Bridging the Theory–Practice Gap in Structured Communication: Evaluating the Minto Pyramid Principle Under Massed and Spaced Training

The Minto Pyramid Principle is widely used in professional practice to structure arguments in oral and written communication, yet its effectiveness has not been examined in controlled empirical studies. This study evaluates whether a standardized Minto-based intervention improves argumentative structuring ability and knowledge, and whether spaced training outperforms massed training. In a cluster-randomized field design, 10–12 student trainer teams each deliver a 360-minute intervention to one group of six adult participants (N 60–72), recruited by the trainer teams. Teams are randomized to either massed training (360 min in one session) or spaced training (3 × 120 min within one week). Outcomes are assessed at pretest, posttest, and one-week follow-up. Knowledge is measured with parallel single-choice items; competence is assessed via rewrite tasks and storyline sketches rated by three independent peer raters (blind to measurement occasion). Primary analyses use linear mixed models testing time, condition, and their interaction; team-level repeatedmeasures ANOVA serves as sensitivity analysis.