours.

A phased approach may help. The first stage could test ordinary loose pages with a defined naming protocol and an acceptance check. Fragile volumes would remain outside that stage until assessed. That exclusion is a material qualification and belongs in the summary, not only in a distant appendix.

When responding to feedback, do more than write 'changed as requested'. Explain whether the comment changed the argument, the evidence, the structure or the language. You may retain a recommendation if you can justify it against the criteria, but you should not retain an unsupported promise merely to appear consistent.

Your final proposal needs an executive summary, a comparison of options, an implementation plan and a review condition. Keep the summary between one hundred and eighty and two hundred and twenty words. A partner should be able to recover both the recommendation and the most important limitation without reading the full report.

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 · Collection and service brief

Archive team

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

[1] The archive holds 6,000 loose pages and 400 bound volumes. The immediate priority is access to frequently requested loose-page documents, not digitising the whole collection within one term. Several volumes have tight bindings or fragile edges and must be assessed before any scanning method is selected. A service that works well for flat pages may be unsuitable for those objects.

[2] The team wants searchable files, legible images and a traceable link between each image and its catalogue record. Quality checking and naming are part of the work; the scanning rate alone is not a throughput measure. A trial of fifty ordinary pages produced clear images, but ten file names had to be corrected and four pages were scanned twice. The trial did not include fragile material or handwriting recognition.

[3] The proposal should compare options against access value, image quality, handling requirements, staff workload and reversibility. The archive has a fixed equipment allocation of 80 fictional budget units and can allocate six staff hours each week during the first term. It has not committed to a completion date for the entire collection. Readers should not infer one from the size of the collection.

S2 · Three options for investigation

Technical planning group

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

[1] Option A is a 50-unit flat-page scanner with an estimated 90-unit daily page capacity under uninterrupted operation. Its supplier estimate excludes preparation, catalogue matching, quality checks and breaks. It would leave 30 units for supports, storage and contingency. It is not intended for tightly bound volumes.

[2] Option B is a 78-unit overhead system that allows pages to be photographed from above. The supplier reports lower physical contact with the page, but the archive has not tested image consistency or the handling of fragile bindings. The price leaves little contingency, and staff would need training in alignment and lighting. The proposal must not convert a supplier description into a verified conservation judgement.

[3] Option C is an external service charging by batch after an assessment. No firm quotation has been obtained. The service may reduce the archive's scanning time but would still require selection, documentation, transfer arrangements and acceptance checks. It therefore cannot be treated as a zero-workload option. Each option needs a small, representative quality trial before an irreversible commitment to a large batch.

S3 · Reviewer comments on the first draft

Archive review panel

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

[1] The draft recommends Option B because it is described as the most modern. The panel asks for a criterion-based comparison rather than an adjective-based preference. In particular, the current priority is loose pages, while much of the proposed benefit concerns bound volumes. That mismatch does not automatically rule out Option B, but it requires an explicit argument.

[2] The draft also promises completion in one term by multiplying the supplier's daily rate by available days. This ignores the six-hour weekly staffing limit and the non-scanning tasks identified in the collection brief. The completion claim should be removed or supported by a realistic end-to-end trial. The panel wants a phased plan with a measurable first-stage output and a review point.

[3] Finally, the executive summary says that conservation risks are resolved. They are not. The revised summary should say which material is included, which is excluded pending assessment and what would stop the pilot. The panel will judge the second draft on the quality of its reasoning and revision, not on whether the writer retains the first recommendation.

Reading questions

What is the actual first priority?
What is the unpriced option?
Why is “conservation risks resolved” unsupported?
Which trial errors show the need for end-to-end quality checks?

Language in use

Grammar and reformulation

Title

Genre organisation, parallel option headings, precise recommendation verbs, reference chains and concise qualification.

Examples

The executive summary must preserve the conservation limitation.
Agree the evaluation criteria before choosing a scanner.
Staff availability is an implementation risk.
A phased approach lets the team test quality before expanding.

Local and daily-life application

Term
an executive summary
Thai
บทสรุปสำหรับผู้ตัดสินใจ
Pronunciation
ɐn ɛɡzˈɛkjuːtˌɪv sˈʌmɚɹi
Example
The executive summary must preserve the conservation limitation.
Term
evaluation criteria
Thai
เกณฑ์ประเมินทางเลือก
Pronunciation
ɪvˌæljuːˈeɪʃən kɹaɪtˈiəɹɪə
Example
Agree the evaluation criteria before choosing a scanner.
Term
implementation risk
Thai
ความเสี่ยงระหว่างนำไปใช้
Pronunciation
ˌɪmplɪməntˈeɪʃən ɹˈɪsk
Example
Staff availability is an implementation risk.
Term
a phased approach
Thai
วิธีดำเนินงานเป็นระยะ
Pronunciation
ɐ fˈeɪzd ɐpɹˈoʊtʃ
Example
A phased approach lets the team test quality before expanding.

Place
Source workshop
The executive summary must preserve the conservation limitation.
Pronunciation
ðɪ ɛɡzˈɛkjuːtˌɪv sˈʌmɚɹi mˈʌst pɹɪzˈɜːv ðə kˌɑːnsɚvˈeɪʃən lˌɪmɪtˈeɪʃən.
Tip
A concise account of purpose, main findings, recommendation and material limits.
Place
Source workshop
Agree the evaluation criteria before choosing a scanner.
Pronunciation
ɐɡɹˈiː ðɪ ɪvˌæljuːˈeɪʃən kɹaɪtˈiəɹɪə bɪfˌoːɹ tʃˈuːzɪŋ ɐ skˈænɚ.
Tip
Explicit standards used to compare options.
Place
Source workshop
Staff availability is an implementation risk.
Pronunciation
stˈæf ɐvˌeɪləbˈɪlɪɾi ɪz ɐn ˌɪmplɪməntˈeɪʃən ɹˈɪsk.
Tip
A possible obstacle to carrying out a plan.

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

I chose the newest system because it will finish the collection fastest.

Participant B

Which end-to-end trial supports that completion claim?

Participant A

I used the supplier’s daily scanning rate.

Participant B

That rate excludes naming and quality checks, and we have six staff hours a week.

Participant A

I will revise the timetable and compare the options against the immediate loose-page priority.

Participant B

Keep the unassessed volumes and review condition visible in the summary.

Synthesis studio

Organise by issues, not by source order. Distinguish genuine contradictions from differences in scope, population, purpose or definition. Write a 1,000–1,200-word proposal and a separate 180–220-word executive summary. Preserve all material qualifications, respond to the review panel and retain a tracked revision rationale.

Output

Write a 1,000–1,200-word proposal and a separate 180–220-word executive summary. Preserve all material qualifications, respond to the review panel and retain a tracked revision rationale.

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

Write a 1,000–1,200-word proposal and a separate 180–220-word executive summary. Preserve all material qualifications, respond to the review panel and retain a tracked revision rationale.

Target words min

1000

Target words max

1200

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

A small archive must choose a document-digitisation approach

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 respond constructively to reviewer comments and justify or revise a recommendation.
I can condense a long report into a concise executive summary without losing critical qualifications.

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

480

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. 180–220-word summary with coverage and distortion audit.

Source en

A small archive must choose a document-digitisation approach — 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-w07-S1
esl5-w07-S2
esl5-w07-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

Write a 1,000–1,200-word proposal and a separate 180–220-word executive summary. Preserve all material qualifications, respond to the review panel and retain a tracked revision rationale.

Prompt

Write a 1,000–1,200-word proposal and a separate 180–220-word executive summary. Preserve all material qualifications, respond to the review panel and retain a tracked revision rationale.

Preparation seconds

120

Speaking seconds

240

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

Write a 1,000–1,200-word proposal and a separate 180–220-word executive summary. Preserve all material qualifications, respond to the review panel and retain a tracked revision rationale.

I can respond constructively to reviewer comments and justify or revise a recommendation.

I can condense a long report into a concise executive summary without losing critical qualifications.

Speaking secondsReady

◆ Reports, proposals, recommendations, and executive summaries

Learning goals

Core vocabulary

an executive summary

evaluation criteria

implementation risk

a phased approach

resource implications

a material qualification

fit for purpose

review against

a revision rationale

contingency provision

Meaning through delivery

Extended listening · A small archive must choose a document-digitisation approach

Transcript

Reading and source dossier

S1 · Collection and service brief

S2 · Three options for investigation

S3 · Reviewer comments on the first draft

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