Learning goals

I can identify significant ideas, evaluative aspects, and relationships across long spoken, written, and visual sources.
I can produce a coherent explanation that integrates text, data, and contrasting viewpoints for a defined audience.
I can convey significant ideas and qualifications, connect contributions, and make a complex concept accessible without oversimplifying it.

What you will be able to do

I can identify significant ideas, evaluative aspects, and relationships across long spoken, written, and visual sources.
Skill
reception
I can produce a coherent explanation that integrates text, data, and contrasting viewpoints for a defined audience.
Skill
production
I can use questions and summaries to help a group develop a shared model of a difficult issue.
Skill
interaction
I can convey significant ideas and qualifications, connect contributions, and make a complex concept accessible without oversimplifying it.
Skill
mediation
I can choose when to define, exemplify, visualise, break down, or condense information for the recipient.
Skill
strategies
I can use limited Thai strategically to verify a high-stakes concept, then return to clear English output.
Skill
pluricultural competence

Core vocabulary

relay accurately

Pass on essential meaning without distortion.

Relay accurately which group the percentage describes.

a denominator

The total against which a proportion is calculated.

State the denominator beside the completion rate.

aggregate data

Information combined across cases or groups.

Aggregate data can conceal different attendance patterns.

convey a qualification

Keep a limitation attached to the main message.

Convey the qualification that missing responses were not counted.

bridge viewpoints

Help participants understand the relevant concerns of others.

Bridge viewpoints before proposing a shared next step.

plain-language explanation

An explanation that removes unnecessary complexity while retaining meaning.

Give a plain-language explanation of the measure.

retain the distinction

Keep two concepts separate in an adaptation.

Retain the distinction between completing and attending.

check understanding

Ask a recipient to show what they understood.

Check understanding with a paraphrase, not only a yes-or-no question.

source-to-summary trace

A record showing where summary statements came from.

The source-to-summary trace should include every number.

facilitate common understanding

Support a group in making sense of differing information.

Facilitate common understanding without forcing agreement.

Meaning through delivery

Contrast “of those who STARTED” and “of those who ENROLLED”. Pause before qualifications that change the denominator.

Relay accurately which group the percentage describes.
State the denominator beside the completion rate.
Aggregate data can conceal different attendance patterns.
Convey the qualification that missing responses were not counted.
Bridge viewpoints before proposing a shared next step.
Give a plain-language explanation of the measure.
Retain the distinction between completing and attending.
Check understanding with a paraphrase, not only a yes-or-no question.
The source-to-summary trace should include every number.
Facilitate common understanding without forcing agreement.

Extended listening · Explain a skills-workshop dashboard without changing its denominators

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

Which mismatched denominators begin the talk?
What are the comparable rates among starters?
Why would “mastered” distort “submitted”?
What two facts should the listener explain back?

Listening notes

Transcript

A committee member says the evening workshop achieved an eighty-seven-point-five percent completion rate, while the morning workshop achieved only sixty percent. Before comparing the groups, ask whether those two percentages use the same denominator. They do not. The evening figure is based on people who started, while the morning figure is based on everyone who enrolled.

With starters as the denominator, the morning result is twenty-four out of thirty-two, or seventy-five percent. The evening result is twenty-one out of twenty-four, or eighty-seven-point-five percent. With enrolment as the denominator, the results are sixty percent and seventy percent. The evening group has the higher proportion under either consistent definition, but mixing definitions exaggerates the difference.

A second distinction concerns completion itself. Here, completion means submission of the final practical task. It is not yet a judgement that the work meets the quality standard. If your summary changes submitted into mastered, you have changed the claim rather than simplified it.

The two participant perspectives add useful context. The morning facilitator describes varied goals and suggests better measurement. The evening representatives mention convenience and previous experience. Neither perspective supplies a controlled explanation of the timetable effect. They help us identify questions for a future cycle.

Your mediation task has three products. First, prepare a short plain-language account for a prospective participant. Second, explain the dashboard to a committee member who wants a comparison. Third, facilitate a conversation in which both facilitators agree what the next data collection should distinguish. For every number, keep a source-to-summary trace. For every interpretation, identify whose view it is and how certain the evidence allows you to be.

Finish with a comprehension check. Ask your listener to explain what completion means and who is included in the percentage. A confident nod is not enough to establish shared understanding.

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 outcomes table in prose

Skills cooperative recorder

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

[1] The morning workshop enrolled 40 people. Of those, 32 attended at least one session and 24 submitted the final practical task. The evening workshop enrolled 30 people; 24 attended at least one session and 21 submitted the final task. Submission is the operational completion measure in this dashboard. It does not by itself establish that a learner met the quality standard.

[2] Among starters, submission rates were 24 out of 32 for the morning group and 21 out of 24 for the evening group. Among all enrolled people, the corresponding proportions were 24 out of 40 and 21 out of 30. Neither denominator is inherently dishonest, but a comparison must use the same definition for both groups and state what it represents.

[3] An optional follow-up form was returned by 18 morning participants and 15 evening participants. Twelve and eleven respectively said they had used the skill outside the workshop. There is no follow-up information for nonrespondents. The recorder asks readers not to present missing responses as proof that the remaining people did not use the skill. The dashboard also does not record prior experience, which may differ between groups.

S2 · Facilitator reflection

Morning workshop facilitator

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

[1] The morning group included several people trying the equipment for the first time. Some attended for an introduction without initially intending to submit the final task. The facilitator believes that early orientation had value, but recognises that the current dashboard does not measure that benefit. A narrative impression should therefore not be inserted into the numerical completion column as if it were a measured outcome.

[2] The facilitator asks for two changes in the next cycle: a question about participants' goals at enrolment and a separate record of whether final submissions meet the quality criteria. This would distinguish attendance, completion and demonstrated performance. It might also make the group comparison more informative, although it would still not be an experimental test of timetable effects.

[3] The facilitator accepts the evening group's higher submission proportion under either stated denominator. The concern is about explaining it as proof that evening teaching is better. Participants chose their time, prior experience is unrecorded and the groups may have pursued different goals. Those limits do not erase the observed difference; they constrain what can be inferred from it.

S3 · Message from an evening participant group

Participant representatives

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

[1] ผู้เข้าอบรมบางคนเลือกช่วงเย็นเพราะสะดวกกว่า และหลายคนเคยใช้เครื่องมือมาก่อน ตัวเลขการส่งงานช่วยให้เห็นภาพหนึ่ง แต่ยังไม่ได้บอกคุณภาพของงานทั้งหมด กลุ่มอยากให้รายงานแยกจำนวนผู้สมัคร ผู้มาเรียน และผู้ส่งงานให้ชัดเจน หากอธิบายเป็นภาษาอังกฤษ ขอให้ระบุด้วยว่ายังไม่มีข้อมูลประสบการณ์เดิมของทุกคน

[2] The representatives also ask for a short explanation suitable for someone deciding whether to join the next course. That reader needs to know what participation involves, what counts as completion and what support is available. They do not need a claim that one timetable guarantees success. The explanation should avoid presenting the Thai statement as the view of every evening participant.

[3] For mediation, the Thai paragraph is an authentic-language resource within this fictional case. Learners should convey its relevant meaning in English, identify the representatives as the source and preserve the limits on representativeness. A literal sentence-by-sentence translation is not the only acceptable product. What matters is that the intended reader can understand the essential facts without losing the qualifications.

Reading questions

Calculate submission among enrolled participants.
Can the follow-up form show that nonrespondents did not use the skill?
What does the Thai source say about previous experience?
Can these self-selected groups establish that timetable caused the difference?

Language in use

Grammar and reformulation

Title

Explaining denominators, distinguishing reporting from interpretation, reformulating specialist terms and attribution across viewpoints.

Examples

Relay accurately which group the percentage describes.
State the denominator beside the completion rate.
Aggregate data can conceal different attendance patterns.
Convey the qualification that missing responses were not counted.

Local and daily-life application

Term
relay accurately
Thai
ถ่ายทอดอย่างถูกต้อง
Pronunciation
ɹˈiːleɪ ˈækjʊɹətli
Example
Relay accurately which group the percentage describes.
Term
a denominator
Thai
ฐานจำนวนในการคำนวณสัดส่วน
Pronunciation
ɐ dɪnˈɑːmᵻnˌeɪɾɚ
Example
State the denominator beside the completion rate.
Term
aggregate data
Thai
ข้อมูลที่รวมเป็นภาพรวม
Pronunciation
ˈæɡɹɪɡˌeɪt dˈeɪɾə
Example
Aggregate data can conceal different attendance patterns.
Term
convey a qualification
Thai
ถ่ายทอดเงื่อนไขสำคัญไปด้วย
Pronunciation
kənvˈeɪ ɐ kwˌɑːlɪfɪkˈeɪʃən
Example
Convey the qualification that missing responses were not counted.

Place
Source workshop
Relay accurately which group the percentage describes.
Pronunciation
ɹˈiːleɪ ˈækjʊɹətli wˌɪtʃ ɡɹˈuːp ðə pɚsˈɛntɪdʒ dɪskɹˈaɪbz.
Tip
Pass on essential meaning without distortion.
Place
Source workshop
State the denominator beside the completion rate.
Pronunciation
stˈeɪt ðə dɪnˈɑːmᵻnˌeɪɾɚ bɪsˌaɪd ðə kəmplˈiːʃən ɹˈeɪt.
Tip
The total against which a proportion is calculated.
Place
Source workshop
Aggregate data can conceal different attendance patterns.
Pronunciation
ˈæɡɹɪɡˌeɪt dˈeɪɾə kæn kənsˈiːl dˈɪfɹənt ɐtˈɛndəns pˈætɚnz.
Tip
Information combined across cases or groups.

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

The evening group mastered the skill at nearly eighty-eight percent.

Participant B

The dashboard measures final-task submission, not mastery.

Participant A

Then what can I safely say?

Participant B

Among evening starters, twenty-one of twenty-four submitted the task. Quality was not assessed in that figure.

Participant A

And I should compare that with morning starters, not all enrolments.

Participant B

Exactly. Keep the definition and denominator with the number.

Synthesis studio

Organise by issues, not by source order. Distinguish genuine contradictions from differences in scope, population, purpose or definition. Produce three audience-specific mediation products: a prospective-participant summary, a numerical committee briefing and a facilitated agreement on next-cycle measures. Retain a source-to-summary trace and recipient checks.

Output

Produce three audience-specific mediation products: a prospective-participant summary, a numerical committee briefing and a facilitated agreement on next-cycle measures. Retain a source-to-summary trace and recipient checks.

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

700

Target words max

900

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

Explain a skills-workshop dashboard without changing its denominators

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 use questions and summaries to help a group develop a shared model of a difficult issue.
I can convey significant ideas and qualifications, connect contributions, and make a complex concept accessible without oversimplifying it.

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. Mediation portfolio containing source-to-output trace, concept explanation, and listener check.

Source en

Explain a skills-workshop dashboard without changing its denominators — 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-w09-S1
esl5-w09-S2
esl5-w09-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

Prompt

Preparation seconds

120

Speaking seconds

420

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 use questions and summaries to help a group develop a shared model of a difficult issue.

I can convey significant ideas and qualifications, connect contributions, and make a complex concept accessible without oversimplifying it.

Speaking secondsReady

◆ Mediation: sources, data, concepts, and viewpoints

Learning goals

Core vocabulary

relay accurately

a denominator

aggregate data

convey a qualification

bridge viewpoints

plain-language explanation

retain the distinction

check understanding

source-to-summary trace

facilitate common understanding

Meaning through delivery

Extended listening · Explain a skills-workshop dashboard without changing its denominators

Transcript

Reading and source dossier

S1 · Workshop outcomes table in prose

S2 · Facilitator reflection

S3 · Message from an evening participant group

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