how to prepare and grade oral exams?

[elegantlion]

I'm interested in using oral exams for some subjects in high school. I have no clue how to prep or grade them however. I'm not even sure how to approach this.

 

Do oral exams cover what would typically be in a written test? Can the method of presentation vary or is it more an interview? Would you require a written component if you were using this as a final grade?

 

Any links or advice would be appreciated.

[Nan in Mass]

I have no experience with this at all, so hopefully other people will chime in. Just in case GRIN, though...

 

I just read Study Is Hard Work. In it, the author points out that the answers one gives on essay tests and oral exams are organized the same way one organizes an essay or a paragraph. In other words, there needs to be a topic sentence, an organized method of presenting the information (chronologically, most important to least important, etc.), transition words and sentences, concluding sentences, examples, etc. He says that when one is preparing for a test of this sort, it is worthwhile planning out how you are going to organize your answer and what you could use as examples.

I have started making my son retell me nicely the answer that I have just fished piecemeal out of him. That might be a good starting point? It seemed like in the book, sometimes he was talking about oral exams where one knew the questions beforehand. That might make a good next step: here are the questions - now go prepare to answer them orally.

 

As I said, hopefully somebody else will answer up. I am curious about this too.

 

-Nan

[regentrude]

I had to take oral exams as a high school and college student. The format is excellent for testing concept knowledge in math and science, and of course in foreign languages. It allows to explore several areas and see how broad a student's knowledge is, while at the same time allowing the examiner to change subjects if it is clear that the student knows nothing about a certain area.

I believe that, for oral examinations, the examiner must be very knowledgeable of the subject he/she is testing.

If I were to administer an oral exam, for instance in math, I would first make a list of topics the student is to be tested on and design example problems for each. I would then ask the student to solve a problem and narrate his solution to me, explaining the how and why of each step. I would use this a as starting point to ask about concepts.

For a physics exam, I would also begin with a specific problem for the student to work and then branch out into asking qualitative and conceptual questions.

In a foreign language exam, a typical format was that the student was given a topic and a short time (10-15 minutes) to prepare a talk about the topic. The student then had to present his talk, was questioned by the examiner about the talk, and that morphed into a free conversation in the foreign language. This, of course, is only possible if the examiner is proficient in the language he is testing.

 

I do not find the oral exam a suitable format for a subject in which I am not knowledgeable: if the answer is not provided in the exact way I am expecting it, I have no way of consulting a source and checking if the student's response is correct, just different (in a written exam, I have the answer available on paper forever and can grade at my leisure, consulting additional references if necessary)

I do not find it useful to test large quantities of facts.

I find it superior to written exams for testing true understanding of concepts, methods and relationships.

 

Depending on the subject, I consider it necessary to add a written component. For foreign languages it is essential. For literary analysis I also consider a written exam more appropriate. For sciences, a well designed oral is sufficient (I had to take two comprehensive oral exams in both theoretical and experimental physics covering three years of college material, and that exam told the examiner absolutely everything about my preparation and knowledge; a written component was unnecessary.)

 

ETA: Forgot to write about grading. An oral exam is always more subjective. You need to have a clear expectation how much in depth knowledge you consider worthy of which grade.

Edited March 15, 2011 by regentrude

[elegantlion]

Thank you both! This gives me a direction to start.

[Ester Maria]

There are several acceptable formats of oral exams, depending on the subject and on whether you use them to accompany written exams (or some other form of written work graded in advance) or they're the only form of testing. That being said, they're usually the former, rarely the latter (as you usually wish to have some sort of document to back up your grade or rethink it), and the format varies a bit from subject to subject.

 

Why oral exams are good? Because the chances of cheating are minimal (the reaction time is very short, the student's face betrays a lot, etc.), because the chances of cheating or attempting to "chat up" the written exam or essay are also getting diminished if they know they will be asked to "confirm" their grade on the oral exam, because when you put somebody in such - mildly stressful though - situation you can really observe how they handle the material, how they process it and how sure of their knowledge they are (it's blatant whether they're guessing or really knowing what they're talking about) and thus you can get a lot better insight into their knowledge.

 

On the other hand, ironically, in spite of a much better insight into the student's knowledge, the downsides of oral exams are added subjectivity, "manipulability" of the exams by the professor (because, well, if you aren't really "fond" of a certain student you can always purposely lead the conversation in the area which they don't handle well and on grounds of that area diminish the grade - and the reverse is true too... they're a lot easier to manipulate than written exams), and the stress factor of the exam situation and not too much reaction time which may cause students, particularly younger or very timid ones, to perform below their actual knowledge (many students who even know the material very well get "blocked").

 

Because of all of that, I strongly suggest to use oral exams, at least at the beginning until you get into them a bit more, in combination with written work, i.e. only the last "stop" before the final grade, rather than the first / last / only "stop". As a rule, oral exams always come after written ones (passing the written exam is a prerequisite for the oral exam in the traditional school culture, never vice-versa, and if the written part is not sufficient, the oral exam cannot happen) and nearly always reflect on the written work as a part of the examination process.

 

It's very common that the oral exams begin by addressing the mistakes from the written work - you literally take the exam the student has not seen previously in its corrected form and go over the mistakes (without showing them the test if there are elaorated comments before they answer all questions, because the point is that they know what they did wrong and why, rather than that you explain it to them), stopping at each mistake and asking the same question, asking them to compare it with the answer they gave (if they can't recall, you tell them what they wrote), why was that wrong and, in some cases, how does it affect other things they wrote (for example, when you grade essays and one wrong piece of information can have dire effects on the whole paper).

If there was an essay in addition to (or instead of) the written exam, you go over that too by asking specific questions on things you caught problematic, asking questions related to the bibliography, their position, why they picked a certain position, etc.

Basically, the main idea is to start the oral exam on the grounds of something you already have, to help the student relax and get into the chatty mood, but also to self-correct and go over the written parts.

 

After that, unless they fail at that first part, you proceed onto the actual exam. You usually wish to cover more in-depth at least some of the mistakes in the exam to make sure the student has understood it, as well as to ask several questions which were not included in the exam, but which are "chronologically" representative of the material (i.e. not to base all of your exam on the first part of the semester, or on one specific unit, etc. - though you will always, even if unwillingly, end up focusing on something specific). Often, the professors will begin by asking student to elaborate on something of his choice (sort of, "Tell me about the the 14th century poet whom we studied and you liked best." :D and then you know it's a hint for - talk about anything you know about), but the student, of course, has to be asked several questions which are neither related to exam neither his own choice of topic. That's, basically, all there is.

 

However, here we come to the difference in formats.

Some professors will allow you to sketch your responses (give you 10-15 min to outline what you will talk about) and then conduct the oral examination as a presentation of the kind, with their questions coming once you're done. The others will not allow you any preparation time, will want answers right away and will outright interrupt you with additional questions, with "wait, you're trying to lead the conversation into the wrong direction, that's not what I was asking" and with corrections if you mess up something. Personally, I'm more of the latter type :tongue_smilie:, but I've experimented with both and with everything in-between (allowing one presentation question and the other ones having to be instant response, etc.).

 

The type of questions which are usually asked are "thinking" questions rather than "facts" questions, though some like to include some interrogations of facts too. But generally, and especially in humanities, the idea is to get the insight into what the students has got out of the course during the semester / year, what he thought about what was studied, what additional literature he read, how he explains some things, etc. Of course, not having your facts correctly sets you up for a failure, but ultimately the facts themselves are not the goal, it's more about "why" questions.

 

I can, if you wish, write out for you how I change formats for various subjects and what exactly I do for each subject, if you think that would help you see what it's about. Languages differ a bit, Math differs a bit, I'm actually writing all this with History in my mind :D, but you can still catch the general idea.

 

When it comes to grading, the important thing to keep in mind is that EACH area has to be POSITIVE. Imagine as though you were giving little grades for each question: you CANNOT promote the student who knows nothing about one area, even if he knows other areas perfectly. Each area tested has to be sufficient, and the exam has to be made up the way to cover the whole material, rather than just the first half, or the middle, you get the point, to allow for the maximum objectivity.

[elegantlion]

Ester Maria, thank you. I would love to see how you change formats for each subject.

 

Part of my desire to do oral exams stems from my own educational deficits. I knew how to ace a written exam, but had zero ability to stand before an adult and express myself.

[Ester Maria]

(The below is after going over whatever written work was.)

 

Literature / Language

1. Pick a passage from one of the works that were studied and have the student analyze it, no preparation time: first a grammatical and a syntactical analysis of a few sentences (for the sake of not forgetting how to do it), then a lexical analysis with a paraphrasis if needed (i.e. if it's written in an older layer of the language, you will wish to check vocabulary comprehension, the ability to find synonims and antonyms, the ability to quickly "translate" the work into modern syntax and word choices), and then a thing or two about the work you the passage is taken from (you usually pick more "representative" passages, ask where they are in the work and how they fit structurally in the context of the work).

Then pick one or two more passages and do just the latter thing (how they fit structurally in the work, without analysis and paraphrasis, unless the analyiss and paraphrasis were poor in the previous passage so you offer this as a remedy opportunity).

 

This way, you check the FACTS first, check that the works have been read and understood, and understood linguistically too (not too relevant if you're reading Hemingway, but if you're reading Shakespeare, yes).

 

2. A chronological question (assuming you study literature chronologically) - pick one segment of time and have the student exand on it: which authors and which works were studeid, which stylistic characterstics noticed, how it fits in the broader framework (comparison with previous and latter tendencies in literature, influences TO and influences FROM, etc.). A general question - and then proceed onto having the student expand on something more specific within that (an author, or a work, or a thematic point, or a specific genre, etc.). For example, if studying Ancient Greek literature, you may ask first about the origins / Archaic period, and then specifically about the orality of Homeric epics.

 

3. A specific question unrelated to the previous general / specific question. Now, for example, ask a question about Ancient Greek novels (and the student should elaborate on the "when"s, "why"s, put it in the context of the development of Greek literature, how it was used as a model for Byzantine / etc. latter novels, etc.).

 

Being done with facts and general historical understanding, you move to more tricky questions:

 

4. A theoretical / literary question. Something regarding the style, specific use of language, meter in poetry, etc. For example, at this point you take Sappho and Homer and ask for a comparison of meters, check proper scansion, why different meter, draw a metric scheme, etc.

 

5. A theoretical / criticism question. For example, you ask for Aristotelian definition of tragedy, which tragedy Aristotle exalts as exemplary and why, elaborate on it, compare tragedy to, say, a fairy tale (the whole "tragedy is not a story of good and evil, but two equally valid principles which conflict blabla" thing). The issue of "probabile" in tragedy, the problem with deus ex machina, compare one work which has it and one which doesn't.

 

6. If everything is going well, switch to "engagement" question (your favorite work studied, why, a work you wish to compare it to and why or a literary / theoretical point you wish to expand upon using that work as an example, etc.); if things are not going well, then impose another specific question (say, Aesop as the origin of fables, or the principle of catharsis, or whatnot).

 

That would pretty much be it - for literature, I make it "flow" like a conversation after initial phase, but I do make sure to cover various things and address specific questions unrelated to the general flow of the conversation within a specific question.

 

Foreign Languages (Hebrew)

1. (With preparation time): Give the student an unknown text, but which employs the vocabulary / grammatical points studied, require a full analysis (grammatical, syntactical) + paraphrasis if it's an older text and/or translation. After preparation time, have them read it aloud, dissect it, paraphrase it and translate it. Address all mistakes immediately.

 

2. A quick vocabulary interrogation (8-10 random words, nothing huge) - either via translation (I say in Hebrew you say in English, or vice-versa), either via paraphrasis (I say in Hebrew, you explain it in Hebrew, if we're on that level). It has to cover main vocabulary studied that semester. You can even tie this to the first question and consider vocabulary addressed there already.

 

3. A quick grammar interrogation (I give the verb, you give me the whole paradigm in X binyan, and thus for 4-5 verbs in different binyanim - or I just ask something else vcovered that semester / year which wasn't already in the test). But again, you can tie that to the text too and instead of inventing examples just ask about those from the text.

 

4. Presentation of one of the topics studied which wasn't covered in the test and text, with or without preparation. The student should summarize the basic points of it, point out to main vocabulary acquired that way, and then you enter the conversation with them and just talk about it. Let's say the topic is Purim, they explain briefly what it is, which texts are related to it, what does it mean in Jewish culture, and then you start asking what are the customs for Purim, what they like / don't like to do about it, what do they think about Esther as a female character (and compare it to some other Biblical characters), what is the place of Purim in the context of traditions of carneval in various nations, etc. The options are endless, but make sure you have a good free-flowing chat about a topic to observe the fluency and accuracy of speech. The length will, of course, vary related to the student's level in the language.

 

5. Another topic studied during the year, but maybe a more specific question - if you add literature component, make sure this second question is literary. For example, we studied Bialik, so I may ask about the birds in his poems and pop-music adaptations of some of the poems. :D

 

All of the exam has to be conducted directly in the language studied (unless it's really the first year and impossible to do so yet). The exam may be very short and frustrating at the early stages of learning because of that, but it just has to be in the foreign language, otherwise it makes no sense.

I add in the religious component too for Hebrew, usually I ask one question regarding a "secular" topic studied, one question regarding a religious concept or whatever studed, and one question regarding something literary / Biblical, depending on what has been read and how well the student does in Hebrew.

 

Classical languages (Latin and Greek)

A mix of the previous two: start with 1-3 of foreign language approach, but proceed treating it as literature: so, one general epoch / genre / whatnot question related to what we studied (say, the institution of national epics, Aeneid), one more specific (whatever Horace's poem I inserted in the program) and something with meter / scansion if we had it, and if not, then, for example, a question regarding the development of rhetorics and parts of a good speech, etc. I also include the "engagement" thing too.

 

History and Geography

1. One general / chronology question. Let's stick with examples from antiquity: Alexander the Great and Hellenism. The student is supposed to elaborate on the topic, it should have a "beginning" and an "end" (it can be with preparation time too), I wait them to finish and then ask more specific questions, unless they mess up their facts.

 

2. Something "textual": what do we know about the origin of Rome, sources, legend vs. historical evidence, connection to literature studies if possible (here it's possible). You can even ask them to read sources you studied and discuss specific points for many historical units.

 

3. A very "precise" question: Pax Romana. What, where, when, why, put it in the context of before/after.

 

4. A more general question in which you are looking for cause-effect connections and "deeper" reasoning: late antiquity and the spread of Christianity, the transformation of antiquity and its elements in Christianity (architecture, dogma, saint cult, symbolic representation of the cultural elites), the development from Christianity being persecuted, then tollerated, then official.

 

5. Geographical questions: point to the places you're talking about on the map, then locate several other things you get asked (e.g. where X object is found, where Y Roman road was/is, which direction the collonization of Z went, etc.).

 

Sciences and math

The converstion here usually cannot "flow" as nicely as in humanities, but you can certainly always pick 3-5 specific points to focus on. For example, in Biology, you may start by something "general" (draw a model of meiosis and explain each stage), then more "thinking" (compare its mechanisms to those of mitosis), then something a lot more "specific" (nondisjunction and Down Syndrome); then switch to another topic, let's say protein synthesis; then to another one, let's say material evidences of evolution, followed up by more specific questions regarding examples of atavisms; etc. The important is to have several points to discuss which aren't in the exam.

 

In Chemistry and Physics, include "practice", not only theory - focus on theory, but include several (hard) problems to solve right there just for the sake of it, so you see how they work with it, and have them lead you through it step by step.

[Ester Maria]

Art History

1. An analysis which wasn't an exam analysis, with or without preparation time.

2. a "comparison" question (recognize, date, comparison of style and influences)

3. a theoretical / specific question

4. a chronological / general / style / etc. question.

 

Philosophy

1. A "textual" question - usually unknown text, but which exbibits some charactersitics studied or refers to it, so position it in the context of what has been studied = this is basically an application question. If known text, then characteristics / contextualization / expanding on it with potential objections, etc.

 

2. Compare two positions regarding X (from the texts studied). Say, Aristotle's and Plato's view of the essence and where it is. Or the objections of Y to Z (say, Russell to Quinquae viae). Something in which you connect two or more things and allows for a more in-depth treatment of a particular topic.

 

3. A general / chronology / etc. question. Say, classical German idealism: why classical, why German, why idealism, "who"s and how they relate one to another.

 

4. A specific question: Hegel's dialectics applied to history. Connect it to the political thought.

 

5. "Which philosopher / text you hated the most, why, what are your objections to his thought, are there others with the same objections?" or some variant of that - a free question, but which allows for expanding on some other areas not covered yet.

 

---

It should more-less be something along those lines for each subject. Questions are "predictable", related to what was studied, but should include a mix of basic factual knowledge, the ability to go with the "flow" of the conversation, some application to the new situations (since it's high school, so that's those famous "high order thinking skills"), but mostly, the objective is to see the understanding of the material acquired, thus fewer, but more elaborate questions - and keep in mind, NOT the stuff from essay questions in the test or the essay itself, that's addressed before we get to this part.

[Peek a Boo]

This is how I do it.

 

 

 

excellent list. :)

[elegantlion]

Ester Maria, you are truly wonderful. Thank you for taking the time to post. I'm printing it first thing in the morning. :)