Dialogic oral exam in nursing education: A qualitative study of nursing students' perceptions
Abstract
The purpose of this articl is to explore nursing students' experiences of dialogic group oral exams used in the assessment of a medical nursing course. We discuss a small-group, educator-facilitated exam (dialogue exam). The data were gathered in April 2015 via an online survey including open questions. The participants were nursing students (n = 58) at a University of Applied Sciences. The data were subjected to inductive content analysis. The results suggest that students' experiences of the dialogue exam can be represented by four themes: context bound dynamics, new shared understanding, verified competences and holistic nursing care. The students liked the dialogue exam format, preferring it to the traditional individual written exam. The prerequisite for successful use of the dialogue exam format is that candidates perceived the exam situation as safe. Students need to be given information about the schedule and assessment criteria beforehand and should have some experience of the format.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Oral assessment format encourages more thorough preparation and engagement with course content.
“with studies showing the format encourages more thorough preparation and engagement with course content (Turjamaa et al., 2018).”
From Replacing Traditional Written Laboratory Reports with Interactive Oral Assessments: Enhancing Laboratory Skill Assessment in Undergraduate Genetics Education (2026) · cites this paper as Turjamaa et al., 2018
Oral assessments provide authentic evaluation opportunities that align closely with professional workplace requirements.
“Furthermore, oral assessments provide authentic evaluation opportunities that align closely with professional workplace requirements (Iannone et al., 2020;Sotiriadou et al., 2020;Turjamaa et al., 2018)”
From Replacing Traditional Written Laboratory Reports with Interactive Oral Assessments: Enhancing Laboratory Skill Assessment in Undergraduate Genetics Education (2026) · cites this paper as Turjamaa et al., 2018
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 22 · Cited by 6
- Authors
- Turjamaa, R., Hynynen, M.-A., Mikkonen, I., & Ylinen, E.-R.
- Affiliations
- Savonia University of Applied Sciences (FI)
- Corresponding author
- Turjamaa, Riitta
- ORCID
- Turjamaa, Riitta
- Venue
- Nurse Education in Practice
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-03
- Volume
- 29
- Pages
- 53-58
- ISSN
- 1471-5953 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2770577059
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 0.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Nurse Education in Practice (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Education › Problem and Project Based Learning
- Keywords
- nursing students' perceptions, nursing education evaluation, student experience, holistic nursing
- MeSH terms
- Diagnosis, Oral, Education, Nursing, Educational Measurement, Group Processes, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, Students, Nursing, Teaching, Internet, Qualitative Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
