{
  "schema": "vedokrok.public-item.v1",
  "release_id": "MHC-RPUB-20260920-75ad787a",
  "url": "/knowledge/practice-the-interactive-part-as-a-separate-speaking-task",
  "id": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-1244",
  "version": "0.1.0",
  "title": "Practice the interactive part as a separate speaking task",
  "summary": "A presentation is a monologue until another person speaks. Then a different skill starts.",
  "kind": "protocol",
  "body": "Rehearse interaction deliberately instead of assuming it will appear from script practice. Ask someone to interrupt with plausible questions, ambiguous requests or disagreement. Listen fully, restate the question when needed, answer the core point, add support, and name a limit or unknown instead of bluffing. Then return to the main thread. The goal is responsive communication, not a memorized catalogue of perfect answers.",
  "limits": [
    "The evidence base for oral-competency programs is heterogeneous. This card is a task-matching practice heuristic, not proof that Q&A rehearsal alone improves every presentation."
  ],
  "topics": [
    "union-spoken-communication-practice"
  ],
  "intents": [],
  "source_ids": [
    "RS-D861E3C4D43DDB63"
  ],
  "evidence": [
    {
      "claim": "A systematic review of 23 university oral-competency interventions found heterogeneous programs using presentation practice, video recordings, feedback, debate and small-group problem solving as training approaches.",
      "source_id": "RS-D861E3C4D43DDB63",
      "role": "supports",
      "note": "The studies vary in design and quality; the review does not establish a single best method or effect size for every component.",
      "locator": "Abstract results"
    }
  ],
  "use_when": [
    "A prepared explanation is polished, but questions, interruptions or requests for clarification make the speaker lose the thread."
  ],
  "avoid_when": [
    "The evidence base for oral-competency programs is heterogeneous. This card is a task-matching practice heuristic, not proof that Q&A rehearsal alone improves every presentation."
  ],
  "example": "After a SAP design explanation, a reviewer asks about an exception you did not cover. You clarify the scenario, answer the known part, state the unresolved dependency and return to the decision being requested.",
  "check": "You can handle varied questions without relying on a fixed script, and the listener can still identify the answer and any stated uncertainty.",
  "steps": [
    "Collect several plausible questions or interruptions.",
    "Answer them in a different order each round.",
    "Clarify an ambiguous question before answering.",
    "Give the core answer before extra detail.",
    "Say what is unknown when the evidence does not support a confident answer.",
    "Return to the original thread without restarting the whole talk."
  ],
  "sources": [
    {
      "id": "RS-D861E3C4D43DDB63",
      "title": "Effectiveness and characteristics of programs for developing oral competencies at university: A systematic review",
      "url": "https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2149224"
    }
  ],
  "relations": [],
  "collections": [
    {
      "id": "RC-3ECD8801A79ECDE0",
      "title": "Train spoken communication as observable behavior",
      "url": "/collections/train-spoken-communication-as-observable-behavior"
    }
  ]
}