Learning goals

I can interpret dense source material and high-level editorial feedback, including indirect criticism.
I can produce a sustained, logically controlled text with precise stance, effective emphasis, and consistent genre conventions.
I can integrate source ideas and reviewer perspectives while preserving authorship and accurate attribution.

What you will be able to do

I can interpret dense source material and high-level editorial feedback, including indirect criticism.
Skill
reception
I can produce a sustained, logically controlled text with precise stance, effective emphasis, and consistent genre conventions.
Skill
production
I can negotiate revision priorities, query unclear feedback, and justify a principled editorial choice.
Skill
interaction
I can integrate source ideas and reviewer perspectives while preserving authorship and accurate attribution.
Skill
mediation
I can diagnose argument, structure, evidence, and style at separate revision passes.
Skill
strategies
I can make genre choices explicit when audiences have different expectations for voice, evidence, or directness.
Skill
pluricultural competence

Core vocabulary

a substantive revision

A change to reasoning, evidence or organisation rather than surface wording alone.

A substantive revision separates the measured delay from its proposed cause.

a response-to-reviewers memo

A document explaining how feedback was addressed or why it was not adopted.

The response-to-reviewers memo links each decision to a revised passage.

the scope of the argument

The range of claims that the evidence and purpose can support.

The scope of the argument should not expand from one team to every project.

a reverse outline

A map of the actual function of each paragraph in an existing draft.

Use a reverse outline before changing the introduction again.

traceable attribution

A clear link between a claim and the source responsible for it.

Traceable attribution distinguishes the analyst's observation from the team's interpretation.

to query feedback

Asking what a reviewer means before implementing an uncertain request.

Query feedback when stronger means more evidence rather than more emphatic wording.

an editorial priority

A reasoned order for revision work.

Repairing the unsupported comparison is an editorial priority over shortening headings.

voice consistency

A stable relationship between the writer, claims and audience.

Voice consistency does not require removing every acknowledgement of uncertainty.

a principled choice

A decision justified by explicit criteria rather than preference alone.

Retaining the limitation is a principled choice because it changes the recommendation.

a revision trace

Evidence connecting an original passage, a change and its reason.

The revision trace should show what changed and why the change improves the report.

Meaning through delivery

In the editorial conference, stress the requested type of change: more EVIDENCE, a NARROWER claim, or a DIFFERENT order. Confirm an ambiguous instruction before responding to it.

A substantive revision separates the measured delay from its proposed cause.
The response-to-reviewers memo links each decision to a revised passage.
The scope of the argument should not expand from one team to every project.
Use a reverse outline before changing the introduction again.
Traceable attribution distinguishes the analyst's observation from the team's interpretation.
Query feedback when stronger means more evidence rather than more emphatic wording.
Repairing the unsupported comparison is an editorial priority over shortening headings.
Voice consistency does not require removing every acknowledgement of uncertainty.
Retaining the limitation is a principled choice because it changes the recommendation.
The revision trace should show what changed and why the change improves the report.

Extended listening · A project team revises a report about its documentation workflow

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

What does stronger mean in the reviewer’s request?
Which changes occurred alongside the template?
What is the order of the four named revision passes?
What makes a response memo traceable?

Listening notes

Transcript

The reviewer says the report would be stronger if the recommendation rested on a comparison the data can support. An anxious writer may hear stronger as an instruction to remove caution and sound more certain. In this case the reviewer means the opposite: separate the measured change from the explanation being proposed. A useful editorial question would be, Do you want a narrower causal claim, additional evidence, or a different recommendation?

The first draft contains several problems that cannot be solved in a single polishing pass. It treats a change from nine to seven working days as proof of the template's effect. Yet the request mix and reviewer assignment changed too. It interprets fewer saved versions as less revision work, despite inconsistent saving practices. It also recommends adoption by every team on the basis of one fictional team's mixed records.

Begin with the argument pass. Identify each claim and the inference connecting it to a source. Next examine structure. The reader needs to choose a resource priority, so a detailed history of layout design may not be the best opening. The evidence pass checks denominators, categories, quotations and attribution. Only then should the style pass concentrate on rhythm, concision and consistent voice. Style matters, but it should serve a repaired argument.

A response memo is not a list of assurances that every comment has been fixed. It is a traceable account of decisions. Quote or summarise the comment accurately, identify the action, locate the revised passage and explain a principled disagreement when necessary. Do not claim that a reviewer asked for a change merely because that interpretation is easier to implement.

For the final submission, retain the first draft and the four-pass record. Your portfolio should show that you can diagnose different kinds of problem and choose an order of work. It need not pretend that writing follows a perfectly linear sequence. If a style edit reveals an ambiguous claim, return to the argument and record why. The final report should be coherent for its reader even when the revision process that produced it was recursive.

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 · Workflow review data note

Documentation analyst

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

[1] The fictional project team completed forty documentation requests in the first review period and forty-eight in the second. The median elapsed time from recorded request to approved document fell from nine working days to seven. The request mix changed: short updates represented half of the first set and three quarters of the second. Long technical guides made up the remaining requests. The two overall medians therefore combine different proportions of task types.

[2] The team introduced a shared drafting template at the start of the second period. It also assigned a reviewer to each request earlier in the process and temporarily postponed several long guides. These changes occurred together. The available records cannot isolate the effect of the template from reviewer assignment or the altered request mix. The analyst recommends reporting each task category separately before describing a general efficiency improvement.

[3] Revision counts are incomplete. Some contributors saved each change as a new version; others edited the same file repeatedly. A lower count of saved versions cannot safely be interpreted as less revision work. The final report should distinguish an observed record count from the activity the count is intended to represent.

[4] A useful next study would agree start and end events, separate waiting time from drafting time and record why requests pause. The analyst is not recommending a complex measurement system for its own sake. The missing distinctions matter because the team must decide whether to invest in templates, reviewer availability or planning capacity. Each remedy addresses a different possible bottleneck.

S2 · Extract from the first report draft

Project report author

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

[1] Our new template has transformed the documentation process. Requests are now completed in seven days rather than nine, proving that standardisation is the main driver of efficiency. The number of completed documents rose from forty to forty-eight, which means the team is more productive despite the same staffing. Fewer saved revisions also suggest that contributors are writing more accurately the first time.

[2] Some readers may question whether all requests are comparable. Although the types of request changed, every document still required writing, so the overall figures remain a sufficient basis for the recommendation. The report proposes that all teams adopt the template immediately. Reviewer assignment should be mentioned as a useful supporting detail but should not distract from the main innovation.

[3] The report will open with a history of template design, followed by a description of each layout element, then the overall figures. A short limitations paragraph at the end will acknowledge that further study is possible. The conclusion will repeat that the template has transformed the workflow and recommend a standard format for every kind of documentation.

[4] This extract is deliberately flawed practice material. Learners should identify the unsupported causal and generalising claims, the treatment of request mix, the interpretation of revision counts and the relationship between the proposed structure and the reader's decision. They should not reproduce the draft as an example of a sound professional report.

S3 · Editorial feedback letter

Internal reviewer

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

[1] The report would be stronger if its central recommendation rested on a comparison the data can support. Stronger here means better justified, not more emphatic. At present, the draft attributes a change in an aggregate median to one intervention even though reviewer assignment and request mix also changed. Please distinguish observation, explanation and recommendation before revising the style.

[2] The intended reader must decide what to resource next. An extended history of layout choices is less useful at the beginning than a clear account of the service problem, the evidence and the remaining decision. Consider moving technical design detail to an appendix. Retain enough explanation in the main text for a reader to understand what the template actually changes.

[3] The limitations should appear beside the claims they qualify, not only in a final paragraph that a busy reader may miss. The term transformed is not prohibited, but the present evidence does not justify its causal and general scope. A narrower statement can still support a practical recommendation to continue a controlled trial while separating the effects of the changes.

[4] Please provide a response memo identifying the action taken for each major comment. Where you disagree, explain your criterion and point to the relevant passage or source. You do not need to accept every stylistic preference. You do need to ensure that disagreement does not become a reason to leave an evidential problem unresolved. The revised report should sound like a coherent author, not like a sequence of comments pasted together.

S4 · Commissioning brief for the final report

Service planning team

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

[1] Produce a report of 1,800–2,200 words for a reader who knows the project but has not followed the drafting process. Explain the current evidence, evaluate competing explanations and recommend a next measurement-and-improvement cycle. Use the supplied fictional dossier as a base; clearly label any additional hypothetical scenario and do not invent results to fill evidential gaps.

[2] Submit an argument plan, first draft, four-pass revision record and final report. The first pass addresses claims and inferences. The second addresses global structure and paragraph purpose. The third addresses evidence, citation and numerical consistency. The fourth addresses style, syntax and reader usability. These passes can lead back to earlier decisions, but their separate records should make the reason for a change visible.

[3] The report must include a response-to-reviewers memo and an audience-adaptation note. The memo links comments to changes or principled reasons for non-adoption. The adaptation note explains how a briefing for contributors would differ from the report for planning staff. Neither document is assessed by the number of edits made. A small correction to an important inference can matter more than many cosmetic replacements.

Reading questions

How did the proportion of short updates change?
Why are saved-version counts an unreliable measure of revision effort?
Must every stylistic preference in S3 be accepted?
What must not be invented to complete the final report?

Language in use

Grammar and reformulation

Title

Long-form genre control, source integration, disciplined paragraph development, reviewer-response language and four-pass revision.

Examples

A substantive revision separates the measured delay from its proposed cause.
The response-to-reviewers memo links each decision to a revised passage.
The scope of the argument should not expand from one team to every project.
Use a reverse outline before changing the introduction again.

Local and daily-life application

Term
a substantive revision
Thai
การแก้ไขสาระสำคัญ
Pronunciation
ɐ səbstˈæntɪv ɹɪvˈɪʒən
Example
A substantive revision separates the measured delay from its proposed cause.
Term
a response-to-reviewers memo
Thai
บันทึกชี้แจงการตอบข้อเสนอแนะ
Pronunciation
ɐ ɹɪspˈɑːnstəɹɪvjˈuːɚz mˈɛmoʊ
Example
The response-to-reviewers memo links each decision to a revised passage.
Term
the scope of the argument
Thai
ขอบเขตของข้อโต้แย้ง
Pronunciation
ðə skˈoʊp ʌvðɪ ˈɑːɹɡjuːmənt
Example
The scope of the argument should not expand from one team to every project.
Term
a reverse outline
Thai
โครงร่างวิเคราะห์ย้อนจากร่าง
Pronunciation
ɐ ɹɪvˈɜːs ˈaʊtlaɪn
Example
Use a reverse outline before changing the introduction again.

Place
Source workshop
A substantive revision separates the measured delay from its proposed cause.
Pronunciation
ɐ səbstˈæntɪv ɹɪvˈɪʒən sˈɛpɚɹˌeɪts ðə mˈɛʒɚd dɪlˈeɪ fɹʌm ɪts pɹəpˈoʊzd kˈɔːz.
Tip
A change to reasoning, evidence or organisation rather than surface wording alone.
Place
Source workshop
The response-to-reviewers memo links each decision to a revised passage.
Pronunciation
ðə ɹɪspˈɑːnstəɹɪvjˈuːɚz mˈɛmoʊ lˈɪŋks ˈiːtʃ dᵻsˈɪʒən tʊ ɐ ɹɪvˈaɪzd pˈæsɪdʒ.
Tip
A document explaining how feedback was addressed or why it was not adopted.
Place
Source workshop
The scope of the argument should not expand from one team to every project.
Pronunciation
ðə skˈoʊp ʌvðɪ ˈɑːɹɡjuːmənt ʃˌʊd nˌɑːt ɛkspˈænd fɹʌm wˈʌn tˈiːm tʊ ˈɛvɹi pɹˈɑːdʒɛkt.
Tip
The range of claims that the evidence and purpose can support.

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

You asked for a stronger conclusion. Should I remove the qualification about request mix?

Participant B

No. I meant that the recommendation needs a comparison the evidence can support.

Participant A

Then I will narrow the causal claim and separate the possible effects of reviewer assignment.

Participant B

That would address the main issue. How will you reorganise the opening?

Participant A

Around the reader’s resource decision, with layout history moved to supporting detail.

Participant B

Please show those decisions in the response memo, including any comment you choose not to adopt.

Synthesis studio

Organise by issues, not by source order. Distinguish genuine contradictions from differences in scope, population, purpose or definition. Write a 1,800–2,200-word professional report. Preserve the first draft and an argument–structure–evidence–style four-pass revision history. Submit an editorial conference recording, a response-to-reviewers memo, a source/citation audit and an audience-adaptation note.

Output

Write a 1,800–2,200-word professional report. Preserve the first draft and an argument–structure–evidence–style four-pass revision history. Submit an editorial conference recording, a response-to-reviewers memo, a source/citation audit and an audience-adaptation note.

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

1800

Target words max

2200

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 project team revises a report about its documentation workflow

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 revision priorities, query unclear feedback, and justify a principled editorial choice.
I can integrate source ideas and reviewer perspectives while preserving authorship and accurate attribution.

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. Revision trace and citation-integrity audit.

Source en

A project team revises a report about its documentation workflow — 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-w07-S1
esl6-w07-S2
esl6-w07-S3
esl6-w07-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

300

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 negotiate revision priorities, query unclear feedback, and justify a principled editorial choice.

I can integrate source ideas and reviewer perspectives while preserving authorship and accurate attribution.

Speaking secondsReady

◆ Long-form academic and professional writing with disciplined revision

Learning goals

Core vocabulary

a substantive revision

a response-to-reviewers memo

the scope of the argument

a reverse outline

traceable attribution

to query feedback

an editorial priority

voice consistency

a principled choice

a revision trace

Meaning through delivery

Extended listening · A project team revises a report about its documentation workflow

Transcript

Reading and source dossier

S1 · Workflow review data note

S2 · Extract from the first report draft

S3 · Editorial feedback letter

S4 · Commissioning brief for the final report

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