Viva Voce (Oral Examination) as an Assessment Method: Insights From Marketing Students
Abstract
Viva voce (viva) or oral examinations are widely used in medical education, clinical examinations, and doctoral defenses, yet the assessment method is seldom adopted by university marketing departments. Correspondingly, the marketing education literature makes no reference to vivas as an alternative academic assessment technique. This research discusses the use of viva as a summative assessment method in university marketing education. Final-year marketing students undertaking an elective unit in services marketing were given an end-of-unit viva instead of a written examination. Fifty-four cartoon completion tests were analyzed to gain insight into student perceptions of the viva assessment task. Interpretive findings from this study suggest that viva is a valid and novel method of assessing learning outcomes such as application of deep learning, application of theory to practice, and problem-solving skills. The vivas enabled dialectic communication between the examiner and student and provided invaluable experience for career interviews. Although some students were anxious prior to the viva examination, on reflection they conceded that the process was user friendly. Based on these findings, implications for the adoption of vivas as an assessment method are discussed.
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?
Interactive nature of oral assessments allows examiners to probe students' understanding more deeply and distinguish between superficial and deep knowledge.
“The interactive nature of oral assessments allows examiners to probe students' understanding more deeply and distinguish between superficial and deep knowledge (Pearce & Lee, 2009)”
From Replacing Traditional Written Laboratory Reports with Interactive Oral Assessments: Enhancing Laboratory Skill Assessment in Undergraduate Genetics Education (2026) · cites this paper as Pearce & Lee, 2009
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dinsmore, D. L., & Alexander, P. A. (2012) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-012-9198-7 · Cited by 205 · see citing works
Della Vedova, C. B., Birbeck, D., & Davey, S. K. (2026) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-026-10380-3
- Authors
- Pearce, G., & Lee, G.
- Affiliations
- Western Sydney University (AU)
- ORCID
- Lee, Geoffrey
- Venue
- Journal of Marketing Education
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-04-08
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 120-130
- ISSN
- 0273-4753 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-6550
- OpenAlex
- W2150931333
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 5.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Marketing Education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Management and Marketing Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Keywords
- viva voce, oral examination, summative assessment, marketing education, service marketing, student perceptions, assessment validity, deep learning, problem-solving skills, job interviews, test anxiety
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