Learning goals

I can independently interpret fast, dense, structurally complex, and stylistically nuanced sources, noting residual uncertainty accurately.
I can produce smoothly flowing, audience-shaped spoken and written work with precise stance, logical control, and memorable emphasis.
I can mediate conflicting complex sources and delicate perspectives, preserving nuance and enabling informed action.

What you will be able to do

I can independently interpret fast, dense, structurally complex, and stylistically nuanced sources, noting residual uncertainty accurately.
Skill
reception
I can produce smoothly flowing, audience-shaped spoken and written work with precise stance, logical control, and memorable emphasis.
Skill
production
I can defend, qualify, and restructure a position spontaneously while sustaining natural collaborative flow.
Skill
interaction
I can mediate conflicting complex sources and delicate perspectives, preserving nuance and enabling informed action.
Skill
mediation
I can select and evaluate strategies for inference, planning, turn management, reformulation, simplification, and repair under time pressure.
Skill
strategies
I can anticipate possible undercurrents, verify interpretations with participants, and create an inclusive shared space without stereotyping.
Skill
pluricultural competence

Core vocabulary

converging evidence

Different performance artifacts supporting a consistent judgement.

Converging evidence matters more than one polished presentation.

an evidence boundary

The limit beyond which a conclusion is no longer supported.

State the evidence boundary before defending the allocation proposal.

a defensible synthesis

An integrated account whose choices can withstand informed questioning.

A defensible synthesis retains a contradiction when the sources do not resolve it.

to recalibrate

Adjusting the strength or scope of a position after new information.

Recalibrate the recommendation when a new constraint changes the comparison.

a transfer task

A new situation requiring a skill learned in another context.

An unseen transfer task tests more than familiarity with the practice dossier.

an independent rating

A judgement made without simply adopting another rater's score.

An independent rating should cite the observed evidence for each criterion.

a traceable decision

A choice linked clearly to sources, criteria and stated limitations.

The panel needs a traceable decision rather than an impressive but unexplained conclusion.

performance evidence

A product or observed action demonstrating a capability.

Performance evidence includes the spontaneous defence, not only the prepared slides.

a readiness profile

A pattern of demonstrated abilities and remaining needs.

A readiness profile must not be presented as a CEFR certificate.

a next-stage learning plan

A targeted plan based on observed strengths and gaps.

The next-stage learning plan should address the weakest supported area rather than repeat a generic ambition.

Meaning through delivery

Sustain a clear twelve-minute argument with meaningful grouping and emphasis, then shift naturally into unrehearsed answers. Pauses for thinking are not to be confused with lack of knowledge.

Converging evidence matters more than one polished presentation.
State the evidence boundary before defending the allocation proposal.
A defensible synthesis retains a contradiction when the sources do not resolve it.
Recalibrate the recommendation when a new constraint changes the comparison.
An unseen transfer task tests more than familiarity with the practice dossier.
An independent rating should cite the observed evidence for each criterion.
The panel needs a traceable decision rather than an impressive but unexplained conclusion.
Performance evidence includes the spontaneous defence, not only the prepared slides.
A readiness profile must not be presented as a CEFR certificate.
The next-stage learning plan should address the weakest supported area rather than repeat a generic ambition.

Extended listening · A shared studio programme chooses a defensible next allocation model

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

What does moving twenty booking slots not do?
Why can eighty-seven used bookings not be called eighty-seven people?
What should happen when a new constraint changes a comparison?
Why must the assessed dossier differ from the practice pack?

Listening notes

Transcript

The studio programme has one hundred booking slots. The proposed change moves twenty slots from advance reservation to same-week requests; it does not create additional studio hours. That distinction is the first test of your synthesis. If an engaging introduction promises more capacity, it has changed the proposal before the argument begins.

The records show eighty-seven used bookings, but they do not show eighty-seven unique participants. They also do not explain why thirteen slots were unused. The consultation provides reasons for preferences, not a representative vote. The capacity note adds an estimate of staff checking periods, but that estimate has not been measured. A defensible recommendation can use all three sources while keeping their different evidential roles visible.

In the panel discussion, a new constraint may change your comparison. Perhaps a particular activity needs equipment confirmation several days ahead, or perhaps a source clarifies how cancellations were counted. Do not defend your initial wording merely because it appeared in the prepared presentation. Identify which part of the reasoning changes, which part remains supported and what you would need to check next. Recalibration is not the same as abandoning every principle.

Your written product and twelve-minute presentation address different audiences. They should share a factual basis without being the same text in two formats. The mediation task asks whether another group can use your explanation to make a decision. Their decision artifact and understanding check are therefore part of the evidence, not optional compliments on your performance.

The practice dossier is available for rehearsal. The assessed transfer case must be different and held by the teacher until the agreed assessment point. Keep the input version and support conditions in the record. Your final portfolio also includes at least five earlier artifacts with the specified coverage. If an area remains weak or unassessed, show it honestly and connect it to a targeted next-stage plan. The result is a readiness profile grounded in converging evidence, not a CEFR certificate and not an automatic reward for finishing the course.

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 · Studio allocation records

Programme administrator

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

[1] The fictional studio programme offered one hundred two-hour bookings during its trial. Seventy bookings were reserved through the advance form and thirty were held for requests made during the same week. Sixty-three advance reservations and twenty-four same-week reservations were used. Nine advance reservations and four same-week reservations were cancelled early enough to be reoffered, but these cancellations overlap with the reservation totals and must not be added as additional unused bookings. The final used-booking totals already reflect the recorded reallocation process.

[2] The records identify bookings, not unique people. A participant can make more than one reservation, and several people can share a booking. The administrator cannot infer the number of people served from the eighty-seven used bookings. Nor do the records show why the remaining thirteen booking slots were unused.

[3] A proposed next model would move twenty slots from advance reservation to same-week requests. The records alone do not establish how demand would respond. Same-week use might increase because more slots become available, or some existing advance users might be unable to adapt. A recommendation needs assumptions about those responses, not merely a comparison of the current counts.

S2 · Participant consultation note

Facilitation group

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

[1] Twenty-four people attended two open consultation sessions. Eleven preferred more same-week availability, eight preferred keeping the current split and five did not express a clear preference. Attendance was voluntary and some regular users did not attend. The consultation is useful for understanding reasons but does not supply a representative estimate of preferences across the whole programme.

[2] Participants favouring flexibility described changing work patterns and projects that cannot be scheduled far ahead. Participants favouring advance booking described travel arrangements, equipment preparation and coordination with collaborators. These reasons need not divide people into fixed groups. One person can need advance certainty for one activity and short-notice access for another.

[3] The facilitator cautions against describing the proposal as a contest between organised and disorganised users. That framing adds a value judgement not contained in the booking records. The next consultation should ask what minimum notice each activity requires and what alternatives would preserve access when that requirement cannot be met. The aim is to understand constraints rather than attach character labels to booking choices.

S3 · Operating-capacity note

Studio coordinator

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

[1] Changing the reservation split will not create additional studio hours. It may change the timing of staff work. Advance requests can be checked in one planned session, while same-week requests may require more frequent decisions. The coordinator estimates that the proposed model could require two additional checking periods each week, but no time study has yet been conducted. The estimate should remain labelled as a planning assumption.

[2] Equipment availability is a separate constraint. A booking can be suitable for the room yet unsuitable for the equipment needed by a particular activity. The next form should therefore distinguish room access from equipment confirmation. A promise of a room slot must not be presented as a guarantee that every requested tool will be available.

[3] The coordinator supports a reversible trial only if review criteria are agreed beforehand. These should include use of slots, declined requests, notice required by activities, staff workload and reasons for non-use. A trial that reports only the final number of bookings may miss whether access improved for people who previously could not participate.

S4 · Two communication drafts

Programme communications workshop

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

[1] Draft A: More flexibility means more opportunity. The new allocation model will let everyone join when inspiration strikes, without the barriers of advance planning. The programme will make better use of its hours and respond to the way creative people actually work.

[2] Draft B: The programme is considering a six-week trial that would move twenty of its one hundred booking slots from advance reservation to same-week requests. Total studio hours would not increase. Before deciding, the team will examine notice requirements, equipment constraints and the staff work needed to administer the change. Participants are invited to explain which activities would become easier or harder under the proposed split.

[3] Draft A is intentionally overconfident practice material. It promises universal opportunity, assumes the effect on use and characterises creative work in a single way. Draft B preserves the proposal's conditional status and the unchanged total capacity. It is more operationally precise but may need a clearer explanation of why the issue matters to participants. A revision can improve engagement without importing Draft A's unsupported promises.

S5 · Portfolio and panel instructions

Independent assessment panel

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

[1] This dossier is a practice case. The assessed transfer task must use a different teacher-held dossier that learners have not rehearsed. A public practice recording does not become unseen merely because it is played at a different speed. The assessor records the input version, permitted preparation, support used and the conditions of the live defence.

[2] The learner presents for twelve minutes and submits a polished 1,500-word product for a different audience. The panel then introduces a new constraint or source clarification and asks the learner to defend, qualify or restructure the position. The assessment includes a separate mediation case and a recipient decision artifact. Ratings for gist, detail, inference, stance and uncertainty management remain distinguishable rather than disappearing into one total.

[3] The final portfolio includes this capstone and at least five earlier artifacts: one from Weeks Three or Four, one from Weeks Five or Six, the Week Seven long-form revision, the Week Nine mediation case and one further relevant artifact. The teacher checks coverage of all six planning areas. Missing evidence is recorded as missing or not yet demonstrated, not filled with a game score or a confident self-description.

[4] The outcome is a readiness profile. It may identify strong C1 or pre-C2 readiness as demonstrated, partly demonstrated or not yet demonstrated in the collected evidence. It is not a certificate of CEFR level and does not promise performance in every future setting. The next-stage plan should connect specific learning actions to the weakest or least secure evidence in the portfolio.

Reading questions

What is the proposed new split if twenty slots move from advance to same-week booking?
Why must cancelled reservations not simply be added to the unused total?
Which descriptions in Draft A exceed the evidence?
Which earlier artifacts must the final portfolio include?

Language in use

Grammar and reformulation

Title

Integrated precision, audience-shaped synthesis, spontaneous defence, uncertainty management and evidence-indexed reflection.

Examples

Converging evidence matters more than one polished presentation.
State the evidence boundary before defending the allocation proposal.
A defensible synthesis retains a contradiction when the sources do not resolve it.
Recalibrate the recommendation when a new constraint changes the comparison.

Local and daily-life application

Term
converging evidence
Thai
หลักฐานหลายด้านที่สนับสนุนกัน
Pronunciation
kənvˈɜːdʒɪŋ ˈɛvɪdəns
Example
Converging evidence matters more than one polished presentation.
Term
an evidence boundary
Thai
ขอบเขตที่หลักฐานรองรับ
Pronunciation
ɐn ˈɛvɪdəns bˈaʊndɚɹi
Example
State the evidence boundary before defending the allocation proposal.
Term
a defensible synthesis
Thai
การสังเคราะห์ที่อธิบายเหตุผลรองรับได้
Pronunciation
ɐ dɪfˈɛnsəbəl sˈɪnθəsˌɪs
Example
A defensible synthesis retains a contradiction when the sources do not resolve it.
Term
to recalibrate
Thai
ปรับระดับข้อสรุปให้เหมาะกับหลักฐานใหม่
Pronunciation
tə ɹɪkˈælɪbɹˌeɪt
Example
Recalibrate the recommendation when a new constraint changes the comparison.

Place
Source workshop
Converging evidence matters more than one polished presentation.
Pronunciation
kənvˈɜːdʒɪŋ ˈɛvɪdəns mˈæɾɚz mˈoːɹ ðɐn wˈʌn pˈɑːlɪʃt pɹˌɛzəntˈeɪʃən.
Tip
Different performance artifacts supporting a consistent judgement.
Place
Source workshop
State the evidence boundary before defending the allocation proposal.
Pronunciation
stˈeɪt ðɪ ˈɛvɪdəns bˈaʊndɚɹi bɪfˌoːɹ dɪfˈɛndɪŋ ðɪ ˌæləkˈeɪʃən pɹəpˈoʊzəl.
Tip
The limit beyond which a conclusion is no longer supported.
Place
Source workshop
A defensible synthesis retains a contradiction when the sources do not resolve it.
Pronunciation
ɐ dɪfˈɛnsəbəl sˈɪnθəsˌɪs ɹɪtˈeɪnz ɐ kˌɑːntɹədˈɪkʃən wɛn ðə sˈoːɹsɪz duːnˌɑːt ɹɪzˈɑːlv ɪt.
Tip
An integrated account whose choices can withstand informed questioning.

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 presentation recommends the trial. A new note says one activity requires three days of equipment preparation. Does that change your position?

Participant B

It changes the conditions under which same-week room access is useful. I would separate room allocation from equipment confirmation.

Participant A

Would you withdraw the entire recommendation?

Participant B

Not automatically. I would revise the proposal for affected activities and identify which participation assumptions need checking.

Participant A

How will the panel see that this is a principled revision rather than evasion?

Participant B

I will trace the new constraint to the affected inference, retain the supported claims and state the revised decision criterion.

Synthesis studio

Organise by issues, not by source order. Distinguish genuine contradictions from differences in scope, population, purpose or definition. Complete a twelve-minute presentation, a polished 1,500-word product for another audience, an unrehearsed defence and a separate unseen mediation case. Submit the capstone plus at least five earlier artifacts with required coverage, self-review notes, a recipient decision artifact and an evidence-indexed next-stage plan.

Output

Complete a twelve-minute presentation, a polished 1,500-word product for another audience, an unrehearsed defence and a separate unseen mediation case. Submit the capstone plus at least five earlier artifacts with required coverage, self-review notes, a recipient decision artifact and an evidence-indexed next-stage plan.

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

1500

Target words max

1500

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 shared studio programme chooses a defensible next allocation model

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 defend, qualify, and restructure a position spontaneously while sustaining natural collaborative flow.
I can mediate conflicting complex sources and delicate perspectives, preserving nuance and enabling informed action.

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. Unseen mediation case, recipient decision artifact, and fidelity/usability audit.

Source en

A shared studio programme chooses a defensible next allocation model — 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

esl6-w10-S1
esl6-w10-S2
esl6-w10-S3
esl6-w10-S4
esl6-w10-S5

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

720

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

Complete a twelve-minute presentation, a polished 1,500-word product for another audience, an unrehearsed defence and a separate unseen mediation case. Submit the capstone plus at least five earlier artifacts with required coverage, independent analytic ratings, a recipient decision artifact and an evidence-indexed next-stage plan. Use a teacher-held unseen transfer pack for assessment; this supplied dossier is practice only.

I can defend, qualify, and restructure a position spontaneously while sustaining natural collaborative flow.

I can mediate conflicting complex sources and delicate perspectives, preserving nuance and enabling informed action.

Speaking secondsReady

◆ Strong C1 / pre-C2 mastery portfolio

Learning goals

Core vocabulary

converging evidence

an evidence boundary

a defensible synthesis

to recalibrate

a transfer task

an independent rating

a traceable decision

performance evidence

a readiness profile

a next-stage learning plan

Meaning through delivery

Extended listening · A shared studio programme chooses a defensible next allocation model

Transcript

Reading and source dossier

S1 · Studio allocation records

S2 · Participant consultation note

S3 · Operating-capacity note

S4 · Two communication drafts

S5 · Portfolio and panel instructions

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