Listening Section 3: Multiple Choice & Matching: Question 8

Transcript-based practice (no audio).

Daniel: Okay, so we've each pulled together a pile of possible sources for the literature review section. Let's go through them and decide what actually makes the cut.

Ines: Sure. Start with the one I flagged, that magazine feature on mentoring schemes reducing dropout rates. It's well written, but I couldn't find a single citation or study reference in it anywhere.

Daniel: I noticed that too. My first thought was we could still use it, just flagged as anecdotal support rather than solid evidence. But actually, thinking about it more, I don't think it earns a place at all. There's no way to verify any of the claims it makes.

Ines: Agreed, let's leave it out entirely. Next, there's that 2004 study, the one nearly every other paper in this field cites.

Daniel: Right, my instinct was almost to drop it for being outdated, since our review's meant to focus on current practice. But it's clearly foundational, half our other sources build directly on its framework.

Ines: True. I'd say include it, but only as background in the early part of the review, and make sure we pair it with more recent studies so it isn't the only thing our argument rests on.

Daniel: Agreed. Now, what about the report from that mentoring charity, the one with the impressive-looking statistics?

Ines: That one worries me a bit. The charity runs mentoring programmes itself, so it has a direct interest in making those programmes look effective. I'm not saying the numbers are fabricated, but the framing could easily be one-sided.

Daniel: Fair point, we should treat it cautiously, maybe cross-check its headline figures against an independent source rather than citing it on its own.

Ines: Exactly. Now, how are we actually searching for the rest of our sources? I've mostly just been typing things into a general search engine.

Daniel: I think we need to be more systematic than that. Let's use the university's academic database properly, set specific keyword combinations, restrict the publication date range, and only look at peer-reviewed journals.

Ines: Agreed, that'll cut out a lot of the noise we're currently wading through. Last thing. How many sources are we actually aiming to include? I've got nearly forty on my longlist right now.

Daniel: Forty's far too many for a review this length. I think we need to be disciplined and narrow it down to somewhere around fifteen to twenty, the sources most directly relevant to our actual research question, rather than everything remotely related to mentoring.

Ines: Agreed. Let's each go back and re-rank our lists against that fifteen-to-twenty target before we meet again.

Choose the correct letter, A, B or C.

1. What do Daniel and Ines decide about the magazine feature on mentoring? A. Exclude it entirely because its claims cannot be verified. B. Include it, flagged as anecdotal evidence only. C. Include it as the opening example in their introduction.

2. What is agreed about the widely-cited 2004 study? A. Include it as background, paired with more recent studies. B. Exclude it because it is outdated. C. Make it the central focus of the whole review.

3. What concern does Ines raise about the mentoring charity's report? A. It was published too recently to have been peer-reviewed. B. It contains too little quantitative data to be useful. C. It may present a one-sided view because the charity benefits from its programmes looking effective.

4. How do they decide to search for the remaining sources? A. Continue using a general search engine, since it has worked so far. B. Rely only on the reference list of the 2004 study. C. Use the university's academic database with defined keywords, a date range, and a peer-review filter.

5. What is the final decision about how many sources to include? A. As many as possible, since Ines already has nearly forty. B. Around fifteen to twenty sources most directly relevant to their research question. C. Exactly ten sources, to match last year's example review.