Lay out the argument and its evidence
Portfolio readiness · Four minutes
Place the Lesson 1 baseline, Lesson 5 discussion recording, Lesson 6 A/B repair, complete Lesson 7 first draft, word count, source map, cold-reader trace and revision brief together.
Confirm that both assessed products examine the same source-backed case and that each planned revision has a recorded reason.
- State the documented event, published framing, strongest fair counter-reading and unresolved point in four plain clauses.
- Name one written repair and one spoken retest supported by a reader or listener. If no repair was evidenced, record that instead.
- Keep the original draft and recordings unchanged beside the final versions. A learner-selected public case needs traceable sources; style observations from outside reading do not establish its facts.
Choose the valid starting point for the final assessment.
1. A Lesson 7 reader believed the whole library had closed. What should the final piece use?
One claim, two assessed modes
Final assessment brief
| Product | Constraint | Audience evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Written piece | Exactly 440 body words; a local revision of the Lesson 7 draft | A cold reader recovers event, framing, counter-reading, conclusion and key uncertainty |
| Spoken discussion | One five-to-six-minute opening from brief notes, followed by two substantive challenges and replies | A listener recovers the same evidence boundary and can identify what would change the conclusion |
| Development record | Baseline, repair trial, both written versions, recordings and audience traces | Each claim about progress cites an exact line, phrase or time stamp; informed and self-evidence stay labelled |
Match each observation to the product or record it directly assesses.
W Final written piece
S Final spoken discussion
D Development record
1. The revised analysis contains exactly 440 body words under the saved counting convention.
2. The speaker answers whether the volunteers’ help justifies the headline without repeating the opening.
3. The first draft and final version show which scope phrase changed and why.
4. The page attributes the rescue label to the regional article.
5. A brief self-repair restores the actor during the timed exchange without a restart.
6. The Lesson 6 clear-clause control remains beside the chosen repair.
Choose the procedure that makes the listener result interpretable.
1. The discussion listener has read the final piece. How should their reconstruction be recorded?
2. Working alone, a learner reconstructs the argument from their own recording after a delay. What is that evidence?
Rate the unit targets separately
Unit 43 evidence rubric · Do not average unlike results
| Dimension | Secure evidence | Emerging or not-yet evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Narrative and source line | Both audiences distinguish notice, interview, article and writer inference in a coherent sequence | A retelling collapses those sources or changes the order of established events |
| Claim and uncertainty | The rescue framing, Mara’s impression and missing figures remain correctly bounded | Headline or impression becomes an established closure, use increase or return date |
| Noun formation and attachment | Derived nouns are conventional and modifiers attach to the intended head and actor | An awkward form, hidden actor or ambiguous attachment changes the claim |
| Information density and register | Nominalisation supports comparison while clauses restore agency; formal tone stays readable | Noun stacks make the case hard to unpack or merely sound grand |
| Written craft | Exactly 440 words; thesis, fair counter-reading, qualified answer and traceable local revision | The count is met by losing a source or the conclusion exceeds the record |
| Spoken discussion and prosody | Five-to-six-minute opening plus responsive answers; thought groups and brief repair preserve the claim | A memorised monologue avoids challenges or stress obscures who acted or what is uncertain |
Match each observation to the dimension it supports most directly.
S Narrative and source line
C Claim and uncertainty
N Noun formation and attachment
D Information density and register
W Written craft
P Spoken discussion and prosody
1. The reader identifies the notice as the source for the open building.
2. The speaker calls greater visibility Mara’s impression rather than a counted result.
3. A listener correctly attaches “to the foyer” to the shelf’s relocation.
4. A clause names staff after the useful noun “relocation” introduces the topic.
5. The 440-word page grants the volunteer counter-reading before its qualified conclusion.
6. The speaker pauses after a complex noun phrase and directly answers a follow-up question.
Calibrate the final gate without adding claims
Make only the named repair in the fictional library case. Do not add an event or measurement.
1. The relocatement of the library saved it. — noun form and scope
2. The volunteers’ work proved that borrowing increased. — evidential limit
3. The implementation of the decision moved the shelf. — actor and unmade decision
4. Mara measured the shelf’s new visibility. — attribution
Thirty-second spoken gate
From three cue words, say the documented event, the article’s larger framing and the claim that remains unproved.
Check actor, source and uncertainty before the assessed discussion.
- Mark one pause between the event and the interpretation, and stress the phrase that signals contrast.
- If a listener mistakes the headline for a documented fact, use the Lesson 7 local repair; keep the full argument for the assessed take.
Submit the piece and discuss the public story
Part 1 · Final 440-word piece · 8 minutes
Apply the Lesson 7 revision brief to the same formal-academic analysis. Submit the final piece beside the untouched first draft and source map.
Deliver exactly 440 body words with a defensible thesis, source-backed sequence, fair counter-reading and qualified answer.
- Minutes 1–3: apply one local written repair or record “no repair evidenced”; leave choices that the cold reader recovered accurately.
- Minutes 4–5: audit notice, interview, article and inference. Keep staff, Mara and the volunteers attached to their actual actions; preserve unknown counts and return date.
- Minute 6: underline one verb-derived noun, one adjective-derived noun and one complex noun phrase, or record where a clause replaced a damaging form. Explain their analytical jobs.
- Minute 7: compare the conclusion with the thesis and the strongest counter-reading; check that the larger claim has not silently become fact.
- Minute 8: verify exactly 440 body words under the Lesson 7 convention, excluding title, paragraph labels and separate source note; freeze the submitted version.
Part 2 · Five-to-six-minute opening and formal exchange · 17 minutes
Discuss the same case with an uninformed listener from short source and argument notes. Keep the written piece closed during the discussion. Working alone, record one unedited opening, pause, then answer two supplied challenges aloud.
Sustain a five-to-six-minute opening and respond directly to two substantive challenges without losing source attribution or evidential limits.
- Minutes 1–2 · prepare: use cue words for event, framing, counter-reading, missing evidence and conclusion. Mark one phrase for thought-group stress.
- Minutes 3–8 · opening: start a visible timer and speak for five to six minutes in one take. Attribute the notice, Mara’s interview and the article; self-repair briefly rather than restarting.
- Minutes 9–12 · challenges: answer “Could the volunteers’ help justify the word rescue?” and “What evidence would change your conclusion?” Ask one genuine follow-up question and respond to a further point if a partner offers it.
- Minutes 13–14 · reconstruction: before seeing the written piece, the listener records event, framing, concession, uncertainty and conclusion. Label any informed listener or delayed self-check accurately.
- Minutes 15–17 · preserve: save unedited audio, timer result, cue notes, listener map and challenge answers. Do not substitute a polished rehearsal for the assessed take.
Part 3 · Evidence record · 5 minutes
Judge both final products against the six rubric dimensions without collapsing them into one impression.
Mark not yet, emerging or secure for each dimension, citing an exact written line, audio time stamp or audience response.
- Keep written and spoken evidence separate where the same dimension behaves differently across modes.
- Quote the whole noun phrase and local clause when rating formation, attachment, density or claim status.
- For any not-yet or emerging mark, name a short next test at the observed seam. Do not assign a transfer cause from one example.
Required Unit 43 portfolio package
| Artifact | Traceability check |
|---|---|
| Final written piece | Exactly 440 body words, count and counting convention |
| Written development | Lesson 7 first draft, source map, cold-reader trace and exact final revision |
| Final spoken discussion | Unedited five-to-six-minute opening, timed result and answers to two challenges |
| Spoken development | Lesson 5 first take, Lesson 6 A/B repair and final cue notes |
| Audience evidence | Reader and listener reconstructions with informed or self-evidence labelled |
| Judgement record | Six separate ratings with lines, audio time stamps or audience responses |
Make bounded claims from both performances
Choose the claim warranted by the stated evidence.
1. The written reader distinguishes rescue framing from the shelf move, but the spoken listener hears rescue as an established outcome. What is the fairest judgement?
2. The speaker answers the volunteer challenge but cannot say what evidence would change the conclusion. What is the next test?
3. The speaker briefly corrects “the library relocated” to “staff relocated the shelf” and continues. What can that show?
Close the Unit 43 portfolio entry
Review the six ratings, final piece, spoken exchange and development trail.
State one evidenced can-do claim and one precise next test.
- Complete: “In this written and spoken analysis, I can ___, as shown by ___.” Cite a line or time stamp and an audience response.
- Complete: “I still need to test ___ with ___, because the reader or listener recovered ___.”
- Name one noun-phrase or nominalisation decision that changed between baseline and final work, and the audience evidence that justified it.
Carry claim precision into work and ethics
Choose the Unit 43 principle useful in Unit 44.
1. When a work-ethics claim circulates to a new audience, what should remain testable?
Bridge record
Archive the creator, title and paragraph location of one useful noun phrase from your complete academic-journalism essay and one London Review of Books piece beside the Unit 43 portfolio. Note how each source identifies an actor or limits a conclusion. For Unit 44, bring one question about a word choice in a work-related claim and what that choice asks a new audience to believe. The outside readings are style observations, not evidence for the fictional library case.