Using oral assessment to improve student learning in law

Chloe Wallace (University of Leeds) looked at the opportunities and challenges raised by the use of oral assessment within law degrees.

The question of assessment relates both to student progression through a course of study and, given the close relationship between assessment and student learning, progress in pedagogy (see Biggs’ well known ‘constructive alignment’ approach, 2003). Designing assessment calls into question what we mean by progress at university level – mastery of subject matter? Development of intellectual or transferrable skills? Progress in conceptions of knowledge (such as those outlined in Perry, 1970, and Baxter Mangolda, 1992)? Progress in other sorts of area, such as communication and interpersonal skills, and emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995)?

While diversity of assessment is a central factor in improving student learning and can be seen as progressive, oral assessment, particularly in its traditional format of the viva, has an almost regressive feel to it. Oral examinations had an important role in medieval universities, but, while they continued into the era of the printed book (Stray, 2001; Maharg, 1999), were subsequently abandoned in favour of written examinations. They have a significant role in some continental universities, but tend to evoke concerns about validity, fairness and transparency (for example Kehm, 2001), and, in the QA dominated environment of UK education, this can prove a significant disincentive. This is unfortunate, as oral examinations can be seen as testing in particular the kinds of rhetorical skills beloved of lawyers (Maharg, 1999) and, more generally, higher level cognitive skills often less easy to assess in a written examination (Levine & McGuire, 1970; Joughin, 1998).

Chloe’s paper made a case for the usefulness of oral assessment within a law degree, drawing on research surrounding in a variety of disciplines, both academic and professional, as well as discussing her own practice and that of others. It also considered the student experience of oral assessment, drawing on research carried out by others in other disciplines (for example Joughin, 2007; Pearce & Lee, 2009) as well as her own small scale research. It considered the quality related problems attached to oral assessment, notably those of the reliability and validity of the assessment, as well as the necessity for transparency in the light of QA procedures, and suggested how these concerns may be met. Both the traditional ‘viva’ style oral examination and the approach of requiring students to make an oral presentation were discussed.

References:

---

• Baxter Mangolda M (1992) Knowing and reasoning in college students: gender related patterns in students’ intellectual development San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
• Biggs J (2003) Teaching for quality learning at university Maidenhead: Open University Press
• Goleman D (1996) Emotional intelligence London: Bloomsbury
• Joughin G (1998) ‘Dimensions of oral assessment’ Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 23:367
• Joughin G (2007) ‘Student conceptions of oral presentations’ Studies in Higher Education 32:323
• Kehm B (2001) ‘Oral examinations at German universities’ Assessment in Education 8:26
• Levine H & McGuire C (1970) ‘The validity and reliability of oral examinations in assessing cognitive skills in medicine’ Journal of Educational Measurement 7:63
• Maharg P (1999) ‘The culture of mnemosyne: open book assessment and the theory and practice of legal education’ International Journal of the Legal Profession 6:219
• Pearce G & Lee G (2009) ‘Viva voce (oral examination) as an assessment method: Iisights from marketing students’ Journal of Marketing Education 31:120
• Perry W (1970) Forms of intellectual and academic development in the college years New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston
• Stray C (20019 ‘The shift from oral to written examination: Cambridge and Oxford 1700-1900’ Assessment in Education 8:33

Ben Fitzpatrick (University of York) reports:

Chloe uses oral assessment in two different modules. Whereas designers of oral assessment may fret about quality assurance matters such as the construction of suitable assessment criteria and the maintenance of suitable records, Chloe’s students were concerned with having a clear idea of what they were supposed to do.
 
Bigger issues appeared to be those relating to the immediacy of their experience of the process, from anxiety about their abilities to a distaste for being video recorded. Chloe related these concerns to the relationship of power that exists between learner and assessor (which is arguably more visible and potent in the context of oral assessment, and which Chloe had tried to offset by offering a formative assessment opportunity involving the critique of one of her lectures – an offer which did not in fact seem to diminish anxiety).
 
Oral assessment may take a variety of different forms – the challenge for educators is to ensure that the particular method being used is aligned rationally with the module or programme in which it sits, and, more specifically, with the skills/knowledge which are the object of assessment. So, what can be rationally assessed by a didactic oral presentation may be radically different from what can be assessed by way of a more conversational event.

About Chloe

---

Chloe Wallace is a lecturer in law at the University of Leeds, where she directs the LLB Law and French. She has also taught and assessed at various universities in France. Her interests lie in comparative law, legal culture and legal education.

Last Modified: 9 July 2010