Oral assessments, i.e., one-on-one interview-style questioning by an instructor, have been shown to be powerful pedagogical tools. Their main benefits include the ability to assess conceptual mastery in depth due to their adaptive dialogic nature, in addition to improving students’ verbal skills and serving as a tool to support academic integrity. However, assessments not only play an important role in measuring the level of students' understanding, but the assessment method also guides students' learning strategies. As such, oral assessments can serve as an important driver for students to pursue conceptual knowledge. While these dialogic assessments may exhibit challenges regarding potential bias, reliability and validity, past research has shown that with careful training and crafting these can be largely overcome. However, the main impediment towards more widescale adoption is the issue of scaling with larger class sizes, due to its reliance on one-on-one interactions between students and members of the instructional team.
To overcome the scaling issue, we have implemented and investigated an approach in which the oral assessment is only offered to a subset of students, specifically those who failed an early written exam in the course. This approach is rooted in the work on early intervention strategies. The idea is to focus on at-risk students. In this context, we do not consider the oral assessment primarily as being part of a summative assessment strategy. Instead, it is designed to be a touch point for a meaningful one-on-one interaction between a student and a member of the instructional team. The value of early interventions for at-risk students is to increase connectedness to instructional staff and resources, and student engagement and self-efficacy. The oral assessments were implemented explicitly with this focus. We also considered additional benefits, such as serving as formative assessments for the students to reflect on their level of conceptual mastery and learning strategy.
Our study was implemented in an intro to electrical engineering course, which serves as the gateway to the core curriculum. For the purposes of this intervention, the first written exam, administered at the start of week 4 of the term, was used as the tool to identify at-risk students. In this paper, we will discuss the effectiveness of this intervention, based on qualitative and quantitative data. Student feedback, obtained via a set of three surveys, shows that students find value in the oral assessment and that it increases their self-efficacy and their connectedness to the instructional team, lowering barriers to seek help. While the intervention group is too small to reach statistical significance, results hint at performance gains as well, especially when students also approach the oral assessment as a learning opportunity. These results are encouraging, as they suggest that the intervention can capture the benefits of oral assessments, while being more scalable and more targeted towards at-risk groups.
Are you a researcher? Would you like to cite this paper? Visit the ASEE document repository at peer.asee.org for more tools and easy citations.