Providing an Oral Examination as an Authentic Assessment in a Large Section, Undergraduate Diversity Class
Open accessAbstract
This study reflects on the development and implementation of mid-term oral examinations in large-scale lecture courses at a large, public research university; specifically, this work examines the implications of oral exams for fostering student engagement and concept-based comprehension in addition to institutional and course commitments to diversity. This research traces the development of an effective method for administering oral midterms and assesses the advantages and challenges of utilizing oral examinations for student assessment by detailing student feedback and TAs’ reactions to administering this examination format. Findings reveal that oral examinations provided a chance for students to develop skills through a different means of engaging material and to foster a concept-based learning approach. In a discussion of student and TA reactions, this paper reports a predominantly positive assessment by both groups while noting the challenges and disadvantages of this format.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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 assessments make academic misconduct more difficult.
“while making academic misconduct more difficult (Kang et al., 2019;Sotiriadou et al., 2020).”
From Replacing Traditional Written Laboratory Reports with Interactive Oral Assessments: Enhancing Laboratory Skill Assessment in Undergraduate Genetics Education (2026) · cites this paper as Kang et al., 2019
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- Badger, J. (2010) Assessing reflective thinking: pre-service teach- ers' and professors' perceptions of an oral examination, As- sessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(1), 77-89.
- Boe, B. L. (1996). Diversity in assessment procedures. Paper present- ed at the American Education Association of Colleges for Teacher Education Conference, IL.
- Brown, G. A., Bull, J., & Pendlebury, M. (2013). Assessing student learning in higher education. Routledge.
- Buehler, M. J., & Schneider, L. U. (2009). Speak up! Oral examina- tions and political science. Journal of Political Science Educa- tion, 5(4), 315-331.
- Burke-Smalley, L. A. (2014). Using oral exams to assess commu- nication skills in business courses. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 266-280.
- Crist, J. F., & Robinson, K. (2015). Stewards of the word: Employing oral examinations in required theology courses. Journal of Catholic Higher Education, 34(2), 235-256.
- Dicks, A. P., Lautens, M., Koroluk, K. J., & Skonieczny, S. (2012). Undergraduate oral examinations in a university organic chemistry curriculum. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(12), 1506-1510.
- Huxham, M., Campbell, F., & Westwood, J. (2012). Oral versus written assessments: A test of student performance and at- titudes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(1), 125-136.
- Perdigones, A., García, J. L., Valiño, V., & Raposo, C. (2009). Assess- ing heterogeneous student bodies using a methodology that encourages the acquisition of skills valued by employers. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(4), 389-400.
- Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (1988). A retrieval theory of priming in memory. Psychological Review, 95(3), 385-408.
- Roberts, C., Sarangi, S., Southgate, L., Wakeford, R., & Wass, V. (2000). Oral examinations-equal opportunities, ethnici- ty, and fairness in the MRCGP. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 320(7231), 370.
- Sadler, D. R. (2005). Interpretations of criteria-based assessment and grading in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(2), 175-194.
- Waterfield, J., & West, B. (Eds.). (2005). Inclusive Assessment in High- er Education: A resource for change. University of Plymouth.
- Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005) Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curric- ulum Development ASCD.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Della Vedova, C. B., Birbeck, D., & Davey, S. K. (2026) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-026-10380-3
- Authors
- Kang, D., Goico, S., Ghanbari, S., Bennallack, K., Pontes, T., O’Brien, D., & Hargis, J.
- Affiliations
- University of California San Diego
- University of California San Diego (US)
- Venue
- International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
- Publisher
- Georgia Southern University
- Published
- 2019-05-29
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 1931-4744 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2947379390
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 2.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Keywords
- oral examination, authentic assessment, large lecture courses, diversity education, student engagement, concept-based learning, student feedback, teaching assistants, mid-term evaluation, undergraduate teaching
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
