The Overlapping Interview Slot
You are a Year 12 Indonesian Background Language student preparing a 5-minute oral presentation on 'Peran media sosial dalam kehidupan remaja' (the role of social media in teenagers' lives). Your teacher has scheduled your presentation for Friday. On Wednesday, you learn that another student, Rani, is presenting on the same topic on Thursday. You hear her rehearsing and she plans to use the same three statistics you found: that Indonesian teens spend an average of 4.5 hours daily on social media, that 70% use TikTok as their main platform, and that cyberbullying reports rose 30% in one year. Your presentation must include personal examples, at least two sources cited in Indonesian, and a clear argument with a recommendation. You have already written your script.
1. What should you do about the overlap with Rani's statistics, and how should you adjust your oral presentation to meet the task requirements while remaining original? Explain your reasoning in terms of how oral communication is assessed.
Read the worked answer
The overlap itself is not a problem: the same public statistics are legitimate evidence for both students, and using them is not plagiarism as long as each of you cites the source in Indonesian. What matters for assessment is that your presentation demonstrates your own analysis, argument, and personal engagement - not that the data are unique.
However, presenting after Rani (Friday, after her Thursday slot) creates a real risk: the audience and examiner will hear the same three statistics twice within two days. If your script simply lists them as Rani did, your presentation will sound derivative even though it is your own work. The strategic move is to keep the statistics as evidence but change their function. Rani appears to use them descriptively ('teens spend 4.5 hours...'). You can use them analytically: pose a question, then use the data to answer it. For example: 'If teenagers spend 4.5 hours a day on social media, why do cyberbullying reports still rise 30%? This suggests time spent is not the same as time spent safely.' That turns the same number into the engine of an argument rather than a recited fact.
The task also requires personal examples, two cited sources in Indonesian, and a recommendation. Those requirements are independent of Rani's work, so focus your revision there: add a specific personal example (a class WhatsApp group incident, a family conversation about screen time), and make sure both sources are named in Indonesian (for example a survey by a named Indonesian research body and a news report). End with a concrete, actionable recommendation - for example, a school-level digital literacy session - rather than a vague 'we must be careful'.
Finally, do not change your topic just because Rani shares it. Changing topics late would weaken your preparation and your fluency. Originality in an oral is judged by your voice, your reasoning, and your examples, not by the novelty of the subject. Rehearse your revised script aloud so the new analytical framing sounds natural, not memorised.
2. Rani asks you to send her your script so she can 'make sure we don't sound the same'. How should you respond, and what does this reveal about academic integrity in oral tasks?
Read the worked answer
You should decline to send the full script, politely but clearly. Sharing a complete script before an assessed oral creates two problems. First, it gives Rani access to your exact wording and structure; even if she does not copy it, her knowledge of your script could shape her own choices in ways that blur whose work is whose. Second, it puts you at risk: if her presentation later resembles yours, you cannot easily prove the direction of influence. A better offer is to discuss the topic at a high level - which statistics you are using, what your argument is - without exchanging scripts.
This situation reveals that integrity in oral communication is not only about copying text. Orals are assessed on fluency, pronunciation, interaction, and the ability to sustain an argument in real time. A memorised script borrowed from someone else undermines exactly those skills, and examiners are trained to notice when delivery sounds recited rather than owned. The honest approach is to keep your preparation private, offer collegial help that does not involve handing over your work, and tell your teacher if you are worried about similarity. That protects both of you and reflects the professional norms of using sources: cite publicly available evidence openly, but do not circulate your own assessed work.