Listening: Indirect Tutorial Feedback
A C1 candidate listens to a five-minute tutorial recording. The student presents a plan for a presentation on 'the gig economy and young workers'. The tutor says: 'Your structure is clear, and the opening example is vivid. I wonder, though, whether the causal claim in paragraph three is doing more work than your evidence can bear.' Later: 'If I were you, I'd look at the 2021 resolution before you finalise the recommendations.' The student replies, 'So you think I should cut the example?' The tutor pauses and says, 'That's not quite what I meant.' The candidate's notes say: 'Tutor likes example; cut causal claim; check resolution.' One item asks what the tutor's indirect feedback implies; another asks how the candidate should interpret the student's misunderstanding; a third asks which action is most strongly recommended.
1. What is the tutor's main concern, and what does 'doing more work than your evidence can bear' mean in this context?
Read the worked answer
The tutor's main concern is that the causal claim in paragraph three is too strong for the evidence the student has. The metaphor 'doing more work than your evidence can bear' means the claim is carrying more explanatory weight than the data can support: the student may be asserting cause when the evidence shows only correlation, or may be generalising from too little material. The tutor signals this indirectly with 'I wonder, though', which softens criticism but still directs attention to the causal language. The candidate should record this as 'qualify or narrow the causal claim', not as 'remove the claim' or 'cut the example'.
2. The student's reply misreads the feedback. Explain the misreading and what the tutor's pause signals.
Read the worked answer
The student hears a criticism of the example, but the tutor has just praised the opening example as vivid. The criticism is aimed at the causal claim in paragraph three, not at the example itself. The tutor's pause and 'That's not quite what I meant' signal that the student has misidentified the target of the feedback. For the candidate, this is a listening judgement: the later correction should override the student's paraphrase. The notes should not say 'cut causal claim' if that implies deletion; they should say 'revise causal claim so it matches evidence'. The exchange also shows why indirect feedback needs to be interpreted through the tutor's earlier praise and later correction, not through the student's response alone.
3. Which action should the candidate prioritise: checking the 2021 resolution, cutting the example, or rewriting paragraph three's causal claim? Justify using evidence from the recording.
Read the worked answer
The first priority is rewriting paragraph three's causal claim. The tutor's only explicit criticism is that the causal claim exceeds the evidence, and the student's suggestion to cut the example is corrected. Checking the 2021 resolution is also recommended, but the tutor frames it as something to do 'before you finalise the recommendations', which makes it a later check rather than the immediate fix. Cutting the example would remove something the tutor praised. A strong answer therefore sequences the actions: first revise the causal claim, then consult the resolution before finalising recommendations, and do not cut the example.