Oral assessments

• Interactive oral assessments with teacher questions can test underlying understanding and capacity to analyse.  
• Oral assessment can be quick to mark, and immediate feedback is possible. 
• Presentation and speaking skills are valued by employers, and students can experience the assessment as authentic and relevant to real life (Ward et al., 2023)  
• The interactive nature of oral assessment can reinforce student understanding and retention of learning. Students can perceive the assessment to require conceptual understanding, rather than memory, and employ revision strategies more conducive to deep learning (Iannone, Czichowsky & Ruf, 2020) 

• Can be time-consuming or logistically complex, including capturing for moderation or external examiners (see below) 
• Risks disproportionately disadvantaging some students (see below) 

Assessment rigour for oral presentations includes the teacher’s capacity to assess a range of presentation topics, formats and styles with an equal level of scrutiny.   
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.  

• 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. 

Oral exams and interviews offer few opportunities for misconduct. A presentation could be taken from another source or developed using generative AI, but adding a question and answer section helps students to evidence their understanding of what they have presented.  

Introducing oral assessment into courses and programmes at the LSE: Initial guidance, LSE Eden Centre. 

Department of Methodology, peer feedback on student presentations  

Iannone, P., Czichowsky, C. & Ruf, J. The impact of high stakes oral performance assessment on students’ approaches to learning: a case study. Educ Stud Math 103, 313–337 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-09937-4 

Ward, M., O’Riordan, F., Logan-Fleming, D., Cooke, D., Concannon-Gibney, T., Efthymiou, M., & Watkins, N. (2023). Interactive oral assessment case studies: An innovative, academically rigorous, authentic assessment approach. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(5), 930–947. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2251967