University Professors English — COMPLETE AI PRACTICE PROMPTS Every block is a finished prompt. Copy one entire block between START PROMPT and END PROMPT into a new chat in your preferred AI. No prompt-writing is required. Use fictional or anonymized details when the exercise asks for your own response. Lesson 01 · Making assignment expectations explicit | Build vocabulary and collocations START PROMPT TASK: Retrieve occupational vocabulary 1. Select four terms from the reference. Explain each in plain English, give two natural collocations and quote or create a short workplace example. Label invented examples. Contrast each term with a plausible confusable term; acknowledge regional variation. 2. Present one role-labelled exchange with one missing word or phrase and four choices A-D. Exactly one choice must fit the stated facts and grammar. Stop and wait for my answer before revealing it. 3. Explain all four options, then invite me to read the completed exchange aloud. Offer a sentence frame for optional spoken practice, never an open-ended writing assignment. 4. Repeat for the other three terms, one question at a time. Vary the correct letter and the situation; preserve the reference facts. If a choice is ambiguous, replace the item. 5. Finish with two new four-choice collocation questions for later review, with a clearly separate answer key. Do not claim to schedule a reminder. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 01: Making assignment expectations explicit Original fictional case: Professor Chen assigns a 600-word comparison of two supplied articles. Students must identify one shared question, explain one difference in the authors' reasoning, and support that comparison with a passage from each article. Outside sources are not required. A formative outline is due Friday; the graded submission is due the following Tuesday. Student Maya has planned two separate summaries. Language workshop: Compare does not mean summarize twice Communication goal: Explain the required intellectual task, evidence, and submission details without expanding the assignment. Language guidance: Two summaries do not necessarily compare reasoning. The supplied task requires a connection between the articles and evidence from both. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): The goal is to compare their reasoning, not summarize them separately. / Which passage supports the difference you have identified? / Use one passage from each of the two supplied articles. / Outside sources are not required for this assignment. / Friday is the outline; Tuesday is the graded submission. / I will assess how well the evidence supports the comparison. / Tell me which part connects the two authors. / I will post the same clarification for everyone in the course. / Are you asking about the finding or the next step? / Please correct me if I have misunderstood that detail. / That is what the current record says; it has not been independently confirmed. / That is a possibility, not an agreed outcome. / That decision sits outside my authority. / Who is responsible for that specific next step? / Let me restate the distinction more clearly. / We agree on the action, the owner, and the point for review. Vocabulary: learning outcome: Stated capability students should demonstrate through learning. / assignment brief: Instructions defining a particular assessed or practice task. / comparison: Analysis identifying meaningful similarities or differences. / summary: Condensed account of the main content of a source. / analytical claim: Statement offering an interpretation supported by reasoning and evidence. / textual evidence: Passage or feature of a text supporting an interpretation. / assessment criterion: Standard used to judge a feature of student work. / formative assessment: Practice assessment used to support learning and improvement. / summative assessment: Assessment used to evaluate learning at a defined stage. / submission window: Period during which work can be submitted under stated rules. / word limit: Stated maximum or target length under the task rules. / required reading: Material students are expected to read for the course. / optional resource: Material available but not required for the stated task. / scaffolding: Structured support helping students build toward a task. / prerequisite knowledge: Prior understanding needed for the learning task. / task alignment: Connection between the activity and intended learning. / submission format: Required form or file type for delivering work. / clarification announcement: Shared message resolving an instruction question. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected exchange and stress compare, support, required, and formative. Swap roles and repeat the three-part task and the two submission stages exactly as supplied. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Maya: Student / Professor Chen: Course instructor Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: A course page labels an additional article optional. The assignment requires only the two supplied core articles. A student assumes the extra article is necessary for credit. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Maya: I will organize the outline around that contrast and use the two passages to explain why the distinction matters. Professor Chen: That matches the learning outcome for this assignment: making a supported comparison rather than recalling each article separately. Maya: Other students may have read compare the same way I did. Could the course page include this clarification? Professor Chen: I will post a clarification announcement so everyone has the same instructions, without adding a new requirement or changing the published submission details. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 01 · Making assignment expectations explicit | Practice grammar in context START PROMPT TASK: Choose grammar that preserves the meaning 1. Use the lesson's language workshop, or one actual sentence from the dialogue, to explain a single grammar distinction in no more than 90 words. Show how it affects timing, certainty, responsibility or politeness. 2. Give one brief occupational exchange containing a gap and four complete options A-D. Supply enough context for exactly one answer. Keep distractors plausible; distinguish grammar errors from wording that changes the facts. Stop and wait. 3. Explain why each choice fits or fails, then ask me to read the completed exchange aloud. Do not request a draft, original written sentence or essay. 4. Repeat with three new exchanges, one at a time, moving from recognition to a more subtle meaning contrast. Do not copy the published checks. Label invented variations and do not turn uncertainty into a promise. 5. End with a short contrast table and two supported spoken turns using supplied frames. Accept accurate alternatives in oral practice; acknowledge and replace ambiguous multiple-choice items. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 01: Making assignment expectations explicit Original fictional case: Professor Chen assigns a 600-word comparison of two supplied articles. Students must identify one shared question, explain one difference in the authors' reasoning, and support that comparison with a passage from each article. Outside sources are not required. A formative outline is due Friday; the graded submission is due the following Tuesday. Student Maya has planned two separate summaries. Language workshop: Compare does not mean summarize twice Communication goal: Explain the required intellectual task, evidence, and submission details without expanding the assignment. Language guidance: Two summaries do not necessarily compare reasoning. The supplied task requires a connection between the articles and evidence from both. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): The goal is to compare their reasoning, not summarize them separately. / Which passage supports the difference you have identified? / Use one passage from each of the two supplied articles. / Outside sources are not required for this assignment. / Friday is the outline; Tuesday is the graded submission. / I will assess how well the evidence supports the comparison. / Tell me which part connects the two authors. / I will post the same clarification for everyone in the course. / Are you asking about the finding or the next step? / Please correct me if I have misunderstood that detail. / That is what the current record says; it has not been independently confirmed. / That is a possibility, not an agreed outcome. / That decision sits outside my authority. / Who is responsible for that specific next step? / Let me restate the distinction more clearly. / We agree on the action, the owner, and the point for review. Vocabulary: learning outcome: Stated capability students should demonstrate through learning. / assignment brief: Instructions defining a particular assessed or practice task. / comparison: Analysis identifying meaningful similarities or differences. / summary: Condensed account of the main content of a source. / analytical claim: Statement offering an interpretation supported by reasoning and evidence. / textual evidence: Passage or feature of a text supporting an interpretation. / assessment criterion: Standard used to judge a feature of student work. / formative assessment: Practice assessment used to support learning and improvement. / summative assessment: Assessment used to evaluate learning at a defined stage. / submission window: Period during which work can be submitted under stated rules. / word limit: Stated maximum or target length under the task rules. / required reading: Material students are expected to read for the course. / optional resource: Material available but not required for the stated task. / scaffolding: Structured support helping students build toward a task. / prerequisite knowledge: Prior understanding needed for the learning task. / task alignment: Connection between the activity and intended learning. / submission format: Required form or file type for delivering work. / clarification announcement: Shared message resolving an instruction question. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected exchange and stress compare, support, required, and formative. Swap roles and repeat the three-part task and the two submission stages exactly as supplied. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Maya: Student / Professor Chen: Course instructor Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: A course page labels an additional article optional. The assignment requires only the two supplied core articles. A student assumes the extra article is necessary for credit. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Maya: I will organize the outline around that contrast and use the two passages to explain why the distinction matters. Professor Chen: That matches the learning outcome for this assignment: making a supported comparison rather than recalling each article separately. Maya: Other students may have read compare the same way I did. Could the course page include this clarification? Professor Chen: I will post a clarification announcement so everyone has the same instructions, without adding a new requirement or changing the published submission details. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 01 · Making assignment expectations explicit | Rehearse with an AI colleague START PROMPT TASK: Interactive workplace role-play 1. Use the supplied case or dialogue as the starting situation. Give a two-sentence briefing and offer two relevant professional roles for me to choose from. For a supplied dialogue, use its actual roles. Ask which role I want, then stop and wait. Do not write my replies. 2. After I choose, identify who you will play and the immediate communication goal. Play the other professional; where a meeting requires a third person, label each of your speakers clearly. Start with one natural workplace turn and wait for my reply. Keep most turns to one to three sentences and ask no more than one question at a time. 3. Let the exchange develop across six to ten learner turns, or end earlier if I type "feedback". Respond to what I actually say. Include a plausible clarification, disagreement or tradeoff without silently changing the starting facts. Mark any added constraint as a fictional second-round variation. Do not resolve approvals, evidence or commitments that remain uncertain. 4. Stay in role during the exchange. If my meaning is unclear, ask for clarification naturally. Give a hint only if I ask or cannot proceed. Do not deliver a model conversation in advance. 5. At the debrief, quote two of my phrases: one successful choice and one worth improving. Check factual accuracy, language, register and whether the next step was clear. Give up to three focused suggestions. Ask me to retry the weakest turn; wait. Only then offer an alternative wording and a harder replay. Use voice replies when available. If I prefer selections, offer four plausible spoken replies and explain my choice before continuing. Do not require written compositions. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 01: Making assignment expectations explicit Original fictional case: Professor Chen assigns a 600-word comparison of two supplied articles. Students must identify one shared question, explain one difference in the authors' reasoning, and support that comparison with a passage from each article. Outside sources are not required. A formative outline is due Friday; the graded submission is due the following Tuesday. Student Maya has planned two separate summaries. Language workshop: Compare does not mean summarize twice Communication goal: Explain the required intellectual task, evidence, and submission details without expanding the assignment. Language guidance: Two summaries do not necessarily compare reasoning. The supplied task requires a connection between the articles and evidence from both. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): The goal is to compare their reasoning, not summarize them separately. / Which passage supports the difference you have identified? / Use one passage from each of the two supplied articles. / Outside sources are not required for this assignment. / Friday is the outline; Tuesday is the graded submission. / I will assess how well the evidence supports the comparison. / Tell me which part connects the two authors. / I will post the same clarification for everyone in the course. / Are you asking about the finding or the next step? / Please correct me if I have misunderstood that detail. / That is what the current record says; it has not been independently confirmed. / That is a possibility, not an agreed outcome. / That decision sits outside my authority. / Who is responsible for that specific next step? / Let me restate the distinction more clearly. / We agree on the action, the owner, and the point for review. Vocabulary: learning outcome: Stated capability students should demonstrate through learning. / assignment brief: Instructions defining a particular assessed or practice task. / comparison: Analysis identifying meaningful similarities or differences. / summary: Condensed account of the main content of a source. / analytical claim: Statement offering an interpretation supported by reasoning and evidence. / textual evidence: Passage or feature of a text supporting an interpretation. / assessment criterion: Standard used to judge a feature of student work. / formative assessment: Practice assessment used to support learning and improvement. / summative assessment: Assessment used to evaluate learning at a defined stage. / submission window: Period during which work can be submitted under stated rules. / word limit: Stated maximum or target length under the task rules. / required reading: Material students are expected to read for the course. / optional resource: Material available but not required for the stated task. / scaffolding: Structured support helping students build toward a task. / prerequisite knowledge: Prior understanding needed for the learning task. / task alignment: Connection between the activity and intended learning. / submission format: Required form or file type for delivering work. / clarification announcement: Shared message resolving an instruction question. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected exchange and stress compare, support, required, and formative. Swap roles and repeat the three-part task and the two submission stages exactly as supplied. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Maya: Student / Professor Chen: Course instructor Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: A course page labels an additional article optional. The assignment requires only the two supplied core articles. A student assumes the extra article is necessary for credit. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Maya: I will organize the outline around that contrast and use the two passages to explain why the distinction matters. Professor Chen: That matches the learning outcome for this assignment: making a supported comparison rather than recalling each article separately. Maya: Other students may have read compare the same way I did. Could the course page include this clarification? Professor Chen: I will post a clarification announcement so everyone has the same instructions, without adding a new requirement or changing the published submission details. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 01 · Making assignment expectations explicit | Create more scenario dialogues START PROMPT TASK: Extend the conversation library 1. Propose six distinct, common scenarios in this field beyond the supplied case or script. For each, name the setting, two or more professional roles, the communication problem and one useful terminology focus. Include routine coordination, clarification, a complication, disagreement, handoff and follow-up where relevant. Choose scenarios that fit this profession, rather than forcing unsuitable situations into it. 2. Ask me to choose one scenario, or request all six in sequence. Stop and wait. Do not write all the scripts before I choose. 3. For the selected scenario, write an original fictional dialogue of 12-18 substantial speaking turns between two or three professionals. Name each role, establish an actual work problem, and let the exchange progress through questions, clarification, competing constraints and a credible next step or explicitly unresolved issue. Use the occupation's natural nomenclature and register. Avoid an interview between a teacher and a learner, generic small talk, and inserting a glossary definition into every reply. Explain specialist terms outside the dialogue instead. 4. After the script, explain five useful expressions in context and identify two grammar or register choices. Give three four-choice questions about the speakers' reasoning, with exactly one answer supported by the dialogue. Wait for my selections, then explain why each answer fits and why its alternatives fail. Add a role-switch reading using the supplied script; do not ask for an essay or invented written reply. 5. Before presenting a script, check names, numbers, chronology, roles and terminology for consistency. Label invented facts and acknowledge uncertain specialist usage. If I requested all six, deliver one complete script at a time and wait for "next". Make each scenario materially different. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 01: Making assignment expectations explicit Original fictional case: Professor Chen assigns a 600-word comparison of two supplied articles. Students must identify one shared question, explain one difference in the authors' reasoning, and support that comparison with a passage from each article. Outside sources are not required. A formative outline is due Friday; the graded submission is due the following Tuesday. Student Maya has planned two separate summaries. Language workshop: Compare does not mean summarize twice Communication goal: Explain the required intellectual task, evidence, and submission details without expanding the assignment. Language guidance: Two summaries do not necessarily compare reasoning. The supplied task requires a connection between the articles and evidence from both. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): The goal is to compare their reasoning, not summarize them separately. / Which passage supports the difference you have identified? / Use one passage from each of the two supplied articles. / Outside sources are not required for this assignment. / Friday is the outline; Tuesday is the graded submission. / I will assess how well the evidence supports the comparison. / Tell me which part connects the two authors. / I will post the same clarification for everyone in the course. / Are you asking about the finding or the next step? / Please correct me if I have misunderstood that detail. / That is what the current record says; it has not been independently confirmed. / That is a possibility, not an agreed outcome. / That decision sits outside my authority. / Who is responsible for that specific next step? / Let me restate the distinction more clearly. / We agree on the action, the owner, and the point for review. Vocabulary: learning outcome: Stated capability students should demonstrate through learning. / assignment brief: Instructions defining a particular assessed or practice task. / comparison: Analysis identifying meaningful similarities or differences. / summary: Condensed account of the main content of a source. / analytical claim: Statement offering an interpretation supported by reasoning and evidence. / textual evidence: Passage or feature of a text supporting an interpretation. / assessment criterion: Standard used to judge a feature of student work. / formative assessment: Practice assessment used to support learning and improvement. / summative assessment: Assessment used to evaluate learning at a defined stage. / submission window: Period during which work can be submitted under stated rules. / word limit: Stated maximum or target length under the task rules. / required reading: Material students are expected to read for the course. / optional resource: Material available but not required for the stated task. / scaffolding: Structured support helping students build toward a task. / prerequisite knowledge: Prior understanding needed for the learning task. / task alignment: Connection between the activity and intended learning. / submission format: Required form or file type for delivering work. / clarification announcement: Shared message resolving an instruction question. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected exchange and stress compare, support, required, and formative. Swap roles and repeat the three-part task and the two submission stages exactly as supplied. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Maya: Student / Professor Chen: Course instructor Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: A course page labels an additional article optional. The assignment requires only the two supplied core articles. A student assumes the extra article is necessary for credit. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Maya: I will organize the outline around that contrast and use the two passages to explain why the distinction matters. Professor Chen: That matches the learning outcome for this assignment: making a supported comparison rather than recalling each article separately. Maya: Other students may have read compare the same way I did. Could the course page include this clarification? Professor Chen: I will post a clarification announcement so everyone has the same instructions, without adding a new requirement or changing the published submission details. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 02 · Leading a rigorous and inclusive seminar | Build vocabulary and collocations START PROMPT TASK: Retrieve occupational vocabulary 1. Select four terms from the reference. Explain each in plain English, give two natural collocations and quote or create a short workplace example. Label invented examples. Contrast each term with a plausible confusable term; acknowledge regional variation. 2. Present one role-labelled exchange with one missing word or phrase and four choices A-D. Exactly one choice must fit the stated facts and grammar. Stop and wait for my answer before revealing it. 3. Explain all four options, then invite me to read the completed exchange aloud. Offer a sentence frame for optional spoken practice, never an open-ended writing assignment. 4. Repeat for the other three terms, one question at a time. Vary the correct letter and the situation; preserve the reference facts. If a choice is ambiguous, replace the item. 5. Finish with two new four-choice collocation questions for later review, with a clearly separate answer key. Do not claim to schedule a reminder. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 02: Leading a rigorous and inclusive seminar Original fictional case: In a seminar, student Leo says a campus survey proves that using the library causes higher grades because frequent library users report higher grades. The survey records an association and supplies no causal design. Professor Okafor asks Leo to distinguish the observation from the inference and acknowledge prior preparation as a possible alternative explanation. No participant has established the actual cause. Language workshop: Challenge the causal claim, not the speaker Communication goal: Guide disagreement, test an inference, and make room for a reasoned response. Language guidance: The survey reports a relationship. It does not establish that library use causes higher grades, nor that the proposed alternative explanation is the true cause. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): What lets us move from association to causation here? / Can you restate that conclusion with the evidence limit included? / Could prior preparation affect both study habits and grades? / We are examining the claim, not judging the person making it. / Are you saying the survey shows a relationship or establishes a cause? / Let us give others a moment before taking the next response. / Which part of the data supports that stronger wording? / We agree on the association; the causal explanation remains open. / The survey proves that studying in the library improves grades. / Frequent users reported higher grades than students who rarely go there. / Does the survey establish a cause, or does it report a relationship? / I used proves because the difference seemed strong, but I do not know how students were selected. / A strong relationship can be worth discussing without settling the causal explanation. / Students who were already well prepared might be more likely to use the library and also receive higher grades. / That is an alternative explanation to examine. / We should not announce it as the answer merely because it is plausible. Vocabulary: seminar: Academic session centered on discussion and analysis. / discussion norm: Shared expectation governing participation. / turn-taking: Management of who speaks and when. / wait time: Pause allowing participants time to formulate a response. / probing question: Question that examines reasoning or assumptions. / follow-up question: Question extending or clarifying a previous contribution. / revoicing: Restating a contribution to check or clarify its meaning. / evidence-based disagreement: Challenge tied to evidence and reasoning. / causal claim: Assertion that one factor produces an effect. / association: Observed relationship that does not alone establish causation. / alternative explanation: Different account that could explain an observation. / confounding variable: Factor affecting interpretation of a relationship between variables. / inference: Conclusion drawn from evidence or premises. / counterexample: Example challenging a general statement. / scope condition: Circumstance limiting the application of an argument. / qualified conclusion: Conclusion that retains relevant limits or uncertainty. / discussion synthesis: Summary linking contributions and unresolved questions. / participation balance: Distribution of opportunities to contribute. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected seminar exchange and stress association, possible, and remains open. Swap roles and state the revised conclusion without selecting an unsupplied causal explanation. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Leo: Seminar participant / Professor Okafor: Seminar leader Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: After the seminar, a note says prior preparation definitely caused the grade difference. The discussion identified it only as a possible alternative. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Leo: That gives others something specific to challenge. They can question the interpretation without dismissing the people who completed the survey. Professor Okafor: Exactly. Our discussion norm is to challenge claims with reasons and make room for a response. Leo: I will keep the association in my summary and mark the causal explanation as an open question. Professor Okafor: I will include that in the discussion synthesis, then invite another contribution after a short pause so more participants have time to formulate it. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 02 · Leading a rigorous and inclusive seminar | Practice grammar in context START PROMPT TASK: Choose grammar that preserves the meaning 1. Use the lesson's language workshop, or one actual sentence from the dialogue, to explain a single grammar distinction in no more than 90 words. Show how it affects timing, certainty, responsibility or politeness. 2. Give one brief occupational exchange containing a gap and four complete options A-D. Supply enough context for exactly one answer. Keep distractors plausible; distinguish grammar errors from wording that changes the facts. Stop and wait. 3. Explain why each choice fits or fails, then ask me to read the completed exchange aloud. Do not request a draft, original written sentence or essay. 4. Repeat with three new exchanges, one at a time, moving from recognition to a more subtle meaning contrast. Do not copy the published checks. Label invented variations and do not turn uncertainty into a promise. 5. End with a short contrast table and two supported spoken turns using supplied frames. Accept accurate alternatives in oral practice; acknowledge and replace ambiguous multiple-choice items. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 02: Leading a rigorous and inclusive seminar Original fictional case: In a seminar, student Leo says a campus survey proves that using the library causes higher grades because frequent library users report higher grades. The survey records an association and supplies no causal design. Professor Okafor asks Leo to distinguish the observation from the inference and acknowledge prior preparation as a possible alternative explanation. No participant has established the actual cause. Language workshop: Challenge the causal claim, not the speaker Communication goal: Guide disagreement, test an inference, and make room for a reasoned response. Language guidance: The survey reports a relationship. It does not establish that library use causes higher grades, nor that the proposed alternative explanation is the true cause. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): What lets us move from association to causation here? / Can you restate that conclusion with the evidence limit included? / Could prior preparation affect both study habits and grades? / We are examining the claim, not judging the person making it. / Are you saying the survey shows a relationship or establishes a cause? / Let us give others a moment before taking the next response. / Which part of the data supports that stronger wording? / We agree on the association; the causal explanation remains open. / The survey proves that studying in the library improves grades. / Frequent users reported higher grades than students who rarely go there. / Does the survey establish a cause, or does it report a relationship? / I used proves because the difference seemed strong, but I do not know how students were selected. / A strong relationship can be worth discussing without settling the causal explanation. / Students who were already well prepared might be more likely to use the library and also receive higher grades. / That is an alternative explanation to examine. / We should not announce it as the answer merely because it is plausible. Vocabulary: seminar: Academic session centered on discussion and analysis. / discussion norm: Shared expectation governing participation. / turn-taking: Management of who speaks and when. / wait time: Pause allowing participants time to formulate a response. / probing question: Question that examines reasoning or assumptions. / follow-up question: Question extending or clarifying a previous contribution. / revoicing: Restating a contribution to check or clarify its meaning. / evidence-based disagreement: Challenge tied to evidence and reasoning. / causal claim: Assertion that one factor produces an effect. / association: Observed relationship that does not alone establish causation. / alternative explanation: Different account that could explain an observation. / confounding variable: Factor affecting interpretation of a relationship between variables. / inference: Conclusion drawn from evidence or premises. / counterexample: Example challenging a general statement. / scope condition: Circumstance limiting the application of an argument. / qualified conclusion: Conclusion that retains relevant limits or uncertainty. / discussion synthesis: Summary linking contributions and unresolved questions. / participation balance: Distribution of opportunities to contribute. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected seminar exchange and stress association, possible, and remains open. Swap roles and state the revised conclusion without selecting an unsupplied causal explanation. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Leo: Seminar participant / Professor Okafor: Seminar leader Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: After the seminar, a note says prior preparation definitely caused the grade difference. The discussion identified it only as a possible alternative. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Leo: That gives others something specific to challenge. They can question the interpretation without dismissing the people who completed the survey. Professor Okafor: Exactly. Our discussion norm is to challenge claims with reasons and make room for a response. Leo: I will keep the association in my summary and mark the causal explanation as an open question. Professor Okafor: I will include that in the discussion synthesis, then invite another contribution after a short pause so more participants have time to formulate it. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 02 · Leading a rigorous and inclusive seminar | Rehearse with an AI colleague START PROMPT TASK: Interactive workplace role-play 1. Use the supplied case or dialogue as the starting situation. Give a two-sentence briefing and offer two relevant professional roles for me to choose from. For a supplied dialogue, use its actual roles. Ask which role I want, then stop and wait. Do not write my replies. 2. After I choose, identify who you will play and the immediate communication goal. Play the other professional; where a meeting requires a third person, label each of your speakers clearly. Start with one natural workplace turn and wait for my reply. Keep most turns to one to three sentences and ask no more than one question at a time. 3. Let the exchange develop across six to ten learner turns, or end earlier if I type "feedback". Respond to what I actually say. Include a plausible clarification, disagreement or tradeoff without silently changing the starting facts. Mark any added constraint as a fictional second-round variation. Do not resolve approvals, evidence or commitments that remain uncertain. 4. Stay in role during the exchange. If my meaning is unclear, ask for clarification naturally. Give a hint only if I ask or cannot proceed. Do not deliver a model conversation in advance. 5. At the debrief, quote two of my phrases: one successful choice and one worth improving. Check factual accuracy, language, register and whether the next step was clear. Give up to three focused suggestions. Ask me to retry the weakest turn; wait. Only then offer an alternative wording and a harder replay. Use voice replies when available. If I prefer selections, offer four plausible spoken replies and explain my choice before continuing. Do not require written compositions. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 02: Leading a rigorous and inclusive seminar Original fictional case: In a seminar, student Leo says a campus survey proves that using the library causes higher grades because frequent library users report higher grades. The survey records an association and supplies no causal design. Professor Okafor asks Leo to distinguish the observation from the inference and acknowledge prior preparation as a possible alternative explanation. No participant has established the actual cause. Language workshop: Challenge the causal claim, not the speaker Communication goal: Guide disagreement, test an inference, and make room for a reasoned response. Language guidance: The survey reports a relationship. It does not establish that library use causes higher grades, nor that the proposed alternative explanation is the true cause. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): What lets us move from association to causation here? / Can you restate that conclusion with the evidence limit included? / Could prior preparation affect both study habits and grades? / We are examining the claim, not judging the person making it. / Are you saying the survey shows a relationship or establishes a cause? / Let us give others a moment before taking the next response. / Which part of the data supports that stronger wording? / We agree on the association; the causal explanation remains open. / The survey proves that studying in the library improves grades. / Frequent users reported higher grades than students who rarely go there. / Does the survey establish a cause, or does it report a relationship? / I used proves because the difference seemed strong, but I do not know how students were selected. / A strong relationship can be worth discussing without settling the causal explanation. / Students who were already well prepared might be more likely to use the library and also receive higher grades. / That is an alternative explanation to examine. / We should not announce it as the answer merely because it is plausible. Vocabulary: seminar: Academic session centered on discussion and analysis. / discussion norm: Shared expectation governing participation. / turn-taking: Management of who speaks and when. / wait time: Pause allowing participants time to formulate a response. / probing question: Question that examines reasoning or assumptions. / follow-up question: Question extending or clarifying a previous contribution. / revoicing: Restating a contribution to check or clarify its meaning. / evidence-based disagreement: Challenge tied to evidence and reasoning. / causal claim: Assertion that one factor produces an effect. / association: Observed relationship that does not alone establish causation. / alternative explanation: Different account that could explain an observation. / confounding variable: Factor affecting interpretation of a relationship between variables. / inference: Conclusion drawn from evidence or premises. / counterexample: Example challenging a general statement. / scope condition: Circumstance limiting the application of an argument. / qualified conclusion: Conclusion that retains relevant limits or uncertainty. / discussion synthesis: Summary linking contributions and unresolved questions. / participation balance: Distribution of opportunities to contribute. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected seminar exchange and stress association, possible, and remains open. Swap roles and state the revised conclusion without selecting an unsupplied causal explanation. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Leo: Seminar participant / Professor Okafor: Seminar leader Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: After the seminar, a note says prior preparation definitely caused the grade difference. The discussion identified it only as a possible alternative. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Leo: That gives others something specific to challenge. They can question the interpretation without dismissing the people who completed the survey. Professor Okafor: Exactly. Our discussion norm is to challenge claims with reasons and make room for a response. Leo: I will keep the association in my summary and mark the causal explanation as an open question. Professor Okafor: I will include that in the discussion synthesis, then invite another contribution after a short pause so more participants have time to formulate it. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 02 · Leading a rigorous and inclusive seminar | Create more scenario dialogues START PROMPT TASK: Extend the conversation library 1. Propose six distinct, common scenarios in this field beyond the supplied case or script. For each, name the setting, two or more professional roles, the communication problem and one useful terminology focus. Include routine coordination, clarification, a complication, disagreement, handoff and follow-up where relevant. Choose scenarios that fit this profession, rather than forcing unsuitable situations into it. 2. Ask me to choose one scenario, or request all six in sequence. Stop and wait. Do not write all the scripts before I choose. 3. For the selected scenario, write an original fictional dialogue of 12-18 substantial speaking turns between two or three professionals. Name each role, establish an actual work problem, and let the exchange progress through questions, clarification, competing constraints and a credible next step or explicitly unresolved issue. Use the occupation's natural nomenclature and register. Avoid an interview between a teacher and a learner, generic small talk, and inserting a glossary definition into every reply. Explain specialist terms outside the dialogue instead. 4. After the script, explain five useful expressions in context and identify two grammar or register choices. Give three four-choice questions about the speakers' reasoning, with exactly one answer supported by the dialogue. Wait for my selections, then explain why each answer fits and why its alternatives fail. Add a role-switch reading using the supplied script; do not ask for an essay or invented written reply. 5. Before presenting a script, check names, numbers, chronology, roles and terminology for consistency. Label invented facts and acknowledge uncertain specialist usage. If I requested all six, deliver one complete script at a time and wait for "next". Make each scenario materially different. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 02: Leading a rigorous and inclusive seminar Original fictional case: In a seminar, student Leo says a campus survey proves that using the library causes higher grades because frequent library users report higher grades. The survey records an association and supplies no causal design. Professor Okafor asks Leo to distinguish the observation from the inference and acknowledge prior preparation as a possible alternative explanation. No participant has established the actual cause. Language workshop: Challenge the causal claim, not the speaker Communication goal: Guide disagreement, test an inference, and make room for a reasoned response. Language guidance: The survey reports a relationship. It does not establish that library use causes higher grades, nor that the proposed alternative explanation is the true cause. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): What lets us move from association to causation here? / Can you restate that conclusion with the evidence limit included? / Could prior preparation affect both study habits and grades? / We are examining the claim, not judging the person making it. / Are you saying the survey shows a relationship or establishes a cause? / Let us give others a moment before taking the next response. / Which part of the data supports that stronger wording? / We agree on the association; the causal explanation remains open. / The survey proves that studying in the library improves grades. / Frequent users reported higher grades than students who rarely go there. / Does the survey establish a cause, or does it report a relationship? / I used proves because the difference seemed strong, but I do not know how students were selected. / A strong relationship can be worth discussing without settling the causal explanation. / Students who were already well prepared might be more likely to use the library and also receive higher grades. / That is an alternative explanation to examine. / We should not announce it as the answer merely because it is plausible. Vocabulary: seminar: Academic session centered on discussion and analysis. / discussion norm: Shared expectation governing participation. / turn-taking: Management of who speaks and when. / wait time: Pause allowing participants time to formulate a response. / probing question: Question that examines reasoning or assumptions. / follow-up question: Question extending or clarifying a previous contribution. / revoicing: Restating a contribution to check or clarify its meaning. / evidence-based disagreement: Challenge tied to evidence and reasoning. / causal claim: Assertion that one factor produces an effect. / association: Observed relationship that does not alone establish causation. / alternative explanation: Different account that could explain an observation. / confounding variable: Factor affecting interpretation of a relationship between variables. / inference: Conclusion drawn from evidence or premises. / counterexample: Example challenging a general statement. / scope condition: Circumstance limiting the application of an argument. / qualified conclusion: Conclusion that retains relevant limits or uncertainty. / discussion synthesis: Summary linking contributions and unresolved questions. / participation balance: Distribution of opportunities to contribute. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected seminar exchange and stress association, possible, and remains open. Swap roles and state the revised conclusion without selecting an unsupplied causal explanation. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Leo: Seminar participant / Professor Okafor: Seminar leader Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: After the seminar, a note says prior preparation definitely caused the grade difference. The discussion identified it only as a possible alternative. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Leo: That gives others something specific to challenge. They can question the interpretation without dismissing the people who completed the survey. Professor Okafor: Exactly. Our discussion norm is to challenge claims with reasons and make room for a response. Leo: I will keep the association in my summary and mark the causal explanation as an open question. Professor Okafor: I will include that in the discussion synthesis, then invite another contribution after a short pause so more participants have time to formulate it. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 03 · Giving precise feedback and correcting a grading error | Build vocabulary and collocations START PROMPT TASK: Retrieve occupational vocabulary 1. Select four terms from the reference. Explain each in plain English, give two natural collocations and quote or create a short workplace example. Label invented examples. Contrast each term with a plausible confusable term; acknowledge regional variation. 2. Present one role-labelled exchange with one missing word or phrase and four choices A-D. Exactly one choice must fit the stated facts and grammar. Stop and wait for my answer before revealing it. 3. Explain all four options, then invite me to read the completed exchange aloud. Offer a sentence frame for optional spoken practice, never an open-ended writing assignment. 4. Repeat for the other three terms, one question at a time. Vary the correct letter and the situation; preserve the reference facts. If a choice is ambiguous, replace the item. 5. Finish with two new four-choice collocation questions for later review, with a clearly separate answer key. Do not claim to schedule a reminder. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 03: Giving precise feedback and correcting a grading error Original fictional case: Student Sam receives criterion scores of 6, 7, and 8, but the recorded total is 19 rather than 21. Professor Rivera confirms the arithmetic error. Sam also requests 24 because of the time spent on the paper. The feedback says the second paragraph cites evidence without explaining how it supports the conclusion. A substantive grade change has not been decided. Language workshop: The total is wrong; the criterion still needs discussion Communication goal: Acknowledge a clerical error while explaining the difference between score correction and academic review. Language guidance: Correcting 19 to 21 fixes the supplied arithmetic. It does not decide whether any criterion score should change or promise the requested 24. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): You are right; those scores total twenty-one, not nineteen. / I am sorry for the recording error, and I will correct it. / The arithmetic correction and your request for a higher criterion score are separate. / This passage gives the evidence but does not yet explain the connection. / I can see the work you put in; the score still needs to follow the stated criteria. / Add the missing reasoning link before polishing the wording. / Let us use the published review procedure for the substantive concern. / Reviewing the concern does not predetermine the outcome. / My three scores are six, seven, and eight, but the gradebook total is nineteen. / I am sorry for that error and will correct the entry. / I also spent several evenings on the paper, so I hoped the mark could be raised to twenty-four. / Let us separate the arithmetic correction from your concern about the academic assessment. / The comment on paragraph two says the evidence is not connected to the conclusion, but I included a quotation there. / The evidence link is the missing step: the paragraph does not explain how that passage supports the conclusion you draw. / So the issue is not that I failed to cite anything, but that I left the reader to supply the reasoning. / The performance descriptor asks for an explained relationship, not simply the presence of a source. Vocabulary: rubric: Framework describing criteria and performance levels for assessment. / criterion score: Score assigned to one assessment dimension. / recorded total: Total entered in the grade record. / clerical error: Administrative or transcription mistake distinct from academic judgment. / arithmetic correction: Change fixing an incorrect numerical calculation. / substantive review: Reassessment of the underlying academic judgment. / grade appeal: Formal challenge through the institution's stated process. / feedback conference: Meeting discussing assessed work and improvement. / evidence link: Explanation connecting evidence to a claim or conclusion. / performance descriptor: Description of work meeting a rubric level. / feedforward: Guidance directed toward the next attempt or future work. / revision priority: Improvement selected for attention before other changes. / margin comment: Feedback placed beside a particular passage. / holistic judgment: Overall evaluation rather than separate dimension scoring. / gradebook: System recording student assessment results. / review procedure: Stated process for examining an assessment concern. / evidence of learning: Work demonstrating the intended knowledge or skill. / professional apology: Clear acknowledgment of an error and responsibility. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected exchange and distinguish the confirmed total from the unresolved criterion review. Switch roles and repeat the concrete feedback about the evidence link without adding a promised grade. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Sam: Student / Professor Rivera: Instructor Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: An instructor confirms a missing two-point entry. A student interprets that correction as approval of a separate request for five additional points. The latter request remains unresolved. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Sam: Then the immediate action is to fix the total, while the separate review addresses the criterion question. Professor Rivera: Correct. I will update the gradebook to reflect the arithmetic and keep the substantive request clearly identified. Sam: For future work, I will explain how each selected passage supports the conclusion rather than leave that relationship implied. Professor Rivera: That is useful feedforward. It gives you a specific next step, while the current review proceeds through the proper process. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 03 · Giving precise feedback and correcting a grading error | Practice grammar in context START PROMPT TASK: Choose grammar that preserves the meaning 1. Use the lesson's language workshop, or one actual sentence from the dialogue, to explain a single grammar distinction in no more than 90 words. Show how it affects timing, certainty, responsibility or politeness. 2. Give one brief occupational exchange containing a gap and four complete options A-D. Supply enough context for exactly one answer. Keep distractors plausible; distinguish grammar errors from wording that changes the facts. Stop and wait. 3. Explain why each choice fits or fails, then ask me to read the completed exchange aloud. Do not request a draft, original written sentence or essay. 4. Repeat with three new exchanges, one at a time, moving from recognition to a more subtle meaning contrast. Do not copy the published checks. Label invented variations and do not turn uncertainty into a promise. 5. End with a short contrast table and two supported spoken turns using supplied frames. Accept accurate alternatives in oral practice; acknowledge and replace ambiguous multiple-choice items. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 03: Giving precise feedback and correcting a grading error Original fictional case: Student Sam receives criterion scores of 6, 7, and 8, but the recorded total is 19 rather than 21. Professor Rivera confirms the arithmetic error. Sam also requests 24 because of the time spent on the paper. The feedback says the second paragraph cites evidence without explaining how it supports the conclusion. A substantive grade change has not been decided. Language workshop: The total is wrong; the criterion still needs discussion Communication goal: Acknowledge a clerical error while explaining the difference between score correction and academic review. Language guidance: Correcting 19 to 21 fixes the supplied arithmetic. It does not decide whether any criterion score should change or promise the requested 24. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): You are right; those scores total twenty-one, not nineteen. / I am sorry for the recording error, and I will correct it. / The arithmetic correction and your request for a higher criterion score are separate. / This passage gives the evidence but does not yet explain the connection. / I can see the work you put in; the score still needs to follow the stated criteria. / Add the missing reasoning link before polishing the wording. / Let us use the published review procedure for the substantive concern. / Reviewing the concern does not predetermine the outcome. / My three scores are six, seven, and eight, but the gradebook total is nineteen. / I am sorry for that error and will correct the entry. / I also spent several evenings on the paper, so I hoped the mark could be raised to twenty-four. / Let us separate the arithmetic correction from your concern about the academic assessment. / The comment on paragraph two says the evidence is not connected to the conclusion, but I included a quotation there. / The evidence link is the missing step: the paragraph does not explain how that passage supports the conclusion you draw. / So the issue is not that I failed to cite anything, but that I left the reader to supply the reasoning. / The performance descriptor asks for an explained relationship, not simply the presence of a source. Vocabulary: rubric: Framework describing criteria and performance levels for assessment. / criterion score: Score assigned to one assessment dimension. / recorded total: Total entered in the grade record. / clerical error: Administrative or transcription mistake distinct from academic judgment. / arithmetic correction: Change fixing an incorrect numerical calculation. / substantive review: Reassessment of the underlying academic judgment. / grade appeal: Formal challenge through the institution's stated process. / feedback conference: Meeting discussing assessed work and improvement. / evidence link: Explanation connecting evidence to a claim or conclusion. / performance descriptor: Description of work meeting a rubric level. / feedforward: Guidance directed toward the next attempt or future work. / revision priority: Improvement selected for attention before other changes. / margin comment: Feedback placed beside a particular passage. / holistic judgment: Overall evaluation rather than separate dimension scoring. / gradebook: System recording student assessment results. / review procedure: Stated process for examining an assessment concern. / evidence of learning: Work demonstrating the intended knowledge or skill. / professional apology: Clear acknowledgment of an error and responsibility. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected exchange and distinguish the confirmed total from the unresolved criterion review. Switch roles and repeat the concrete feedback about the evidence link without adding a promised grade. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Sam: Student / Professor Rivera: Instructor Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: An instructor confirms a missing two-point entry. A student interprets that correction as approval of a separate request for five additional points. The latter request remains unresolved. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Sam: Then the immediate action is to fix the total, while the separate review addresses the criterion question. Professor Rivera: Correct. I will update the gradebook to reflect the arithmetic and keep the substantive request clearly identified. Sam: For future work, I will explain how each selected passage supports the conclusion rather than leave that relationship implied. Professor Rivera: That is useful feedforward. It gives you a specific next step, while the current review proceeds through the proper process. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 03 · Giving precise feedback and correcting a grading error | Rehearse with an AI colleague START PROMPT TASK: Interactive workplace role-play 1. Use the supplied case or dialogue as the starting situation. Give a two-sentence briefing and offer two relevant professional roles for me to choose from. For a supplied dialogue, use its actual roles. Ask which role I want, then stop and wait. Do not write my replies. 2. After I choose, identify who you will play and the immediate communication goal. Play the other professional; where a meeting requires a third person, label each of your speakers clearly. Start with one natural workplace turn and wait for my reply. Keep most turns to one to three sentences and ask no more than one question at a time. 3. Let the exchange develop across six to ten learner turns, or end earlier if I type "feedback". Respond to what I actually say. Include a plausible clarification, disagreement or tradeoff without silently changing the starting facts. Mark any added constraint as a fictional second-round variation. Do not resolve approvals, evidence or commitments that remain uncertain. 4. Stay in role during the exchange. If my meaning is unclear, ask for clarification naturally. Give a hint only if I ask or cannot proceed. Do not deliver a model conversation in advance. 5. At the debrief, quote two of my phrases: one successful choice and one worth improving. Check factual accuracy, language, register and whether the next step was clear. Give up to three focused suggestions. Ask me to retry the weakest turn; wait. Only then offer an alternative wording and a harder replay. Use voice replies when available. If I prefer selections, offer four plausible spoken replies and explain my choice before continuing. Do not require written compositions. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 03: Giving precise feedback and correcting a grading error Original fictional case: Student Sam receives criterion scores of 6, 7, and 8, but the recorded total is 19 rather than 21. Professor Rivera confirms the arithmetic error. Sam also requests 24 because of the time spent on the paper. The feedback says the second paragraph cites evidence without explaining how it supports the conclusion. A substantive grade change has not been decided. Language workshop: The total is wrong; the criterion still needs discussion Communication goal: Acknowledge a clerical error while explaining the difference between score correction and academic review. Language guidance: Correcting 19 to 21 fixes the supplied arithmetic. It does not decide whether any criterion score should change or promise the requested 24. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): You are right; those scores total twenty-one, not nineteen. / I am sorry for the recording error, and I will correct it. / The arithmetic correction and your request for a higher criterion score are separate. / This passage gives the evidence but does not yet explain the connection. / I can see the work you put in; the score still needs to follow the stated criteria. / Add the missing reasoning link before polishing the wording. / Let us use the published review procedure for the substantive concern. / Reviewing the concern does not predetermine the outcome. / My three scores are six, seven, and eight, but the gradebook total is nineteen. / I am sorry for that error and will correct the entry. / I also spent several evenings on the paper, so I hoped the mark could be raised to twenty-four. / Let us separate the arithmetic correction from your concern about the academic assessment. / The comment on paragraph two says the evidence is not connected to the conclusion, but I included a quotation there. / The evidence link is the missing step: the paragraph does not explain how that passage supports the conclusion you draw. / So the issue is not that I failed to cite anything, but that I left the reader to supply the reasoning. / The performance descriptor asks for an explained relationship, not simply the presence of a source. Vocabulary: rubric: Framework describing criteria and performance levels for assessment. / criterion score: Score assigned to one assessment dimension. / recorded total: Total entered in the grade record. / clerical error: Administrative or transcription mistake distinct from academic judgment. / arithmetic correction: Change fixing an incorrect numerical calculation. / substantive review: Reassessment of the underlying academic judgment. / grade appeal: Formal challenge through the institution's stated process. / feedback conference: Meeting discussing assessed work and improvement. / evidence link: Explanation connecting evidence to a claim or conclusion. / performance descriptor: Description of work meeting a rubric level. / feedforward: Guidance directed toward the next attempt or future work. / revision priority: Improvement selected for attention before other changes. / margin comment: Feedback placed beside a particular passage. / holistic judgment: Overall evaluation rather than separate dimension scoring. / gradebook: System recording student assessment results. / review procedure: Stated process for examining an assessment concern. / evidence of learning: Work demonstrating the intended knowledge or skill. / professional apology: Clear acknowledgment of an error and responsibility. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected exchange and distinguish the confirmed total from the unresolved criterion review. Switch roles and repeat the concrete feedback about the evidence link without adding a promised grade. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Sam: Student / Professor Rivera: Instructor Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: An instructor confirms a missing two-point entry. A student interprets that correction as approval of a separate request for five additional points. The latter request remains unresolved. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Sam: Then the immediate action is to fix the total, while the separate review addresses the criterion question. Professor Rivera: Correct. I will update the gradebook to reflect the arithmetic and keep the substantive request clearly identified. Sam: For future work, I will explain how each selected passage supports the conclusion rather than leave that relationship implied. Professor Rivera: That is useful feedforward. It gives you a specific next step, while the current review proceeds through the proper process. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 03 · Giving precise feedback and correcting a grading error | Create more scenario dialogues START PROMPT TASK: Extend the conversation library 1. Propose six distinct, common scenarios in this field beyond the supplied case or script. For each, name the setting, two or more professional roles, the communication problem and one useful terminology focus. Include routine coordination, clarification, a complication, disagreement, handoff and follow-up where relevant. Choose scenarios that fit this profession, rather than forcing unsuitable situations into it. 2. Ask me to choose one scenario, or request all six in sequence. Stop and wait. Do not write all the scripts before I choose. 3. For the selected scenario, write an original fictional dialogue of 12-18 substantial speaking turns between two or three professionals. Name each role, establish an actual work problem, and let the exchange progress through questions, clarification, competing constraints and a credible next step or explicitly unresolved issue. Use the occupation's natural nomenclature and register. Avoid an interview between a teacher and a learner, generic small talk, and inserting a glossary definition into every reply. Explain specialist terms outside the dialogue instead. 4. After the script, explain five useful expressions in context and identify two grammar or register choices. Give three four-choice questions about the speakers' reasoning, with exactly one answer supported by the dialogue. Wait for my selections, then explain why each answer fits and why its alternatives fail. Add a role-switch reading using the supplied script; do not ask for an essay or invented written reply. 5. Before presenting a script, check names, numbers, chronology, roles and terminology for consistency. Label invented facts and acknowledge uncertain specialist usage. If I requested all six, deliver one complete script at a time and wait for "next". Make each scenario materially different. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 03: Giving precise feedback and correcting a grading error Original fictional case: Student Sam receives criterion scores of 6, 7, and 8, but the recorded total is 19 rather than 21. Professor Rivera confirms the arithmetic error. Sam also requests 24 because of the time spent on the paper. The feedback says the second paragraph cites evidence without explaining how it supports the conclusion. A substantive grade change has not been decided. Language workshop: The total is wrong; the criterion still needs discussion Communication goal: Acknowledge a clerical error while explaining the difference between score correction and academic review. Language guidance: Correcting 19 to 21 fixes the supplied arithmetic. It does not decide whether any criterion score should change or promise the requested 24. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): You are right; those scores total twenty-one, not nineteen. / I am sorry for the recording error, and I will correct it. / The arithmetic correction and your request for a higher criterion score are separate. / This passage gives the evidence but does not yet explain the connection. / I can see the work you put in; the score still needs to follow the stated criteria. / Add the missing reasoning link before polishing the wording. / Let us use the published review procedure for the substantive concern. / Reviewing the concern does not predetermine the outcome. / My three scores are six, seven, and eight, but the gradebook total is nineteen. / I am sorry for that error and will correct the entry. / I also spent several evenings on the paper, so I hoped the mark could be raised to twenty-four. / Let us separate the arithmetic correction from your concern about the academic assessment. / The comment on paragraph two says the evidence is not connected to the conclusion, but I included a quotation there. / The evidence link is the missing step: the paragraph does not explain how that passage supports the conclusion you draw. / So the issue is not that I failed to cite anything, but that I left the reader to supply the reasoning. / The performance descriptor asks for an explained relationship, not simply the presence of a source. Vocabulary: rubric: Framework describing criteria and performance levels for assessment. / criterion score: Score assigned to one assessment dimension. / recorded total: Total entered in the grade record. / clerical error: Administrative or transcription mistake distinct from academic judgment. / arithmetic correction: Change fixing an incorrect numerical calculation. / substantive review: Reassessment of the underlying academic judgment. / grade appeal: Formal challenge through the institution's stated process. / feedback conference: Meeting discussing assessed work and improvement. / evidence link: Explanation connecting evidence to a claim or conclusion. / performance descriptor: Description of work meeting a rubric level. / feedforward: Guidance directed toward the next attempt or future work. / revision priority: Improvement selected for attention before other changes. / margin comment: Feedback placed beside a particular passage. / holistic judgment: Overall evaluation rather than separate dimension scoring. / gradebook: System recording student assessment results. / review procedure: Stated process for examining an assessment concern. / evidence of learning: Work demonstrating the intended knowledge or skill. / professional apology: Clear acknowledgment of an error and responsibility. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected exchange and distinguish the confirmed total from the unresolved criterion review. Switch roles and repeat the concrete feedback about the evidence link without adding a promised grade. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Sam: Student / Professor Rivera: Instructor Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: An instructor confirms a missing two-point entry. A student interprets that correction as approval of a separate request for five additional points. The latter request remains unresolved. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Sam: Then the immediate action is to fix the total, while the separate review addresses the criterion question. Professor Rivera: Correct. I will update the gradebook to reflect the arithmetic and keep the substantive request clearly identified. Sam: For future work, I will explain how each selected passage supports the conclusion rather than leave that relationship implied. Professor Rivera: That is useful feedforward. It gives you a specific next step, while the current review proceeds through the proper process. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 04 · Making office hours a focused learning conversation | Build vocabulary and collocations START PROMPT TASK: Retrieve occupational vocabulary 1. Select four terms from the reference. Explain each in plain English, give two natural collocations and quote or create a short workplace example. Label invented examples. Contrast each term with a plausible confusable term; acknowledge regional variation. 2. Present one role-labelled exchange with one missing word or phrase and four choices A-D. Exactly one choice must fit the stated facts and grammar. Stop and wait for my answer before revealing it. 3. Explain all four options, then invite me to read the completed exchange aloud. Offer a sentence frame for optional spoken practice, never an open-ended writing assignment. 4. Repeat for the other three terms, one question at a time. Vary the correct letter and the situation; preserve the reference facts. If a choice is ambiguous, replace the item. 5. Finish with two new four-choice collocation questions for later review, with a clearly separate answer key. Do not claim to schedule a reminder. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 04: Making office hours a focused learning conversation Original fictional case: During a fifteen-minute office-hour meeting, student Noor asks why a chart cannot show that Group B had the higher participation rate merely because more people participated. Group A has 40 participants out of 100 eligible people; Group B has 60 out of 200. Professor Evans uses the supplied figures to distinguish counts from rates. The meeting does not determine a grade or change an assessment deadline. Language workshop: More people is not a higher percentage Communication goal: Diagnose a specific misunderstanding through a worked example and check the student can apply the distinction. Language guidance: Group B has more participants, but Group A has the higher participation rate. The denominator changes the comparison. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): Which step stopped making sense to you? / Are you comparing the number of participants or the share of eligible people? / How many people could have participated in each group? / Forty out of one hundred is forty percent. / Explain why sixty participants can still represent a lower rate. / Let us resolve this distinction before adding another topic. / Apply the same distinction to the second supplied group. / Use counts for headcount and rates for the stated proportional comparison. / I thought Group B performed better because sixty people participated, compared with forty in Group A. / The feedback says to check the rate. / Let us set a short meeting agenda: first distinguish the quantities, then use the two groups to check the idea. / I compared the number of people and did not look at how many people were eligible in each group. / You are using an absolute count to answer a question about a proportion. / Group A had one hundred eligible people, while Group B had two hundred, so the groups were not the same size. / The denominator tells us the whole against which the participant count is being compared. / Then forty is the part for Group A, and sixty is the part for Group B. Vocabulary: office hours: Scheduled time for students to consult an instructor. / meeting agenda: Agreed focus for a discussion. / diagnostic question: Question identifying the source of a misunderstanding. / worked example: Example showing the reasoning or steps of a solution. / think-aloud: Spoken demonstration of the reasoning process. / conceptual misunderstanding: Incorrect understanding of an underlying idea. / procedural slip: Mistake in carrying out a process despite understanding the concept. / numerator: Quantity above the fraction line, representing the counted part here. / denominator: Quantity below the fraction line, representing the eligible group here. / absolute count: Number of observed items or people without normalization. / participation rate: Proportion of the eligible group that participated. / normalization: Expressing values relative to a common basis for comparison. / concept check: Short task checking understanding of an idea. / transfer of learning: Application of understanding to a different example. / retrieval practice: Recalling knowledge rather than only rereading it. / metacognition: Awareness and monitoring of one's own learning or reasoning. / learning bottleneck: Specific difficulty preventing further progress. / follow-up appointment: Subsequent meeting for continued support. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected exchange and say all four supplied numbers and both percentages clearly. Switch roles and explain the contrast using more participants but a lower share. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Noor: Student / Professor Evans: Instructor Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: Group C has 20 participants out of 50 eligible people. Group D has 20 out of 100. Their counts are equal; their rates are 40 percent and 20 percent. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Noor: Can we check it once more without looking at the completed percentages, using the same supplied figures? Professor Evans: Certainly. That retrieval practice will show whether you can reconstruct the reasoning instead of recognizing an answer that is already written. Noor: A is forty percent and B is thirty percent. I will identify the eligible population whenever I report a participation rate. Professor Evans: That completes the concept check. Use the distinction in your next practice, and bring any remaining specific question to a follow-up meeting. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 04 · Making office hours a focused learning conversation | Practice grammar in context START PROMPT TASK: Choose grammar that preserves the meaning 1. Use the lesson's language workshop, or one actual sentence from the dialogue, to explain a single grammar distinction in no more than 90 words. Show how it affects timing, certainty, responsibility or politeness. 2. Give one brief occupational exchange containing a gap and four complete options A-D. Supply enough context for exactly one answer. Keep distractors plausible; distinguish grammar errors from wording that changes the facts. Stop and wait. 3. Explain why each choice fits or fails, then ask me to read the completed exchange aloud. Do not request a draft, original written sentence or essay. 4. Repeat with three new exchanges, one at a time, moving from recognition to a more subtle meaning contrast. Do not copy the published checks. Label invented variations and do not turn uncertainty into a promise. 5. End with a short contrast table and two supported spoken turns using supplied frames. Accept accurate alternatives in oral practice; acknowledge and replace ambiguous multiple-choice items. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 04: Making office hours a focused learning conversation Original fictional case: During a fifteen-minute office-hour meeting, student Noor asks why a chart cannot show that Group B had the higher participation rate merely because more people participated. Group A has 40 participants out of 100 eligible people; Group B has 60 out of 200. Professor Evans uses the supplied figures to distinguish counts from rates. The meeting does not determine a grade or change an assessment deadline. Language workshop: More people is not a higher percentage Communication goal: Diagnose a specific misunderstanding through a worked example and check the student can apply the distinction. Language guidance: Group B has more participants, but Group A has the higher participation rate. The denominator changes the comparison. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): Which step stopped making sense to you? / Are you comparing the number of participants or the share of eligible people? / How many people could have participated in each group? / Forty out of one hundred is forty percent. / Explain why sixty participants can still represent a lower rate. / Let us resolve this distinction before adding another topic. / Apply the same distinction to the second supplied group. / Use counts for headcount and rates for the stated proportional comparison. / I thought Group B performed better because sixty people participated, compared with forty in Group A. / The feedback says to check the rate. / Let us set a short meeting agenda: first distinguish the quantities, then use the two groups to check the idea. / I compared the number of people and did not look at how many people were eligible in each group. / You are using an absolute count to answer a question about a proportion. / Group A had one hundred eligible people, while Group B had two hundred, so the groups were not the same size. / The denominator tells us the whole against which the participant count is being compared. / Then forty is the part for Group A, and sixty is the part for Group B. Vocabulary: office hours: Scheduled time for students to consult an instructor. / meeting agenda: Agreed focus for a discussion. / diagnostic question: Question identifying the source of a misunderstanding. / worked example: Example showing the reasoning or steps of a solution. / think-aloud: Spoken demonstration of the reasoning process. / conceptual misunderstanding: Incorrect understanding of an underlying idea. / procedural slip: Mistake in carrying out a process despite understanding the concept. / numerator: Quantity above the fraction line, representing the counted part here. / denominator: Quantity below the fraction line, representing the eligible group here. / absolute count: Number of observed items or people without normalization. / participation rate: Proportion of the eligible group that participated. / normalization: Expressing values relative to a common basis for comparison. / concept check: Short task checking understanding of an idea. / transfer of learning: Application of understanding to a different example. / retrieval practice: Recalling knowledge rather than only rereading it. / metacognition: Awareness and monitoring of one's own learning or reasoning. / learning bottleneck: Specific difficulty preventing further progress. / follow-up appointment: Subsequent meeting for continued support. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected exchange and say all four supplied numbers and both percentages clearly. Switch roles and explain the contrast using more participants but a lower share. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Noor: Student / Professor Evans: Instructor Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: Group C has 20 participants out of 50 eligible people. Group D has 20 out of 100. Their counts are equal; their rates are 40 percent and 20 percent. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Noor: Can we check it once more without looking at the completed percentages, using the same supplied figures? Professor Evans: Certainly. That retrieval practice will show whether you can reconstruct the reasoning instead of recognizing an answer that is already written. Noor: A is forty percent and B is thirty percent. I will identify the eligible population whenever I report a participation rate. Professor Evans: That completes the concept check. Use the distinction in your next practice, and bring any remaining specific question to a follow-up meeting. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 04 · Making office hours a focused learning conversation | Rehearse with an AI colleague START PROMPT TASK: Interactive workplace role-play 1. Use the supplied case or dialogue as the starting situation. Give a two-sentence briefing and offer two relevant professional roles for me to choose from. For a supplied dialogue, use its actual roles. Ask which role I want, then stop and wait. Do not write my replies. 2. After I choose, identify who you will play and the immediate communication goal. Play the other professional; where a meeting requires a third person, label each of your speakers clearly. Start with one natural workplace turn and wait for my reply. Keep most turns to one to three sentences and ask no more than one question at a time. 3. Let the exchange develop across six to ten learner turns, or end earlier if I type "feedback". Respond to what I actually say. Include a plausible clarification, disagreement or tradeoff without silently changing the starting facts. Mark any added constraint as a fictional second-round variation. Do not resolve approvals, evidence or commitments that remain uncertain. 4. Stay in role during the exchange. If my meaning is unclear, ask for clarification naturally. Give a hint only if I ask or cannot proceed. Do not deliver a model conversation in advance. 5. At the debrief, quote two of my phrases: one successful choice and one worth improving. Check factual accuracy, language, register and whether the next step was clear. Give up to three focused suggestions. Ask me to retry the weakest turn; wait. Only then offer an alternative wording and a harder replay. Use voice replies when available. If I prefer selections, offer four plausible spoken replies and explain my choice before continuing. Do not require written compositions. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 04: Making office hours a focused learning conversation Original fictional case: During a fifteen-minute office-hour meeting, student Noor asks why a chart cannot show that Group B had the higher participation rate merely because more people participated. Group A has 40 participants out of 100 eligible people; Group B has 60 out of 200. Professor Evans uses the supplied figures to distinguish counts from rates. The meeting does not determine a grade or change an assessment deadline. Language workshop: More people is not a higher percentage Communication goal: Diagnose a specific misunderstanding through a worked example and check the student can apply the distinction. Language guidance: Group B has more participants, but Group A has the higher participation rate. The denominator changes the comparison. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): Which step stopped making sense to you? / Are you comparing the number of participants or the share of eligible people? / How many people could have participated in each group? / Forty out of one hundred is forty percent. / Explain why sixty participants can still represent a lower rate. / Let us resolve this distinction before adding another topic. / Apply the same distinction to the second supplied group. / Use counts for headcount and rates for the stated proportional comparison. / I thought Group B performed better because sixty people participated, compared with forty in Group A. / The feedback says to check the rate. / Let us set a short meeting agenda: first distinguish the quantities, then use the two groups to check the idea. / I compared the number of people and did not look at how many people were eligible in each group. / You are using an absolute count to answer a question about a proportion. / Group A had one hundred eligible people, while Group B had two hundred, so the groups were not the same size. / The denominator tells us the whole against which the participant count is being compared. / Then forty is the part for Group A, and sixty is the part for Group B. Vocabulary: office hours: Scheduled time for students to consult an instructor. / meeting agenda: Agreed focus for a discussion. / diagnostic question: Question identifying the source of a misunderstanding. / worked example: Example showing the reasoning or steps of a solution. / think-aloud: Spoken demonstration of the reasoning process. / conceptual misunderstanding: Incorrect understanding of an underlying idea. / procedural slip: Mistake in carrying out a process despite understanding the concept. / numerator: Quantity above the fraction line, representing the counted part here. / denominator: Quantity below the fraction line, representing the eligible group here. / absolute count: Number of observed items or people without normalization. / participation rate: Proportion of the eligible group that participated. / normalization: Expressing values relative to a common basis for comparison. / concept check: Short task checking understanding of an idea. / transfer of learning: Application of understanding to a different example. / retrieval practice: Recalling knowledge rather than only rereading it. / metacognition: Awareness and monitoring of one's own learning or reasoning. / learning bottleneck: Specific difficulty preventing further progress. / follow-up appointment: Subsequent meeting for continued support. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected exchange and say all four supplied numbers and both percentages clearly. Switch roles and explain the contrast using more participants but a lower share. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Noor: Student / Professor Evans: Instructor Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: Group C has 20 participants out of 50 eligible people. Group D has 20 out of 100. Their counts are equal; their rates are 40 percent and 20 percent. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Noor: Can we check it once more without looking at the completed percentages, using the same supplied figures? Professor Evans: Certainly. That retrieval practice will show whether you can reconstruct the reasoning instead of recognizing an answer that is already written. Noor: A is forty percent and B is thirty percent. I will identify the eligible population whenever I report a participation rate. Professor Evans: That completes the concept check. Use the distinction in your next practice, and bring any remaining specific question to a follow-up meeting. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 04 · Making office hours a focused learning conversation | Create more scenario dialogues START PROMPT TASK: Extend the conversation library 1. Propose six distinct, common scenarios in this field beyond the supplied case or script. For each, name the setting, two or more professional roles, the communication problem and one useful terminology focus. Include routine coordination, clarification, a complication, disagreement, handoff and follow-up where relevant. Choose scenarios that fit this profession, rather than forcing unsuitable situations into it. 2. Ask me to choose one scenario, or request all six in sequence. Stop and wait. Do not write all the scripts before I choose. 3. For the selected scenario, write an original fictional dialogue of 12-18 substantial speaking turns between two or three professionals. Name each role, establish an actual work problem, and let the exchange progress through questions, clarification, competing constraints and a credible next step or explicitly unresolved issue. Use the occupation's natural nomenclature and register. Avoid an interview between a teacher and a learner, generic small talk, and inserting a glossary definition into every reply. Explain specialist terms outside the dialogue instead. 4. After the script, explain five useful expressions in context and identify two grammar or register choices. Give three four-choice questions about the speakers' reasoning, with exactly one answer supported by the dialogue. Wait for my selections, then explain why each answer fits and why its alternatives fail. Add a role-switch reading using the supplied script; do not ask for an essay or invented written reply. 5. Before presenting a script, check names, numbers, chronology, roles and terminology for consistency. Label invented facts and acknowledge uncertain specialist usage. If I requested all six, deliver one complete script at a time and wait for "next". Make each scenario materially different. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 04: Making office hours a focused learning conversation Original fictional case: During a fifteen-minute office-hour meeting, student Noor asks why a chart cannot show that Group B had the higher participation rate merely because more people participated. Group A has 40 participants out of 100 eligible people; Group B has 60 out of 200. Professor Evans uses the supplied figures to distinguish counts from rates. The meeting does not determine a grade or change an assessment deadline. Language workshop: More people is not a higher percentage Communication goal: Diagnose a specific misunderstanding through a worked example and check the student can apply the distinction. Language guidance: Group B has more participants, but Group A has the higher participation rate. The denominator changes the comparison. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): Which step stopped making sense to you? / Are you comparing the number of participants or the share of eligible people? / How many people could have participated in each group? / Forty out of one hundred is forty percent. / Explain why sixty participants can still represent a lower rate. / Let us resolve this distinction before adding another topic. / Apply the same distinction to the second supplied group. / Use counts for headcount and rates for the stated proportional comparison. / I thought Group B performed better because sixty people participated, compared with forty in Group A. / The feedback says to check the rate. / Let us set a short meeting agenda: first distinguish the quantities, then use the two groups to check the idea. / I compared the number of people and did not look at how many people were eligible in each group. / You are using an absolute count to answer a question about a proportion. / Group A had one hundred eligible people, while Group B had two hundred, so the groups were not the same size. / The denominator tells us the whole against which the participant count is being compared. / Then forty is the part for Group A, and sixty is the part for Group B. Vocabulary: office hours: Scheduled time for students to consult an instructor. / meeting agenda: Agreed focus for a discussion. / diagnostic question: Question identifying the source of a misunderstanding. / worked example: Example showing the reasoning or steps of a solution. / think-aloud: Spoken demonstration of the reasoning process. / conceptual misunderstanding: Incorrect understanding of an underlying idea. / procedural slip: Mistake in carrying out a process despite understanding the concept. / numerator: Quantity above the fraction line, representing the counted part here. / denominator: Quantity below the fraction line, representing the eligible group here. / absolute count: Number of observed items or people without normalization. / participation rate: Proportion of the eligible group that participated. / normalization: Expressing values relative to a common basis for comparison. / concept check: Short task checking understanding of an idea. / transfer of learning: Application of understanding to a different example. / retrieval practice: Recalling knowledge rather than only rereading it. / metacognition: Awareness and monitoring of one's own learning or reasoning. / learning bottleneck: Specific difficulty preventing further progress. / follow-up appointment: Subsequent meeting for continued support. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected exchange and say all four supplied numbers and both percentages clearly. Switch roles and explain the contrast using more participants but a lower share. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Noor: Student / Professor Evans: Instructor Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: Group C has 20 participants out of 50 eligible people. Group D has 20 out of 100. Their counts are equal; their rates are 40 percent and 20 percent. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Noor: Can we check it once more without looking at the completed percentages, using the same supplied figures? Professor Evans: Certainly. That retrieval practice will show whether you can reconstruct the reasoning instead of recognizing an answer that is already written. Noor: A is forty percent and B is thirty percent. I will identify the eligible population whenever I report a participation rate. Professor Evans: That completes the concept check. Use the distinction in your next practice, and bring any remaining specific question to a follow-up meeting. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 05 · Calibrating a teaching team before grades are released | Build vocabulary and collocations START PROMPT TASK: Retrieve occupational vocabulary 1. Select four terms from the reference. Explain each in plain English, give two natural collocations and quote or create a short workplace example. Label invented examples. Contrast each term with a plausible confusable term; acknowledge regional variation. 2. Present one role-labelled exchange with one missing word or phrase and four choices A-D. Exactly one choice must fit the stated facts and grammar. Stop and wait for my answer before revealing it. 3. Explain all four options, then invite me to read the completed exchange aloud. Offer a sentence frame for optional spoken practice, never an open-ended writing assignment. 4. Repeat for the other three terms, one question at a time. Vary the correct letter and the situation; preserve the reference facts. If a choice is ambiguous, replace the item. 5. Finish with two new four-choice collocation questions for later review, with a clearly separate answer key. Do not claim to schedule a reminder. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 05: Calibrating a teaching team before grades are released Original fictional case: Professor Malik and teaching assistant Elena use a fictional three-level evidence scale: 0 for no relevant evidence, 1 for relevant evidence without an explained link, and 2 for relevant evidence with an explained link. An anchor response contains a relevant quotation but no explanation of its connection. Elena gave 2 because the prose was fluent; Malik applied 1. Grades have not been released. Language workshop: Fluent wording is not the missing reasoning Communication goal: Resolve a scoring difference through shared criteria, anchor examples, and a consistent review plan. Language guidance: The fictional evidence scale assesses the explained link, not general fluency. The anchor response earns 1 under the supplied rule because the link is absent. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): Which descriptor matches what the response actually demonstrates? / Fluency and evidence use are different dimensions here. / The quotation is relevant, but the link is not explained. / Let us score the same anchor before reviewing the next sample. / We have applied different standards to the same feature. / We need to check whether the same issue affects other submissions. / Use the approved anonymized samples for the briefing. / Results remain on hold until the agreed review and approval are complete. / I gave this response two points because it reads fluently and includes a relevant quotation. / Let us return to the scoring guide. / What distinguishes level one from level two on this evidence scale? / Level two requires the response to explain how the evidence supports the conclusion. / Then our anchor response demonstrates level one, even though the prose is fluent. / I allowed the polished wording to influence my judgment about whether the reasoning was complete. / We need to keep the evidence dimension separate from any criterion assessing expression. / I can explain the one-point score as relevant quotation present, but the explanatory link is absent. Vocabulary: teaching assistant: Staff member or student supporting teaching under the relevant role. / grading calibration: Process of aligning application of assessment standards. / anchor response: Selected example used to illustrate a scoring standard. / scoring guide: Instructions explaining how to assign marks. / inter-rater agreement: Degree of consistency between assessors. / double marking: Assessment of work by two markers under the stated process. / moderation: Review supporting consistency and appropriateness of assessment. / borderline response: Work near the boundary between performance levels. / criterion contamination: Influence of an unrelated feature on a criterion judgment. / batch review: Examination of a group of submissions under a defined process. / release hold: Temporary pause before results are made available. / scoring rationale: Explanation linking a score to the work and standard. / marking consistency: Application of the same relevant standard across work. / anonymized sample: Example with identifying details removed under the actual process. / adjudication: Resolution of a disputed judgment through the stated authority or process. / teaching-team briefing: Meeting or message aligning course staff on responsibilities. / assessment dimension: Particular aspect of performance being evaluated. / release approval: Authorization to make results available. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected exchange and apply the supplied 0-1-2 scale to the anchor response. Switch roles and repeat the review and release sequence without inventing a new grading rule. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Elena: Teaching assistant / Professor Malik: Course coordinator Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: Under the same supplied scale, a second response includes relevant evidence but does not explain its link. The team has agreed to apply the criterion consistently. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Elena: For the briefing, I will use the approved anonymized examples and show the criterion alongside the relevant passages. Professor Malik: Good. That should improve inter-rater agreement by making our interpretation and evidence visible. Elena: Once the review is complete, I will report what was checked and any changes made through the approved process. Professor Malik: Then we can seek release approval. A calibration conversation is a useful step, but it is not the same as completing and authorizing the release. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 05 · Calibrating a teaching team before grades are released | Practice grammar in context START PROMPT TASK: Choose grammar that preserves the meaning 1. Use the lesson's language workshop, or one actual sentence from the dialogue, to explain a single grammar distinction in no more than 90 words. Show how it affects timing, certainty, responsibility or politeness. 2. Give one brief occupational exchange containing a gap and four complete options A-D. Supply enough context for exactly one answer. Keep distractors plausible; distinguish grammar errors from wording that changes the facts. Stop and wait. 3. Explain why each choice fits or fails, then ask me to read the completed exchange aloud. Do not request a draft, original written sentence or essay. 4. Repeat with three new exchanges, one at a time, moving from recognition to a more subtle meaning contrast. Do not copy the published checks. Label invented variations and do not turn uncertainty into a promise. 5. End with a short contrast table and two supported spoken turns using supplied frames. Accept accurate alternatives in oral practice; acknowledge and replace ambiguous multiple-choice items. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 05: Calibrating a teaching team before grades are released Original fictional case: Professor Malik and teaching assistant Elena use a fictional three-level evidence scale: 0 for no relevant evidence, 1 for relevant evidence without an explained link, and 2 for relevant evidence with an explained link. An anchor response contains a relevant quotation but no explanation of its connection. Elena gave 2 because the prose was fluent; Malik applied 1. Grades have not been released. Language workshop: Fluent wording is not the missing reasoning Communication goal: Resolve a scoring difference through shared criteria, anchor examples, and a consistent review plan. Language guidance: The fictional evidence scale assesses the explained link, not general fluency. The anchor response earns 1 under the supplied rule because the link is absent. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): Which descriptor matches what the response actually demonstrates? / Fluency and evidence use are different dimensions here. / The quotation is relevant, but the link is not explained. / Let us score the same anchor before reviewing the next sample. / We have applied different standards to the same feature. / We need to check whether the same issue affects other submissions. / Use the approved anonymized samples for the briefing. / Results remain on hold until the agreed review and approval are complete. / I gave this response two points because it reads fluently and includes a relevant quotation. / Let us return to the scoring guide. / What distinguishes level one from level two on this evidence scale? / Level two requires the response to explain how the evidence supports the conclusion. / Then our anchor response demonstrates level one, even though the prose is fluent. / I allowed the polished wording to influence my judgment about whether the reasoning was complete. / We need to keep the evidence dimension separate from any criterion assessing expression. / I can explain the one-point score as relevant quotation present, but the explanatory link is absent. Vocabulary: teaching assistant: Staff member or student supporting teaching under the relevant role. / grading calibration: Process of aligning application of assessment standards. / anchor response: Selected example used to illustrate a scoring standard. / scoring guide: Instructions explaining how to assign marks. / inter-rater agreement: Degree of consistency between assessors. / double marking: Assessment of work by two markers under the stated process. / moderation: Review supporting consistency and appropriateness of assessment. / borderline response: Work near the boundary between performance levels. / criterion contamination: Influence of an unrelated feature on a criterion judgment. / batch review: Examination of a group of submissions under a defined process. / release hold: Temporary pause before results are made available. / scoring rationale: Explanation linking a score to the work and standard. / marking consistency: Application of the same relevant standard across work. / anonymized sample: Example with identifying details removed under the actual process. / adjudication: Resolution of a disputed judgment through the stated authority or process. / teaching-team briefing: Meeting or message aligning course staff on responsibilities. / assessment dimension: Particular aspect of performance being evaluated. / release approval: Authorization to make results available. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected exchange and apply the supplied 0-1-2 scale to the anchor response. Switch roles and repeat the review and release sequence without inventing a new grading rule. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Elena: Teaching assistant / Professor Malik: Course coordinator Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: Under the same supplied scale, a second response includes relevant evidence but does not explain its link. The team has agreed to apply the criterion consistently. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Elena: For the briefing, I will use the approved anonymized examples and show the criterion alongside the relevant passages. Professor Malik: Good. That should improve inter-rater agreement by making our interpretation and evidence visible. Elena: Once the review is complete, I will report what was checked and any changes made through the approved process. Professor Malik: Then we can seek release approval. A calibration conversation is a useful step, but it is not the same as completing and authorizing the release. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 05 · Calibrating a teaching team before grades are released | Rehearse with an AI colleague START PROMPT TASK: Interactive workplace role-play 1. Use the supplied case or dialogue as the starting situation. Give a two-sentence briefing and offer two relevant professional roles for me to choose from. For a supplied dialogue, use its actual roles. Ask which role I want, then stop and wait. Do not write my replies. 2. After I choose, identify who you will play and the immediate communication goal. Play the other professional; where a meeting requires a third person, label each of your speakers clearly. Start with one natural workplace turn and wait for my reply. Keep most turns to one to three sentences and ask no more than one question at a time. 3. Let the exchange develop across six to ten learner turns, or end earlier if I type "feedback". Respond to what I actually say. Include a plausible clarification, disagreement or tradeoff without silently changing the starting facts. Mark any added constraint as a fictional second-round variation. Do not resolve approvals, evidence or commitments that remain uncertain. 4. Stay in role during the exchange. If my meaning is unclear, ask for clarification naturally. Give a hint only if I ask or cannot proceed. Do not deliver a model conversation in advance. 5. At the debrief, quote two of my phrases: one successful choice and one worth improving. Check factual accuracy, language, register and whether the next step was clear. Give up to three focused suggestions. Ask me to retry the weakest turn; wait. Only then offer an alternative wording and a harder replay. Use voice replies when available. If I prefer selections, offer four plausible spoken replies and explain my choice before continuing. Do not require written compositions. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 05: Calibrating a teaching team before grades are released Original fictional case: Professor Malik and teaching assistant Elena use a fictional three-level evidence scale: 0 for no relevant evidence, 1 for relevant evidence without an explained link, and 2 for relevant evidence with an explained link. An anchor response contains a relevant quotation but no explanation of its connection. Elena gave 2 because the prose was fluent; Malik applied 1. Grades have not been released. Language workshop: Fluent wording is not the missing reasoning Communication goal: Resolve a scoring difference through shared criteria, anchor examples, and a consistent review plan. Language guidance: The fictional evidence scale assesses the explained link, not general fluency. The anchor response earns 1 under the supplied rule because the link is absent. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): Which descriptor matches what the response actually demonstrates? / Fluency and evidence use are different dimensions here. / The quotation is relevant, but the link is not explained. / Let us score the same anchor before reviewing the next sample. / We have applied different standards to the same feature. / We need to check whether the same issue affects other submissions. / Use the approved anonymized samples for the briefing. / Results remain on hold until the agreed review and approval are complete. / I gave this response two points because it reads fluently and includes a relevant quotation. / Let us return to the scoring guide. / What distinguishes level one from level two on this evidence scale? / Level two requires the response to explain how the evidence supports the conclusion. / Then our anchor response demonstrates level one, even though the prose is fluent. / I allowed the polished wording to influence my judgment about whether the reasoning was complete. / We need to keep the evidence dimension separate from any criterion assessing expression. / I can explain the one-point score as relevant quotation present, but the explanatory link is absent. Vocabulary: teaching assistant: Staff member or student supporting teaching under the relevant role. / grading calibration: Process of aligning application of assessment standards. / anchor response: Selected example used to illustrate a scoring standard. / scoring guide: Instructions explaining how to assign marks. / inter-rater agreement: Degree of consistency between assessors. / double marking: Assessment of work by two markers under the stated process. / moderation: Review supporting consistency and appropriateness of assessment. / borderline response: Work near the boundary between performance levels. / criterion contamination: Influence of an unrelated feature on a criterion judgment. / batch review: Examination of a group of submissions under a defined process. / release hold: Temporary pause before results are made available. / scoring rationale: Explanation linking a score to the work and standard. / marking consistency: Application of the same relevant standard across work. / anonymized sample: Example with identifying details removed under the actual process. / adjudication: Resolution of a disputed judgment through the stated authority or process. / teaching-team briefing: Meeting or message aligning course staff on responsibilities. / assessment dimension: Particular aspect of performance being evaluated. / release approval: Authorization to make results available. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected exchange and apply the supplied 0-1-2 scale to the anchor response. Switch roles and repeat the review and release sequence without inventing a new grading rule. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Elena: Teaching assistant / Professor Malik: Course coordinator Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: Under the same supplied scale, a second response includes relevant evidence but does not explain its link. The team has agreed to apply the criterion consistently. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Elena: For the briefing, I will use the approved anonymized examples and show the criterion alongside the relevant passages. Professor Malik: Good. That should improve inter-rater agreement by making our interpretation and evidence visible. Elena: Once the review is complete, I will report what was checked and any changes made through the approved process. Professor Malik: Then we can seek release approval. A calibration conversation is a useful step, but it is not the same as completing and authorizing the release. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 05 · Calibrating a teaching team before grades are released | Create more scenario dialogues START PROMPT TASK: Extend the conversation library 1. Propose six distinct, common scenarios in this field beyond the supplied case or script. For each, name the setting, two or more professional roles, the communication problem and one useful terminology focus. Include routine coordination, clarification, a complication, disagreement, handoff and follow-up where relevant. Choose scenarios that fit this profession, rather than forcing unsuitable situations into it. 2. Ask me to choose one scenario, or request all six in sequence. Stop and wait. Do not write all the scripts before I choose. 3. For the selected scenario, write an original fictional dialogue of 12-18 substantial speaking turns between two or three professionals. Name each role, establish an actual work problem, and let the exchange progress through questions, clarification, competing constraints and a credible next step or explicitly unresolved issue. Use the occupation's natural nomenclature and register. Avoid an interview between a teacher and a learner, generic small talk, and inserting a glossary definition into every reply. Explain specialist terms outside the dialogue instead. 4. After the script, explain five useful expressions in context and identify two grammar or register choices. Give three four-choice questions about the speakers' reasoning, with exactly one answer supported by the dialogue. Wait for my selections, then explain why each answer fits and why its alternatives fail. Add a role-switch reading using the supplied script; do not ask for an essay or invented written reply. 5. Before presenting a script, check names, numbers, chronology, roles and terminology for consistency. Label invented facts and acknowledge uncertain specialist usage. If I requested all six, deliver one complete script at a time and wait for "next". Make each scenario materially different. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 05: Calibrating a teaching team before grades are released Original fictional case: Professor Malik and teaching assistant Elena use a fictional three-level evidence scale: 0 for no relevant evidence, 1 for relevant evidence without an explained link, and 2 for relevant evidence with an explained link. An anchor response contains a relevant quotation but no explanation of its connection. Elena gave 2 because the prose was fluent; Malik applied 1. Grades have not been released. Language workshop: Fluent wording is not the missing reasoning Communication goal: Resolve a scoring difference through shared criteria, anchor examples, and a consistent review plan. Language guidance: The fictional evidence scale assesses the explained link, not general fluency. The anchor response earns 1 under the supplied rule because the link is absent. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): Which descriptor matches what the response actually demonstrates? / Fluency and evidence use are different dimensions here. / The quotation is relevant, but the link is not explained. / Let us score the same anchor before reviewing the next sample. / We have applied different standards to the same feature. / We need to check whether the same issue affects other submissions. / Use the approved anonymized samples for the briefing. / Results remain on hold until the agreed review and approval are complete. / I gave this response two points because it reads fluently and includes a relevant quotation. / Let us return to the scoring guide. / What distinguishes level one from level two on this evidence scale? / Level two requires the response to explain how the evidence supports the conclusion. / Then our anchor response demonstrates level one, even though the prose is fluent. / I allowed the polished wording to influence my judgment about whether the reasoning was complete. / We need to keep the evidence dimension separate from any criterion assessing expression. / I can explain the one-point score as relevant quotation present, but the explanatory link is absent. Vocabulary: teaching assistant: Staff member or student supporting teaching under the relevant role. / grading calibration: Process of aligning application of assessment standards. / anchor response: Selected example used to illustrate a scoring standard. / scoring guide: Instructions explaining how to assign marks. / inter-rater agreement: Degree of consistency between assessors. / double marking: Assessment of work by two markers under the stated process. / moderation: Review supporting consistency and appropriateness of assessment. / borderline response: Work near the boundary between performance levels. / criterion contamination: Influence of an unrelated feature on a criterion judgment. / batch review: Examination of a group of submissions under a defined process. / release hold: Temporary pause before results are made available. / scoring rationale: Explanation linking a score to the work and standard. / marking consistency: Application of the same relevant standard across work. / anonymized sample: Example with identifying details removed under the actual process. / adjudication: Resolution of a disputed judgment through the stated authority or process. / teaching-team briefing: Meeting or message aligning course staff on responsibilities. / assessment dimension: Particular aspect of performance being evaluated. / release approval: Authorization to make results available. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected exchange and apply the supplied 0-1-2 scale to the anchor response. Switch roles and repeat the review and release sequence without inventing a new grading rule. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Elena: Teaching assistant / Professor Malik: Course coordinator Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: Under the same supplied scale, a second response includes relevant evidence but does not explain its link. The team has agreed to apply the criterion consistently. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Elena: For the briefing, I will use the approved anonymized examples and show the criterion alongside the relevant passages. Professor Malik: Good. That should improve inter-rater agreement by making our interpretation and evidence visible. Elena: Once the review is complete, I will report what was checked and any changes made through the approved process. Professor Malik: Then we can seek release approval. A calibration conversation is a useful step, but it is not the same as completing and authorizing the release. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 06 · Implementing an approved access arrangement | Build vocabulary and collocations START PROMPT TASK: Retrieve occupational vocabulary 1. Select four terms from the reference. Explain each in plain English, give two natural collocations and quote or create a short workplace example. Label invented examples. Contrast each term with a plausible confusable term; acknowledge regional variation. 2. Present one role-labelled exchange with one missing word or phrase and four choices A-D. Exactly one choice must fit the stated facts and grammar. Stop and wait for my answer before revealing it. 3. Explain all four options, then invite me to read the completed exchange aloud. Offer a sentence frame for optional spoken practice, never an open-ended writing assignment. 4. Repeat for the other three terms, one question at a time. Vary the correct letter and the situation; preserve the reference facts. If a choice is ambiguous, replace the item. 5. Finish with two new four-choice collocation questions for later review, with a clearly separate answer key. Do not claim to schedule a reminder. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 06: Implementing an approved access arrangement Original fictional case: Student Tessa has an approved arrangement specifying 90 minutes for a quiz whose standard duration is 60 minutes. Professor Ali sees that the learning platform still shows the standard setting. A suitable testing-room booking has not been confirmed. They need prompt coordination with the designated access office and testing staff. Tessa is not being asked to disclose a diagnosis to classmates or justify the approved arrangement again. Language workshop: The letter says ninety minutes; the platform says sixty Communication goal: Confirm practical accessibility arrangements without demanding unnecessary personal disclosure or making unsupported promises. Language guidance: The approved 90-minute arrangement and the platform's 60-minute setting conflict. A displayed default does not cancel the approval. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): The platform setting does not match the approved ninety minutes. / We need to correct the practical arrangement, not ask you to justify the approval again. / We can discuss the logistics without sharing your diagnosis with the class. / I will coordinate with the access office and testing staff. / I will check the student-facing setting after the update. / The room is requested, but I do not yet have confirmation. / We need an authorized alternative if the booking cannot be completed. / I will confirm the actual arrangements through the agreed private channel. / My approved letter specifies ninety minutes for the quiz, but the course platform still shows the standard sixty-minute limit. / The implementation detail does not match the approval, and we need to resolve that before relying on the setup. / I was worried I would need to explain my diagnosis again to persuade you that the extra time is justified. / We are discussing the approved accommodation, not asking you to justify it again. / Let us focus on the necessary logistics. / The testing room was requested last week, but I have not received a booking confirmation from the office. / Then the testing arrangement is not yet fully confirmed. / I will coordinate with the responsible staff rather than assume the request completed the booking. Vocabulary: academic adjustment: Change supporting equal access under the relevant institutional and legal process. / approved accommodation: Arrangement approved through the institution's relevant process. / accessibility office: Institutional service coordinating disability-related access arrangements. / implementation detail: Practical setting or action needed to carry out a plan. / extended time: Additional time specified for a task under an approved arrangement. / testing arrangement: Agreed practical conditions for an assessment. / accessible format: Presentation usable with the relevant access requirements. / assistive technology: Technology supporting access to information or activities. / captioning: Text representation of speech and relevant audio information. / screen-reader compatibility: Usability of digital content with software that reads its structure and text. / functional barrier: Feature of the environment or task obstructing access. / essential requirement: Core academic or technical requirement under the relevant process. / confidentiality boundary: Limit on sharing personal information. / implementation confirmation: Verification that an approved arrangement is actually in place. / testing coordinator: Person managing assessment logistics under the institutional process. / access concern: Reported difficulty obtaining or using an arrangement. / effective access: Practical ability to participate through suitable arrangements. / contingency arrangement: Authorized alternative if the planned arrangement cannot operate. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected exchange and distinguish approved, requested, implemented, and confirmed. Switch roles and repeat the three confirmation items: duration, location, and contact. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Tessa: Student / Professor Ali: Instructor Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: The platform now correctly shows 90 minutes. The testing-room request remains unconfirmed. The approved arrangement still needs a workable location. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Tessa: Thank you. A clear confirmation of the duration, location, and contact would resolve the uncertainty for me. Professor Ali: That is the aim of effective access: the arrangement has to work in practice, not just exist as an approved document. Tessa: I will use the private channel if the displayed information still conflicts with the confirmation you send. Professor Ali: Please do. Any remaining access concern needs prompt attention, and I will close the loop when the actual setting and testing arrangements are verified. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 06 · Implementing an approved access arrangement | Practice grammar in context START PROMPT TASK: Choose grammar that preserves the meaning 1. Use the lesson's language workshop, or one actual sentence from the dialogue, to explain a single grammar distinction in no more than 90 words. Show how it affects timing, certainty, responsibility or politeness. 2. Give one brief occupational exchange containing a gap and four complete options A-D. Supply enough context for exactly one answer. Keep distractors plausible; distinguish grammar errors from wording that changes the facts. Stop and wait. 3. Explain why each choice fits or fails, then ask me to read the completed exchange aloud. Do not request a draft, original written sentence or essay. 4. Repeat with three new exchanges, one at a time, moving from recognition to a more subtle meaning contrast. Do not copy the published checks. Label invented variations and do not turn uncertainty into a promise. 5. End with a short contrast table and two supported spoken turns using supplied frames. Accept accurate alternatives in oral practice; acknowledge and replace ambiguous multiple-choice items. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 06: Implementing an approved access arrangement Original fictional case: Student Tessa has an approved arrangement specifying 90 minutes for a quiz whose standard duration is 60 minutes. Professor Ali sees that the learning platform still shows the standard setting. A suitable testing-room booking has not been confirmed. They need prompt coordination with the designated access office and testing staff. Tessa is not being asked to disclose a diagnosis to classmates or justify the approved arrangement again. Language workshop: The letter says ninety minutes; the platform says sixty Communication goal: Confirm practical accessibility arrangements without demanding unnecessary personal disclosure or making unsupported promises. Language guidance: The approved 90-minute arrangement and the platform's 60-minute setting conflict. A displayed default does not cancel the approval. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): The platform setting does not match the approved ninety minutes. / We need to correct the practical arrangement, not ask you to justify the approval again. / We can discuss the logistics without sharing your diagnosis with the class. / I will coordinate with the access office and testing staff. / I will check the student-facing setting after the update. / The room is requested, but I do not yet have confirmation. / We need an authorized alternative if the booking cannot be completed. / I will confirm the actual arrangements through the agreed private channel. / My approved letter specifies ninety minutes for the quiz, but the course platform still shows the standard sixty-minute limit. / The implementation detail does not match the approval, and we need to resolve that before relying on the setup. / I was worried I would need to explain my diagnosis again to persuade you that the extra time is justified. / We are discussing the approved accommodation, not asking you to justify it again. / Let us focus on the necessary logistics. / The testing room was requested last week, but I have not received a booking confirmation from the office. / Then the testing arrangement is not yet fully confirmed. / I will coordinate with the responsible staff rather than assume the request completed the booking. Vocabulary: academic adjustment: Change supporting equal access under the relevant institutional and legal process. / approved accommodation: Arrangement approved through the institution's relevant process. / accessibility office: Institutional service coordinating disability-related access arrangements. / implementation detail: Practical setting or action needed to carry out a plan. / extended time: Additional time specified for a task under an approved arrangement. / testing arrangement: Agreed practical conditions for an assessment. / accessible format: Presentation usable with the relevant access requirements. / assistive technology: Technology supporting access to information or activities. / captioning: Text representation of speech and relevant audio information. / screen-reader compatibility: Usability of digital content with software that reads its structure and text. / functional barrier: Feature of the environment or task obstructing access. / essential requirement: Core academic or technical requirement under the relevant process. / confidentiality boundary: Limit on sharing personal information. / implementation confirmation: Verification that an approved arrangement is actually in place. / testing coordinator: Person managing assessment logistics under the institutional process. / access concern: Reported difficulty obtaining or using an arrangement. / effective access: Practical ability to participate through suitable arrangements. / contingency arrangement: Authorized alternative if the planned arrangement cannot operate. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected exchange and distinguish approved, requested, implemented, and confirmed. Switch roles and repeat the three confirmation items: duration, location, and contact. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Tessa: Student / Professor Ali: Instructor Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: The platform now correctly shows 90 minutes. The testing-room request remains unconfirmed. The approved arrangement still needs a workable location. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Tessa: Thank you. A clear confirmation of the duration, location, and contact would resolve the uncertainty for me. Professor Ali: That is the aim of effective access: the arrangement has to work in practice, not just exist as an approved document. Tessa: I will use the private channel if the displayed information still conflicts with the confirmation you send. Professor Ali: Please do. Any remaining access concern needs prompt attention, and I will close the loop when the actual setting and testing arrangements are verified. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 06 · Implementing an approved access arrangement | Rehearse with an AI colleague START PROMPT TASK: Interactive workplace role-play 1. Use the supplied case or dialogue as the starting situation. Give a two-sentence briefing and offer two relevant professional roles for me to choose from. For a supplied dialogue, use its actual roles. Ask which role I want, then stop and wait. Do not write my replies. 2. After I choose, identify who you will play and the immediate communication goal. Play the other professional; where a meeting requires a third person, label each of your speakers clearly. Start with one natural workplace turn and wait for my reply. Keep most turns to one to three sentences and ask no more than one question at a time. 3. Let the exchange develop across six to ten learner turns, or end earlier if I type "feedback". Respond to what I actually say. Include a plausible clarification, disagreement or tradeoff without silently changing the starting facts. Mark any added constraint as a fictional second-round variation. Do not resolve approvals, evidence or commitments that remain uncertain. 4. Stay in role during the exchange. If my meaning is unclear, ask for clarification naturally. Give a hint only if I ask or cannot proceed. Do not deliver a model conversation in advance. 5. At the debrief, quote two of my phrases: one successful choice and one worth improving. Check factual accuracy, language, register and whether the next step was clear. Give up to three focused suggestions. Ask me to retry the weakest turn; wait. Only then offer an alternative wording and a harder replay. Use voice replies when available. If I prefer selections, offer four plausible spoken replies and explain my choice before continuing. Do not require written compositions. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 06: Implementing an approved access arrangement Original fictional case: Student Tessa has an approved arrangement specifying 90 minutes for a quiz whose standard duration is 60 minutes. Professor Ali sees that the learning platform still shows the standard setting. A suitable testing-room booking has not been confirmed. They need prompt coordination with the designated access office and testing staff. Tessa is not being asked to disclose a diagnosis to classmates or justify the approved arrangement again. Language workshop: The letter says ninety minutes; the platform says sixty Communication goal: Confirm practical accessibility arrangements without demanding unnecessary personal disclosure or making unsupported promises. Language guidance: The approved 90-minute arrangement and the platform's 60-minute setting conflict. A displayed default does not cancel the approval. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): The platform setting does not match the approved ninety minutes. / We need to correct the practical arrangement, not ask you to justify the approval again. / We can discuss the logistics without sharing your diagnosis with the class. / I will coordinate with the access office and testing staff. / I will check the student-facing setting after the update. / The room is requested, but I do not yet have confirmation. / We need an authorized alternative if the booking cannot be completed. / I will confirm the actual arrangements through the agreed private channel. / My approved letter specifies ninety minutes for the quiz, but the course platform still shows the standard sixty-minute limit. / The implementation detail does not match the approval, and we need to resolve that before relying on the setup. / I was worried I would need to explain my diagnosis again to persuade you that the extra time is justified. / We are discussing the approved accommodation, not asking you to justify it again. / Let us focus on the necessary logistics. / The testing room was requested last week, but I have not received a booking confirmation from the office. / Then the testing arrangement is not yet fully confirmed. / I will coordinate with the responsible staff rather than assume the request completed the booking. Vocabulary: academic adjustment: Change supporting equal access under the relevant institutional and legal process. / approved accommodation: Arrangement approved through the institution's relevant process. / accessibility office: Institutional service coordinating disability-related access arrangements. / implementation detail: Practical setting or action needed to carry out a plan. / extended time: Additional time specified for a task under an approved arrangement. / testing arrangement: Agreed practical conditions for an assessment. / accessible format: Presentation usable with the relevant access requirements. / assistive technology: Technology supporting access to information or activities. / captioning: Text representation of speech and relevant audio information. / screen-reader compatibility: Usability of digital content with software that reads its structure and text. / functional barrier: Feature of the environment or task obstructing access. / essential requirement: Core academic or technical requirement under the relevant process. / confidentiality boundary: Limit on sharing personal information. / implementation confirmation: Verification that an approved arrangement is actually in place. / testing coordinator: Person managing assessment logistics under the institutional process. / access concern: Reported difficulty obtaining or using an arrangement. / effective access: Practical ability to participate through suitable arrangements. / contingency arrangement: Authorized alternative if the planned arrangement cannot operate. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected exchange and distinguish approved, requested, implemented, and confirmed. Switch roles and repeat the three confirmation items: duration, location, and contact. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Tessa: Student / Professor Ali: Instructor Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: The platform now correctly shows 90 minutes. The testing-room request remains unconfirmed. The approved arrangement still needs a workable location. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Tessa: Thank you. A clear confirmation of the duration, location, and contact would resolve the uncertainty for me. Professor Ali: That is the aim of effective access: the arrangement has to work in practice, not just exist as an approved document. Tessa: I will use the private channel if the displayed information still conflicts with the confirmation you send. Professor Ali: Please do. Any remaining access concern needs prompt attention, and I will close the loop when the actual setting and testing arrangements are verified. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 06 · Implementing an approved access arrangement | Create more scenario dialogues START PROMPT TASK: Extend the conversation library 1. Propose six distinct, common scenarios in this field beyond the supplied case or script. For each, name the setting, two or more professional roles, the communication problem and one useful terminology focus. Include routine coordination, clarification, a complication, disagreement, handoff and follow-up where relevant. Choose scenarios that fit this profession, rather than forcing unsuitable situations into it. 2. Ask me to choose one scenario, or request all six in sequence. Stop and wait. Do not write all the scripts before I choose. 3. For the selected scenario, write an original fictional dialogue of 12-18 substantial speaking turns between two or three professionals. Name each role, establish an actual work problem, and let the exchange progress through questions, clarification, competing constraints and a credible next step or explicitly unresolved issue. Use the occupation's natural nomenclature and register. Avoid an interview between a teacher and a learner, generic small talk, and inserting a glossary definition into every reply. Explain specialist terms outside the dialogue instead. 4. After the script, explain five useful expressions in context and identify two grammar or register choices. Give three four-choice questions about the speakers' reasoning, with exactly one answer supported by the dialogue. Wait for my selections, then explain why each answer fits and why its alternatives fail. Add a role-switch reading using the supplied script; do not ask for an essay or invented written reply. 5. Before presenting a script, check names, numbers, chronology, roles and terminology for consistency. Label invented facts and acknowledge uncertain specialist usage. If I requested all six, deliver one complete script at a time and wait for "next". Make each scenario materially different. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 06: Implementing an approved access arrangement Original fictional case: Student Tessa has an approved arrangement specifying 90 minutes for a quiz whose standard duration is 60 minutes. Professor Ali sees that the learning platform still shows the standard setting. A suitable testing-room booking has not been confirmed. They need prompt coordination with the designated access office and testing staff. Tessa is not being asked to disclose a diagnosis to classmates or justify the approved arrangement again. Language workshop: The letter says ninety minutes; the platform says sixty Communication goal: Confirm practical accessibility arrangements without demanding unnecessary personal disclosure or making unsupported promises. Language guidance: The approved 90-minute arrangement and the platform's 60-minute setting conflict. A displayed default does not cancel the approval. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): The platform setting does not match the approved ninety minutes. / We need to correct the practical arrangement, not ask you to justify the approval again. / We can discuss the logistics without sharing your diagnosis with the class. / I will coordinate with the access office and testing staff. / I will check the student-facing setting after the update. / The room is requested, but I do not yet have confirmation. / We need an authorized alternative if the booking cannot be completed. / I will confirm the actual arrangements through the agreed private channel. / My approved letter specifies ninety minutes for the quiz, but the course platform still shows the standard sixty-minute limit. / The implementation detail does not match the approval, and we need to resolve that before relying on the setup. / I was worried I would need to explain my diagnosis again to persuade you that the extra time is justified. / We are discussing the approved accommodation, not asking you to justify it again. / Let us focus on the necessary logistics. / The testing room was requested last week, but I have not received a booking confirmation from the office. / Then the testing arrangement is not yet fully confirmed. / I will coordinate with the responsible staff rather than assume the request completed the booking. Vocabulary: academic adjustment: Change supporting equal access under the relevant institutional and legal process. / approved accommodation: Arrangement approved through the institution's relevant process. / accessibility office: Institutional service coordinating disability-related access arrangements. / implementation detail: Practical setting or action needed to carry out a plan. / extended time: Additional time specified for a task under an approved arrangement. / testing arrangement: Agreed practical conditions for an assessment. / accessible format: Presentation usable with the relevant access requirements. / assistive technology: Technology supporting access to information or activities. / captioning: Text representation of speech and relevant audio information. / screen-reader compatibility: Usability of digital content with software that reads its structure and text. / functional barrier: Feature of the environment or task obstructing access. / essential requirement: Core academic or technical requirement under the relevant process. / confidentiality boundary: Limit on sharing personal information. / implementation confirmation: Verification that an approved arrangement is actually in place. / testing coordinator: Person managing assessment logistics under the institutional process. / access concern: Reported difficulty obtaining or using an arrangement. / effective access: Practical ability to participate through suitable arrangements. / contingency arrangement: Authorized alternative if the planned arrangement cannot operate. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected exchange and distinguish approved, requested, implemented, and confirmed. Switch roles and repeat the three confirmation items: duration, location, and contact. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Tessa: Student / Professor Ali: Instructor Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: The platform now correctly shows 90 minutes. The testing-room request remains unconfirmed. The approved arrangement still needs a workable location. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Tessa: Thank you. A clear confirmation of the duration, location, and contact would resolve the uncertainty for me. Professor Ali: That is the aim of effective access: the arrangement has to work in practice, not just exist as an approved document. Tessa: I will use the private channel if the displayed information still conflicts with the confirmation you send. Professor Ali: Please do. Any remaining access concern needs prompt attention, and I will close the loop when the actual setting and testing arrangements are verified. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 07 · Discussing an academic-integrity concern fairly | Build vocabulary and collocations START PROMPT TASK: Retrieve occupational vocabulary 1. Select four terms from the reference. Explain each in plain English, give two natural collocations and quote or create a short workplace example. Label invented examples. Contrast each term with a plausible confusable term; acknowledge regional variation. 2. Present one role-labelled exchange with one missing word or phrase and four choices A-D. Exactly one choice must fit the stated facts and grammar. Stop and wait for my answer before revealing it. 3. Explain all four options, then invite me to read the completed exchange aloud. Offer a sentence frame for optional spoken practice, never an open-ended writing assignment. 4. Repeat for the other three terms, one question at a time. Vary the correct letter and the situation; preserve the reference facts. If a choice is ambiguous, replace the item. 5. Finish with two new four-choice collocation questions for later review, with a clearly separate answer key. Do not claim to schedule a reminder. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 07: Discussing an academic-integrity concern fairly Original fictional case: A fictional assignment permits AI-assisted brainstorming if disclosed but requires the submitted analysis to be the student's own work. Professor Park cannot locate a cited article and finds that its journal details do not match the supplied reference. Student Amir says he used a tool for an outline and believed the suggested reference was real. No integrity finding or penalty has been determined; the actual institutional review process applies. Language workshop: A missing source needs a factual explanation Communication goal: State a specific concern, explain the applicable course rule, and separate an inquiry from a finding. Language guidance: The source discrepancy is a fact to investigate. It does not establish the complete history of tool use, intent, or a formal violation by itself. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): I could not locate this article, and the journal details do not match. / Please explain where the reference came from. / The assignment permits disclosed brainstorming, not generated final analysis. / A tool suggestion still needs source verification. / This meeting does not predetermine a finding. / You will have the opportunity to respond through the stated process. / Keep the relevant existing drafts and source information intact. / I will explain the applicable review route and what happens next. / Your message says there is a concern about my reference list. / I am worried that you have already decided I cheated. / I want to explain a specific citation discrepancy and hear your account through the appropriate process. / I used a tool to help outline the topic and thought the suggested article was real. / I could not locate that article, and the journal details do not match. / It needs source verification rather than an assumption based on a plausible-looking citation. / The assignment allowed brainstorming, so I understood that I could ask for possible topics and an outline. / It allowed that permitted assistance with disclosure. Vocabulary: academic integrity: Honest and responsible participation in academic work. / permitted assistance: Help allowed under the stated assignment rules. / authorship: Responsibility for producing the submitted work. / attribution: Identification of the source of ideas, wording, or assistance. / disclosure statement: Account of assistance or tool use required by the task. / source verification: Checking that a cited source exists and supports the use made of it. / fabricated reference: Citation identifying a source that is not genuine as represented. / citation discrepancy: Mismatch or problem in reference details. / process evidence: Material relevant to how work was developed. / draft sequence: Ordered versions showing development of a document. / unauthorized collaboration: Cooperation not allowed by the stated task rules. / similarity report: Tool output indicating textual matches for review. / allegation: Assertion of a possible violation not itself a finding. / finding: Determination reached through the relevant review process. / procedural fairness: Appropriate and fair handling under the relevant process. / opportunity to respond: Chance to address a concern through the stated process. / referral for review: Routing a concern to the designated process or authority. / educational consequence: Learning-related outcome or requirement under the applicable decision. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected exchange and distinguish the permitted brainstorming rule from the source-verification issue. Switch roles and state the concern, response opportunity, and unresolved status without inventing intent or a penalty. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Amir: Student / Professor Park: Instructor Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: A tool report flags a passage for review. The instructor has not checked the source or completed the institutional process. No finding exists. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Amir: Thank you. I do not want my explanation summarized as admitting things I have not said or that have not been established. Professor Park: I will record your account accurately and maintain procedural fairness under the institution's process. Amir: For now, I will preserve the existing materials and respond to the identified question about the source and its use. Professor Park: That is the next step. Any finding or authorized consequence must be communicated as an actual outcome, not implied in advance by this inquiry. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 07 · Discussing an academic-integrity concern fairly | Practice grammar in context START PROMPT TASK: Choose grammar that preserves the meaning 1. Use the lesson's language workshop, or one actual sentence from the dialogue, to explain a single grammar distinction in no more than 90 words. Show how it affects timing, certainty, responsibility or politeness. 2. Give one brief occupational exchange containing a gap and four complete options A-D. Supply enough context for exactly one answer. Keep distractors plausible; distinguish grammar errors from wording that changes the facts. Stop and wait. 3. Explain why each choice fits or fails, then ask me to read the completed exchange aloud. Do not request a draft, original written sentence or essay. 4. Repeat with three new exchanges, one at a time, moving from recognition to a more subtle meaning contrast. Do not copy the published checks. Label invented variations and do not turn uncertainty into a promise. 5. End with a short contrast table and two supported spoken turns using supplied frames. Accept accurate alternatives in oral practice; acknowledge and replace ambiguous multiple-choice items. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 07: Discussing an academic-integrity concern fairly Original fictional case: A fictional assignment permits AI-assisted brainstorming if disclosed but requires the submitted analysis to be the student's own work. Professor Park cannot locate a cited article and finds that its journal details do not match the supplied reference. Student Amir says he used a tool for an outline and believed the suggested reference was real. No integrity finding or penalty has been determined; the actual institutional review process applies. Language workshop: A missing source needs a factual explanation Communication goal: State a specific concern, explain the applicable course rule, and separate an inquiry from a finding. Language guidance: The source discrepancy is a fact to investigate. It does not establish the complete history of tool use, intent, or a formal violation by itself. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): I could not locate this article, and the journal details do not match. / Please explain where the reference came from. / The assignment permits disclosed brainstorming, not generated final analysis. / A tool suggestion still needs source verification. / This meeting does not predetermine a finding. / You will have the opportunity to respond through the stated process. / Keep the relevant existing drafts and source information intact. / I will explain the applicable review route and what happens next. / Your message says there is a concern about my reference list. / I am worried that you have already decided I cheated. / I want to explain a specific citation discrepancy and hear your account through the appropriate process. / I used a tool to help outline the topic and thought the suggested article was real. / I could not locate that article, and the journal details do not match. / It needs source verification rather than an assumption based on a plausible-looking citation. / The assignment allowed brainstorming, so I understood that I could ask for possible topics and an outline. / It allowed that permitted assistance with disclosure. Vocabulary: academic integrity: Honest and responsible participation in academic work. / permitted assistance: Help allowed under the stated assignment rules. / authorship: Responsibility for producing the submitted work. / attribution: Identification of the source of ideas, wording, or assistance. / disclosure statement: Account of assistance or tool use required by the task. / source verification: Checking that a cited source exists and supports the use made of it. / fabricated reference: Citation identifying a source that is not genuine as represented. / citation discrepancy: Mismatch or problem in reference details. / process evidence: Material relevant to how work was developed. / draft sequence: Ordered versions showing development of a document. / unauthorized collaboration: Cooperation not allowed by the stated task rules. / similarity report: Tool output indicating textual matches for review. / allegation: Assertion of a possible violation not itself a finding. / finding: Determination reached through the relevant review process. / procedural fairness: Appropriate and fair handling under the relevant process. / opportunity to respond: Chance to address a concern through the stated process. / referral for review: Routing a concern to the designated process or authority. / educational consequence: Learning-related outcome or requirement under the applicable decision. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected exchange and distinguish the permitted brainstorming rule from the source-verification issue. Switch roles and state the concern, response opportunity, and unresolved status without inventing intent or a penalty. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Amir: Student / Professor Park: Instructor Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: A tool report flags a passage for review. The instructor has not checked the source or completed the institutional process. No finding exists. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Amir: Thank you. I do not want my explanation summarized as admitting things I have not said or that have not been established. Professor Park: I will record your account accurately and maintain procedural fairness under the institution's process. Amir: For now, I will preserve the existing materials and respond to the identified question about the source and its use. Professor Park: That is the next step. Any finding or authorized consequence must be communicated as an actual outcome, not implied in advance by this inquiry. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 07 · Discussing an academic-integrity concern fairly | Rehearse with an AI colleague START PROMPT TASK: Interactive workplace role-play 1. Use the supplied case or dialogue as the starting situation. Give a two-sentence briefing and offer two relevant professional roles for me to choose from. For a supplied dialogue, use its actual roles. Ask which role I want, then stop and wait. Do not write my replies. 2. After I choose, identify who you will play and the immediate communication goal. Play the other professional; where a meeting requires a third person, label each of your speakers clearly. Start with one natural workplace turn and wait for my reply. Keep most turns to one to three sentences and ask no more than one question at a time. 3. Let the exchange develop across six to ten learner turns, or end earlier if I type "feedback". Respond to what I actually say. Include a plausible clarification, disagreement or tradeoff without silently changing the starting facts. Mark any added constraint as a fictional second-round variation. Do not resolve approvals, evidence or commitments that remain uncertain. 4. Stay in role during the exchange. If my meaning is unclear, ask for clarification naturally. Give a hint only if I ask or cannot proceed. Do not deliver a model conversation in advance. 5. At the debrief, quote two of my phrases: one successful choice and one worth improving. Check factual accuracy, language, register and whether the next step was clear. Give up to three focused suggestions. Ask me to retry the weakest turn; wait. Only then offer an alternative wording and a harder replay. Use voice replies when available. If I prefer selections, offer four plausible spoken replies and explain my choice before continuing. Do not require written compositions. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 07: Discussing an academic-integrity concern fairly Original fictional case: A fictional assignment permits AI-assisted brainstorming if disclosed but requires the submitted analysis to be the student's own work. Professor Park cannot locate a cited article and finds that its journal details do not match the supplied reference. Student Amir says he used a tool for an outline and believed the suggested reference was real. No integrity finding or penalty has been determined; the actual institutional review process applies. Language workshop: A missing source needs a factual explanation Communication goal: State a specific concern, explain the applicable course rule, and separate an inquiry from a finding. Language guidance: The source discrepancy is a fact to investigate. It does not establish the complete history of tool use, intent, or a formal violation by itself. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): I could not locate this article, and the journal details do not match. / Please explain where the reference came from. / The assignment permits disclosed brainstorming, not generated final analysis. / A tool suggestion still needs source verification. / This meeting does not predetermine a finding. / You will have the opportunity to respond through the stated process. / Keep the relevant existing drafts and source information intact. / I will explain the applicable review route and what happens next. / Your message says there is a concern about my reference list. / I am worried that you have already decided I cheated. / I want to explain a specific citation discrepancy and hear your account through the appropriate process. / I used a tool to help outline the topic and thought the suggested article was real. / I could not locate that article, and the journal details do not match. / It needs source verification rather than an assumption based on a plausible-looking citation. / The assignment allowed brainstorming, so I understood that I could ask for possible topics and an outline. / It allowed that permitted assistance with disclosure. Vocabulary: academic integrity: Honest and responsible participation in academic work. / permitted assistance: Help allowed under the stated assignment rules. / authorship: Responsibility for producing the submitted work. / attribution: Identification of the source of ideas, wording, or assistance. / disclosure statement: Account of assistance or tool use required by the task. / source verification: Checking that a cited source exists and supports the use made of it. / fabricated reference: Citation identifying a source that is not genuine as represented. / citation discrepancy: Mismatch or problem in reference details. / process evidence: Material relevant to how work was developed. / draft sequence: Ordered versions showing development of a document. / unauthorized collaboration: Cooperation not allowed by the stated task rules. / similarity report: Tool output indicating textual matches for review. / allegation: Assertion of a possible violation not itself a finding. / finding: Determination reached through the relevant review process. / procedural fairness: Appropriate and fair handling under the relevant process. / opportunity to respond: Chance to address a concern through the stated process. / referral for review: Routing a concern to the designated process or authority. / educational consequence: Learning-related outcome or requirement under the applicable decision. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected exchange and distinguish the permitted brainstorming rule from the source-verification issue. Switch roles and state the concern, response opportunity, and unresolved status without inventing intent or a penalty. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Amir: Student / Professor Park: Instructor Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: A tool report flags a passage for review. The instructor has not checked the source or completed the institutional process. No finding exists. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Amir: Thank you. I do not want my explanation summarized as admitting things I have not said or that have not been established. Professor Park: I will record your account accurately and maintain procedural fairness under the institution's process. Amir: For now, I will preserve the existing materials and respond to the identified question about the source and its use. Professor Park: That is the next step. Any finding or authorized consequence must be communicated as an actual outcome, not implied in advance by this inquiry. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 07 · Discussing an academic-integrity concern fairly | Create more scenario dialogues START PROMPT TASK: Extend the conversation library 1. Propose six distinct, common scenarios in this field beyond the supplied case or script. For each, name the setting, two or more professional roles, the communication problem and one useful terminology focus. Include routine coordination, clarification, a complication, disagreement, handoff and follow-up where relevant. Choose scenarios that fit this profession, rather than forcing unsuitable situations into it. 2. Ask me to choose one scenario, or request all six in sequence. Stop and wait. Do not write all the scripts before I choose. 3. For the selected scenario, write an original fictional dialogue of 12-18 substantial speaking turns between two or three professionals. Name each role, establish an actual work problem, and let the exchange progress through questions, clarification, competing constraints and a credible next step or explicitly unresolved issue. Use the occupation's natural nomenclature and register. Avoid an interview between a teacher and a learner, generic small talk, and inserting a glossary definition into every reply. Explain specialist terms outside the dialogue instead. 4. After the script, explain five useful expressions in context and identify two grammar or register choices. Give three four-choice questions about the speakers' reasoning, with exactly one answer supported by the dialogue. Wait for my selections, then explain why each answer fits and why its alternatives fail. Add a role-switch reading using the supplied script; do not ask for an essay or invented written reply. 5. Before presenting a script, check names, numbers, chronology, roles and terminology for consistency. Label invented facts and acknowledge uncertain specialist usage. If I requested all six, deliver one complete script at a time and wait for "next". Make each scenario materially different. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 07: Discussing an academic-integrity concern fairly Original fictional case: A fictional assignment permits AI-assisted brainstorming if disclosed but requires the submitted analysis to be the student's own work. Professor Park cannot locate a cited article and finds that its journal details do not match the supplied reference. Student Amir says he used a tool for an outline and believed the suggested reference was real. No integrity finding or penalty has been determined; the actual institutional review process applies. Language workshop: A missing source needs a factual explanation Communication goal: State a specific concern, explain the applicable course rule, and separate an inquiry from a finding. Language guidance: The source discrepancy is a fact to investigate. It does not establish the complete history of tool use, intent, or a formal violation by itself. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): I could not locate this article, and the journal details do not match. / Please explain where the reference came from. / The assignment permits disclosed brainstorming, not generated final analysis. / A tool suggestion still needs source verification. / This meeting does not predetermine a finding. / You will have the opportunity to respond through the stated process. / Keep the relevant existing drafts and source information intact. / I will explain the applicable review route and what happens next. / Your message says there is a concern about my reference list. / I am worried that you have already decided I cheated. / I want to explain a specific citation discrepancy and hear your account through the appropriate process. / I used a tool to help outline the topic and thought the suggested article was real. / I could not locate that article, and the journal details do not match. / It needs source verification rather than an assumption based on a plausible-looking citation. / The assignment allowed brainstorming, so I understood that I could ask for possible topics and an outline. / It allowed that permitted assistance with disclosure. Vocabulary: academic integrity: Honest and responsible participation in academic work. / permitted assistance: Help allowed under the stated assignment rules. / authorship: Responsibility for producing the submitted work. / attribution: Identification of the source of ideas, wording, or assistance. / disclosure statement: Account of assistance or tool use required by the task. / source verification: Checking that a cited source exists and supports the use made of it. / fabricated reference: Citation identifying a source that is not genuine as represented. / citation discrepancy: Mismatch or problem in reference details. / process evidence: Material relevant to how work was developed. / draft sequence: Ordered versions showing development of a document. / unauthorized collaboration: Cooperation not allowed by the stated task rules. / similarity report: Tool output indicating textual matches for review. / allegation: Assertion of a possible violation not itself a finding. / finding: Determination reached through the relevant review process. / procedural fairness: Appropriate and fair handling under the relevant process. / opportunity to respond: Chance to address a concern through the stated process. / referral for review: Routing a concern to the designated process or authority. / educational consequence: Learning-related outcome or requirement under the applicable decision. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected exchange and distinguish the permitted brainstorming rule from the source-verification issue. Switch roles and state the concern, response opportunity, and unresolved status without inventing intent or a penalty. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Amir: Student / Professor Park: Instructor Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: A tool report flags a passage for review. The instructor has not checked the source or completed the institutional process. No finding exists. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Amir: Thank you. I do not want my explanation summarized as admitting things I have not said or that have not been established. Professor Park: I will record your account accurately and maintain procedural fairness under the institution's process. Amir: For now, I will preserve the existing materials and respond to the identified question about the source and its use. Professor Park: That is the next step. Any finding or authorized consequence must be communicated as an actual outcome, not implied in advance by this inquiry. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 08 · Making a faculty curriculum decision traceable | Build vocabulary and collocations START PROMPT TASK: Retrieve occupational vocabulary 1. Select four terms from the reference. Explain each in plain English, give two natural collocations and quote or create a short workplace example. Label invented examples. Contrast each term with a plausible confusable term; acknowledge regional variation. 2. Present one role-labelled exchange with one missing word or phrase and four choices A-D. Exactly one choice must fit the stated facts and grammar. Stop and wait for my answer before revealing it. 3. Explain all four options, then invite me to read the completed exchange aloud. Offer a sentence frame for optional spoken practice, never an open-ended writing assignment. 4. Repeat for the other three terms, one question at a time. Vary the correct letter and the situation; preserve the reference facts. If a choice is ambiguous, replace the item. 5. Finish with two new four-choice collocation questions for later review, with a clearly separate answer key. Do not claim to schedule a reminder. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 08: Making a faculty curriculum decision traceable Original fictional case: A fictional department committee discusses increasing a seminar enrollment cap from 20 to 30. Professor Grant supports access; Professor Silva asks about feedback workload and room capacity. A motion is amended to recommend a one-term pilot only if staffing and a suitable room are confirmed. The committee votes for that recommendation. Under the supplied local process, a separate faculty board must approve implementation; that approval has not occurred. Language workshop: A recommendation is not implementation approval Communication goal: Clarify a proposal, test resource assumptions, and summarize the actual committee decision. Language guidance: The committee recommended a conditional pilot. It did not provide the separate implementation approval required by the supplied local process. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): I support wider access, but the staffing assumption is unresolved. / The pilot depends on confirmed teaching support and a suitable room. / Are we recommending a pilot or authorizing immediate implementation? / The faculty board must approve implementation under this process. / Which condition would need to change for you to support the proposal? / The recommendation is limited to one term. / The committee vote does not complete the board approval. / Verify the resources, submit the recommendation, and await the actual decision. / I support raising the seminar cap from twenty to thirty. / More students want access, and the current limit leaves some out. / Before we settle the curriculum proposal, we need to examine the teaching and room assumptions. / My concern is that resource questions will delay the idea indefinitely, even though the demand is already visible. / The feedback workload increases with enrollment, and the current staffing plan has not addressed that increase. / We could recommend a limited trial rather than a permanent change, provided the teaching support is confirmed. / We should state the duration and conditions clearly instead of leaving them in informal discussion. / I propose one term, subject to confirmed staffing and a room suitable for thirty participants. Vocabulary: curriculum proposal: Suggested change to a program or course structure. / enrollment cap: Maximum permitted enrollment under the stated arrangement. / teaching allocation: Assignment of teaching responsibilities or resources. / contact hours: Scheduled instructional time with students. / feedback workload: Time and effort required to respond to student work. / resource assumption: Premise about available staffing, space, or support. / committee motion: Formal proposal presented for a committee decision. / motion amendment: Proposed change to the motion under discussion. / quorum: Required participation for valid business under the applicable rules. / abstention: Decision not to cast a vote for or against. / meeting minutes: Formal record of discussion and decisions. / decision authority: Person or body empowered to make the relevant decision. / conditional recommendation: Recommendation dependent on specified unresolved conditions. / pilot offering: Limited trial delivery before a broader decision. / implementation approval: Authorization to put a proposal into operation. / course capacity: Ability to deliver a course for the proposed enrollment. / review checkpoint: Defined stage for evaluating progress or results. / dissenting view: Position disagreeing with the proposal or majority. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected meeting exchange and stress recommend, conditional, and approval pending. Switch roles and deliver the minute entry using the supplied cap, duration, conditions, and decision authority. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Professor Grant: Committee member / Professor Silva: Committee chair Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: The committee recommendation has been sent to the faculty board. The board has not yet decided. Staffing and room confirmation remain conditions of the proposal. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Professor Grant: We can submit the recommendation after identifying the responsible contacts for those checks, without announcing a completed launch. Professor Silva: Yes. Implementation approval remains pending until the faculty board actually makes that decision. Professor Grant: If the pilot is approved, we should specify when the department evaluates workload and student participation. Professor Silva: Include a review checkpoint in the proposal, so a limited trial does not quietly become a permanent change without the appropriate review. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 08 · Making a faculty curriculum decision traceable | Practice grammar in context START PROMPT TASK: Choose grammar that preserves the meaning 1. Use the lesson's language workshop, or one actual sentence from the dialogue, to explain a single grammar distinction in no more than 90 words. Show how it affects timing, certainty, responsibility or politeness. 2. Give one brief occupational exchange containing a gap and four complete options A-D. Supply enough context for exactly one answer. Keep distractors plausible; distinguish grammar errors from wording that changes the facts. Stop and wait. 3. Explain why each choice fits or fails, then ask me to read the completed exchange aloud. Do not request a draft, original written sentence or essay. 4. Repeat with three new exchanges, one at a time, moving from recognition to a more subtle meaning contrast. Do not copy the published checks. Label invented variations and do not turn uncertainty into a promise. 5. End with a short contrast table and two supported spoken turns using supplied frames. Accept accurate alternatives in oral practice; acknowledge and replace ambiguous multiple-choice items. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 08: Making a faculty curriculum decision traceable Original fictional case: A fictional department committee discusses increasing a seminar enrollment cap from 20 to 30. Professor Grant supports access; Professor Silva asks about feedback workload and room capacity. A motion is amended to recommend a one-term pilot only if staffing and a suitable room are confirmed. The committee votes for that recommendation. Under the supplied local process, a separate faculty board must approve implementation; that approval has not occurred. Language workshop: A recommendation is not implementation approval Communication goal: Clarify a proposal, test resource assumptions, and summarize the actual committee decision. Language guidance: The committee recommended a conditional pilot. It did not provide the separate implementation approval required by the supplied local process. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): I support wider access, but the staffing assumption is unresolved. / The pilot depends on confirmed teaching support and a suitable room. / Are we recommending a pilot or authorizing immediate implementation? / The faculty board must approve implementation under this process. / Which condition would need to change for you to support the proposal? / The recommendation is limited to one term. / The committee vote does not complete the board approval. / Verify the resources, submit the recommendation, and await the actual decision. / I support raising the seminar cap from twenty to thirty. / More students want access, and the current limit leaves some out. / Before we settle the curriculum proposal, we need to examine the teaching and room assumptions. / My concern is that resource questions will delay the idea indefinitely, even though the demand is already visible. / The feedback workload increases with enrollment, and the current staffing plan has not addressed that increase. / We could recommend a limited trial rather than a permanent change, provided the teaching support is confirmed. / We should state the duration and conditions clearly instead of leaving them in informal discussion. / I propose one term, subject to confirmed staffing and a room suitable for thirty participants. Vocabulary: curriculum proposal: Suggested change to a program or course structure. / enrollment cap: Maximum permitted enrollment under the stated arrangement. / teaching allocation: Assignment of teaching responsibilities or resources. / contact hours: Scheduled instructional time with students. / feedback workload: Time and effort required to respond to student work. / resource assumption: Premise about available staffing, space, or support. / committee motion: Formal proposal presented for a committee decision. / motion amendment: Proposed change to the motion under discussion. / quorum: Required participation for valid business under the applicable rules. / abstention: Decision not to cast a vote for or against. / meeting minutes: Formal record of discussion and decisions. / decision authority: Person or body empowered to make the relevant decision. / conditional recommendation: Recommendation dependent on specified unresolved conditions. / pilot offering: Limited trial delivery before a broader decision. / implementation approval: Authorization to put a proposal into operation. / course capacity: Ability to deliver a course for the proposed enrollment. / review checkpoint: Defined stage for evaluating progress or results. / dissenting view: Position disagreeing with the proposal or majority. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected meeting exchange and stress recommend, conditional, and approval pending. Switch roles and deliver the minute entry using the supplied cap, duration, conditions, and decision authority. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Professor Grant: Committee member / Professor Silva: Committee chair Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: The committee recommendation has been sent to the faculty board. The board has not yet decided. Staffing and room confirmation remain conditions of the proposal. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Professor Grant: We can submit the recommendation after identifying the responsible contacts for those checks, without announcing a completed launch. Professor Silva: Yes. Implementation approval remains pending until the faculty board actually makes that decision. Professor Grant: If the pilot is approved, we should specify when the department evaluates workload and student participation. Professor Silva: Include a review checkpoint in the proposal, so a limited trial does not quietly become a permanent change without the appropriate review. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 08 · Making a faculty curriculum decision traceable | Rehearse with an AI colleague START PROMPT TASK: Interactive workplace role-play 1. Use the supplied case or dialogue as the starting situation. Give a two-sentence briefing and offer two relevant professional roles for me to choose from. For a supplied dialogue, use its actual roles. Ask which role I want, then stop and wait. Do not write my replies. 2. After I choose, identify who you will play and the immediate communication goal. Play the other professional; where a meeting requires a third person, label each of your speakers clearly. Start with one natural workplace turn and wait for my reply. Keep most turns to one to three sentences and ask no more than one question at a time. 3. Let the exchange develop across six to ten learner turns, or end earlier if I type "feedback". Respond to what I actually say. Include a plausible clarification, disagreement or tradeoff without silently changing the starting facts. Mark any added constraint as a fictional second-round variation. Do not resolve approvals, evidence or commitments that remain uncertain. 4. Stay in role during the exchange. If my meaning is unclear, ask for clarification naturally. Give a hint only if I ask or cannot proceed. Do not deliver a model conversation in advance. 5. At the debrief, quote two of my phrases: one successful choice and one worth improving. Check factual accuracy, language, register and whether the next step was clear. Give up to three focused suggestions. Ask me to retry the weakest turn; wait. Only then offer an alternative wording and a harder replay. Use voice replies when available. If I prefer selections, offer four plausible spoken replies and explain my choice before continuing. Do not require written compositions. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 08: Making a faculty curriculum decision traceable Original fictional case: A fictional department committee discusses increasing a seminar enrollment cap from 20 to 30. Professor Grant supports access; Professor Silva asks about feedback workload and room capacity. A motion is amended to recommend a one-term pilot only if staffing and a suitable room are confirmed. The committee votes for that recommendation. Under the supplied local process, a separate faculty board must approve implementation; that approval has not occurred. Language workshop: A recommendation is not implementation approval Communication goal: Clarify a proposal, test resource assumptions, and summarize the actual committee decision. Language guidance: The committee recommended a conditional pilot. It did not provide the separate implementation approval required by the supplied local process. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): I support wider access, but the staffing assumption is unresolved. / The pilot depends on confirmed teaching support and a suitable room. / Are we recommending a pilot or authorizing immediate implementation? / The faculty board must approve implementation under this process. / Which condition would need to change for you to support the proposal? / The recommendation is limited to one term. / The committee vote does not complete the board approval. / Verify the resources, submit the recommendation, and await the actual decision. / I support raising the seminar cap from twenty to thirty. / More students want access, and the current limit leaves some out. / Before we settle the curriculum proposal, we need to examine the teaching and room assumptions. / My concern is that resource questions will delay the idea indefinitely, even though the demand is already visible. / The feedback workload increases with enrollment, and the current staffing plan has not addressed that increase. / We could recommend a limited trial rather than a permanent change, provided the teaching support is confirmed. / We should state the duration and conditions clearly instead of leaving them in informal discussion. / I propose one term, subject to confirmed staffing and a room suitable for thirty participants. Vocabulary: curriculum proposal: Suggested change to a program or course structure. / enrollment cap: Maximum permitted enrollment under the stated arrangement. / teaching allocation: Assignment of teaching responsibilities or resources. / contact hours: Scheduled instructional time with students. / feedback workload: Time and effort required to respond to student work. / resource assumption: Premise about available staffing, space, or support. / committee motion: Formal proposal presented for a committee decision. / motion amendment: Proposed change to the motion under discussion. / quorum: Required participation for valid business under the applicable rules. / abstention: Decision not to cast a vote for or against. / meeting minutes: Formal record of discussion and decisions. / decision authority: Person or body empowered to make the relevant decision. / conditional recommendation: Recommendation dependent on specified unresolved conditions. / pilot offering: Limited trial delivery before a broader decision. / implementation approval: Authorization to put a proposal into operation. / course capacity: Ability to deliver a course for the proposed enrollment. / review checkpoint: Defined stage for evaluating progress or results. / dissenting view: Position disagreeing with the proposal or majority. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected meeting exchange and stress recommend, conditional, and approval pending. Switch roles and deliver the minute entry using the supplied cap, duration, conditions, and decision authority. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Professor Grant: Committee member / Professor Silva: Committee chair Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: The committee recommendation has been sent to the faculty board. The board has not yet decided. Staffing and room confirmation remain conditions of the proposal. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Professor Grant: We can submit the recommendation after identifying the responsible contacts for those checks, without announcing a completed launch. Professor Silva: Yes. Implementation approval remains pending until the faculty board actually makes that decision. Professor Grant: If the pilot is approved, we should specify when the department evaluates workload and student participation. Professor Silva: Include a review checkpoint in the proposal, so a limited trial does not quietly become a permanent change without the appropriate review. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Lesson 08 · Making a faculty curriculum decision traceable | Create more scenario dialogues START PROMPT TASK: Extend the conversation library 1. Propose six distinct, common scenarios in this field beyond the supplied case or script. For each, name the setting, two or more professional roles, the communication problem and one useful terminology focus. Include routine coordination, clarification, a complication, disagreement, handoff and follow-up where relevant. Choose scenarios that fit this profession, rather than forcing unsuitable situations into it. 2. Ask me to choose one scenario, or request all six in sequence. Stop and wait. Do not write all the scripts before I choose. 3. For the selected scenario, write an original fictional dialogue of 12-18 substantial speaking turns between two or three professionals. Name each role, establish an actual work problem, and let the exchange progress through questions, clarification, competing constraints and a credible next step or explicitly unresolved issue. Use the occupation's natural nomenclature and register. Avoid an interview between a teacher and a learner, generic small talk, and inserting a glossary definition into every reply. Explain specialist terms outside the dialogue instead. 4. After the script, explain five useful expressions in context and identify two grammar or register choices. Give three four-choice questions about the speakers' reasoning, with exactly one answer supported by the dialogue. Wait for my selections, then explain why each answer fits and why its alternatives fail. Add a role-switch reading using the supplied script; do not ask for an essay or invented written reply. 5. Before presenting a script, check names, numbers, chronology, roles and terminology for consistency. Label invented facts and acknowledge uncertain specialist usage. If I requested all six, deliver one complete script at a time and wait for "next". Make each scenario materially different. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Lesson 08: Making a faculty curriculum decision traceable Original fictional case: A fictional department committee discusses increasing a seminar enrollment cap from 20 to 30. Professor Grant supports access; Professor Silva asks about feedback workload and room capacity. A motion is amended to recommend a one-term pilot only if staffing and a suitable room are confirmed. The committee votes for that recommendation. Under the supplied local process, a separate faculty board must approve implementation; that approval has not occurred. Language workshop: A recommendation is not implementation approval Communication goal: Clarify a proposal, test resource assumptions, and summarize the actual committee decision. Language guidance: The committee recommended a conditional pilot. It did not provide the separate implementation approval required by the supplied local process. Useful expressions (preserve the supplied facts): I support wider access, but the staffing assumption is unresolved. / The pilot depends on confirmed teaching support and a suitable room. / Are we recommending a pilot or authorizing immediate implementation? / The faculty board must approve implementation under this process. / Which condition would need to change for you to support the proposal? / The recommendation is limited to one term. / The committee vote does not complete the board approval. / Verify the resources, submit the recommendation, and await the actual decision. / I support raising the seminar cap from twenty to thirty. / More students want access, and the current limit leaves some out. / Before we settle the curriculum proposal, we need to examine the teaching and room assumptions. / My concern is that resource questions will delay the idea indefinitely, even though the demand is already visible. / The feedback workload increases with enrollment, and the current staffing plan has not addressed that increase. / We could recommend a limited trial rather than a permanent change, provided the teaching support is confirmed. / We should state the duration and conditions clearly instead of leaving them in informal discussion. / I propose one term, subject to confirmed staffing and a room suitable for thirty participants. Vocabulary: curriculum proposal: Suggested change to a program or course structure. / enrollment cap: Maximum permitted enrollment under the stated arrangement. / teaching allocation: Assignment of teaching responsibilities or resources. / contact hours: Scheduled instructional time with students. / feedback workload: Time and effort required to respond to student work. / resource assumption: Premise about available staffing, space, or support. / committee motion: Formal proposal presented for a committee decision. / motion amendment: Proposed change to the motion under discussion. / quorum: Required participation for valid business under the applicable rules. / abstention: Decision not to cast a vote for or against. / meeting minutes: Formal record of discussion and decisions. / decision authority: Person or body empowered to make the relevant decision. / conditional recommendation: Recommendation dependent on specified unresolved conditions. / pilot offering: Limited trial delivery before a broader decision. / implementation approval: Authorization to put a proposal into operation. / course capacity: Ability to deliver a course for the proposed enrollment. / review checkpoint: Defined stage for evaluating progress or results. / dissenting view: Position disagreeing with the proposal or majority. / clarification request: Question that resolves an unclear meaning or instruction. / source attribution: Identification of where information came from. / working assumption: Provisional premise used while information is incomplete. / scope boundary: Limit of the work or authority being discussed. / action owner: Named person responsible for a specified next step. / check-back: Restatement used to verify that a message was understood. Speaking task: Read the corrected meeting exchange and stress recommend, conditional, and approval pending. Switch roles and deliver the minute entry using the supplied cap, duration, conditions, and decision authority. Complete the four-line follow-up with the supplied choices. Check the explanations, then read the corrected exchange twice, changing roles. Partner: Professor Grant: Committee member / Professor Silva: Committee chair Guided response task: Select supplied answers for the dialogue gaps. Check the explanations, then read the completed exchange aloud; no original writing is required. Optional second-round challenge: The committee recommendation has been sent to the faculty board. The board has not yet decided. Staffing and room confirmation remain conditions of the proposal. Model for comparison AFTER my attempt, not a response to give me first: Professor Grant: We can submit the recommendation after identifying the responsible contacts for those checks, without announcing a completed launch. Professor Silva: Yes. Implementation approval remains pending until the faculty board actually makes that decision. Professor Grant: If the pilot is approved, we should specify when the department evaluates workload and student participation. Professor Silva: Include a review checkpoint in the proposal, so a limited trial does not quietly become a permanent change without the appropriate review. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Dialogue 01 · Compare does not mean summarize twice | Rehearse with an AI colleague START PROMPT TASK: Interactive workplace role-play 1. Use the supplied case or dialogue as the starting situation. Give a two-sentence briefing and offer two relevant professional roles for me to choose from. For a supplied dialogue, use its actual roles. Ask which role I want, then stop and wait. Do not write my replies. 2. After I choose, identify who you will play and the immediate communication goal. Play the other professional; where a meeting requires a third person, label each of your speakers clearly. Start with one natural workplace turn and wait for my reply. Keep most turns to one to three sentences and ask no more than one question at a time. 3. Let the exchange develop across six to ten learner turns, or end earlier if I type "feedback". Respond to what I actually say. Include a plausible clarification, disagreement or tradeoff without silently changing the starting facts. Mark any added constraint as a fictional second-round variation. Do not resolve approvals, evidence or commitments that remain uncertain. 4. Stay in role during the exchange. If my meaning is unclear, ask for clarification naturally. Give a hint only if I ask or cannot proceed. Do not deliver a model conversation in advance. 5. At the debrief, quote two of my phrases: one successful choice and one worth improving. Check factual accuracy, language, register and whether the next step was clear. Give up to three focused suggestions. Ask me to retry the weakest turn; wait. Only then offer an alternative wording and a harder replay. Use voice replies when available. If I prefer selections, offer four plausible spoken replies and explain my choice before continuing. Do not require written compositions. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Dialogue 01: Compare does not mean summarize twice Original fictional setting: Professor Chen assigns a 600-word comparison of two supplied articles. Students must identify one shared question, explain one difference in the authors' reasoning, and support that comparison with a passage from each article. Outside sources are not required. A formative outline is due Friday; the graded submission is due the following Tuesday. Student Maya has planned two separate summaries. Professional roles: Maya / Professor Chen Published dialogue (reference script, not my own performance): Maya: I have planned three hundred words on each article. Is that enough to meet the requirement to compare them? Professor Chen: Two summaries may not yet give us a comparison. What shared question do the authors address, and where does their reasoning differ? Maya: Both ask why commuters change routes, but one emphasizes travel time while the other emphasizes reliable arrival. Professor Chen: That gives you a focused analytical claim. Now show the passages that support that difference rather than adding a general opinion about transport. Maya: I marked a paragraph on average journey time in the first article and one on variation in the second. Professor Chen: Those may provide the textual evidence. Explain how each passage supports your comparison instead of placing two quotations side by side without analysis. Maya: I was about to search for five more articles because the task sounded too short to count as university work. Professor Chen: The assignment brief asks you to work closely with the two supplied texts. Outside sources are not required here. Maya: Then the challenge is the quality of the connection, not the number of sources I can add to the bibliography. Professor Chen: Exactly. The relevant assessment criterion is how clearly your evidence supports the reasoning difference you identify. Maya: I also see two dates. Is Friday the final deadline, or do we submit something different on Tuesday? Professor Chen: Friday is the formative assessment stage: an outline that lets us address the comparison before the graded submission on Tuesday. Maya: I can use the outline feedback to check whether I have actually connected the articles rather than simply shortened each one. Professor Chen: Yes. That is the purpose of the scaffolding, while the final work still needs to demonstrate your own understanding of the texts. Maya: Does the six-hundred-word requirement mean I should give equal space to every paragraph of each article? Professor Chen: No. The word limit makes selection important. Keep the shared question, the difference, and the evidence central. Maya: I will organize the outline around that contrast and use the two passages to explain why the distinction matters. Professor Chen: That matches the learning outcome for this assignment: making a supported comparison rather than recalling each article separately. Maya: Other students may have read compare the same way I did. Could the course page include this clarification? Professor Chen: I will post a clarification announcement so everyone has the same instructions, without adding a new requirement or changing the published submission details. Vocabulary in this exchange: learning outcome: Stated capability students should demonstrate through learning. / assignment brief: Instructions defining a particular assessed or practice task. / comparison: Analysis identifying meaningful similarities or differences. / analytical claim: Statement offering an interpretation supported by reasoning and evidence. / textual evidence: Passage or feature of a text supporting an interpretation. / assessment criterion: Standard used to judge a feature of student work. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Dialogue 01 · Compare does not mean summarize twice | Create more scenario dialogues START PROMPT TASK: Extend the conversation library 1. Propose six distinct, common scenarios in this field beyond the supplied case or script. For each, name the setting, two or more professional roles, the communication problem and one useful terminology focus. Include routine coordination, clarification, a complication, disagreement, handoff and follow-up where relevant. Choose scenarios that fit this profession, rather than forcing unsuitable situations into it. 2. Ask me to choose one scenario, or request all six in sequence. Stop and wait. Do not write all the scripts before I choose. 3. For the selected scenario, write an original fictional dialogue of 12-18 substantial speaking turns between two or three professionals. Name each role, establish an actual work problem, and let the exchange progress through questions, clarification, competing constraints and a credible next step or explicitly unresolved issue. Use the occupation's natural nomenclature and register. Avoid an interview between a teacher and a learner, generic small talk, and inserting a glossary definition into every reply. Explain specialist terms outside the dialogue instead. 4. After the script, explain five useful expressions in context and identify two grammar or register choices. Give three four-choice questions about the speakers' reasoning, with exactly one answer supported by the dialogue. Wait for my selections, then explain why each answer fits and why its alternatives fail. Add a role-switch reading using the supplied script; do not ask for an essay or invented written reply. 5. Before presenting a script, check names, numbers, chronology, roles and terminology for consistency. Label invented facts and acknowledge uncertain specialist usage. If I requested all six, deliver one complete script at a time and wait for "next". Make each scenario materially different. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Dialogue 01: Compare does not mean summarize twice Original fictional setting: Professor Chen assigns a 600-word comparison of two supplied articles. Students must identify one shared question, explain one difference in the authors' reasoning, and support that comparison with a passage from each article. Outside sources are not required. A formative outline is due Friday; the graded submission is due the following Tuesday. Student Maya has planned two separate summaries. Professional roles: Maya / Professor Chen Published dialogue (reference script, not my own performance): Maya: I have planned three hundred words on each article. Is that enough to meet the requirement to compare them? Professor Chen: Two summaries may not yet give us a comparison. What shared question do the authors address, and where does their reasoning differ? Maya: Both ask why commuters change routes, but one emphasizes travel time while the other emphasizes reliable arrival. Professor Chen: That gives you a focused analytical claim. Now show the passages that support that difference rather than adding a general opinion about transport. Maya: I marked a paragraph on average journey time in the first article and one on variation in the second. Professor Chen: Those may provide the textual evidence. Explain how each passage supports your comparison instead of placing two quotations side by side without analysis. Maya: I was about to search for five more articles because the task sounded too short to count as university work. Professor Chen: The assignment brief asks you to work closely with the two supplied texts. Outside sources are not required here. Maya: Then the challenge is the quality of the connection, not the number of sources I can add to the bibliography. Professor Chen: Exactly. The relevant assessment criterion is how clearly your evidence supports the reasoning difference you identify. Maya: I also see two dates. Is Friday the final deadline, or do we submit something different on Tuesday? Professor Chen: Friday is the formative assessment stage: an outline that lets us address the comparison before the graded submission on Tuesday. Maya: I can use the outline feedback to check whether I have actually connected the articles rather than simply shortened each one. Professor Chen: Yes. That is the purpose of the scaffolding, while the final work still needs to demonstrate your own understanding of the texts. Maya: Does the six-hundred-word requirement mean I should give equal space to every paragraph of each article? Professor Chen: No. The word limit makes selection important. Keep the shared question, the difference, and the evidence central. Maya: I will organize the outline around that contrast and use the two passages to explain why the distinction matters. Professor Chen: That matches the learning outcome for this assignment: making a supported comparison rather than recalling each article separately. Maya: Other students may have read compare the same way I did. Could the course page include this clarification? Professor Chen: I will post a clarification announcement so everyone has the same instructions, without adding a new requirement or changing the published submission details. Vocabulary in this exchange: learning outcome: Stated capability students should demonstrate through learning. / assignment brief: Instructions defining a particular assessed or practice task. / comparison: Analysis identifying meaningful similarities or differences. / analytical claim: Statement offering an interpretation supported by reasoning and evidence. / textual evidence: Passage or feature of a text supporting an interpretation. / assessment criterion: Standard used to judge a feature of student work. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Dialogue 02 · Challenge the causal claim, not the speaker | Rehearse with an AI colleague START PROMPT TASK: Interactive workplace role-play 1. Use the supplied case or dialogue as the starting situation. Give a two-sentence briefing and offer two relevant professional roles for me to choose from. For a supplied dialogue, use its actual roles. Ask which role I want, then stop and wait. Do not write my replies. 2. After I choose, identify who you will play and the immediate communication goal. Play the other professional; where a meeting requires a third person, label each of your speakers clearly. Start with one natural workplace turn and wait for my reply. Keep most turns to one to three sentences and ask no more than one question at a time. 3. Let the exchange develop across six to ten learner turns, or end earlier if I type "feedback". Respond to what I actually say. Include a plausible clarification, disagreement or tradeoff without silently changing the starting facts. Mark any added constraint as a fictional second-round variation. Do not resolve approvals, evidence or commitments that remain uncertain. 4. Stay in role during the exchange. If my meaning is unclear, ask for clarification naturally. Give a hint only if I ask or cannot proceed. Do not deliver a model conversation in advance. 5. At the debrief, quote two of my phrases: one successful choice and one worth improving. Check factual accuracy, language, register and whether the next step was clear. Give up to three focused suggestions. Ask me to retry the weakest turn; wait. Only then offer an alternative wording and a harder replay. Use voice replies when available. If I prefer selections, offer four plausible spoken replies and explain my choice before continuing. Do not require written compositions. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Dialogue 02: Challenge the causal claim, not the speaker Original fictional setting: In a seminar, student Leo says a campus survey proves that using the library causes higher grades because frequent library users report higher grades. The survey records an association and supplies no causal design. Professor Okafor asks Leo to distinguish the observation from the inference and acknowledge prior preparation as a possible alternative explanation. No participant has established the actual cause. Professional roles: Leo / Professor Okafor Published dialogue (reference script, not my own performance): Leo: The survey proves that studying in the library improves grades. Frequent users reported higher grades than students who rarely go there. Professor Okafor: Let us examine that causal claim. Does the survey establish a cause, or does it report a relationship? Leo: It reports the relationship. I used proves because the difference seemed strong, but I do not know how students were selected. Professor Okafor: Then start with association. A strong relationship can be worth discussing without settling the causal explanation. Leo: Students who were already well prepared might be more likely to use the library and also receive higher grades. Professor Okafor: That is an alternative explanation to examine. We should not announce it as the answer merely because it is plausible. Leo: So prior preparation might affect our interpretation of the relationship, but we would need relevant evidence to assess it. Professor Okafor: Yes. It could be a confounding variable. Naming a possibility helps define the question rather than resolving it automatically. Leo: I can revise my sentence to say that frequent library use is associated with higher reported grades in this survey. Professor Okafor: That is a qualified conclusion. It keeps the finding while avoiding a causal promise the study design has not supplied. Leo: I worried that changing my wording would make it sound as though my entire contribution was wrong and should be withdrawn. Professor Okafor: Revising an inference is part of rigorous discussion. We are examining the reasoning, not making a judgment about you. Leo: Another student suggested that grades might influence where people choose to study. That is another direction we could investigate. Professor Okafor: Good. Let us use that as a probing question about direction, rather than treating the first plausible story as settled. Leo: Could you restate the distinction once more before we invite the next response? I want to be sure I have it. Professor Okafor: The revoicing is this: the reported grades differ with library use, but the cause of that difference remains unestablished here. Leo: That gives others something specific to challenge. They can question the interpretation without dismissing the people who completed the survey. Professor Okafor: Exactly. Our discussion norm is to challenge claims with reasons and make room for a response. Leo: I will keep the association in my summary and mark the causal explanation as an open question. Professor Okafor: I will include that in the discussion synthesis, then invite another contribution after a short pause so more participants have time to formulate it. Vocabulary in this exchange: summary: Condensed account of the main content of a source. / discussion norm: Shared expectation governing participation. / probing question: Question that examines reasoning or assumptions. / revoicing: Restating a contribution to check or clarify its meaning. / causal claim: Assertion that one factor produces an effect. / association: Observed relationship that does not alone establish causation. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Dialogue 02 · Challenge the causal claim, not the speaker | Create more scenario dialogues START PROMPT TASK: Extend the conversation library 1. Propose six distinct, common scenarios in this field beyond the supplied case or script. For each, name the setting, two or more professional roles, the communication problem and one useful terminology focus. Include routine coordination, clarification, a complication, disagreement, handoff and follow-up where relevant. Choose scenarios that fit this profession, rather than forcing unsuitable situations into it. 2. Ask me to choose one scenario, or request all six in sequence. Stop and wait. Do not write all the scripts before I choose. 3. For the selected scenario, write an original fictional dialogue of 12-18 substantial speaking turns between two or three professionals. Name each role, establish an actual work problem, and let the exchange progress through questions, clarification, competing constraints and a credible next step or explicitly unresolved issue. Use the occupation's natural nomenclature and register. Avoid an interview between a teacher and a learner, generic small talk, and inserting a glossary definition into every reply. Explain specialist terms outside the dialogue instead. 4. After the script, explain five useful expressions in context and identify two grammar or register choices. Give three four-choice questions about the speakers' reasoning, with exactly one answer supported by the dialogue. Wait for my selections, then explain why each answer fits and why its alternatives fail. Add a role-switch reading using the supplied script; do not ask for an essay or invented written reply. 5. Before presenting a script, check names, numbers, chronology, roles and terminology for consistency. Label invented facts and acknowledge uncertain specialist usage. If I requested all six, deliver one complete script at a time and wait for "next". Make each scenario materially different. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Dialogue 02: Challenge the causal claim, not the speaker Original fictional setting: In a seminar, student Leo says a campus survey proves that using the library causes higher grades because frequent library users report higher grades. The survey records an association and supplies no causal design. Professor Okafor asks Leo to distinguish the observation from the inference and acknowledge prior preparation as a possible alternative explanation. No participant has established the actual cause. Professional roles: Leo / Professor Okafor Published dialogue (reference script, not my own performance): Leo: The survey proves that studying in the library improves grades. Frequent users reported higher grades than students who rarely go there. Professor Okafor: Let us examine that causal claim. Does the survey establish a cause, or does it report a relationship? Leo: It reports the relationship. I used proves because the difference seemed strong, but I do not know how students were selected. Professor Okafor: Then start with association. A strong relationship can be worth discussing without settling the causal explanation. Leo: Students who were already well prepared might be more likely to use the library and also receive higher grades. Professor Okafor: That is an alternative explanation to examine. We should not announce it as the answer merely because it is plausible. Leo: So prior preparation might affect our interpretation of the relationship, but we would need relevant evidence to assess it. Professor Okafor: Yes. It could be a confounding variable. Naming a possibility helps define the question rather than resolving it automatically. Leo: I can revise my sentence to say that frequent library use is associated with higher reported grades in this survey. Professor Okafor: That is a qualified conclusion. It keeps the finding while avoiding a causal promise the study design has not supplied. Leo: I worried that changing my wording would make it sound as though my entire contribution was wrong and should be withdrawn. Professor Okafor: Revising an inference is part of rigorous discussion. We are examining the reasoning, not making a judgment about you. Leo: Another student suggested that grades might influence where people choose to study. That is another direction we could investigate. Professor Okafor: Good. Let us use that as a probing question about direction, rather than treating the first plausible story as settled. Leo: Could you restate the distinction once more before we invite the next response? I want to be sure I have it. Professor Okafor: The revoicing is this: the reported grades differ with library use, but the cause of that difference remains unestablished here. Leo: That gives others something specific to challenge. They can question the interpretation without dismissing the people who completed the survey. Professor Okafor: Exactly. Our discussion norm is to challenge claims with reasons and make room for a response. Leo: I will keep the association in my summary and mark the causal explanation as an open question. Professor Okafor: I will include that in the discussion synthesis, then invite another contribution after a short pause so more participants have time to formulate it. Vocabulary in this exchange: summary: Condensed account of the main content of a source. / discussion norm: Shared expectation governing participation. / probing question: Question that examines reasoning or assumptions. / revoicing: Restating a contribution to check or clarify its meaning. / causal claim: Assertion that one factor produces an effect. / association: Observed relationship that does not alone establish causation. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Dialogue 03 · The total is wrong; the criterion still needs discussion | Rehearse with an AI colleague START PROMPT TASK: Interactive workplace role-play 1. Use the supplied case or dialogue as the starting situation. Give a two-sentence briefing and offer two relevant professional roles for me to choose from. For a supplied dialogue, use its actual roles. Ask which role I want, then stop and wait. Do not write my replies. 2. After I choose, identify who you will play and the immediate communication goal. Play the other professional; where a meeting requires a third person, label each of your speakers clearly. Start with one natural workplace turn and wait for my reply. Keep most turns to one to three sentences and ask no more than one question at a time. 3. Let the exchange develop across six to ten learner turns, or end earlier if I type "feedback". Respond to what I actually say. Include a plausible clarification, disagreement or tradeoff without silently changing the starting facts. Mark any added constraint as a fictional second-round variation. Do not resolve approvals, evidence or commitments that remain uncertain. 4. Stay in role during the exchange. If my meaning is unclear, ask for clarification naturally. Give a hint only if I ask or cannot proceed. Do not deliver a model conversation in advance. 5. At the debrief, quote two of my phrases: one successful choice and one worth improving. Check factual accuracy, language, register and whether the next step was clear. Give up to three focused suggestions. Ask me to retry the weakest turn; wait. Only then offer an alternative wording and a harder replay. Use voice replies when available. If I prefer selections, offer four plausible spoken replies and explain my choice before continuing. Do not require written compositions. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Dialogue 03: The total is wrong; the criterion still needs discussion Original fictional setting: Student Sam receives criterion scores of 6, 7, and 8, but the recorded total is 19 rather than 21. Professor Rivera confirms the arithmetic error. Sam also requests 24 because of the time spent on the paper. The feedback says the second paragraph cites evidence without explaining how it supports the conclusion. A substantive grade change has not been decided. Professional roles: Sam / Professor Rivera Published dialogue (reference script, not my own performance): Sam: My three scores are six, seven, and eight, but the gradebook total is nineteen. I think something has gone wrong. Professor Rivera: You are right. The recorded total should be twenty-one. I am sorry for that error and will correct the entry. Sam: Thank you. I also spent several evenings on the paper, so I hoped the mark could be raised to twenty-four. Professor Rivera: Let us separate the arithmetic correction from your concern about the academic assessment. They need different explanations. Sam: The comment on paragraph two says the evidence is not connected to the conclusion, but I included a quotation there. Professor Rivera: The quotation is present. The evidence link is the missing step: the paragraph does not explain how that passage supports the conclusion you draw. Sam: So the issue is not that I failed to cite anything, but that I left the reader to supply the reasoning. Professor Rivera: Exactly. The performance descriptor asks for an explained relationship, not simply the presence of a source. Sam: I read the short comment as a judgment that the whole paper was poor, which made it difficult to know where to start. Professor Rivera: I should make that margin comment more precise. The concern is this reasoning step, not a dismissal of every part of your work. Sam: For the next assignment, would improving that connection be more useful than replacing ordinary words with longer academic expressions? Professor Rivera: Yes. Make the missing explanation your revision priority. Clear reasoning matters more here than making the wording sound complicated. Sam: I still want to understand whether the criterion score itself was applied consistently with the published rubric. Professor Rivera: That is a request for substantive review. We can follow the stated process without assuming the outcome in advance. Sam: I appreciate the distinction. I was worried that pointing out the error would be treated as bargaining for points. Professor Rivera: Raising a specific concern is legitimate. The review procedure gives us a way to examine it against the work and criteria. Sam: Then the immediate action is to fix the total, while the separate review addresses the criterion question. Professor Rivera: Correct. I will update the gradebook to reflect the arithmetic and keep the substantive request clearly identified. Sam: For future work, I will explain how each selected passage supports the conclusion rather than leave that relationship implied. Professor Rivera: That is useful feedforward. It gives you a specific next step, while the current review proceeds through the proper process. Vocabulary in this exchange: rubric: Framework describing criteria and performance levels for assessment. / criterion score: Score assigned to one assessment dimension. / recorded total: Total entered in the grade record. / arithmetic correction: Change fixing an incorrect numerical calculation. / substantive review: Reassessment of the underlying academic judgment. / evidence link: Explanation connecting evidence to a claim or conclusion. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Dialogue 03 · The total is wrong; the criterion still needs discussion | Create more scenario dialogues START PROMPT TASK: Extend the conversation library 1. Propose six distinct, common scenarios in this field beyond the supplied case or script. For each, name the setting, two or more professional roles, the communication problem and one useful terminology focus. Include routine coordination, clarification, a complication, disagreement, handoff and follow-up where relevant. Choose scenarios that fit this profession, rather than forcing unsuitable situations into it. 2. Ask me to choose one scenario, or request all six in sequence. Stop and wait. Do not write all the scripts before I choose. 3. For the selected scenario, write an original fictional dialogue of 12-18 substantial speaking turns between two or three professionals. Name each role, establish an actual work problem, and let the exchange progress through questions, clarification, competing constraints and a credible next step or explicitly unresolved issue. Use the occupation's natural nomenclature and register. Avoid an interview between a teacher and a learner, generic small talk, and inserting a glossary definition into every reply. Explain specialist terms outside the dialogue instead. 4. After the script, explain five useful expressions in context and identify two grammar or register choices. Give three four-choice questions about the speakers' reasoning, with exactly one answer supported by the dialogue. Wait for my selections, then explain why each answer fits and why its alternatives fail. Add a role-switch reading using the supplied script; do not ask for an essay or invented written reply. 5. Before presenting a script, check names, numbers, chronology, roles and terminology for consistency. Label invented facts and acknowledge uncertain specialist usage. If I requested all six, deliver one complete script at a time and wait for "next". Make each scenario materially different. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Dialogue 03: The total is wrong; the criterion still needs discussion Original fictional setting: Student Sam receives criterion scores of 6, 7, and 8, but the recorded total is 19 rather than 21. Professor Rivera confirms the arithmetic error. Sam also requests 24 because of the time spent on the paper. The feedback says the second paragraph cites evidence without explaining how it supports the conclusion. A substantive grade change has not been decided. Professional roles: Sam / Professor Rivera Published dialogue (reference script, not my own performance): Sam: My three scores are six, seven, and eight, but the gradebook total is nineteen. I think something has gone wrong. Professor Rivera: You are right. The recorded total should be twenty-one. I am sorry for that error and will correct the entry. Sam: Thank you. I also spent several evenings on the paper, so I hoped the mark could be raised to twenty-four. Professor Rivera: Let us separate the arithmetic correction from your concern about the academic assessment. They need different explanations. Sam: The comment on paragraph two says the evidence is not connected to the conclusion, but I included a quotation there. Professor Rivera: The quotation is present. The evidence link is the missing step: the paragraph does not explain how that passage supports the conclusion you draw. Sam: So the issue is not that I failed to cite anything, but that I left the reader to supply the reasoning. Professor Rivera: Exactly. The performance descriptor asks for an explained relationship, not simply the presence of a source. Sam: I read the short comment as a judgment that the whole paper was poor, which made it difficult to know where to start. Professor Rivera: I should make that margin comment more precise. The concern is this reasoning step, not a dismissal of every part of your work. Sam: For the next assignment, would improving that connection be more useful than replacing ordinary words with longer academic expressions? Professor Rivera: Yes. Make the missing explanation your revision priority. Clear reasoning matters more here than making the wording sound complicated. Sam: I still want to understand whether the criterion score itself was applied consistently with the published rubric. Professor Rivera: That is a request for substantive review. We can follow the stated process without assuming the outcome in advance. Sam: I appreciate the distinction. I was worried that pointing out the error would be treated as bargaining for points. Professor Rivera: Raising a specific concern is legitimate. The review procedure gives us a way to examine it against the work and criteria. Sam: Then the immediate action is to fix the total, while the separate review addresses the criterion question. Professor Rivera: Correct. I will update the gradebook to reflect the arithmetic and keep the substantive request clearly identified. Sam: For future work, I will explain how each selected passage supports the conclusion rather than leave that relationship implied. Professor Rivera: That is useful feedforward. It gives you a specific next step, while the current review proceeds through the proper process. Vocabulary in this exchange: rubric: Framework describing criteria and performance levels for assessment. / criterion score: Score assigned to one assessment dimension. / recorded total: Total entered in the grade record. / arithmetic correction: Change fixing an incorrect numerical calculation. / substantive review: Reassessment of the underlying academic judgment. / evidence link: Explanation connecting evidence to a claim or conclusion. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Dialogue 04 · More people is not a higher percentage | Rehearse with an AI colleague START PROMPT TASK: Interactive workplace role-play 1. Use the supplied case or dialogue as the starting situation. Give a two-sentence briefing and offer two relevant professional roles for me to choose from. For a supplied dialogue, use its actual roles. Ask which role I want, then stop and wait. Do not write my replies. 2. After I choose, identify who you will play and the immediate communication goal. Play the other professional; where a meeting requires a third person, label each of your speakers clearly. Start with one natural workplace turn and wait for my reply. Keep most turns to one to three sentences and ask no more than one question at a time. 3. Let the exchange develop across six to ten learner turns, or end earlier if I type "feedback". Respond to what I actually say. Include a plausible clarification, disagreement or tradeoff without silently changing the starting facts. Mark any added constraint as a fictional second-round variation. Do not resolve approvals, evidence or commitments that remain uncertain. 4. Stay in role during the exchange. If my meaning is unclear, ask for clarification naturally. Give a hint only if I ask or cannot proceed. Do not deliver a model conversation in advance. 5. At the debrief, quote two of my phrases: one successful choice and one worth improving. Check factual accuracy, language, register and whether the next step was clear. Give up to three focused suggestions. Ask me to retry the weakest turn; wait. Only then offer an alternative wording and a harder replay. Use voice replies when available. If I prefer selections, offer four plausible spoken replies and explain my choice before continuing. Do not require written compositions. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Dialogue 04: More people is not a higher percentage Original fictional setting: During a fifteen-minute office-hour meeting, student Noor asks why a chart cannot show that Group B had the higher participation rate merely because more people participated. Group A has 40 participants out of 100 eligible people; Group B has 60 out of 200. Professor Evans uses the supplied figures to distinguish counts from rates. The meeting does not determine a grade or change an assessment deadline. Professional roles: Noor / Professor Evans Published dialogue (reference script, not my own performance): Noor: I thought Group B performed better because sixty people participated, compared with forty in Group A. The feedback says to check the rate. Professor Evans: Let us set a short meeting agenda: first distinguish the quantities, then use the two groups to check the idea. Noor: I compared the number of people and did not look at how many people were eligible in each group. Professor Evans: That identifies the learning bottleneck. You are using an absolute count to answer a question about a proportion. Noor: Group A had one hundred eligible people, while Group B had two hundred, so the groups were not the same size. Professor Evans: Exactly. The denominator tells us the whole against which the participant count is being compared. Noor: Then forty is the part for Group A, and sixty is the part for Group B. Professor Evans: Those are the numerator values. For A, forty out of one hundred gives forty percent. Noor: For B, sixty out of two hundred gives thirty percent, even though sixty is the larger number of participants. Professor Evans: Good. That is the worked example: B has the larger count, while A has the higher participation rate. Noor: I can see why putting both raw counts on a chart does not by itself answer which group had the higher proportion. Professor Evans: That is the purpose of normalization here. We compare each count with its own eligible population rather than treating the groups as equal in size. Noor: Would it be accurate to say B had more participants but a lower share of its eligible population? Professor Evans: Yes. That sentence separates the absolute count from the proportional measure and keeps both facts intact. Noor: I initially thought the feedback meant sixty was the wrong number, but the number was right and my interpretation was wrong. Professor Evans: That is a conceptual misunderstanding rather than a transcription error. Understanding the distinction will help with other unequal-size groups. Noor: Can we check it once more without looking at the completed percentages, using the same supplied figures? Professor Evans: Certainly. That retrieval practice will show whether you can reconstruct the reasoning instead of recognizing an answer that is already written. Noor: A is forty percent and B is thirty percent. I will identify the eligible population whenever I report a participation rate. Professor Evans: That completes the concept check. Use the distinction in your next practice, and bring any remaining specific question to a follow-up meeting. Vocabulary in this exchange: meeting agenda: Agreed focus for a discussion. / worked example: Example showing the reasoning or steps of a solution. / conceptual misunderstanding: Incorrect understanding of an underlying idea. / numerator: Quantity above the fraction line, representing the counted part here. / denominator: Quantity below the fraction line, representing the eligible group here. / absolute count: Number of observed items or people without normalization. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Dialogue 04 · More people is not a higher percentage | Create more scenario dialogues START PROMPT TASK: Extend the conversation library 1. Propose six distinct, common scenarios in this field beyond the supplied case or script. For each, name the setting, two or more professional roles, the communication problem and one useful terminology focus. Include routine coordination, clarification, a complication, disagreement, handoff and follow-up where relevant. Choose scenarios that fit this profession, rather than forcing unsuitable situations into it. 2. Ask me to choose one scenario, or request all six in sequence. Stop and wait. Do not write all the scripts before I choose. 3. For the selected scenario, write an original fictional dialogue of 12-18 substantial speaking turns between two or three professionals. Name each role, establish an actual work problem, and let the exchange progress through questions, clarification, competing constraints and a credible next step or explicitly unresolved issue. Use the occupation's natural nomenclature and register. Avoid an interview between a teacher and a learner, generic small talk, and inserting a glossary definition into every reply. Explain specialist terms outside the dialogue instead. 4. After the script, explain five useful expressions in context and identify two grammar or register choices. Give three four-choice questions about the speakers' reasoning, with exactly one answer supported by the dialogue. Wait for my selections, then explain why each answer fits and why its alternatives fail. Add a role-switch reading using the supplied script; do not ask for an essay or invented written reply. 5. Before presenting a script, check names, numbers, chronology, roles and terminology for consistency. Label invented facts and acknowledge uncertain specialist usage. If I requested all six, deliver one complete script at a time and wait for "next". Make each scenario materially different. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Dialogue 04: More people is not a higher percentage Original fictional setting: During a fifteen-minute office-hour meeting, student Noor asks why a chart cannot show that Group B had the higher participation rate merely because more people participated. Group A has 40 participants out of 100 eligible people; Group B has 60 out of 200. Professor Evans uses the supplied figures to distinguish counts from rates. The meeting does not determine a grade or change an assessment deadline. Professional roles: Noor / Professor Evans Published dialogue (reference script, not my own performance): Noor: I thought Group B performed better because sixty people participated, compared with forty in Group A. The feedback says to check the rate. Professor Evans: Let us set a short meeting agenda: first distinguish the quantities, then use the two groups to check the idea. Noor: I compared the number of people and did not look at how many people were eligible in each group. Professor Evans: That identifies the learning bottleneck. You are using an absolute count to answer a question about a proportion. Noor: Group A had one hundred eligible people, while Group B had two hundred, so the groups were not the same size. Professor Evans: Exactly. The denominator tells us the whole against which the participant count is being compared. Noor: Then forty is the part for Group A, and sixty is the part for Group B. Professor Evans: Those are the numerator values. For A, forty out of one hundred gives forty percent. Noor: For B, sixty out of two hundred gives thirty percent, even though sixty is the larger number of participants. Professor Evans: Good. That is the worked example: B has the larger count, while A has the higher participation rate. Noor: I can see why putting both raw counts on a chart does not by itself answer which group had the higher proportion. Professor Evans: That is the purpose of normalization here. We compare each count with its own eligible population rather than treating the groups as equal in size. Noor: Would it be accurate to say B had more participants but a lower share of its eligible population? Professor Evans: Yes. That sentence separates the absolute count from the proportional measure and keeps both facts intact. Noor: I initially thought the feedback meant sixty was the wrong number, but the number was right and my interpretation was wrong. Professor Evans: That is a conceptual misunderstanding rather than a transcription error. Understanding the distinction will help with other unequal-size groups. Noor: Can we check it once more without looking at the completed percentages, using the same supplied figures? Professor Evans: Certainly. That retrieval practice will show whether you can reconstruct the reasoning instead of recognizing an answer that is already written. Noor: A is forty percent and B is thirty percent. I will identify the eligible population whenever I report a participation rate. Professor Evans: That completes the concept check. Use the distinction in your next practice, and bring any remaining specific question to a follow-up meeting. Vocabulary in this exchange: meeting agenda: Agreed focus for a discussion. / worked example: Example showing the reasoning or steps of a solution. / conceptual misunderstanding: Incorrect understanding of an underlying idea. / numerator: Quantity above the fraction line, representing the counted part here. / denominator: Quantity below the fraction line, representing the eligible group here. / absolute count: Number of observed items or people without normalization. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Dialogue 05 · Fluent wording is not the missing reasoning | Rehearse with an AI colleague START PROMPT TASK: Interactive workplace role-play 1. Use the supplied case or dialogue as the starting situation. Give a two-sentence briefing and offer two relevant professional roles for me to choose from. For a supplied dialogue, use its actual roles. Ask which role I want, then stop and wait. Do not write my replies. 2. After I choose, identify who you will play and the immediate communication goal. Play the other professional; where a meeting requires a third person, label each of your speakers clearly. Start with one natural workplace turn and wait for my reply. Keep most turns to one to three sentences and ask no more than one question at a time. 3. Let the exchange develop across six to ten learner turns, or end earlier if I type "feedback". Respond to what I actually say. Include a plausible clarification, disagreement or tradeoff without silently changing the starting facts. Mark any added constraint as a fictional second-round variation. Do not resolve approvals, evidence or commitments that remain uncertain. 4. Stay in role during the exchange. If my meaning is unclear, ask for clarification naturally. Give a hint only if I ask or cannot proceed. Do not deliver a model conversation in advance. 5. At the debrief, quote two of my phrases: one successful choice and one worth improving. Check factual accuracy, language, register and whether the next step was clear. Give up to three focused suggestions. Ask me to retry the weakest turn; wait. Only then offer an alternative wording and a harder replay. Use voice replies when available. If I prefer selections, offer four plausible spoken replies and explain my choice before continuing. Do not require written compositions. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Dialogue 05: Fluent wording is not the missing reasoning Original fictional setting: Professor Malik and teaching assistant Elena use a fictional three-level evidence scale: 0 for no relevant evidence, 1 for relevant evidence without an explained link, and 2 for relevant evidence with an explained link. An anchor response contains a relevant quotation but no explanation of its connection. Elena gave 2 because the prose was fluent; Malik applied 1. Grades have not been released. Professional roles: Elena / Professor Malik Published dialogue (reference script, not my own performance): Elena: I gave this response two points because it reads fluently and includes a relevant quotation. Your score is one. Professor Malik: Let us return to the scoring guide. What distinguishes level one from level two on this evidence scale? Elena: Level two requires the response to explain how the evidence supports the conclusion. This response leaves that connection unstated. Professor Malik: Then our anchor response demonstrates level one, even though the prose is fluent. Elena: I allowed the polished wording to influence my judgment about whether the reasoning was complete. Professor Malik: That is criterion contamination. We need to keep the evidence dimension separate from any criterion assessing expression. Elena: I can explain the one-point score as relevant quotation present, but the explanatory link is absent. Professor Malik: That gives a clear scoring rationale that another grader can inspect and discuss. Elena: Should we compare a second example where the link is partly implied? That seems more difficult than this clear case. Professor Malik: Yes. A borderline response can expose where we interpret the descriptor differently, without rewriting the published standard. Elena: We can score it independently first and then compare the passages each of us relied on. Professor Malik: That supports grading calibration. The purpose is consistent judgment, not simply having the junior colleague copy a senior score. Elena: I may have applied the same fluency shortcut to other papers in my batch, so correcting this one example is not enough. Professor Malik: Then define a batch review under our assessment process and identify the work that needs checking. Elena: The grades are still unreleased. I can keep the results from being published while we complete the agreed check. Professor Malik: Maintain the release hold and make the reason clear to the teaching team, without exposing student work unnecessarily. Elena: For the briefing, I will use the approved anonymized examples and show the criterion alongside the relevant passages. Professor Malik: Good. That should improve inter-rater agreement by making our interpretation and evidence visible. Elena: Once the review is complete, I will report what was checked and any changes made through the approved process. Professor Malik: Then we can seek release approval. A calibration conversation is a useful step, but it is not the same as completing and authorizing the release. Vocabulary in this exchange: grading calibration: Process of aligning application of assessment standards. / anchor response: Selected example used to illustrate a scoring standard. / scoring guide: Instructions explaining how to assign marks. / inter-rater agreement: Degree of consistency between assessors. / borderline response: Work near the boundary between performance levels. / criterion contamination: Influence of an unrelated feature on a criterion judgment. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Dialogue 05 · Fluent wording is not the missing reasoning | Create more scenario dialogues START PROMPT TASK: Extend the conversation library 1. Propose six distinct, common scenarios in this field beyond the supplied case or script. For each, name the setting, two or more professional roles, the communication problem and one useful terminology focus. Include routine coordination, clarification, a complication, disagreement, handoff and follow-up where relevant. Choose scenarios that fit this profession, rather than forcing unsuitable situations into it. 2. Ask me to choose one scenario, or request all six in sequence. Stop and wait. Do not write all the scripts before I choose. 3. For the selected scenario, write an original fictional dialogue of 12-18 substantial speaking turns between two or three professionals. Name each role, establish an actual work problem, and let the exchange progress through questions, clarification, competing constraints and a credible next step or explicitly unresolved issue. Use the occupation's natural nomenclature and register. Avoid an interview between a teacher and a learner, generic small talk, and inserting a glossary definition into every reply. Explain specialist terms outside the dialogue instead. 4. After the script, explain five useful expressions in context and identify two grammar or register choices. Give three four-choice questions about the speakers' reasoning, with exactly one answer supported by the dialogue. Wait for my selections, then explain why each answer fits and why its alternatives fail. Add a role-switch reading using the supplied script; do not ask for an essay or invented written reply. 5. Before presenting a script, check names, numbers, chronology, roles and terminology for consistency. Label invented facts and acknowledge uncertain specialist usage. If I requested all six, deliver one complete script at a time and wait for "next". Make each scenario materially different. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Dialogue 05: Fluent wording is not the missing reasoning Original fictional setting: Professor Malik and teaching assistant Elena use a fictional three-level evidence scale: 0 for no relevant evidence, 1 for relevant evidence without an explained link, and 2 for relevant evidence with an explained link. An anchor response contains a relevant quotation but no explanation of its connection. Elena gave 2 because the prose was fluent; Malik applied 1. Grades have not been released. Professional roles: Elena / Professor Malik Published dialogue (reference script, not my own performance): Elena: I gave this response two points because it reads fluently and includes a relevant quotation. Your score is one. Professor Malik: Let us return to the scoring guide. What distinguishes level one from level two on this evidence scale? Elena: Level two requires the response to explain how the evidence supports the conclusion. This response leaves that connection unstated. Professor Malik: Then our anchor response demonstrates level one, even though the prose is fluent. Elena: I allowed the polished wording to influence my judgment about whether the reasoning was complete. Professor Malik: That is criterion contamination. We need to keep the evidence dimension separate from any criterion assessing expression. Elena: I can explain the one-point score as relevant quotation present, but the explanatory link is absent. Professor Malik: That gives a clear scoring rationale that another grader can inspect and discuss. Elena: Should we compare a second example where the link is partly implied? That seems more difficult than this clear case. Professor Malik: Yes. A borderline response can expose where we interpret the descriptor differently, without rewriting the published standard. Elena: We can score it independently first and then compare the passages each of us relied on. Professor Malik: That supports grading calibration. The purpose is consistent judgment, not simply having the junior colleague copy a senior score. Elena: I may have applied the same fluency shortcut to other papers in my batch, so correcting this one example is not enough. Professor Malik: Then define a batch review under our assessment process and identify the work that needs checking. Elena: The grades are still unreleased. I can keep the results from being published while we complete the agreed check. Professor Malik: Maintain the release hold and make the reason clear to the teaching team, without exposing student work unnecessarily. Elena: For the briefing, I will use the approved anonymized examples and show the criterion alongside the relevant passages. Professor Malik: Good. That should improve inter-rater agreement by making our interpretation and evidence visible. Elena: Once the review is complete, I will report what was checked and any changes made through the approved process. Professor Malik: Then we can seek release approval. A calibration conversation is a useful step, but it is not the same as completing and authorizing the release. Vocabulary in this exchange: grading calibration: Process of aligning application of assessment standards. / anchor response: Selected example used to illustrate a scoring standard. / scoring guide: Instructions explaining how to assign marks. / inter-rater agreement: Degree of consistency between assessors. / borderline response: Work near the boundary between performance levels. / criterion contamination: Influence of an unrelated feature on a criterion judgment. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Dialogue 06 · The letter says ninety minutes; the platform says sixty | Rehearse with an AI colleague START PROMPT TASK: Interactive workplace role-play 1. Use the supplied case or dialogue as the starting situation. Give a two-sentence briefing and offer two relevant professional roles for me to choose from. For a supplied dialogue, use its actual roles. Ask which role I want, then stop and wait. Do not write my replies. 2. After I choose, identify who you will play and the immediate communication goal. Play the other professional; where a meeting requires a third person, label each of your speakers clearly. Start with one natural workplace turn and wait for my reply. Keep most turns to one to three sentences and ask no more than one question at a time. 3. Let the exchange develop across six to ten learner turns, or end earlier if I type "feedback". Respond to what I actually say. Include a plausible clarification, disagreement or tradeoff without silently changing the starting facts. Mark any added constraint as a fictional second-round variation. Do not resolve approvals, evidence or commitments that remain uncertain. 4. Stay in role during the exchange. If my meaning is unclear, ask for clarification naturally. Give a hint only if I ask or cannot proceed. Do not deliver a model conversation in advance. 5. At the debrief, quote two of my phrases: one successful choice and one worth improving. Check factual accuracy, language, register and whether the next step was clear. Give up to three focused suggestions. Ask me to retry the weakest turn; wait. Only then offer an alternative wording and a harder replay. Use voice replies when available. If I prefer selections, offer four plausible spoken replies and explain my choice before continuing. Do not require written compositions. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Dialogue 06: The letter says ninety minutes; the platform says sixty Original fictional setting: Student Tessa has an approved arrangement specifying 90 minutes for a quiz whose standard duration is 60 minutes. Professor Ali sees that the learning platform still shows the standard setting. A suitable testing-room booking has not been confirmed. They need prompt coordination with the designated access office and testing staff. Tessa is not being asked to disclose a diagnosis to classmates or justify the approved arrangement again. Professional roles: Tessa / Professor Ali Published dialogue (reference script, not my own performance): Tessa: My approved letter specifies ninety minutes for the quiz, but the course platform still shows the standard sixty-minute limit. Professor Ali: Thank you for flagging it. The implementation detail does not match the approval, and we need to resolve that before relying on the setup. Tessa: I was worried I would need to explain my diagnosis again to persuade you that the extra time is justified. Professor Ali: We are discussing the approved accommodation, not asking you to justify it again. Let us focus on the necessary logistics. Tessa: The testing room was requested last week, but I have not received a booking confirmation from the office. Professor Ali: Then the testing arrangement is not yet fully confirmed. I will coordinate with the responsible staff rather than assume the request completed the booking. Tessa: Which office should we include so that the timing setting and room information do not remain in separate conversations? Professor Ali: I will contact the accessibility office and testing coordinator through the appropriate process, using only the information needed to arrange access. Tessa: I would prefer not to have my personal situation discussed in a general announcement to the class. Professor Ali: Of course. We should maintain the confidentiality boundary and use the agreed private channel for your specific arrangements. Tessa: If the platform limit is changed, can you check what I will actually see rather than only the instructor setting? Professor Ali: Yes. We need implementation confirmation, including the relevant student-facing view, so an administrative update does not leave the same practical problem. Tessa: The quiz content itself has not changed, and I understand that the same academic requirements still apply. Professor Ali: Correct. The essential requirement and the access arrangement are different questions; identical conditions are not the only way to maintain the academic standard. Tessa: What happens if the requested room cannot be confirmed in time? I do not want to arrive without a workable plan. Professor Ali: We need a contingency arrangement agreed through the actual process, and I will raise that promptly rather than leave you to improvise. Tessa: Thank you. A clear confirmation of the duration, location, and contact would resolve the uncertainty for me. Professor Ali: That is the aim of effective access: the arrangement has to work in practice, not just exist as an approved document. Tessa: I will use the private channel if the displayed information still conflicts with the confirmation you send. Professor Ali: Please do. Any remaining access concern needs prompt attention, and I will close the loop when the actual setting and testing arrangements are verified. Vocabulary in this exchange: approved accommodation: Arrangement approved through the institution's relevant process. / accessibility office: Institutional service coordinating disability-related access arrangements. / implementation detail: Practical setting or action needed to carry out a plan. / testing arrangement: Agreed practical conditions for an assessment. / essential requirement: Core academic or technical requirement under the relevant process. / confidentiality boundary: Limit on sharing personal information. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Dialogue 06 · The letter says ninety minutes; the platform says sixty | Create more scenario dialogues START PROMPT TASK: Extend the conversation library 1. Propose six distinct, common scenarios in this field beyond the supplied case or script. For each, name the setting, two or more professional roles, the communication problem and one useful terminology focus. Include routine coordination, clarification, a complication, disagreement, handoff and follow-up where relevant. Choose scenarios that fit this profession, rather than forcing unsuitable situations into it. 2. Ask me to choose one scenario, or request all six in sequence. Stop and wait. Do not write all the scripts before I choose. 3. For the selected scenario, write an original fictional dialogue of 12-18 substantial speaking turns between two or three professionals. Name each role, establish an actual work problem, and let the exchange progress through questions, clarification, competing constraints and a credible next step or explicitly unresolved issue. Use the occupation's natural nomenclature and register. Avoid an interview between a teacher and a learner, generic small talk, and inserting a glossary definition into every reply. Explain specialist terms outside the dialogue instead. 4. After the script, explain five useful expressions in context and identify two grammar or register choices. Give three four-choice questions about the speakers' reasoning, with exactly one answer supported by the dialogue. Wait for my selections, then explain why each answer fits and why its alternatives fail. Add a role-switch reading using the supplied script; do not ask for an essay or invented written reply. 5. Before presenting a script, check names, numbers, chronology, roles and terminology for consistency. Label invented facts and acknowledge uncertain specialist usage. If I requested all six, deliver one complete script at a time and wait for "next". Make each scenario materially different. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Dialogue 06: The letter says ninety minutes; the platform says sixty Original fictional setting: Student Tessa has an approved arrangement specifying 90 minutes for a quiz whose standard duration is 60 minutes. Professor Ali sees that the learning platform still shows the standard setting. A suitable testing-room booking has not been confirmed. They need prompt coordination with the designated access office and testing staff. Tessa is not being asked to disclose a diagnosis to classmates or justify the approved arrangement again. Professional roles: Tessa / Professor Ali Published dialogue (reference script, not my own performance): Tessa: My approved letter specifies ninety minutes for the quiz, but the course platform still shows the standard sixty-minute limit. Professor Ali: Thank you for flagging it. The implementation detail does not match the approval, and we need to resolve that before relying on the setup. Tessa: I was worried I would need to explain my diagnosis again to persuade you that the extra time is justified. Professor Ali: We are discussing the approved accommodation, not asking you to justify it again. Let us focus on the necessary logistics. Tessa: The testing room was requested last week, but I have not received a booking confirmation from the office. Professor Ali: Then the testing arrangement is not yet fully confirmed. I will coordinate with the responsible staff rather than assume the request completed the booking. Tessa: Which office should we include so that the timing setting and room information do not remain in separate conversations? Professor Ali: I will contact the accessibility office and testing coordinator through the appropriate process, using only the information needed to arrange access. Tessa: I would prefer not to have my personal situation discussed in a general announcement to the class. Professor Ali: Of course. We should maintain the confidentiality boundary and use the agreed private channel for your specific arrangements. Tessa: If the platform limit is changed, can you check what I will actually see rather than only the instructor setting? Professor Ali: Yes. We need implementation confirmation, including the relevant student-facing view, so an administrative update does not leave the same practical problem. Tessa: The quiz content itself has not changed, and I understand that the same academic requirements still apply. Professor Ali: Correct. The essential requirement and the access arrangement are different questions; identical conditions are not the only way to maintain the academic standard. Tessa: What happens if the requested room cannot be confirmed in time? I do not want to arrive without a workable plan. Professor Ali: We need a contingency arrangement agreed through the actual process, and I will raise that promptly rather than leave you to improvise. Tessa: Thank you. A clear confirmation of the duration, location, and contact would resolve the uncertainty for me. Professor Ali: That is the aim of effective access: the arrangement has to work in practice, not just exist as an approved document. Tessa: I will use the private channel if the displayed information still conflicts with the confirmation you send. Professor Ali: Please do. Any remaining access concern needs prompt attention, and I will close the loop when the actual setting and testing arrangements are verified. Vocabulary in this exchange: approved accommodation: Arrangement approved through the institution's relevant process. / accessibility office: Institutional service coordinating disability-related access arrangements. / implementation detail: Practical setting or action needed to carry out a plan. / testing arrangement: Agreed practical conditions for an assessment. / essential requirement: Core academic or technical requirement under the relevant process. / confidentiality boundary: Limit on sharing personal information. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Dialogue 07 · A missing source needs a factual explanation | Rehearse with an AI colleague START PROMPT TASK: Interactive workplace role-play 1. Use the supplied case or dialogue as the starting situation. Give a two-sentence briefing and offer two relevant professional roles for me to choose from. For a supplied dialogue, use its actual roles. Ask which role I want, then stop and wait. Do not write my replies. 2. After I choose, identify who you will play and the immediate communication goal. Play the other professional; where a meeting requires a third person, label each of your speakers clearly. Start with one natural workplace turn and wait for my reply. Keep most turns to one to three sentences and ask no more than one question at a time. 3. Let the exchange develop across six to ten learner turns, or end earlier if I type "feedback". Respond to what I actually say. Include a plausible clarification, disagreement or tradeoff without silently changing the starting facts. Mark any added constraint as a fictional second-round variation. Do not resolve approvals, evidence or commitments that remain uncertain. 4. Stay in role during the exchange. If my meaning is unclear, ask for clarification naturally. Give a hint only if I ask or cannot proceed. Do not deliver a model conversation in advance. 5. At the debrief, quote two of my phrases: one successful choice and one worth improving. Check factual accuracy, language, register and whether the next step was clear. Give up to three focused suggestions. Ask me to retry the weakest turn; wait. Only then offer an alternative wording and a harder replay. Use voice replies when available. If I prefer selections, offer four plausible spoken replies and explain my choice before continuing. Do not require written compositions. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Dialogue 07: A missing source needs a factual explanation Original fictional setting: A fictional assignment permits AI-assisted brainstorming if disclosed but requires the submitted analysis to be the student's own work. Professor Park cannot locate a cited article and finds that its journal details do not match the supplied reference. Student Amir says he used a tool for an outline and believed the suggested reference was real. No integrity finding or penalty has been determined; the actual institutional review process applies. Professional roles: Amir / Professor Park Published dialogue (reference script, not my own performance): Amir: Your message says there is a concern about my reference list. I am worried that you have already decided I cheated. Professor Park: No finding has been made. I want to explain a specific citation discrepancy and hear your account through the appropriate process. Amir: Which reference is the problem? I used a tool to help outline the topic and thought the suggested article was real. Professor Park: I could not locate that article, and the journal details do not match. It needs source verification rather than an assumption based on a plausible-looking citation. Amir: The assignment allowed brainstorming, so I understood that I could ask for possible topics and an outline. Professor Park: It allowed that permitted assistance with disclosure. It also required the submitted analysis to be your own work. Amir: I included a short note about the outline tool, but I did not explain that the reference came from its suggestion. Professor Park: We need to examine the actual disclosure statement and the relevant facts, not broaden or narrow the rule during this conversation. Amir: I understand that even if brainstorming was allowed, I still needed to check whether the cited source existed. Professor Park: Correct. Accurate attribution and source checking remain important. A convincing format does not establish that a reference is genuine. Amir: I have the drafts and notes I actually used. Should I keep them as they are rather than try to tidy the history? Professor Park: Yes. Preserve the relevant process evidence through the appropriate process. Do not create a different history to make the record look cleaner. Amir: Will this conversation determine the outcome immediately, or is there a separate university procedure I need to understand? Professor Park: I will explain the applicable route. A concern or allegation is not itself the final determination. Amir: I want to respond to the specific source issue and understand what information the process asks me to provide. Professor Park: You should have the stated opportunity to respond, with clear information about the concern and the actual next steps. Amir: Thank you. I do not want my explanation summarized as admitting things I have not said or that have not been established. Professor Park: I will record your account accurately and maintain procedural fairness under the institution's process. Amir: For now, I will preserve the existing materials and respond to the identified question about the source and its use. Professor Park: That is the next step. Any finding or authorized consequence must be communicated as an actual outcome, not implied in advance by this inquiry. Vocabulary in this exchange: permitted assistance: Help allowed under the stated assignment rules. / attribution: Identification of the source of ideas, wording, or assistance. / disclosure statement: Account of assistance or tool use required by the task. / source verification: Checking that a cited source exists and supports the use made of it. / citation discrepancy: Mismatch or problem in reference details. / process evidence: Material relevant to how work was developed. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Dialogue 07 · A missing source needs a factual explanation | Create more scenario dialogues START PROMPT TASK: Extend the conversation library 1. Propose six distinct, common scenarios in this field beyond the supplied case or script. For each, name the setting, two or more professional roles, the communication problem and one useful terminology focus. Include routine coordination, clarification, a complication, disagreement, handoff and follow-up where relevant. Choose scenarios that fit this profession, rather than forcing unsuitable situations into it. 2. Ask me to choose one scenario, or request all six in sequence. Stop and wait. Do not write all the scripts before I choose. 3. For the selected scenario, write an original fictional dialogue of 12-18 substantial speaking turns between two or three professionals. Name each role, establish an actual work problem, and let the exchange progress through questions, clarification, competing constraints and a credible next step or explicitly unresolved issue. Use the occupation's natural nomenclature and register. Avoid an interview between a teacher and a learner, generic small talk, and inserting a glossary definition into every reply. Explain specialist terms outside the dialogue instead. 4. After the script, explain five useful expressions in context and identify two grammar or register choices. Give three four-choice questions about the speakers' reasoning, with exactly one answer supported by the dialogue. Wait for my selections, then explain why each answer fits and why its alternatives fail. Add a role-switch reading using the supplied script; do not ask for an essay or invented written reply. 5. Before presenting a script, check names, numbers, chronology, roles and terminology for consistency. Label invented facts and acknowledge uncertain specialist usage. If I requested all six, deliver one complete script at a time and wait for "next". Make each scenario materially different. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Dialogue 07: A missing source needs a factual explanation Original fictional setting: A fictional assignment permits AI-assisted brainstorming if disclosed but requires the submitted analysis to be the student's own work. Professor Park cannot locate a cited article and finds that its journal details do not match the supplied reference. Student Amir says he used a tool for an outline and believed the suggested reference was real. No integrity finding or penalty has been determined; the actual institutional review process applies. Professional roles: Amir / Professor Park Published dialogue (reference script, not my own performance): Amir: Your message says there is a concern about my reference list. I am worried that you have already decided I cheated. Professor Park: No finding has been made. I want to explain a specific citation discrepancy and hear your account through the appropriate process. Amir: Which reference is the problem? I used a tool to help outline the topic and thought the suggested article was real. Professor Park: I could not locate that article, and the journal details do not match. It needs source verification rather than an assumption based on a plausible-looking citation. Amir: The assignment allowed brainstorming, so I understood that I could ask for possible topics and an outline. Professor Park: It allowed that permitted assistance with disclosure. It also required the submitted analysis to be your own work. Amir: I included a short note about the outline tool, but I did not explain that the reference came from its suggestion. Professor Park: We need to examine the actual disclosure statement and the relevant facts, not broaden or narrow the rule during this conversation. Amir: I understand that even if brainstorming was allowed, I still needed to check whether the cited source existed. Professor Park: Correct. Accurate attribution and source checking remain important. A convincing format does not establish that a reference is genuine. Amir: I have the drafts and notes I actually used. Should I keep them as they are rather than try to tidy the history? Professor Park: Yes. Preserve the relevant process evidence through the appropriate process. Do not create a different history to make the record look cleaner. Amir: Will this conversation determine the outcome immediately, or is there a separate university procedure I need to understand? Professor Park: I will explain the applicable route. A concern or allegation is not itself the final determination. Amir: I want to respond to the specific source issue and understand what information the process asks me to provide. Professor Park: You should have the stated opportunity to respond, with clear information about the concern and the actual next steps. Amir: Thank you. I do not want my explanation summarized as admitting things I have not said or that have not been established. Professor Park: I will record your account accurately and maintain procedural fairness under the institution's process. Amir: For now, I will preserve the existing materials and respond to the identified question about the source and its use. Professor Park: That is the next step. Any finding or authorized consequence must be communicated as an actual outcome, not implied in advance by this inquiry. Vocabulary in this exchange: permitted assistance: Help allowed under the stated assignment rules. / attribution: Identification of the source of ideas, wording, or assistance. / disclosure statement: Account of assistance or tool use required by the task. / source verification: Checking that a cited source exists and supports the use made of it. / citation discrepancy: Mismatch or problem in reference details. / process evidence: Material relevant to how work was developed. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Dialogue 08 · A recommendation is not implementation approval | Rehearse with an AI colleague START PROMPT TASK: Interactive workplace role-play 1. Use the supplied case or dialogue as the starting situation. Give a two-sentence briefing and offer two relevant professional roles for me to choose from. For a supplied dialogue, use its actual roles. Ask which role I want, then stop and wait. Do not write my replies. 2. After I choose, identify who you will play and the immediate communication goal. Play the other professional; where a meeting requires a third person, label each of your speakers clearly. Start with one natural workplace turn and wait for my reply. Keep most turns to one to three sentences and ask no more than one question at a time. 3. Let the exchange develop across six to ten learner turns, or end earlier if I type "feedback". Respond to what I actually say. Include a plausible clarification, disagreement or tradeoff without silently changing the starting facts. Mark any added constraint as a fictional second-round variation. Do not resolve approvals, evidence or commitments that remain uncertain. 4. Stay in role during the exchange. If my meaning is unclear, ask for clarification naturally. Give a hint only if I ask or cannot proceed. Do not deliver a model conversation in advance. 5. At the debrief, quote two of my phrases: one successful choice and one worth improving. Check factual accuracy, language, register and whether the next step was clear. Give up to three focused suggestions. Ask me to retry the weakest turn; wait. Only then offer an alternative wording and a harder replay. Use voice replies when available. If I prefer selections, offer four plausible spoken replies and explain my choice before continuing. Do not require written compositions. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Dialogue 08: A recommendation is not implementation approval Original fictional setting: A fictional department committee discusses increasing a seminar enrollment cap from 20 to 30. Professor Grant supports access; Professor Silva asks about feedback workload and room capacity. A motion is amended to recommend a one-term pilot only if staffing and a suitable room are confirmed. The committee votes for that recommendation. Under the supplied local process, a separate faculty board must approve implementation; that approval has not occurred. Professional roles: Professor Grant / Professor Silva Published dialogue (reference script, not my own performance): Professor Grant: I support raising the seminar cap from twenty to thirty. More students want access, and the current limit leaves some out. Professor Silva: I support that goal too. Before we settle the curriculum proposal, we need to examine the teaching and room assumptions. Professor Grant: My concern is that resource questions will delay the idea indefinitely, even though the demand is already visible. Professor Silva: Let us make them specific. The feedback workload increases with enrollment, and the current staffing plan has not addressed that increase. Professor Grant: We could recommend a limited trial rather than a permanent change, provided the teaching support is confirmed. Professor Silva: That would be a pilot offering. We should state the duration and conditions clearly instead of leaving them in informal discussion. Professor Grant: I propose one term, subject to confirmed staffing and a room suitable for thirty participants. Professor Silva: That is a motion amendment to the original proposal. We need the committee to know exactly which version it is voting on. Professor Grant: The revised wording still supports increased access, but it does not assume that a larger room and staff already exist. Professor Silva: Correct. It makes the resource assumption visible and gives the responsible colleagues concrete information to verify. Professor Grant: Under our department process, does this committee authorize the pilot once the vote is complete? Professor Silva: No. The faculty board has decision authority for implementation; this committee sends a recommendation under the local process. Professor Grant: Then the minutes should not say the enrollment increase is approved for next term merely because this vote passes. Professor Silva: Exactly. The meeting minutes need to record the amended wording and distinguish our recommendation from the board's eventual decision. Professor Grant: The committee has voted for the amended proposal. I will tell colleagues it is a one-term pilot recommendation with conditions. Professor Silva: Call it a conditional recommendation, and keep staffing and room confirmation in the same sentence as the proposed increase. Professor Grant: We can submit the recommendation after identifying the responsible contacts for those checks, without announcing a completed launch. Professor Silva: Yes. Implementation approval remains pending until the faculty board actually makes that decision. Professor Grant: If the pilot is approved, we should specify when the department evaluates workload and student participation. Professor Silva: Include a review checkpoint in the proposal, so a limited trial does not quietly become a permanent change without the appropriate review. Vocabulary in this exchange: seminar: Academic session centered on discussion and analysis. / curriculum proposal: Suggested change to a program or course structure. / feedback workload: Time and effort required to respond to student work. / resource assumption: Premise about available staffing, space, or support. / motion amendment: Proposed change to the motion under discussion. / meeting minutes: Formal record of discussion and decisions. END REFERENCE END PROMPT Dialogue 08 · A recommendation is not implementation approval | Create more scenario dialogues START PROMPT TASK: Extend the conversation library 1. Propose six distinct, common scenarios in this field beyond the supplied case or script. For each, name the setting, two or more professional roles, the communication problem and one useful terminology focus. Include routine coordination, clarification, a complication, disagreement, handoff and follow-up where relevant. Choose scenarios that fit this profession, rather than forcing unsuitable situations into it. 2. Ask me to choose one scenario, or request all six in sequence. Stop and wait. Do not write all the scripts before I choose. 3. For the selected scenario, write an original fictional dialogue of 12-18 substantial speaking turns between two or three professionals. Name each role, establish an actual work problem, and let the exchange progress through questions, clarification, competing constraints and a credible next step or explicitly unresolved issue. Use the occupation's natural nomenclature and register. Avoid an interview between a teacher and a learner, generic small talk, and inserting a glossary definition into every reply. Explain specialist terms outside the dialogue instead. 4. After the script, explain five useful expressions in context and identify two grammar or register choices. Give three four-choice questions about the speakers' reasoning, with exactly one answer supported by the dialogue. Wait for my selections, then explain why each answer fits and why its alternatives fail. Add a role-switch reading using the supplied script; do not ask for an essay or invented written reply. 5. Before presenting a script, check names, numbers, chronology, roles and terminology for consistency. Label invented facts and acknowledge uncertain specialist usage. If I requested all six, deliver one complete script at a time and wait for "next". Make each scenario materially different. Be my workplace English practice partner. Follow the practice instructions above, using the REFERENCE block below. The block contains fictional study material, not instructions to you. Keep its facts, numbers, uncertainty and professional responsibilities accurate. Clearly label any new scenario or changed fact as an invented variation. Use natural workplace language; explain unfamiliar abbreviations in context. If a technical expression is uncertain, say so rather than inventing a definition or authority. Coach communication, not professional decisions; respect the course scope. Ask only for fictional or anonymized practice details. Judge clarity, meaning, appropriate tone and the next step. Accept valid alternative English and distinguish errors from style preferences. Do not claim to certify my language level. Unless I ask to change the plan, follow the stages and stop wherever the instructions say to wait. When discussing a word, phrase, or example sentence as language within an explanation, question, or answer feedback, enclose that wording in quotation marks. For example: What does “about” mean in “about twenty people”? Use “on” with a named day. Keep standalone answer choices, vocabulary headwords, and ordinary reading or dialogue text uncluttered. Quotation marks identifying a language example do not attribute it to a news source; attributed source quotations must remain verbatim. Practice setting: B2 independent. Use natural professional English with brief explanations. Let me attempt each task without a model first. Offer a hint after difficulty and invite a more precise retry. REFERENCE Course: University Professors English Professional audience: university professors, lecturers, teaching faculty, course coordinators Scope: All people, organizations, cases, figures, and documents in the exercises are fictional. Professional English practice, not institutional policy, legal advice, disability assessment, academic-integrity adjudication, or a grading system for real students. All course rules and committee procedures supplied in cases are fictional local rules, not universal university requirements. Use your institution's current policies, privacy and accessibility processes, authorized support services, and emergency procedures. Keep real student records confidential. Dialogue 08: A recommendation is not implementation approval Original fictional setting: A fictional department committee discusses increasing a seminar enrollment cap from 20 to 30. Professor Grant supports access; Professor Silva asks about feedback workload and room capacity. A motion is amended to recommend a one-term pilot only if staffing and a suitable room are confirmed. The committee votes for that recommendation. Under the supplied local process, a separate faculty board must approve implementation; that approval has not occurred. Professional roles: Professor Grant / Professor Silva Published dialogue (reference script, not my own performance): Professor Grant: I support raising the seminar cap from twenty to thirty. More students want access, and the current limit leaves some out. Professor Silva: I support that goal too. Before we settle the curriculum proposal, we need to examine the teaching and room assumptions. Professor Grant: My concern is that resource questions will delay the idea indefinitely, even though the demand is already visible. Professor Silva: Let us make them specific. The feedback workload increases with enrollment, and the current staffing plan has not addressed that increase. Professor Grant: We could recommend a limited trial rather than a permanent change, provided the teaching support is confirmed. Professor Silva: That would be a pilot offering. We should state the duration and conditions clearly instead of leaving them in informal discussion. Professor Grant: I propose one term, subject to confirmed staffing and a room suitable for thirty participants. Professor Silva: That is a motion amendment to the original proposal. We need the committee to know exactly which version it is voting on. Professor Grant: The revised wording still supports increased access, but it does not assume that a larger room and staff already exist. Professor Silva: Correct. It makes the resource assumption visible and gives the responsible colleagues concrete information to verify. Professor Grant: Under our department process, does this committee authorize the pilot once the vote is complete? Professor Silva: No. The faculty board has decision authority for implementation; this committee sends a recommendation under the local process. Professor Grant: Then the minutes should not say the enrollment increase is approved for next term merely because this vote passes. Professor Silva: Exactly. The meeting minutes need to record the amended wording and distinguish our recommendation from the board's eventual decision. Professor Grant: The committee has voted for the amended proposal. I will tell colleagues it is a one-term pilot recommendation with conditions. Professor Silva: Call it a conditional recommendation, and keep staffing and room confirmation in the same sentence as the proposed increase. Professor Grant: We can submit the recommendation after identifying the responsible contacts for those checks, without announcing a completed launch. Professor Silva: Yes. Implementation approval remains pending until the faculty board actually makes that decision. Professor Grant: If the pilot is approved, we should specify when the department evaluates workload and student participation. Professor Silva: Include a review checkpoint in the proposal, so a limited trial does not quietly become a permanent change without the appropriate review. Vocabulary in this exchange: seminar: Academic session centered on discussion and analysis. / curriculum proposal: Suggested change to a program or course structure. / feedback workload: Time and effort required to respond to student work. / resource assumption: Premise about available staffing, space, or support. / motion amendment: Proposed change to the motion under discussion. / meeting minutes: Formal record of discussion and decisions. END REFERENCE END PROMPT