Mediating between two speakers in a group task
In a group oral task, three students must agree on a topic for a class presentation about aliyah. Dana wants to interview her grandmother, who emigrated from Ethiopia. Yossi wants to analyse statistics. Noa has not spoken for four minutes and looks uncomfortable. Your teacher is assessing interaction, not just fluency. You personally think the grandmother interview is the strongest idea, but you notice Noa flinch when Dana says the interview will need "a few hours" of recording. You have eight minutes left to settle the topic.
1. What do you say next, and why? Write the Hebrew you would use in one or two sentences and explain the interactional reasoning.
Read the worked answer
The move is to bring Noa in without putting her on the spot, and to test the hidden constraint you noticed. For example: "נועה, מה דעתך? אני שם לב שאולי יש פה עניין של זמן - את חושבת שנספיק את הראיון הזה?
Reasoning:
- Naming the constraint, not the person: you raise the time problem rather than saying "Noa looks worried". This gives her a way into the conversation without making her discomfort the topic.
- Open question plus a hypothesis: asking "מה דעתך?" alone invites a yes/no; adding your hypothesis gives her something to react to, which lowers the cost of speaking after four minutes of silence.
- Protecting Dana's face: you do not dismiss the interview idea, which you actually support. You test its feasibility, which is a different and less threatening move.
- Assessment awareness: the examiner is watching whether the group distributes turns. A candidate who dominates with the strongest idea scores lower on interaction than one who converts a silent member into a contributor.
- A weak answer simply declares support for Dana's idea and moves to planning, which leaves Noa silent and the time problem to surface later.
2. Noa says she has two after-school jobs and cannot commit to recording. Dana looks deflated. Propose a resolution that keeps the strongest idea alive and explain the principle behind it.
Read the worked answer
Resolution: keep the grandmother interview but shrink and redistribute it. For example: "דנה, הרעיון שלך חזק. מה אם הראיון יהיה 20 דקות בטלפון, ואני אעשה את התמלול? נועה, את יכולה לקחת את החלק של הנתונים, שזה פחות שעות."
Principle: separate the idea from its original scope. Dana is attached to the interview, not necessarily to a multi-hour recording. Reducing scope and reassigning the labour lets her keep authorship while removing the constraint that blocked Noa.
Why this scores well:
- It acknowledges Dana's contribution explicitly before modifying it, which is the difference between negotiating and overriding.
- It offers your own labour first, which makes the redistribution read as solidarity rather than as a demand on Noa.
- It gives Noa a defined, bounded role, which is more likely to secure a real commitment than a vague "help however you can".
- It leaves time to confirm the plan in the remaining minutes, which is itself part of the assessed interaction.