Oral assessments are often marked in situ and this means that the process for allocating marks needs to be reliable, valid and fair when used under great time pressure. Through having a clearly defined marking structure with a set of pre-established, and shared, criteria, students should be aware of what they need to do to access the highest possible marks. Precise marking criteria help teachers to focus on the intended learning outcomes rather than presentational style. During oral presentations content validity is addressed through having marking criteria that focus on the quality of the points raised in the presentation itself and construct validity is addressed during the question and answer phase when the presenter is assessed for their capacity to comment on underpinning literature, theories and/or principles. One of the issues in having peer questions at the end of an oral presentation is that the teacher has very little control over what will be asked. This does not mean that such questions are not legitimate – only that teachers need to carefully consider how they mark the answers to such questions. In order to ensure equality of opportunity, teachers should ask their own questions after any peer questions, using them to fill any gaps and offer the presenter a chance to address any areas of the marking criteria that have not yet been covered. Oral presentation may challenge students with less proficiency in spoken English, and criteria should be scrutinised to support their achievement.
Clear criteria help students to understand what is expected, and markers to align. Criteria should be based on the learning outcomes, should explain what is expected, show what this looks like at different levels of attainment, and indicate how marks will be allocated. Criteria should be shared and discussed with students
This assessment might disadvantage some students including: students with English as an additional language; students who are neurodivergent, shy, or experiencing social anxiety; students who have less experience of oral assessment or public speaking. Consider how the assessment could be planned to minimise this disadvantage, including letting students know the format of questions, and using criteria which prioritise recognising and rewarding higher order thinking (following the learning outcomes). For most disabled students, the existing ‘My Adjustments’ process will be sufficient adjustment. The School recognises however, that for a small number of students, an alternative assessment should be considered.
For in-class presentations, teachers have no control over peer questions. In order to ensure equality of opportunity, teachers should ask their own questions to fill gaps and offer the presenter a chance to address all areas of the marking criteria. (Students can also receive guidance on how to ask good questions.)
Anonymity is not feasible, so markers should aim for maximum validity.
LSE marking normally requires double-marking or moderation, and sharing examples with the external examiner. Oral assessment can often be recorded and shared (using equipment in LSE teaching rooms, or a laptop or mobile phone), which requires advance planning.