Definition

As assessment of student knowledge levels through a face-to-face dialogue between the student and examiner -- usually faculty

Advantages

• Content and style can be geared to specific goals, objectives, and student characteristics or the institution, program, curriculum, etc.
• Specific criteria for performance can be established in relationship to course/curriculum
• Process of development can lead to clarification/crystallization of what is important in the process/content of student learning
• Local grading by faculty can provide immediate feedback related to material considered meaningful
• Greater faculty/institutional control over interpretation and use of results
• More direct implication of results for program improvements
• Allows measurement of student achievement in considerably greater depth and breadth through follow-up questions, probes, encouragement of detailed clarifications, etc.
• Non-verbal cues aid interpretation of student responses
• Dialogue format decreases miscommunications and misunderstandings, in both questions and answers
• Rapport-gaining techniques can reduce "test anxiety," helps focus and maintain maximum student attention and effort
• Dramatically increases formative evaluation of student learning, i.e., clues as to how and why they reached their answers
• Identifies and deceases error variance due to guessing
• Provides process evaluation of student thinking and speaking skills, strong with knowledge content

Disadvantages

• Requires considerable leadership/coordination, especially during the various phases of development
• Can be difficult to document by note-taking and providing student feedback with a grade
• Costly in terms of time and effort (more frontload effort for objective, more backload effort for subjective)
• Demands expertise in measurement to assure validity/reliability/utility
• May not provide for externality (degree of objectivity associated with review, comparisons, etc. external to the program or institution)
• Requires considerably more faculty time, since oral exams must be conducted one-to-one, or with very small groups of students at most
• Can be inhibiting on student responsiveness due to intimidation, face-to-face pressures, oral (versus written) mode, etc. (May have similar effects on some faculty)
• Inconsistencies of administration and probing across students reduces standardization and generalizability of results (potentially lower external validity)

Ways to Reduce Disadvantages

• Prearrange "standard" questions, most common follow-up probes, and how to deal with typical students' problem responses: "pilot" training simulations
• Take time to establish open, non-threatening atmosphere for testing
• Electronically record oral exams for more detailed evaluation later

Bottom Line

Oral exams can provide excellent results, but usually only with significant - perhaps prohibitive -- additional cost. Definitely worth utilizing in programs with small numbers of students, and for the highest priority objectives in any program and local testing policies do not prohibit the testing method

Bibliographic References

Bairan, A. and B.J. Farnsworth, "Oral Exams: An Alternative Evaluation Method," Nurse Educator, 22 Jul/Aug 1997, 6-7
De Charruf, L.F., "Oral Testing," Mextesol Journal, 8(2), Aug 1984, 63-79
Dressel, J.H., "The Formal Oral Group Exam: Challenges and Possibilities-The Oral Exam and Critical Thinking," Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English (81st, Seattle, WA, November 22-27, 1991)
Henderson, M.L., "Types of Classroom Tests: Essay Tests and Oral Exams," American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 48(3), Fall 1984, 290-292
Nelson, J. "Implementing Oral Exams as Part of the School Exam System." In: New Approaches in the Language Classroom: Coping with Change. Proceeding of the National Model Languages Convention (2nd, Dubln, Ireland. January 31-February 1, 1986)