Complete the notes below. Write ONE WORD ONLY for each answer.
What Dr. Klein tells Mina to include in her debate plan:
a clear definition of [21] __________________
more than one measure, not just [22] __________________
a scoring [23] __________________ for judging contribution quality
a second [24] __________________ to reduce bias
at least one [25] __________________ argument about fairness
mainly [26] __________________ sources
Questions 27–30
What does Mina decide to do about each of the following? Write the correct letter, A, B or C, next to Questions 27–30.
A She will definitely include it. B She may include it. C She definitely won’t include it.
27 material rewards ______ 28 social recognition ______ 29 negative incentives ______ 30 news articles as evidence ______
Keys
21 participation 22 attendance 23 rubric 24 rater 25 ethical 26 academic 27 A 28 A 29 B 30 C
Transcripts
Part 3: You will hear a tutor and student discussing a debate plan.
DR. KLEIN: Hi, Mina. Come in. You wanted to check your plan for the debating assignment?
MINA: Yes, thank you. I’ve drafted an outline, but I’m not sure it fits the marking criteria.
DR. KLEIN: Let’s clarify it. The motion is about incentives and participation. Start by defining participation. If you don’t define it, the debate collapses because people use the term to mean different things, such as attendance, contribution, or sustained engagement.
MINA: I was going to use attendance because it’s easy to measure.
DR. KLEIN: You can include it, but don’t rely on attendance alone. Someone can turn up and still be mentally absent. If you treat presence as success, your conclusion will be misleading.
MINA: So I should measure contribution as well?
DR. KLEIN: Yes, but measure it carefully. Counting speaking turns is quick, yet it rewards quantity. A student can speak often without adding value. If you want to judge the quality of contributions, you need a scoring rubric. Keep it simple, for example three bands: descriptive, relevant, and analytical.
MINA: That sounds manageable. I can rate comments using those bands.
DR. KLEIN: Good, but remember the rating is subjective. To reduce bias, use a second rater who scores independently with the same rubric, then compare your scores. If you disagree, record why, because that strengthens your evaluation.
MINA: I can ask a classmate to do that.
DR. KLEIN: Next, you must include at least one ethical argument. Incentives can be unfair. Students with part-time jobs or caring responsibilities may not be able to attend extra sessions, so they can’t compete for rewards in the same way.
MINA: Right, so the “con” side can argue incentives increase numbers but widen inequality.
DR. KLEIN: Exactly, and your “pro” side should respond, perhaps by designing accessible incentives, or using recognition rather than money.
MINA: For evidence, I’ve collected a couple of newspaper stories about companies paying staff to complete training.
DR. KLEIN: Use news only as background. Your main evidence must be academic. You need at least six references, and one should be a review paper. Also, don’t cherry-pick. If you use a study showing rewards increase participation, mention limitations like short duration or small samples.
MINA: Understood. Academic sources for the key claims.
DR. KLEIN: Now tell me what incentive types you’ll include in the debate.
MINA: I’ll definitely include material rewards, like coffee vouchers, because they’re concrete. I’ll definitely include social recognition too, like public thanks and having names listed on the workshop page, possibly with a certificate.
DR. KLEIN: Good. Make recognition specific so it’s not just a vague promise of praise.
MINA: What about negative incentives, like losing marks for not attending?
DR. KLEIN: You may mention them briefly, but don’t build the debate around them. Penalties change the tone and create extra ethical concerns.
MINA: So I may include them as a minor comparison point.
MINA: And since news is only background, I won’t use news articles as evidence in the debate.
DR. KLEIN: Good. If you mention one, treat it as an example, then support it with research.
MINA: So my plan is: define participation, measure it with attendance plus contribution, use a rubric and a second rater, include an ethical fairness argument, and base the debate on academic sources. Then I’ll compare vouchers with recognition, mention penalties briefly, and avoid relying on news as evidence.
DR. KLEIN: That’s a solid structure. Keep openings short, rebuttals focused on evidence, and in your evaluation discuss claim clarity, evidence relevance, and rebuttal strength.
MINA: Great. I’ll revise the outline today and send it to you.
DR. KLEIN: Perfect.
