Reducing anxiety through authentic oral assessment

Responding to a need 

As a final year module, Making Democracy Work was using traditional methods of assessment that were not expanding the skills toolkit of students. In an attempt to include an assessment that was more authentic than an unseen examination or an essay, I designed a version of oral examinations that could combine the work that students had been doing during the semester, with important skills such as summarising information in a short time and delivering an oral report. 

Another problem associated with this module was the anxiety of a final exam, which was reflected in the number of students submitting their exams late or not submitting them at all. The main task was therefore to reduce non-submission and late submission by redesigning the assessment experience. At the same time, the format also responded to concerns about inappropriate use of AI in assessment, because the live oral component requires students to demonstrate understanding in real time. However, this was not the sole rationale: the assessment was primarily introduced to support authentic learning, broaden students’ skills, and create a more meaningful assessment task. 

Rationale

The evidence has shown that, since the pandemic, the role of online exams has been questioned because of their suitability for assessing skills and because of increasing concerns about cheating, lack of invigilation and the growth of AI tools (for some references, see Theobold, 2021 or Noorbehbahani et al., 2022). Oral exams have also been associated with stronger student engagement and motivation (Delson et al., 2022). However, in-person oral assessments are resource-intensive. They require suitable space, careful organisation, staff availability and, under Queen Mary regulations, two examiners. They may therefore not be suitable for all modules or cohorts, especially where scale or timetabling creates significant constraints. A further drawback is that oral exams can produce higher levels of worry and emotionality than written examinations (Sparfeldt, 2013). Other complexities include space and time constraints. Although an oral examination does not require a large lecture theatre, its footprint is not negligible, and staff members need to be available for the duration of the exam. This makes the format less scalable at the point of delivery, even if the overall time dedicated to assessment can be comparable when marking time is taken into account. 

The purpose was therefore to design an oral examination that allowed students to practise skills that are less frequently assessed across the degree, particularly oral communication, synthesis, responsiveness and confidence in explaining complex ideas. The design also sought to reduce anxiety by making the format explicit, offering preparation opportunities, anticipating barriers and ensuring that reasonable adjustments could be discussed and organised where needed.  

Design

In POL309, students have three points of assessments: A research project (40%), a, in-class group presentation (10%), and the oral exam (50%). For the purpose of the oral exam, the presentations play a relevant role. All students are required to present about the readings of a given week. At the beginning of the semester, students are allocated into groups, and they are required to prepare a presentation about the topic and readings of the week they were allocated. This step ensures that all students are knowledgeable of, at least, one of the topics of the semester. This also creates a scaffolding opportunity towards the final exam. On the one hand, students can present in a safe and friendly environment, while receiving direct feedback from their tutor. On the other hand, as mentioned before, it makes them “experts” in their topic, which can then be useful when selecting their exam question. 

Although the case study focuses on POL309, the approach also points to the value of scaffolding oral assessment across a programme. Students are more likely to benefit from an oral examination when they have earlier opportunities to practise related skills through low-stakes presentations, seminar discussion, formative feedback and structured opportunities to explain, defend and refine their ideas. In this sense, the final-year oral exam should not be seen as a stand-alone intervention, but as part of a broader developmental sequence in which students gradually build confidence and competence in oral academic communication. 

The exam consists in two steps. First, students are allocated a slot in which they must come to a room where they are shown several questions. The list of questions reflects the topics covered in the seminars, and all of them will have had the change to specialise in one of themmodule. Each student, individually, chooses their preferred question and has 15 minutes to prepare an answer. Students are allowed to use any tools at their disposal, in an “open-book” fashion. This includes the use of devices and AI, although it is not explicitly encouraged. 

After these initial 15 minutes, the student is taken to a room where they will meet two examiners (usually one of the module tutors and the moderator). For the first 5 minutes, the student is expected to deliver the answer they prepared in advance, while the rest of the time is devoted to a friendly Q&A. The questions are led by the module convenor, but the moderator can also participate if they would like to probe the student on a given topic. The overall duration of this part of the exam is 15 minutes, the total exam lastsa for 30 minutes. 

In order to address anxiety levels, we offer mock exams after the end of the teaching period. In earlier iterations, take-up was low, with 5-7 students choosing to take part, but interest has increased in subsequent years. These mock exams are public and online, so all students can see what the format looks like, understand expectations and raise concerns before the final assessment. We also discuss the exam at several points during the semester, explain the benefits of this type of assessment, and make clear which skills it is intended to develop. 

This format of assessment links closely with Queen Mary’s graduate attributes and with employability skills. It supports students as collaborators by helping them communicate ideas clearly and respond constructively to questions; as leaders of tomorrow by asking them to take responsibility for preparation, judgement and performance under time pressure; and as subject specialists by requiring them to synthesise module content and explain complex arguments with confidence. Making these links explicit helps students understand that the oral exam is not only an assessment task, but also an opportunity to develop skills that are valuable in interviews, postgraduate study, professional communication and public-facing work. 

Short-term benefits

In the short term, we have noticed lower levels of anxiety related to the exams. The time I spend explaining the oral exam, including demystifying the process and addressing the concerns that students raise, has been quite beneficial. I also offer students to meet in private to address any concerns, and direct students to DDS in case they consider that they need to address any potential disabilities. The anecdotal evidence from students, and also the reports from module evaluations show that students appreciate the format and, more importantly, feel that their concerns have been listened to. 

Another important short-term impact is the reduction in non-submissions and/or late submissions. Since introduction, we have had nearly perfect submission rates. Grades have not been affected, as the module average has continued to be good, and students have expressed that the assessment was fair. 

Medium-term outcomes

The oral exams have been in operation for two years, so it might be too early to assess the medium-term outcomes. However, there are two main potential outcomes that could be included here: 

• Past students have approached the module convenor looking for reference letters for jobs and PGT studies. Some of them have been very clear about the benefits of the module, and have also praised the oral exam as an opportunity to develop their presentation and reporting skills. A recent alumna wrote in a communication: 

“(…)taking your module  was one of the highlights of my studies. I particularly appreciated your teaching style, the assessments, and the way you explained the key theories of political behaviour and public opinion so clearly. The focus on both traditional methods and non Western perspectives made it both interesting and engaging !” 

•  Colleagues from the School of Politics and IR have approached me to enquire about implementing oral exams in their own modules. Some have volunteered to act as moderators in the module as a way to learn about the assessment and observe parts of the oral exams. I have also discussed this with colleagues outside SPIR as an example of how authentic assessment can be combined with careful assessment design. It is important, however, not to present oral exams simply as a solution to academic misconduct or AI misuse. They are appropriate only where there is a clear pedagogical rationale, where the format is suitable for the learning outcomes, and where it contributes to a diverse and balanced assessment strategy.

Recommendations 

In implementing oral exams, colleagues should consider at least four aspects: pedagogical rationale, scalability, inclusion and scaffolding. Oral examinations should not be introduced simply as a way to detect or avoid AI misuse. They work best when the format is clearly aligned with the learning outcomes, when it assesses skills that are valuable in the discipline, and when it forms part of a diverse and suitable pattern of assessment across the module or programme. 

In terms of scalability, oral exams can be time consuming for large modules because each student requires two examiners to be present. This has workload implications for the School and requires careful planning around the number of hours or days needed to complete the assessment. Colleagues also need to allow for staff breaks, pre-calibration between examiners, clear and shared criteria, consistency in questioning and support, written or recorded feedback, appropriate rooms, and a suitable arrival or waiting space for students. In small or medium-sized modules, oral exams can save time in marking, but they should not be presented as an easy or universally scalable alternative to other forms of assessment. 

Colleagues should also be aware that oral exams can be stressful for students, particularly for those who have not had relevant experience presenting or discussing their work orally. Scaffolding is therefore essential rather than optional. Students need repeated opportunities to practise, receive feedback, ask questions and understand the assessment criteria before the final exam. This can include low-stakes presentations, meetings with tutors, class participation, mock exams and explicit discussion of common concerns. Inclusion should be built into the design from the start by anticipating barriers, explaining the process clearly, and ensuring that suitable reasonable adjustments can be arranged for students who need them. 

Contact

Professor Javier Sajuria

j.sajuria@qmul.ac.uk 

https://www.qmul.ac.uk/politics/staff/profiles/sajuriajavier.html 

References

• Delson, N., Baghdadchi, S., Ghazinejad, M., Lubarda, M., Minnes, M., Phan, A., Schurgers, C. and Qi, H., 2022, June. Can oral exams increase student performance and motivation?. In Proceedings ASEE annual conference. 

• Noorbehbahani, F., Mohammadi, A. and Aminazadeh, M., 2022. A systematic review of research on cheating in online exams from 2010 to 2021. Education and information technologies, 27(6), pp.8413-8460. 

• Sparfeldt, J.R., Rost, D.H., Baumeister, U.M. and Christ, O., 2013. Test anxiety in written and oral examinations. Learning and Individual Differences, 24, pp.198-203. 

• Theobold, A.S., 2021. Oral exams: A more meaningful assessment of students’ understanding. Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education, 29(2), pp.156-159.