The Group Oral on Water Restrictions
Four EAL students must deliver a 6-minute group oral arguing that their school should install water-saving taps. Roles were assigned last week: Priya (strong writer, quiet speaker) opens with the problem; Ahmed (confident speaker, sometimes strays off-topic) gives the cost evidence; Lin (recently arrived, strong reading, hesitant speech) presents the student survey; Marco (reliable, good timekeeper) closes with the recommendation. Two days before the presentation, Ahmed tells the group he wants to swap his section with Lin because 'her part is easier.' Lin agrees reluctantly. Priya is worried the change will upset the preparation they have already done. The teacher has said all four must speak for a roughly equal time and that the group will be marked partly on cohesion between speakers.
1. Should the group accept Ahmed's proposed swap? Recommend a decision and justify it against the assessment conditions.
Read the worked answer
A defensible answer should weigh the speaking-time requirement and the cohesion criterion rather than simply pleasing Ahmed.
Recommendation: refuse the full swap, but restructure.
- Equal speaking time is a stated condition. A straight swap does not automatically break it, but it does mean Lin must now carry the cost evidence, which involves figures and comparison language - precisely the kind of content that is hardest to deliver fluently under pressure for a recently arrived student. That raises the risk that Lin under-speaks when questioned.
- Cohesion is marked. The group has already built linking phrases between the problem (Priya) and the cost evidence (Ahmed). Rebuilding those links in two days is possible but wasteful; keeping the existing structure preserves rehearsed transitions.
- Ahmed's reason ('easier') is not an assessment reason. The teacher's criteria reward clear delivery and linking, not comfort.
Workable compromise: Ahmed keeps the cost section but the group splits it - Ahmed presents the headline figures, Lin adds the survey's student-support data, and they rehearse two explicit handover sentences. This gives Lin a shorter, well-drilled speaking turn, keeps Ahmed's confidence where it is useful, and protects the rehearsed links. Priya should raise the change with the teacher so the marking is not confused by a last-minute role shift.
2. Priya is a strong writer but a quiet speaker. Identify the specific risk this creates for the group mark and describe one concrete adjustment.
Read the worked answer
Risk: the group is marked partly on cohesion, and Priya opens the presentation. If her opening is rushed, mumbled, or over-scripted, the audience never gets the framing that makes Ahmed's cost evidence and Lin's survey data intelligible, so the later speakers lose their anchor. A quiet opener also lowers the group's overall impression in the first thirty seconds, which is hard to recover.
Adjustment: convert Priya's written strength into a short, memorised opening of no more than four sentences, each with a clear signpost ('First, the problem. Second, the cost. Third, what students say.'). Rehearse it aloud standing up, with Marco timing it, until it is delivered without notes. Give her the first handover line to Ahmed as part of the same rehearsal so the transition is drilled, not improvised. This uses her writing to reduce her speaking load rather than asking her to become a different kind of speaker two days before the task.