With growing concerns about AI tools like chatbots generating written work for students, some educators have proposed reinstating traditional oral exams as a way to ensure competency. Could oral tests and presentations stage a comeback as a means of verifying student knowledge in the era of increasingly sophisticated AI? This post objectively explores the potential upsides and downsides of relying more heavily on oral assessments in light of both modern learning research and practical realities.
The Case for Oral Assessments
First, let’s examine arguments in favor of oral exams:
Verify authentic student knowledge
Having students answer questions and explain concepts verbally could reduce plagiarism and reliance on AI writing aids. Oral responses would ostensibly represent true student knowledge better than AI-generated written work.
Align with modern learning research
Many pedagogical experts argue assessment should evaluate deeper understanding and cognition rather than rote memorization. Oral exams require students to demonstrate comprehension, analysis, and flexible thinking in the moment without aids.
Develop valuable real-world skills
Public speaking, communication abilities, and thinking on one’s feet are imperative for success in both college and careers. Oral exams provide practice applying knowledge under pressure.
Accommodate diverse thinking styles
While written tests play to certain learning styles, oral assessments allow other students to showcase verbal-linguistic strengths over composition and writing skills.
Enable dialogic assessment
The interactive nature of oral exams permits following up on responses for clarification while also observing social and emotional intelligence.
Potential Concerns About Oral Assessments
However, renewed emphasis on oral exams surfaces several potential limitations:
Logistical challenges
Oral exams are time and labor intensive, whereas written assessments can efficiently evaluate many students simultaneously. Scheduling and facilities may present obstacles.
Scalability issues
It may be unrealistic for teachers and professors to regularly conduct individual orals with large classes of 100+ students. Workload burdens need consideration.
Difficulty standardizing
Subjectivity, variability, and bias may influence oral scoring more so than traditional standardized testing methods. Rubrics and training help but inconsistency remains a concern.
Narrow focus
Information covered in an oral format is limited compared to broader assessments of knowledge and skills through projects and portfolios encompassing multiple modalities.
Potential Solutions and Balance
Rather than outright rejecting or wholeheartedly embracing oral assessments, experts recommend balance:
- Use oral exams for smaller discussion-based courses when feasible to complement written evaluations. Avoid over-reliance on either.
- Set clear criteria for assessing mastery of knowledge separate from presentational delivery skills.
- Have students complete some written components like outlines ahead of time to allow processing preparation.
- Record video submissions when live oral exams are impractical for scale.
- Focus orals on evaluating argumentation, quick analytical thinking, and application of core concepts.
Overall, oral assessments, when thoughtfully implemented alongside written evaluation methods, could play a productive role in diverse modern classrooms. As technology evolves, maintaining flexibility and recognizing both the advantages and limitations across evaluation formats will be key. Any changes should be enacted carefully, emphasizing both equitable access and upholding rigorous standards.
Oral Exams Are an Option to Consider
Wise integration of new and traditional tools can enhance teaching and learning outcomes. There are no easy answers, and finding the right balance remains a complex challenge. However, keeping an open mind to new possibilities such as a reconsideration of oral exams for assessment, while prioritizing student needs as well, could lead to innovations that work.
Comments