BSc:EnglishForAcademicPurposesII

English for Academic Purposes II

• Course name: English for Academic Purposes-2
• Course number: N/A
• Subject area: English for Specific Purposes, English for Academic Purposes, Academic Writing

Course Characteristics

Key concepts of the class

• Academic discourse
• Argumentation in higher education

What is the purpose of this course?

The course is designed to equip the first-year undergraduate students of the Department of Computer Science (CS) with the necessary English Language knowledge and skills for their effective performance in CS subjects, by means of better comprehension of academic texts, and by expressing and supporting their viewpoints orally and in writing, in the manner appropriate in the academic environment.

- What should a student remember at the end of the course?

By the end of the course, the students should be able to remember and recognize

• Academic vocabulary for academic style, discussions and debates
• Scientific papers search databases
• Rhetorical devices

- What should a student be able to understand at the end of the course?

By the end of the course, the students should be able to describe and explain

• The process of academic information seeking
• The notions of credible and non-credible sources
• The purpose of documenting the process of academic information search
• The purpose and structure of a reading log and annotated bibliography
• The concepts related to academic writing style: normalization, hedging, wordiness and redundancy, over-generalization
• The general rules of applying IEEE referencing style for in-text citations and reference list
• Structure and purpose of a 5 paragraph research essay and its parts
• General principles of rhetoric and constructing arguments

- What should a student be able to apply at the end of the course?

By the end of the course, the students should be able to

• Perform targeted academic literature search using appropriate peer-reviewed databases
• Identify credible sources
• Manage and document the reading process with a search log and annotated bibliography
• Demonstrate the ability to read critically - to be able to evaluate the strengths and limitations of ideas and approaches
• Comprehend academic articles and judge their relevance to your areas of interest
• Work independently and in groups to manage the ongoing and recursive processes of drafting, editing and revising, writing, and incorporating the instructor’s feedback and peer review comments
• Give impromptu and prepared written feedback to peers, receive impromptu and prepared written feedback from your instructor and peers, and incorporate this new understanding into your revised work
• Use IEEE in-text citations and referencing
• Produce a well-structured coherent, cohesive and concise 5-paragraph essay, using appropriate advanced academic language and style, supporting your relevant ideas with research-based evidence
• Develop and support your points of view in academic discussions, interviews and debates with strong and valid evidence
• Perform academic discussions in different roles and consequently develop a deeper knowledge of the target research question and make group decisions
• Give constructive impromptu and prepared oral feedback to peers. Receive impromptu and prepared oral feedback from your instructor and peers, reflect on both types of feedback and incorporate this new understanding into your final work
• Develop strong argumentation and use specialized debate vocabulary and rhetorical devices to present your resolution on a specified topic, to defend it, and to convince the audience

Course evaluation

Course grade breakdown

		Task Details
Assignment (1)	10%	Reading Log (individual submission)
Assignment (2)	10%	Annotated Bibliography (group submission)
Assignment (3)	10%	Interview (Group work, in-class)
Assignment (4)	20%	Research Essay (individual submission)
Assignment (5)	10%	Improving your Writing Skills Quiz (in-class)
Assignment (6)	20%	Debate (group in-class)
Timely submission	10%	Timely Submission of Assignments throughout the Course
Participation	10%	Physical Attendance and Active Participation in the Course

Late Submission Policy

This policy will be strictly applied in this course. If a personal emergency should arise that affects your ability to turn in an assignment in a timely fashion, you must contact the course instructor BEFORE the deadline to get a “Special Late Submission Approval” from the course instructor. Documents that prove the urgency of your situation must be submitted to your instructor, e.g., health reports. Without the “Special Late Submission Approval”, submissions will be still accepted up to 48 hours late, but with a 25% penalty. No “Special Late Submission Approval” will be granted after the deadline. All late submissions should be submitted via LMS.

Cooperation Policy and Quotations

We encourage vigorous discussion and cooperation in this class. You should feel free to discuss any aspects of the class with any classmates. However, we insist that any written material that is not specifically designated as a team deliverable needs to be done by you alone. This includes answers to reading questions, individual reports associated with assignments, and labs. We also insist that if you include verbatim text from any source, you clearly indicate it using standard conventions of quotation or indentation and a note to indicate the source.

Grades range

Course grading range

		Proposed range
A. Excellent	90-100	86,25-100
B. Good	75-89	61,25-86,24
C. Satisfactory	60-74	36,25-61,24
D. Poor	0-59	0-36,24

Resources and reference material

Main textbook:

• The materials are designed from a variety of textbooks and authentic sources to meet the students’ own needs and interests.

Other reference material:

• Cambridge Academic English Intermediate, Craig Thaine et al., CUP, 2012
• Cambridge Academic English Upper Intermediate, Martin Hewings et al., CUP, 2014.
• Cambridge Academic English Advanced, Martin Hewings et al., CUP, 2012
• Academic Writing Skills 1, Peter Chin et al., CUP, 2014
• Academic Writing Skills 2, Peter Chin et al., CUP, 2012.
• Skills for Effective Writing Level 4, CUP, 2013.
• Skills for Effective Writing Level 3, CUP, 2013.
• Final Draft Level 3, Andrew Aquino-Cutcher et al., CUP, 2016.
• Final Draft Level 4, Wendy Asplin et al., CUP, 2016.
• Writing Around the World: A Guide to Writing Across Cultures, Matthew McCool, 2009.
• http://journals.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/IEEE-Reference-Guide.pdf

Course Sections

The main sections of the course and approximate hour distribution between them is as follows:

Course Sections

Section	Section Title	Teaching Hours
1	Academic information seeking and documenting	22
2	Research Essay	22
3	Debates	16

Section 1

Section title:

Academic information seeking and documenting

Topics covered in this section:

• Credible and non-credible sources
• Documenting targeted academic information seeking with a reading log and an annotated bibliography
• Academic reading - understanding graphs and tables
• IEEE for citations in annotated bibliographies

What forms of evaluation are used to test students’ performance in this section?

	Yes/No
Development of individual parts of software product code	0
Homework and group projects	1
Midterm evaluation	0
Testing (written or computer based)	0
Reports	1
Essays	0
Oral polls	0
Discussions	1

Typical questions for ongoing performance evaluation within this section

1. Explain the characteristics of a credible source.
2. List and explain the types of academic information search.
3. Find a research-based article which is relevant to your research question and which is a credible source. Document it in your reading log.
4. Reflect on your search and group work process and elaborate on those processes improvement.
5. As a group, write a draft of an Annotated bibliography (AB), using IEEE.

Typical questions for seminar classes (labs) within this section

1. During a group discussion, brief your peers on the article of your choice, prove that it is a credible source and explain how it is relevant to you research question. As a group, decide if the article is appropriate for a 3-item AB.
2. Explain the meaning of a graph or a table.
3. Perform a round table discussion to account for your sources choices for AB.
4. Perform peer review of AB and provide peer feedback for a piece of writing.
5. Elaborate on your personal strategy for improving your AB.

Test questions for final assessment in this section

1. Individually submit your reading log that should contain at least 3 entries and should critically evaluate them in terms of relevance and credibility.
2. As a group, submit your annotated bibliography that contains at least 3 entries describing sources that are credible and relevant to your research question. Use IEEE for citations.
3. As a group, perform an interview and demonstrate your collaborative deep analysis of the researched area.

Section 2

Section title:

Research Essay

Topics covered in this section:

• Purpose and structure of a 5 paragraph research essay
• Academic writing style - nationalisation, hedging, wordiness and redundancy, over-generalization.
• IEEE for in-text citations. IEEE reference list.

What forms of evaluation are used to test students’ performance in this section?

	Yes/No
Development of individual parts of software product code	0
Homework and group projects	1
Midterm evaluation	0
Testing (written or computer based)	1
Reports	0
Essays	1
Oral polls	0
Discussions	0

Typical questions for ongoing performance evaluation within this section

1. Search for research-based evidence to support the arguments for your essay
2. Outline your essay.
3. Draft introductory, body, concluding paragraphs of your essay.
4. Self-edit your essay text according to the structure checklist, academic style requirements checklist, and IEEE referencing check-list.

Typical questions for seminar classes (labs) within this section

1. Design a list of arguments in favour or against a point of view.
2. Demonstrate the research-based evidence to support those arguments.
3. Identify the cases of nominalization, charged language, wordiness and redundancy and over-generalisation and improve the texts.
4. Based on the mentor’s review of your text, elaborate on your further steps to improve your writing.

Test questions for final assessment in this section

1. On a quiz, demonstrate your skill of understanding and utilization of academic style and dealing with nominalization, charged language, wordiness and redundancy and over-generalisation
2. Individually, submit your 5 paragraph research essay, referenced according to IEEE.

Section 3

Section title:

Debates

Topics covered in this section:

• Debates purpose and structure
• Debates vocabulary
• Rhetorical devices. Principles of rhetoric

What forms of evaluation are used to test students’ performance in this section?

	Yes/No
Development of individual parts of software product code	0
Homework and group projects	1
Midterm evaluation	0
Testing (written or computer based)	1
Reports	0
Essays	0
Oral polls	0
Discussions (debates)	1

Typical questions for ongoing performance evaluation within this section

1. Take a quiz on debates vocabulary
2. Take a quiz on rhetoric devices
3. Perform research for your arguments
4. Based on the mentor ’s and peer feedback, elaborate on your personal strategies to improve your debate skills

Typical questions for seminar classes (labs) within this section

1. Construct and present your argumentation
2. Perform a mock debate
3. Perform a peer review of your group-mates debate

Test questions for final assessment in this section

1. Perform a debate group providing strong support for your arguments in order to convince your audience, and using appropriate vocabulary and rhetoric devices.

Assessment Task (1): Information search documentation

Type:

Individual, submission

Rationale:

This task prepares you to write your annotated bibliography assignment by keeping a record of what you have read during your academic search and critical reading of the academic sources you have selected to respond to your research question.

Instructions:

You should document three sources at least of what you read during your academic search. These sources have to be relevant to your research question that has been selected by your search team. The following elements should be covered in your documentation/RL:

• Research Question (the same for the three sources/entries);
• Date of access (For electronic sources);
• Databases (Example: Google Scholar, ResearchGate, ScienceDirect, ACM Digital Library, IEEE, etc.)
• Date of publication;
• Source link;
• Author(s)/institution(s) ’s (full name);
• Name of the source;
• Key terms/key words;
• Notes: What is the text about? What are the main concepts covered?;
• Methodology & Results used;
• Relevance of the source and the significance of certain information in the source to your research question.

You can add any extra elements to the above list if you think this element can be useful for your work.

Submission deadline:

This task is submitted as a home assignment (not in-class) and it can take any form: table, flash cards, power point, etc. You should read the source, document it and have it ready for discussion on the due days referred to in the above calendar: RL1- lesson 4, RL2 Lesson 6, RL3- Lesson 7. The three submitted RLs/entries can be edited to produce a clear and comprehensible input and for writing the AB assignment. RL document due - Lesson 10

Weight:

10 %

Criterion	A	B	C	D
Task response 50%	At least three entries of the documentation clearly cover the elements listed in the task description, concisely brief the main concepts of the sources, and deeply assess and evaluate the significance of the source to the research question.	Two of the three required entries of the documentation clearly cover the elements listed in the task description; concisely brief the main concepts of the sources, and deeply assess and evaluate the significance of the source to the research question.	One of the three required entries of the documentation clearly covers the elements listed in the task description; concisely briefs the main concepts of the sources, and deeply assesses and evaluates the significance of the source to the research question.	None of the entries of the documentation clearly covers the elements listed in the task description; concisely briefs the main concepts of the sources, and deeply assesses and evaluates the significance of the source to the research question.
Source relevance 20%	At least three cited sources indicate the relevance to the research question	Two of the cited sources indicate the relevance to the research question	One of the cited sources indicates the relevance to the research question	None of the cited sources indicates the relevance to the research question
Timely Submission 30%	At least three sources of the reading log are submitted on time (prior to the source discussion session)	Two sources of the reading log are submitted on time (prior to the source discussion session)	One source of the reading log is submitted on time (prior to the source discussion session)	None of the three sources is submitted on time (prior to the source discussion session)

Assessment Task (2): Annotated Bibliography (AB)

Type:

Written group work (three members)

Length:

600 words minimum

Rationale:

This task prepares you to analyze academic sources, for performing your own research activity during your Computer Science studies at the university and further, in Research and Development (RnD) field.

Instructions:

Provide an annotated bibliography (AB) containing 3 relevant and credible (peer reviewed, research-based) sources. Please refer to the AB template provided during the module to structure your work. The content of AB should cover the following items:

• Your research question
• Three cited sources according to IEEE reference style
• A summary and rationale of each source

You should cite your sources according to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) style: http://journals.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/IEEE-Reference-Guide.pdf Your points should be substantive and clear and should use theoretical terminology from the articles.

Weight:

10 %

Criterion	A	B	C	D
Task fulfillment and quality of annotations 40%	Task fulfillment is nearly perfect, with almost no errors of substance, detail or development. Annotations sufficiently and succinctly summarize, evaluate, and indicate the significance of the source to the research question.	Task fulfillment includes a few errors with a slight impact on substance, detail and development. Annotations sufficiently summarize, evaluate, indicate the significance of the source to the research question.	Assignment includes many errors which diminish or confuse substance, detail and development. Annotations adequately summarize, evaluate, indicate the significance of the source to the research question.	Assignment shows only a little or no task fulfillment. Some annotations provide an inadequate summary, evaluation, and/or indicate the significance of the source to the research question.
Language 20% :grammatical accuracy, clarity and formality	Language is very clear, effective, carefully chosen and precise, with a high degree of accuracy in grammar, vocabulary and sentence construction; register and style are effective and appropriate.	Language is clear and carefully chosen, with a good degree of accuracy in grammar, vocabulary and sentence construction; register and style are consistently appropriate.	Language is clear and carefully chosen, with an adequate degree of accuracy in grammar, vocabulary and sentence construction despite some lapses; register and style are mostly appropriate.	Language is sometimes clear and carefully chosen; grammar, vocabulary and sentence construction are fairly accurate, although errors and inconsistencies are apparent; the register and style are to some extent appropriate.
Credibility of sources 20%	The three sources cited can be considered reliable and trustworthy.	Two of the sources cited can be considered reliable and trustworthy.	One of the sources cited can be considered reliable and trustworthy.	No sources cited can be considered reliable.
Referencing 20%	Citations are formatted correctly in the document according to IEEE reference style.	There are a few formatting errors. Some citation information may be missing according to IEEE reference style.	There are some formatting errors or missing information according to IEEE reference style.	There are many and/or frequent formatting or information errors according to IEEE reference style.

Assessment Task (3): Interview

Type:

Group work (three members)

Duration:

15 minutes (with equal involvement of each team member)

Rationale:

This task aims at highlighting your critical thinking skills after collaboratively analyzing the source articles you have searched for your written AB. Furthermore, you will be able to express your vision on what you read, in your Computer Science study.

Instructions:

During this research discussion, you should verbally demonstrate your full understanding of the area of interest you have researched during your annotated bibliography module. Furthermore, your group interview should represent your deep analysis of the research area, your knowledge and reflective thoughts as a team on the questions attached to the task:

1. Is your article a credible source, what can determine its credibility?
2. What does your article revolve around?
3. How is your article relevant to your research question? Can you give examples?
4. How has the group collaboration been during the AB process?

This task can also be given as a presentation provided that each of the team members can respond to the aforementioned task questions and/or any relevant questions.

Weight:

10 %

Criterion	A	B	C	D
Task response and quality of analysis and responding to questions 40%	Shows excellent knowledge and understanding of the source articles and their relevance to the research question.Able to explain any concepts clearly and answer the questions aligned to the task or any questions convincingly.	Shows good knowledge and understanding of the source articles and their relevance to the research question. Can explain most concepts and answer most questions aligned to the task or any questions convincingly.	Some gaps in knowledge and in understanding of the source articles and their relevance to the research question.Some difficulties in explaining concepts and answering the questions aligned to the task or any questions convincingly.	Poor understanding of the source articles and their relevance to the research question. Unable to explain concepts or answer most questions aligned to the task and any questions convincingly.
Language 25% : grammatical accuracy, clarity and formality	Language is very clear, effective, carefully chosen and precise, with a high degree of accuracy in grammar, vocabulary and sentence construction; register and style are effective and appropriate.	Language is clear & carefully chosen, with a good degree of accuracy in grammar, vocabulary & sentence construction; register and style are mostly appropriate.	Language is clear and carefully chosen, with an adequate degree of accuracy in grammar, vocabulary and sentence construction despite some lapses; the register and style are to some extent appropriate.	Language is sometimes clear and carefully chosen; grammar, vocabulary and sentence construction are fairly accurate, although errors and inconsistencies are apparent; the register and style are inappropriate.
Delivery and communication 15% : voice, gestures and tone, clarity	Controlled and effective use of voice, face, gesture, and tone in all cases. Audibility Excellent.Extremely fluent. The listener has no difficulty understanding the speaker’s ideas at any time.	Controlled and effective use of voice, face, gesture, and tone in most cases, but with a few problems. Clearly audible. No strain to the listener. Communicates ideas with a good degree of fluency.	Controlled and effective use of voice, face, gesture, and tone in some cases with many problems. Audibility poor.Struggles to communicate meanings successfully.A certain amount of strain to the listener.	Deficient or absent delivery that shows only a little or no task fulfilment. Frequently inaudible. Considerable strain to the listener to understand the meaning.
Time Management 5%	As a group: Accurate time management: time is divided evenly among the team members.	As a group: Minor time management issues: A clear attempt to divide time evenly among the team members.	As a group: Poor time management: One or two of the team members either might either monopolize the discussion or not be mostly engaged throughout.	As a group: Lack of time management: all team members might either monopolize the discussion or not be engaged throughout.
Group collaboration 15%	Each member of the team shows excellent knowledge & understanding of their role in fulfilling the assignment and can explain any teamwork process clearly and answer any questions convincingly and evidently.	Each member of the team shows good knowledge and understanding of their role in fulfilling the assignment and can explain any teamwork process and answer most questions convincingly and evidently.	Each member of the team shows fair knowledge and understanding of their role in fulfilling the assignment and can explain most stages of the teamwork process and answer some questions convincingly and evidently.	Some gaps in the knowledge & understanding of the team member’s role in fulfilling the assignment. Some difficulties in explaining the teamwork process and convincingly answering the questions and providing evidence.

Assessment Task (4): Research Essay

Type:

Individual work

Rationale:

This task teaches you to express a position on a topic and use peer-reviewed researched-based sources to support this position

Instructions:

Write a 5-paragraph essay on a specific topic describing your position on this topic and providing 3 fact-based arguments to support it. The choice of the topic to write about is yours. It can be a topic in any area where research content is used. Use 5-6 academic sources in order to provide arguments which are based on facts and details gathered from research. Include a reference list.

Weight:

20 %

Criterion	A	B	C	D
Content 30% : information, analysis, task fulfillment	An exceptional depth, detail and development of ideas within and across paragraphs with almost no errors.	A good depth, detail and development of ideas within and across paragraphs, with only a few errors.	A satisfactory depth,detail and development of ideas within and across paragraphs, with several problems.	The assignment shows only a little or no task fulfillment.
Structure 25% : within paragraphs, across paragraphs,layout	The student has followed the suggested 5-paragraph structure. Information and ideas are logically organized throughout. The student has used appropriate structuring devices	The student has followed the suggested 5-paragraph structure, but there are some flaws. In most cases, information and ideas are logically organized throughout, structuring devices are used effectively.	The student has followed the suggested 5-paragraph structure, but there are serious flaws. There are many problems with the organization and progression of information and ideas, and with the use of structuring devices.	The student has not followed the suggested 5paragraph structure. Most structural devices are deficient or absent. Information and ideas are not arranged coherently. The student may not have written in paragraphs.
Language 20%:grammar, vocabulary	A variety of complex grammar structures and advanced level vocabulary are used throughout the essay. Sentences are error free. Punctuation and spelling are nearly perfect.	Most sentences are clear and error free, with a mix of simple and complex sentence forms. Some advanced level words are used.	Many sentences contain errors. A limited range of structures and advanced level vocabulary are used, with many errors which cause comprehension problems for the reader.	A limited range of complex sentence structures and vocabulary are used. Most structures are inaccurate. Comprehension is difficult.
Academic Writing Style 15%	The student has followed Academic Writing Style rules. The student has opted for nominalization where necessary and avoided overgeneralization, redundancy, charged language and wordiness.	The student has followed most rules of the Academic Writing Style, though some mistakes have been made. The student has not always opted for nominalization where necessary or avoided overgeneralization, redundancy, charged language and wordiness.	The student has violated many rules of the Academic Writing Style and failed to use nominalization where necessary or to avoid overgeneralization, redundancy, charged language and wordiness.	The student is not aware of the Academic Writing Style
Citing and referencing 10%	In-text citations and the References List are correctly formatted according to the IEEE style. All the necessary citation information is provided.	There are a few in-text citation and References List errors in the essay. Some citation information may be missing.	There are many in-text citation and References List errors in the essay. A lot of citation information is missing.	The student is not aware of the IEEE referencing style.

Assessment Task (5): Quiz

Weight:

10 %

		B	C	D
Success rate	90% +	62%+	37%+	36%-

Timely submission

Weight:

10 %

		B	C	D
Timely submission	Timely submits 90%+ of the assignments	Timely submits 65%+ of the assignments	Timely submits 40%+ of the assignments	Timely submits 40%- of the assignments

Participation and attendance

Weight:

10 %

		B	C	D
Participation	Contributes often and voluntarily. Works well with others. Insightful comments.	Contributes readily, works well with others, makes useful comments.	Contributes occasionally voluntarily, works well with others, makes sensible comments.	Contributes reluctantly, does not always work well with others, comments sometimes irrelevant.
Attendance rate	90% +	65%+	40%+	40%-

Assessment Task (6): Debate

Type:

Group work (three members per team)

Duration:

15 minutes

Rationale:

This task will prepare you to develop and support your points of view in formal debates with strong and valid research-based evidence. What is more, you will get training in using debate vocabulary and rhetorical devices to present your resolution on a specified topic, to defend it, and to convince the audience.

Instructions:

You will choose a debate topic and form two teams – an affirmative (proposition) team and a negative (opposition) team. Each team will consist of 3 students. Each student will have to prepare a 1-minute speech presenting a well-grounded pro or con argument. Each team will then have 3 minutes to rebut all the arguments presented by the other team and to defend your team’s resolution. During the rebuttal, each team member has a 1-minute speaking limit. If a speaker exceeds their 1-minute speaking limit, they will remain silent during the rest of the rebuttal. When speaking, you will have to use debate phrases and rhetoric devices as per the vocabulary list provided. During the debate, the audience will be present. The audience will serve as a jury deciding a debate winner. If two thirds of the audience vote for a team, such team wins, and the team gets extra 0.4 added to the assignment 6 grade (those 0.4, weighted accordingly, in some cases will be added to the final course grade score).

Weight:

20 %

Criterion	A	B	C	D
Statement 20%	Controlled and effective reasoning and evidence in all cases. All arguments are strong, persuasive, clearly tied to an idea and organized in a tight, logical fashion	Controlled and effective reasoning and evidence in most cases, but with a few problems. Most arguments are rather strong, quite persuasive, clearly tied to an idea and organized in a tight, logical fashion	Controlled and effective reasoning and evidence in some cases with many problems. Some of the arguments are irrelevant	Faulty reasoning and evidence show a little or no task fulfillment. Most of the arguments are either irrelevant and illogical, or altogether absent.
Delivery 29%	Controlled and effective use of voice, face, gesture, body language and tone in all cases.	Controlled and effective use of voice, face, gesture, body language and tone in most cases, but with a few problems.	Controlled and effective use of voice, face, gesture, body language and tone in some cases with many problems.	Deficient or absent delivery that shows only a little or no task fulfillment.
Language 20%	Sentences are almost error free. An effective range of vocabulary, and a variety of structures and terms are used.	Most sentences are error free. An effective range of vocabulary, and a variety of structures and terms are used.	Many sentences contain errors. A limited range of vocabulary and structures are used, with many errors which cause listening comprehension problems.	A limited range of structures and complex sentence forms are used. Most structures are inaccurate, and errors predominate. Comprehension is difficult.
Rhetoric 20%	4 or more rhetoric devices are used correctly and in place.	3 rhetoric devices are used correctly and in place.	1-2 rhetoric devices are used correctly and in place.	No rhetoric devices are used.
Debate 20%	Controlled and effective concession, refutation and compromise. Excellent rebuttal and defense against the opposing team’s objections	There are a few problems with concession, refutation and compromise. missing. Good cross exam and rebuttals, with only minor slip-ups.	Many problems with concession, refutation and compromise. Satisfactory rebuttals, but with some significant problems.	Multiple problems with concession, refutation and compromise. Poor rebuttals, failure to point out problems in the opposing team’s position or failure to defend against their attack.