Effectiveness and characteristics of programs for developing oral competencies at university: A systematic review

Abstract This paper offers a systematic review that follows the PRISMA protocol; its aim is to offer a compendium of intervention programs and strategies that have been developed in the university context for promoting oral competencies and public speaking skills. After a blind pair selection process, 23 studies were included, analyzed in depth, and their methodological quality evaluated, using one checklist for experimental studies and another for nonexperimental studies. The results reveal a variety of methodologies and techniques based on presentation and practice both in the classroom and using video recordings. Participation in debate, small group classroom organization for problem solving, and the use of feedback are presented as adequate teaching strategies for improving these skills. By compiling and analyzing the key elements of the interventions, guidance may be found for the design of future interventions, through a list of resources and activities that address these purposes.


Introduction
Traditionally, university classrooms have overlooked oral expression and have placed more emphasis on written expression. In this regard, Ruiz-Muñoz (2011) considers that students progressively acquire oral skills or public speaking skills in an innate or natural manner, without the help of direct strategies, so having these skills becomes a quality possessed only by a fortunate few. This fact has negative repercussions in students, and the lack of these competencies comes to light in situations like examinations, defenses, competitive job placement, debates, or simply when one has difficulty expressing their feelings or thoughts. According to Ander-Egg (2006), there is quite generalized agreement that the ability to speak in public is a combination of both innate and acquired elements: "it is a gift and it is a conquest" (p. 25). Several studies show that adequate performance in oral competencies is related to improved academic achievement and to university students' final outcomes (Mowbray & Perry, 2015), and it also favors effective communication in teamwork (Martínez et al., 2014). Moreover, low acquisition of oral competencies has been shown in association with numerous inadequate practices during speech, such as inappropriate pauses, clicking the tongue, problems with fluency or intonation, lack of clarity, and so on (Mancuso & Miltenberger, 2016;Montes et al., 2019). This in turn can result in students' lack of confidence (Simpson et al., 2019). In this regard, the presence of fear, accompanied by excessive emotional, cognitive, and physiological activation when speaking publicly, has been recognized as an inducement of anxiety toward such situations (Hancock et al., 2010). This is considered a common problem, highly prevalent among university students, and manifested in many areas of learning, although most notably in the area of oral communication (Charoensukmongkol, 2019;García-López et al., 2013). Anxiety toward public speaking is considered especially troublesome at the university level because it can hinder achievement of one's academic goals. García-López et al. (2013) specifies that educational interventions for treating this must contain training in public speaking skills and application of oral presentation techniques.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Many authors underscore the importance of developing oral competency, one of the so-called transversal competencies, which are fundamental for daily life across the social, academic and work contexts (Bas et al., 2019). Oral competency represents the ability to "express and interpret concepts, thoughts, feelings, facts and opinions in both oral and written form . . . and to interact linguistically in an appropriate and creative way in a full range of social and cultural contexts" (Comisión Europea, 2006, p. L 394/14). This is a necessary aptitude for any university student and plays an important role in vocational achievement, preparing students for their incorporation and long-term placement in the labor market Gràcia et al., 2018;Shamini, 2018). Simpson et al. (2019) claim that a combination of specific knowledge, skills and attitudes is needed to develop this competency. Despite the variety of theoretical approaches, multiple authors agree on the need to develop a specific, explanatory theoretical model of the processes of oral skill acquisition in the educational sphere (Bachmann et al., 2022;Briz, 2014;Mancuso & Miltenberger, 2016). In the same line, they concur that the educational system must be revised and remade for oral competency to be fostered at the university level, emphasizing that this is vital for one's career (Pereira et al., 2014;Shamini, 2018;Sturikova et al., 2017). Numerous investigations agree on this point, pointing out that methodologies and interventions that encourage acquisition of these skills must be applied within the university . Toward this end, certain strategies are recommended, including the use of activities that require construction of oral texts in the classroom, facilitating active involvement from students, and promoting their critical thinking; all this represents a challenge for teachers (Gràcia et al., 2018;Tertychny-Dauri et al., 2020). Integrating these skills into the study plans, using a competencybased approach, has also been proposed, following the guidelines of the European Higher Education Area (Pereira et al., 2014). Ruiz-Muñoz (2011) observes, however, that few interventions are in consonance with these guidelines.
Among the proposals and strategies that have been implemented for developing oral communication skills, we would mention those that prepare students through simulating situations and applying feedback techniques (Boboc & Mampel, 2020); the introduction of academic subjects relating to oratory, using modeling based on the viewing of videos (Dornaleteche, 2010); the inclusion of projects based on student-made audio and video recordings (Pereira et al., 2014;Sandoval & Díaz Larenas, 2020). There are also other initiatives, such as using teamwork to develop communication skills (Gràcia et al., 2017;Martínez et al., 2014); self-assessment techniques, where students evaluate their own learning process (Ma & Winke, 2019); and the use of selfhypnosis methods to improve students' confidence when speaking in public (Ilmi et al., 2017). The effectiveness of many of these initiatives, however, is less than clear.
Although we find various interventions focused on public speaking, a broader, comprehensive view is needed, revealing the characteristics and techniques that have proven effective for developing oral competencies in the university context.

Objective
The aim of the present study was to identify and analyze the characteristics of the existing educational programs and interventions for developing oral competencies at the university level. A synthesis of these strategies will be presented, including information on results from their application.

Method
This review was completed by following the guidelines in the PRISMA declaration for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Page et al., 2021;Urrútia & Bonfill, 2010).

Protocol and registration
The protocol meets the criteria required by the International Prospecting Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and has been registered under the ID code: CRD42021238142.

Eligibility criteria
The following eligibility criteria were applied for selection of the different studies. The studies included had the following characteristics: (a) they were experimental, quasi-experimental, case studies or observational studies; (b) they were aimed at university students; (c) they had implemented a program, educational intervention, strategy or methodology for development of oral competencies or public speaking skills; (d) they reported results about the effectiveness of these programs, methodologies or strategies; (e) the programs had been implemented within a university context, whether inside or outside the classroom; (f) they were published in English or Spanish; (g) were scientific articles; and (h) were published between 2010 and 2020, inclusive.
The exclusion criteria were as follows: (a) qualitative or theoretical studies, or reviews; (b) aimed at levels of education before or after university; (c) had not applied a systematized program, educational intervention, strategy or methodology to develop oral competencies or public speaking skills; (d) did not report results from or did not document the effectiveness of the interventions; (e) were published in a language other than English or Spanis;, (f) were books, book chapters, doctoral theses or informational articles; (g) were published before 2010 or after 2020; and (h) the programs aimed to develop these competencies in a foreign language. The search produced numerous studies whose aim was to develop oral competencies in a second or third language. We decided to exclude this type of study in order to analyze those whose methodology focused on skills needed to adequately express oneself or speak in public in one's own language. This choice was based on guidelines from Domínguez (2002), who stated that methodologies typical of teaching one's mother tongue cannot be applied to a foreign language, so that different strategies must be used.

Information sources
Studies were compiled from three databases during the months from September 2020 to February 2021. To maximize the number of relevant studies included, we searched multiple databases following the recommendations of Rethlefsen et al. (2021), applying the following selection criteria: a disciplinary database (Scopus); a specialized database (ERIC); and a database platform (Web of Science).

Search strategy
A keyword search was established to identify combinations of words indicating programs, interventions or strategies; effectiveness, results, evidence; oral competencies or skills; oratory, public speaking and university. Likewise, in the final search strategy, the term "anxiety" was also included, in relation to public speaking anxiety, given that several studies were found that incorporated components or strategies designed to decrease anxiety and improve oral competencies. We mainly used three search strategies, in both English and Spanish: (1) ("oral skills" OR "oral competences") AND university AND (programme OR intervention OR method* OR strategy), (2) ("oral skills" OR "oral expression" OR "oratory" OR "oral competences" OR "public speaking skills" OR "public speaking") AND university AND (programme OR intervention OR method* OR strategy), and (3) ("oral skills" OR "oral expression" OR "oratory" OR "oral competences" OR "public speaking skills" OR "public speaking") AND university AND (programme OR intervention OR method* OR strategy) AND anxiety.

Study selection process
For the study selection, the identification and selection process was carried out by blind pairs, where two independent reviewers used the aforementioned search strategies, applied filters such as the year of publication, or the type of source, identifying only the scientific articles in order to avoid books, book chapters, conference proceedings and reviews. After performing this procedure in the three databases, duplicate studies were eliminated, and the studies that met the inclusion criteria were selected for later in-depth analysis of the full text. The documents selected by the two authors were compared; any doubtful cases were resolved by consensus or by appealing to a third reviewer.

Data extraction and analysis
In order to carry out this process, two double-entry tables were designed that would collect and categorize the information on characteristics of the studies and interventions. For this purpose, data were extracted such as language, type of study, population, application context (degree/ school year). The Montero and León (2005) categorization system was used to organize the documents according to type of study. This categorization made possible the subsequent application of instruments for evaluating study quality, depending on whether they were experimental or observational. In order to establish the characteristics of the different interventions, we collected information on their objectives, content, methodology, techniques used, and results reported. Qualitative and quantitative data were extracted and analyzed, the latter being expressed in terms of frequency, ranges, minimums, maximums and means.

Evaluation of study quality
In order to evaluate the quality of the studies included, two instruments were used: the STROBE (Vandenbroucke et al., 2007;Von Elm et al., 2008) and the Downs scale (Downs & Black, 1998). The first instrument consists of different recommendations for reports of observational-type studies. Its 22 items are used to evaluate the study title, abstract, introduction, and the methods, results and discussion, elements that are considered essential for proper transmission of observational studies, as well as to evaluate whether the studies are appropriate to include in a systematic review. The items assess, for example: whether specific objectives are set, including any prespecified hypotheses (item 3); in methods, if the setting, locations, and relevant dates are described, including periods of recruitment, exposure, follow-up, and data collection (item 5); in discussion, if a cautious overall interpretation of results is provided, taking into account the objectives, limitations, multiplicity of analyses, results from similar studies, and other relevant evidence (item 20). The Downs scale is a checklist that contains 26 items, distributed into 5 scales that evaluate reporting, external validity, internal validity (bias and confounding) and power. It is applied in randomized and nonrandomized experimental studies. Some examples of items are as follows: for reporting, are the interventions of interest (programs and/or others) clearly described? (item 4); for external validity, were the subjects who were asked to participate in the study representative of the entire population from which they were recruited? (item 11); for internal validity, were the statistical tests used to assess the main results appropriate? (item 18).
For this process, two reviewers applied the instruments independently, and the results were compared afterward. Although there was a high level of agreement, the few differing cases were resolved by consensus.

Study selection
Initially, 142 studies were identified that could be relevant for this investigation, based on their title and abstract. Next, the studies identified by the two reviewers were compared, and 74 documents eliminated: duplicate articles, studies that intervened in a clinical population, did not deal with developing oral competencies, or were not available in full text, leaving 68 studies. The latter were analyzed in depth, and after applying the eligibility criteria, we removed 40 studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria, because they addressed oral competencies for a foreign language, were qualitative studies, or did not show results from applying the intervention. At the end of this process, 28 research studies were considered relevant and were examined in depth; five more studies were excluded as unsuitable for the review because they did not provide results of the effectiveness of the intervention, for a final total of 23 documents that were included in this study. Figure 1 shows the detailed process of selection and inclusion of the different articles.

Characteristics of the studies included
Of the 23 studies selected for the systematic review, 20 were written in English and only 3 in Spanish. In total, seven had been carried out in Spain and another seven in the United States, two each in the United Kingdom and Malaysia, and one each in Indonesia, Russia, Germany, Netherlands and Australia. There was much variability in year of publication; the year with the highest number of published studies was 2017 (29.4%).
The studies chosen included a total of 2362 subjects, all of them university students, with an age range from 18 to 64 years, and mean age of 22.02 years. There was a similar percentage of men and women, with women having a slight majority, at 52.1%. Regarding the specific application contexts, the interventions were implemented in a wide variety of university degree programs. There was a notable presence of communication degree programs (4), where we find studies that evaluated the effectiveness of specific courses, for example, to overcome public speaking anxiety, development of public speaking competencies, and one course in voice and diction. These were followed by undergraduate degree programs in Psychology (3) and in Engineering (3), and in Education (2). The remaining studies correspond to other degree programs, such as Law, Nursing, Biochemistry, or the Master's degree in Education. Within all these degree programs, most of the interventions were directed to students from the entire degree program (19), with only four studies limited to first-year students.

Program objectives and content
Regarding the objectives of the different interventions, there were 17 studies (73.9%) that refer directly to the development of oral competencies at the university level. The remaining six articles deal with oral competencies indirectly or in combination with other aspects, such as public speaking anxiety.
Examples of the content presented to students are general communication principles, different voice and speech techniques, theories of interpersonal and group communication, emotional freedom techniques and theoretical and practical skills of oral presentation.

Teaching-learning methodology
Regarding the methodologies used, a large proportion of the interventions used group work (43.5%), specifically, in small groups (5), in pairs (2), through group discussion (2) and debate (1). Cooperative learning stands out as a frequent choice of methodology, recurring in six studies (26%). Other methodologies include peer review in three studies, the formative assessment approach (3), competing response training (3), one of which included awareness training, and other isolated examples such as the competencies approach (1), continuous skill development (1), John Dewey's use of experiential learning (1), and a conversational methodology (1). Table 1 shows more specifically the techniques and methodologies used in each of the studies reviewed.

Techniques used
Regarding the techniques used in the programs, a large number of studies used presentations (18 studies), where students gave a speech in front of the classroom. Lectures also appeared often (7 studies), where a subject expert presented a topic to the students. Six studies used problem solving techniques, where students had to negotiate different points of view, and reach a common objective. In addition to these, role-play techniques were used (4), consisting of a group activity where a situation was presented and students were assigned a role to represent, putting their communication skills to practice.  Video recording techniques must also be highlighted, as they were used in a large percentage of interventions (65.2%). These techniques were used mainly by combining practice with videofeedback or feedback, in other words, critical commentary was offered after viewing the videos. There were six studies that used video feedback. Here, the teacher recorded the students, and the recordings were reviewed together to identify positives and negatives. Another five studies used techniques where the students video-recorded their speeches and shared them with the teacher and the rest of the class, to locate their mistakes. In most cases, these techniques were accompanied by feedback (13 studies), which came up repeatedly in the review. Finally, four studies used modeling through viewing videos of subject experts.

Main results reported
As shown in Table 2, the instruments used to evaluate the effect of the interventions were varied, although the recurrence of three scales stands out, "Personal Report of Communication Apprehension-24 (PRCA-24), which evaluates the participants' fear of communicating, "Personal Report of Confidence as a Speaker" (PRCS), focused on measuring the subjects' reactions from public speaking anxiety, and Self-Perceived Communication Competence scale (SPCC), which evaluates the subject's competence in a communicative situation. There were also several scales for measuring anxiety levels when speaking in public, several ad hoc questionnaires, and assessment rubrics.
Regarding to effect size, only three studies reflected this data in their investigations. According to Cohen (1988), .2 implies a small effect size, .5 is medium, and .8 indicates a large effect. Referring to their overall results, they reported positive results in improved oral competencies. Four studies reflected improved confidence for public speaking after program application (Boboc & Mampel, 2020;Hancock et al., 2010;Knight et al., 2016;Shamini, 2018), and two other studies obtained statistically significant improvement in this variable (Ilmi et al., 2017;Liou-Mark et al., 2018).
Other studies have shown an increase in public speaking competencies (Hancock et al., 2010), which was statistically significant in some cases (Knight et al., 2016). More specifically, within this general competency, we find improvements in speech competency (Sturikova et al., 2017), in communication competency (Westwick et al., 2015), and in oral language competency (Gràcia et al., 2018). By contrast, one study did not reflect improvements in public speaking competency after the intervention (Martínez et al., 2014).
There were studies that verified acquisition of communication strategies (Gràcia et al., 2018;Sanjuán et al., 2017), as well as development of numerous oral communication capacities, such as the ability to organize a speech, interaction ability and management, and oral expression ability, among others (Boboc & Mampel, 2020;Gràcia et al., 2018).
In the research that addressed oral competencies indirectly, that is, as a component within a broader program, results associated with public speaking anxiety were also reported. In this regard, five of these reflected statistically significant changes in reduced anxiety (Boath et   one of them reflected a nonsignificant reduction in this aspect, and another study only showed positive results in reduced anxiety for participants that began with a high level of public speaking anxiety (Stupar-Rutenfrans et al., 2017). Another study reported that anxiety in oral presentations did not diminish after the intervention .
Elsewhere, three studies reported secondary results, such as improvement in students' final grades after application of the intervention (Liou-Mark et al., 2018;Martínez et al., 2014;Mowbray & Perry, 2015). Table 2 more specifically presents the obtained results in each of the interventions reviewed, along with the instruments used for their assessment.

Evaluation of study quality
Twelve studies were evaluated with the Downs scale and 11 with the STROBE instrument. In general, both instruments point to the small samples used in most of the investigations, only 30% of the participants were representative of the entire population, and possibilities for generalizing the results are low in 81% of the studies. More specifically, the STROBE tool revealed that no observational study specified whether steps were taken to reduce the risk of bias. Only four studies specified the statistical methods used, or the participants' descriptive data, and only four studies revealed information on funding sources. As for the Downs instrument, only 33% of the studies clarified their system of assigning subjects to different groups or conditions. Moreover, half of the experimental studies did not specify whether any participants dropped out during the investigation, nor their characteristics, and only 3 of the 12 studies assigned participants randomly. Figure 2 summarizes the results of the two instruments applied to each of the studies.

Discussion
The aim of this study was to identify programs and interventions carried out at the university level for developing oral competencies or public speaking competencies, and to summarize their main characteristics, strategies, and results from application. Toward this end, 23 studies were found that met inclusion criteria; we consider that few published articles offer detailed data about their procedure and results, and so agree with prior research that reports a lack of studies focusing on oral competency at the university level (Gràcia et al., 2018;Ruiz-Muñoz, 2011). Regarding the typology of the reviewed studies and the analysis of study quality, we would note a scarcity of experimental investigations that follow a rigorous methodology, including control groups. In this regard, Westwick et al. (2015) poses the need to carry out studies with a control group, which would increase their value (internal validity) and the generalizability of results (external validity). This fact is also reflected in that only three studies reported the effect size of their results, making it difficult to analyze or compare program effectiveness. In general, analysis of study quality also showed the weakest points to be lack of evaluation of biases, lack of clarity in reporting how subjects were assigned and their characteristics, and the small sample sizes. Only a few studies had adequate methodological quality.
Regarding program analysis, we observed repeated use of certain pedagogical strategies in the different interventions. First and most notably was the large percentage of interventions that used the classic techniques of student presentations and lectures from experts. These techniques enabled direct development of the required oral competencies, through practice of what was learned. According to Mowbray and Perry (2015), despite lectures being unattractive to students, they proved to be effective, thanks to the speakers' expertise in public speaking skills, and they improved students' academic performance. This was not the case in the intervention of Westwick et al. (2015), where the audience was so large, that differences in students' communication competency were not found. Consequently, in order to improve the effectiveness of these techniques, the strategies should involve smaller audiences.
Respecting to presentations, the use of these techniques may be considered generally to have increased students' abilities and confidence in public speaking (García-López et al., 2013). However, after reviewing programs that use this technique, certain strategies to improve their effectiveness can be identified; for example, according to Sanjuán et al. (2017), thorough preparation must be included, in the topic to be presented as well as in verbal and nonverbal skills for public speaking; the study by Hancock et al. (2010)  techniques must be investigated and applied to prepare students for presenting to large audiences (Knight et al., 2016;Spieler & Miltenberger, 2017;Westwick et al., 2015).
As for class organization, the interventions have demonstrated that group work or pair work techniques generate positive changes in students' oral competencies. Martínez et al. (2014) claimed that they fostered dialogue among students and active participation in the task. These techniques include group discussion (Ilmi et al., 2017) and problem solving (Shamini, 2018), where members of the group had to express different points of view and come to an agreement in order to meet a common objective. Thanks to these dialogic techniques, improvement in communication skills was demonstrated, in addition to the fact that group work motivated students to learn (Liou-Mark et al., 2018). One of the variants of group organization, which also appeared in the studies reviewed, was the inclusion of role play. Placing the participants in situations that were new to them, such as speaker and listener (Boboc & Mampel, 2020), or customer and supplier (Martínez et al., 2014), fostered their communication response skills. This is also a technique that has proved motivating for students (Ilmi et al., 2017).
Use of debates was also seen as an appropriate didactic tool for developing oral competencies and improving results in students' participation. However, Boboc and Mampel (2020) concluded that their effectiveness could be increased by introducing video recording, in order to identify errors and correct them. Video recordings were amply used in the studies reviewed, demonstrating that a large percentage of students who used them furthered their communication competencies (Gràcia et al., 2018). However, when students are recording themselves on video, the intervention needs to continue over a period of time; initially, the students are embarrassed to record themselves for viewing by their classmates, so their oral performance is hindered (Pereira et al., 2014).
In the studies reviewed, video techniques were usually associated with feedback from the teachers, who watched the videos and evaluated their pluses and minuses, offering comments (Sanjuán et al., 2017). A behavioral change in the students is thereby induced, in this case in how they present orally (Sawyer et al., 2019). Many studies showed that these comments favored the development of orality, as in the case of Knight et al. (2016), where the areas that most improved were those that had received feedback. However, Simpson et al. (2019) claimed that, after their intervention, feedback did not produce the significant result that was expected, although it did prove to be effective in combination with peer review. They also concluded that it plays an important role in increasing confidence for public speaking.
Concerning to the methodologies used, the most frequent options were cooperative learning and peer review. The latter proved valid for interventions, simultaneously developing students' critical evaluation skills (Simpson et al., 2019). On the other hand, the study by Liou-Mark et al. (2018) affirmed that the use of cooperative learning resulted in classrooms that encouraged working together to carry out tasks, bringing about an effective environment to develop communication skills, in addition to increasing students' academic level. Likewise, García-López et al. (2013) pointed out that students who acquired these skills were able to transmit them to others, making this a collaborative methodology.
Regarding the instruments used to evaluate fulfillment of objectives, a wide variety of scales and questionnaires were used, some more than once. Few studies, however, evaluated the effectiveness of interventions through skill tests (Shamini, 2018) or the participant's level of speech before and after the intervention (Sturikova et al., 2017), measurements that can be meaningful in determining development of oral competencies. Also noteworthy was use of the rubric as an evaluation method; this is a tool that can guide students in their learning process, encouraging competency development . For it to be effective, however, those who are going to use the rubric must receive prior training.
By way of conclusion, one of the main practical outcomes of this systematic review is the compilation of effective methodologies and techniques for developing oral competencies at university, primarily revealing the effectiveness of presentation techniques and/or video recording, in association with feedback from the teacher or the other students. Also highlighted is the importance of generating opportunities to actively practice these skills in the classroom through guided group work. Inclusion of these key aspects can contribute to improved program design, or to an adequate selection of specific strategies for developing oral competences at the university.
For research, the main contributions of these findings stem from the analysis of study quality. This review detects the need for future studies to incorporate control groups, report data concerning the recruitment of subjects, and improve the description of key program components; this could improve the interpretation and generalization of the data. From a conceptual point of view, this study highlights the lack of information and the high conceptual heterogeneity found in primary studies, pointing to the need to further develop specific explanatory theoretical frameworks of oral skills that offer support to the use of certain educational strategies.
Among the limitations of this review, we can mention the variety of study types that were included. The decision to incorporate studies with diverse methodologies was based on the need to find descriptive information on programs and strategies. This fact, however, may have complicated the analysis and interpretation of the information, due to the variability in type of data and results reported. On the other hand, few studies were found that provided data from rigorous experimental methodologies regarding their effectiveness; for this reason, the results discussed here should be taken with caution. Moreover, the lack of open access to certain articles that might have been of interest, based on their title and abstract, may have limited the scope of this review.
For future research, strategies could be studied for speaking in front of large audiences, as mentioned above, as well as techniques to overcome embarrassment, very common in students. In the same way, we suggest the need to carry out studies designed to verify the effectiveness of the combined strategies of debate and video recordings, using more rigorous experimental methods. In addition, it would be helpful to promote studies that apply performance scales or skill tests to evaluate effectiveness, not questionnaires only. Finally, future reviews could select the studies based on the theoretical approach used (for example, cognitive behavioral, or competency-based), this would make it possible to analyze conceptual elements and, furthermore, to establish comparisons between programs based on different theoretical frameworks. You are free to: Share -copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt -remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms: Attribution -You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. (ISSN: 2331-186X)