Questioner's role
Select a card, listen to the answer, ask follow-up questions and help connect the term with an engineering situation.
Helpful phrase: “What is the engineering consequence of this observation?”
Facilitation method
Club facilitation method
The main task is to guide a participant through four speaking actions: introduce professional experience, explain a term, interpret data and formulate an engineering conclusion. The answer follows a technical-report structure: object → data → process → risk → next action.
Logic of the four rounds
1
Greeting
The participant answers questions about experience, objects, tasks and data.
2
Terms
The participant explains a term, separates it from similar concepts and gives an engineering example.
3
Interpretation
The participant describes an observation and explains the geomechanical process behind it.
4
Conclusion
The participant formulates a conclusion, a limitation and the next project step.
Responder's role
Build the answer using the sequence: object → data → interpretation → risk → next action.
Helpful phrase: “I would describe it as follows...”
How to work with one card
1
Question
The participant answers without a hint. The goal is to activate known vocabulary.
2
Hint
If the answer does not start, open the short hint.
3
Guiding questions
If the task is still difficult, the participant answers using the logical question structure.
4
Check
After the oral answer, open the sample answer and discuss one or two improvements.
Three-use rule
Each new term is used at least three times: in a definition, in a question and in an engineering example.
One idea per sentence
The participant uses short sentences and links them logically: observation leads to interpretation, and interpretation leads to conclusion.
Data → interpretation → decision
The answer ends with a practical conclusion: which data are needed, which mechanism is likely and which action is required.
Editorial criteria for an answer
The criteria help the participant speak as a coherent technical text for a geomechanics specialist, mining engineer or geologist.
| Criterion | How to check the answer |
|---|---|
| Target audience | The answer is clear to a specialist who works with rock mass, core, pit walls or underground excavations. |
| Logic | Each sentence continues the previous sentence and does not jump between unrelated topics. |
| Specificity | The participant names measurable data: dip, dip direction, spacing, RQD, UCS, groundwater, displacement or factor of safety. |
| Active voice | The sentence shows what the engineer does: “We measured joint orientation”, “We need additional mapping”. |
| Technical terms | Technical terms are preserved, but the participant explains them through a practical situation. |
| Closure | At the end, the participant names missing data, the process that needs explanation and the place where an example or sketch would help. |
Useful facilitator phrases
| Situation | Phrase |
|---|---|
| Ask for a term definition | Could you define this term in simple engineering language? |
| Ask for an example | Can you give a field or mining example? |
| Return to data | What data would you need to confirm this interpretation? |
| Ask for the process | Which process controls the behaviour of the rock mass here? |
| Ask for specificity | Can you add one measurable parameter to support this statement? |
| Ask for an example or sketch | Where would an example, section or simple sketch help the reader? |
| Correct gently | I understand your point, but I would phrase it slightly differently. |
| Ask for a practical conclusion | What is the engineering consequence of this observation? |