Listening Section 3: Multiple Choice & Matching: Question 10

Transcript-based practice (no audio).

Grace: Okay, before we write the evaluation section, let's actually talk through how the project went, not just what the results were.

Oliver: Fair. I'd say our biggest strength was the response rate, we got just over two hundred completed surveys, which was noticeably higher than most of the other groups managed.

Nadia: Agreed, that's worth highlighting. But I want to flag a limitation before we get carried away with the good stuff, our sample skews heavily towards first-years. We handed out most of the surveys in first-year lecture halls, since that's where we had easiest access, and it shows in the age and course-year breakdown.

Grace: Fair point. That should go in the write-up honestly.

Oliver: Speaking of honesty, what about question six, the one on "commuting stress"? Respondents clearly interpreted it differently, some answered about the journey itself, others about arriving late.

Nadia: We can't just quietly recode those answers to fit whichever pattern we want. I think we keep the responses as they are in the analysis, but flag clearly that the wording was ambiguous and should be rewritten if anyone repeats this.

Grace: Agreed. Now, the timeline. How do we describe that?

Oliver: Not brilliantly. Our early response rate was slow, so data collection overran by about two weeks, pushing the analysis phase later than planned.

Nadia: Worth being upfront about that too.

Grace: What about the feedback we got after the in-class presentation last week?

Oliver: A few people said the topic itself wasn't especially engaging, which stung a bit, but the more useful comment was that our graphs were genuinely hard to read from the back of the room. The axis labels were too small.

Nadia: That's the actionable one. We should mention that we'd enlarge the visuals next time, regardless of what people thought of the topic itself.

Grace: Agreed. So, for the future-research recommendation. What should we suggest?

Nadia: Definitely not repeating the exact same survey unchanged. That would just reproduce the same sampling problem. I'd recommend distributing it across a much wider range of year groups next time, and running the collection window longer so the response rate isn't so rushed.

Oliver: I did wonder about switching entirely to interviews instead of a survey, but honestly that's too big a change to recommend on the basis of one project, better to refine the survey approach first.

Grace: Agreed. And finally, how do we frame the limitations section overall? I don't want it to read as if we're trashing our own work.

Nadia: We shouldn't downplay them, but we shouldn't dwell either, frame each one as a specific, actionable direction for whoever continues this next.

Oliver: And it definitely needs its own section. The module guidelines require one, so we can't leave it out.

Grace: Agreed on all counts. Let's draft it along those lines.

Choose the correct letter, A, B or C.

1. What do they agree was the main strength of the project? A. The response rate, which was higher than most other groups achieved. B. The originality of the research topic. C. The complexity of the statistical methods used.

2. What sampling limitation does Nadia raise? A. The sample was too small overall. B. The sample excluded part-time students entirely. C. The sample over-represented first-year students because of where surveys were distributed.

3. What do they decide to do about the ambiguous "commuting stress" question? A. Keep the responses as given but flag the ambiguous wording in the evaluation. B. Recode the answers to fit a consistent pattern. C. Remove the question from the analysis altogether.

4. How does Oliver describe the data-collection timeline? A. It overran by around two weeks because of a slow early response rate. B. It ran exactly to the original schedule. C. It finished two weeks early, giving them extra analysis time.

5. What does Nadia say is the most useful piece of feedback from the presentation? A. That the presentation ran over its allotted time. B. That the topic was not particularly engaging. C. That the graphs were hard to read from the back of the room.

6. What do they agree to recommend for future research? A. Repeat the same survey unchanged next year. B. Distribute the survey across a wider range of year groups with a longer collection window. C. Switch entirely to qualitative interviews instead of a survey.

7. How do they decide to frame the limitations section? A. Downplay the limitations to keep a positive overall impression. B. Omit it, since the results were largely positive. C. Present limitations honestly, framed as specific directions for future work.