How to write a C1 advanced report

Peer-mentoring pilot: review and next steps Purpose and evidence This report evaluates the initial peer-mentoring pilot using registration and attendance records together with interviews with six participants. There was no comparison group, so the evidence cannot establish whether the scheme improved academic performance. Participation Forty students registered, of whom twenty-eight attended at least one meeting. Eighteen attended three or more. The scheme therefore attracted initial interest, but registration did not consistently lead to sustained participation. The records do not explain why some students never attended or stopped after one or two meetings. Those students' experiences should be investigated before low attendance is attributed to a lack of motivation. Participant feedback All six interviewees valued the practical advice they received. However, four reported difficulty arranging meetings. This suggests that scheduling deserves attention, although the small interview group cannot be assumed to represent every participant. Positive comments from those who remained involved may also overlook barriers experienced by students who withdrew. Recommendations The college should run a further limited pilot with regular meeting windows and a clear process for changing appointments. It should seek feedback from non-attenders as well as regular participants. Evaluation should distinguish ease of participation, perceived usefulness and any longer-term educational outcomes. A permanent expansion would be premature. Nevertheless, the combination of sustained attendance among some students and practical scheduling concerns provides a reasonable basis for a more structured trial, followed by a decision using broader evidence.

This example illustrates structure and tone and may be shorter than the suggested range. Develop your own response.