CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 36Teaching and Learning ProgrammingStudent Assessment and FeedbackEducational Technology and Assessment

An Assessment of Oral Exams in Introductory CS

Ohmann, Peter·2019·Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
DOI 10.1145/3287324.3287489
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Assessment of student knowledge is a crucial and challenging part of course design. Especially in computer science courses in the United States, written examinations are very common. While written exams offer a number of advantages in convenience and familiarity, they are also inflexible and prone to question misinterpretation. In contrast to written tests, oral exams offer the prospect of an interactive conversation where students can express their knowledge in a variety of ways while asking clarifying questions. In this paper, we present and assess our implementation of oral exams in an introductory computer science course. We describe the motivation for and resulting features of our design, including a simplified rubric style for equitable, on-the-fly grading. We also perform an assessment relative to more traditional written exams. We find the time commitment for instructors to be manageable and comparable to traditional exams. Through post-semester surveys, students self-report spending slightly more time studying for oral exams, but rate the difficulty as similar to written exams. Both qualitative and quantitative student feedback indicates that oral exams can be effective and well-received.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3287324.3287489

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Ohmann highlighted a significant problem with students distributing exam questions to peers during the five-day period required to complete every individual session.

    “Ohmann also highlighted a significant problem with students from distributing exam questions to peers during the five-day period required to complete every individual session.”

    From Bob or Bot: Exploring ChatGPT's Answers to University Computer Science Assessment (2024) · cites this paper as [37]

  • Ohmann cited difficulties with scaling the oral exam to a larger class, especially when single instructors do not have sufficient support from tutors or teaching assistants.

    “Regarding barriers to the implementation of oral exams, Ohmann cited difficulties with scaling the exam to a larger class, especially when single instructors do not have sufficient support from tutors or teaching assistants.”

    From Bob or Bot: Exploring ChatGPT's Answers to University Computer Science Assessment (2024) · cites this paper as [37]

  • Students and instructors who participated in a final oral exam in a foundational CS course had positive reactions about their experience, with students demonstrating a deeper level of engagement with the material than previously noted with written assessment.

    “Ohmann discovered that the students and instructors who participated in a final oral exam in a foundational CS course had positive reactions about their experience, with students demonstrating a deeper level of engagement with the material than previously noted with written assessment [37].”

    From Bob or Bot: Exploring ChatGPT's Answers to University Computer Science Assessment (2024) · cites this paper as [37]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Related

Authors
Ohmann, P.
Affiliations
College of Saint Benedict and Saint John's University (US)
Corresponding author
Ohmann, Peter
ORCID
Ohmann, Peter
Venue
Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
Publisher
ACM
Published
2019-02-22
Pages
613-619
DOI
10.1145/3287324.3287489
OpenAlex
W2917182231
Cited by
36
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
FWCI
2.60
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations
ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and Assessment
Keywords
oral examination, introductory computer science, assessment, written examinations, rubric-based grading, student perceptions, course design, student study time

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