speak up! oral examinations and political science

This article was downloaded by: [North West University]On: 20 December 2014, At: 15:41Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Political Science EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/upse20

Speak Up! Oral Examinations andPolitical ScienceMelissa J. Buehler a & Laura U. Schneider ba Purdue University ,b Grand Valley State University ,Published online: 03 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Melissa J. Buehler & Laura U. Schneider (2009) Speak Up! OralExaminations and Political Science, Journal of Political Science Education, 5:4, 315-331, DOI:10.1080/15512160903253277

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15512160903253277

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/upse20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/15512160903253277

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15512160903253277

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Speak Up! Oral Examinations and Political Science

MELISSA J. BUEHLER

Purdue University

LAURA U. SCHNEIDER

Grand Valley State University

Testing assessments of undergraduate political science students is predictable andstagnant. A missing, yet valuable, testing assessment tool that can contribute tothe repertoire of political science is the oral examination. Borrowing this testing toollargely from foreign language departments, oral exams require students to ‘‘think ontheir feet’’ in order to critically assess and appropriately respond to questions. Theability to engage in this type of activity is a valuable skill that will further preparestudents for ‘‘real world’’ situations in which they are asked to participate inexchanges demonstrating their verbal and critical assessment skills in possibleimpromptu situations. It is the goal of this research project to explore the meritsand pitfalls of utilizing oral examinations as an integral testing tool in politicalscience. The authors draw upon their experiences using oral exams in the classroom,the reaction of their students towards the examination process, and how oralexaminations are a beneficial testing tool in other disciplines. We conclude with adiscussion regarding the appropriateness of oral examination in the discipline, aswell as provide recommendations for the implementation of such testing tools thatseek to better the educational experience of our undergraduates.

Keywords oral exams, student assessment, testing methods

In 1990, Ernest L. Boyer published a special report examining the state of theprofessoriate and advocated a restructuring regarding the training of futureeducators in order to address the needs of collegiate education, as well as societyin general. Boyer (1990) recognized that changes were necessary in order to not onlymeet the diverse needs of institutions but undergraduate students and future facultyas well. In order for these needs to be meet, new methods and approaches to thetraining of future educators was advocated and promoted. Boyer (1990) alsoproclaimed that faculty should expand their repertoire and focus on improving theirteaching, as well as research practices. This expansion would potentially lead to theemployment of broader teaching and evaluation tools, which would in turn, meet theevolving needs of society. Has the discipline of political science heeded the advice ofBoyer? In a word, yes. Political science departments across the country have begun

A version of this paper was presented at the 2007 American Political Science Associationconference in Chicago, Illinois. We would like to thank those who provided valuablecomments following our presentation, as well as the anonymous journal reviewers.

Address correspondence to Laura U. Schneider, Department of Political Science, GrandValley State University, 1130 AuSable Hall, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI 49401. E-mail:[email protected]

Journal of Political Science Education, 5:315–331, 2009Copyright # 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1551-2169 print=1551-2177 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15512160903253277

315

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

to emphasize and focus on the practice of teaching, which has lead to a broadeningof educational and evaluation tools. Interestingly though, there is a tendency withinthe discipline of political science, as well as undergraduate education as a whole, tooverwhelmingly favor written, as opposed to oral, examinations even though avariety of student testing tools exist. This practice is perplexing considering thediscipline of political science seeks to advance the critical thinking and ‘‘real world’’skills of students and, in essence, to help students become better-informed, productivecitizens. This ultimately requires students to possess written, as well as verbal skills.

Benjamin Bloom (1984) created a template that provides useful guidelines forcreating test questions based on levels of abstraction, comprehension, and skills.Bloom’s Taxonomy helps faculty develop educational goals, as well as decide whichtype of evaluation tool is most appropriate by focusing on six different levels ofunderstanding: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and eva-luation. In general, written exams address the levels of knowledge, comprehension,and application. Written exams tend to rely on the student’s ability to recall learnedmaterial (i.e., knowledge), to demonstrate the importance and meaning of the mate-rial (i.e., comprehension), and to apply learned material to concepts and theories(i.e., application) (Bloom 1984). These types of questions are especially commonin multiple-choice, bubble-sheet-type tests. The real weakness though of writtenexams is that the upper three levels of understanding tend to be neglected. For thehigher levels of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, it is difficult for students to com-municate in a written format these levels of understanding (Lord and Baviskar 2007).It may also be difficult for faculty to craft questions that students can answer in awritten format in a reasonable amount of time that are able to achieve the higherlevels of understanding.

Oral exams may provide better opportunities for students to demonstrate theiranalysis, synthesis, and evaluation of the required material. Analysis requires the stu-dents to dissect material and to evaluate possible relationships among various issuesor concepts, while synthesis provides students the opportunity to creatively considerthe material in new ways. The highest level, evaluation, allows students to makejudgments about the material and to provide possible counterarguments (Bloom1984). Oral exams are perfectly suited for higher levels of understanding because(1) instructors are able to ask more probing questions that help students considercourse material in different ways; (2) students have more latitude in working throughtheir thoughts (i.e., typically individuals provide less information in written formwhen compared to verbal communication); and (3) instructors have more flexibilityregarding their own unique objectives. Finally, oral exam questions can also bedesigned in such a way that several cognitive levels can be addressed at once. Nitko(2004, 27) argues that ‘‘thinking skill categories may not be hierarchical’’ or based onsome sort of continuum as Bloom’s Taxonomy suggests. Rather, questions can actu-ally fall into more than one category. Again, oral exam questions provide instructorsthe flexibility to design questions that address multiple cognitive levels and to allowstudents the ability to organize their thoughts and to ‘‘work through’’ complicatedquestions or problems.

We recognize that benefits, as well as drawbacks, exist for both oral and writtenexams. Written exams are easy to administer and exams that employ multiple choiceand=or true=false questions are simple to grade. These types of exams also providestudents with more opportunities to think about individual questions, a level ofanonymity, and nervousness can be kept to a relative minimum. Potential drawbacks

316 M. J. Buehler and L. U. Schneider

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

for written exams are the time it takes to grade essay tests, the difficulty involved incrafting a good test, and that questions need to be somewhat limited to allowstudents time to answer questions during allotted exam periods (Clegg and Cashin1986; Cashin 1987). The benefits of oral exams are the opportunity given to facultyto ask follow-up or clarification questions; students can answer questions more fully,thereby demonstrating the extent of their knowledge on a particular subject.Students also gain experience ‘‘thinking on their feet,’’ as well as employing verbalskills that may be used in future jobs, interviews, and as articulate citizens. Finally,the potential drawbacks for oral exams are the time and scheduling involved inadministering the tests; nervousness can influence student performance; and thepotential for personal bias to impinge grading. Personal bias can also influencethe grading of essay exams as well. It is clear that drawbacks and benefits existfor both written and oral exams, but it is important to remember that these possibledrawbacks can be overcome with preparation and understanding of the variouselements involved in oral exams. In the end, we will argue that there is a place fororal exams in political science education that advances the aspirations of the disci-pline and, more importantly, better prepares students to express their thoughtsand opinions verbally.

In clarifying our central argument that assessment tools are stagnant in under-graduate education, we are not implying that innovation and experimentation do notexist in political science. There are plenty of examples of individual and collaborativeassignments that promote active learning, such as group projects, role-playing, simu-lations, service-learning, etc. that provide opportunities for instructors to evaluateand engage students in ways that are very different from written exams. Smithand Boyer (1996) advocate the use of simulations in order to stimulate the activeengagement of students by further strengthening their speaking skills and buildingupon their confidence. Campbell (2000, 641) argues that service-learning projectscan increase the ‘‘social capital’’ of students, which can lead to further civic engage-ment. Service-learning also provides students opportunities to contextual readingsand themes discussed during class through real-world experiences (Carpini andKeeter 2000; Patterson 2000) and helps students be more informed participants insociety (Hildreth 2000; Hunter and Brisbin 2000; Owen 2000). There are additionalmethods for evaluating the oral skills of students through individual or grouppresentations, debates, and student-led discussion. McQuaid (1992) discusses thestrengths of group projects that focus on collaborative, as well as individual learning,which seem to spur student-led discussion. McQuaid (1992, 533) feels that thesetypes of projects shift the focus from the ‘‘traditional instructor centered model’’to a more ‘‘student center focus.’’ It is evident that political science departmentsacross the country do require and integrate speaking requirements in their class-room. We recognize that the assessment tool repertoire available to instructors isrich with diversity, but instructors seem to default to the comfortable, unassumingwritten exam. Instructors have become overly reliant on written exams and assign-ments because they are easier to grade and have become more standardized aspublishers increasingly provide instructors with question banks and tests. Simplyput, written exams are what instructors know. They are comfortable with the format,the expectations, and the execution.

Oral exams are quite different from end-of-the-semester presentations, debates,or other oral assessment tools. While students know the date and time of the oralexam, the questions are impromptu, they cannot formally prepare answers to the

Speak Up! Oral Examinations and Political Science 317

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

questions any more than they can for a written exam. The purpose of an oral exam isto discern and evaluate student comprehension of course material, as well as theirability to ‘‘think on their feet.’’ It is not so much about the quality of the oralpresentation, but how well students can orally answer challenging cognitive andsynthesis questions that allow students to demonstrate their knowledge of the coursematerial. Simply put, oral exams put students in a situation similar to a job inter-view. Oral exams provide one-on-one communication between student and profes-sor; formal presentations and debates do not offer this type of interaction. Whiledebates can provide a somewhat similar level of interaction in regards to unscriptedresponses, they are still conducted in a group environment, which is dissimilar to jobinterviews. The challenge of the oral component is that students have to be able tocompose correct responses when prompted. In order to do that satisfactorily, itrequires students to have learned the material for the semester, not just memorizeor cram the night before because of the nature of the questions and the expected‘‘correct’’ response. Finally, oral exams offer students a chance to distinguish them-selves by demonstrating their level of understanding of the course material, theirability to anticipate and interact in an unfamiliar environment, and their ability toprovide responses in a ‘‘less scripted’’ manner.

To contextualize our argument, we surveyed the syllabi in our political sciencedepartment over the past nine semesters. The syllabi represented classes taught bothby professors and independent graduate instructors. As an aside, the political sciencedepartment and=or the university have recognized several professors and graduatestudents for teaching excellence. Overall, we examined 304 syllabi from under-graduate courses taught between 2003 and 2007. The syllabi covered all subfieldsof political science courses: American government, international relations, compara-tive politics, public policy, political theory, and research methods. Table 1 providesthe distribution of examination type by subfield. Test type could not be ascertainedin 77 of the syllabi based on the test description provided in the syllabus. These testswere coded as ‘‘N=A.’’

Based on an analysis of department syllabi, the majority of examinations overthe past 15 semesters have relied on rudimentary testing styles. We were able todetermine examination type for 227 courses. Of these courses, 209 courses offered

Table 1. Distribution of undergraduate course examinations Fall 2003–Fall 2007

EssayMultiplechoice Hybrid� Oral N=A Presentation

American 12 17 35 0D 26 14Comparative 5 7 6 0 6 4International Relations 22 8 27 0 21 8Public Policy 24 6 15 5 4 25Theory 9 0 6 0 16 0Methods 0 3 7 0 4 0Totals 72 41 96 5 77 51

�Hybrid exams include a variety of examination questions, including multiple choice,true=false, short-answer, and essay questions.

DOne professor offered an oral or essay exam as a make-up option in 2007.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

some type of written exam, while only 5 courses offered oral exams. Interestingly, itis primarily graduate instructors who have experimented with unconventional testingstyles (see Table 2); however, even this is significantly limited. The majority of examsadministered in political science undergraduate courses is either multiple choice or acombination of multiple choice, true=false, and fill in the blank; 137 out of 227classes, or 60.3%, utilized this testing method. Essay exams were the next popularchoice comprising 72 classes, or 31.7%. The only undergraduate instructors employ-ing oral exams were the authors of this paper. We have used oral exams in fourclasses over five semesters. The only other use of oral exams was as a makeup-examoption in an Introduction to American Politics exam; students were told in thesyllabus that all makeup exams would either be in essay or oral format.

When it comes to more structured oral presentations, only 51 undergraduateclasses, or 16.7% of undergraduate classes taught during the past nine semesters,have included formal group or individual presentations; the majority of presenta-tions occurred in undergraduate courses taught by independent graduate instructors,35 out of 51 courses, or 68.6%. So while there is a rich literature that discusses thevariety of available testing tools, the syllabi from our department indicate that thewritten exam remains the primary testing tool of choice.

After surveying the syllabi in our home department, we also surveyed the avail-able political science syllabi on the worldwide web.1 We recognize that this is only alimited subset of syllabi, but nevertheless got several hundred hits. This search elu-cidated two points: first, political science graduate programs were far more likelyto require an oral examination component than undergraduate courses. Second,those that did include oral exams at the undergraduate level were all part of a seniorseminar or senior thesis requirement. It seems clear that we should expect seniors,especially those that are part of an honors program to be competent speakers, buthow are we preparing our students for oral competency within political science with-out exposing them to oral exams? Is assuming that other departments will addresscommunicative competence really the best option? Certainly we are not outside ofour realm of influence in procuring oral exams.

We begin by examining the literature regarding the use of oral exams in otherareas of study, such as foreign language. We contend that oral exams are suitableand appropriate for advancing and meeting the needs of undergraduate students,as well as the discipline of political science. We then discuss our experiences andobservations regarding the employment of oral exams within our own undergraduateclassrooms. Finally, we offer recommendations to instructors for implementingoral exams as an alternative evaluation tool in the political science undergraduateclassrooms, as well as preparation tips for students.

Table 2. Distribution of undergraduate course examinations Fall 2003–Fall 2007 byprofessors and graduate instructors

Essay Multiple choice Hybrid Oral N=A Presentation

Graduate Instructor 23 23 41 5 14 35Professor 48 19 71 0D 50 18

DOne professor offered an oral or essay exam as a make-up option in 2007.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Literature Review

Part of teaching is developing new strategies and methods to enhance studentlearning, understanding, and critical thinking. As classrooms continue to diversifyand the job market becomes increasingly competitive, the development of ‘‘realworld’’ skills for students becomes increasingly important. Within political science,our testing repertoire has become somewhat stagnant. While we may emphasizeactive and critical learning through thesis-supported ‘‘term papers,’’ critical analyses,and presentations, students are infrequently asked to make oral argumentations inan examination format. It is generally assumed that written and multiple-choiceexams, which dominate testing methods in political science, are sufficient for testinglower levels of learning but often fail to assess the higher levels of learning (Cleggand Cashin 1986; Lord and Baviskar 2007). Critical learning is a necessary compo-nent in learning since oral exams move beyond class discussion and require studentsto ascertain a level of understanding and engagement that is more individualized andin-depth learning (Rushton and Eggett 2003).

Although oral examinations are atypical in the social sciences, they are utilizedwith greater frequency within foreign language departments but remain a neglectedtesting tool (Zdenek 1989). It is assumed in both foreign languages and the socialsciences that by the time a student has reached a midlevel course, they are relativelycompetent in the subject matter. Students are expected to be able to speak in class, toanswer questions orally about readings and discussion topics, and to work in smallgroups to answer questions, problem solve, et cetera. Foreign language professorshave found that this assumed expectation is quite unrealistic (Rusterholz 1990)and we argue that in the social sciences it is unrealistic as well. We cannot assumethat all students possess the skills and, more importantly, the confidence necessaryfor asserting one’s self verbally.

While we often emphasize the ability of students to express supported opinions,to hypothesize, and to deal with unfamiliar situations in writing, these skills arerarely implemented orally. Practically speaking, our students will be required tonot only write well in the professional world but will be asked to speak effectivelyand proficiently.

In part, a ‘‘real world’’ skill political scientists should be imparting on ourstudents is how to harness classroom information, enabling students to use thatknowledge to be political stewards. This does not mean that we expect our studentsto become politicians, academics, or overtly involved in government, but it doesmean that we provide students with the oral capabilities to speak fluently aboutpolitical issues, ideas, and concepts once they depart our classrooms. As citizensour students must be willing and able to discuss complex political issues with oneanother to develop and advocate for complex policy preferences.

Assisting in the development and honing of communication skills is a skillinstructors can directly impart onto their students. The development of one’s com-munication skills provides a specialized tool for the students’ ‘‘tool box.’’ This tool,however, can transcend beyond the confines of political discussions and be utilizedregularly in a student’s life outside academia, such as with job interviews, futurecareers, and general social function.

There are a variety of outlets where oral political communication skills arenecessary. For example, improving one’s ability to verbally articulate and engagein dialogue with others about issues can help him or her stay politically informed,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

become active citizens, participate in deliberative democracy, and improve generalsocial function overall. Collective public deliberation is definitive of the democraticexperience (Benhabib 1996; Bohman 1996; Dorf and Sabel 1998; Dryzek 1990;Fishkin 1991; Habermas 1996; Warren 1996; Gabardi 2001). Introducing oralcompetency skills like oral exams helps prepare students for active participationin deliberative and other politically oriented undertakings. As political scienceeducators, we have a responsibility to help shape and improve the oratory skills ofour students. Incorporating oral examinations on a regular basis has the potentialto contribute to the growth of students’ confidence and the obligations of real worldcitizens (Nelson 1986), as well as being a valuable and useful testing tool.

Although we stress speaking skills in our classrooms through presentations, inclass discussion, and small group work, the discipline, as a whole, tests verbal skillsinfrequently. Like learning to be a good writer, speaking takes practice and reinfor-cement, yet this skill is neglected within the classroom. Perhaps it is because weexpect our students to come to college with a basic set of skills—speaking, vocabu-lary, comprehension—and find it a waste of classroom time to hone and improvethese fundamental skills in a collegiate setting (Srole 1994). On the contrary, studentslearn in diverse ways (Croteau and Hoynes 1991), which necessitates that pedago-gically we should offer different methods for assessing student comprehension andunderstanding beyond the written medium. It is our contention that oral examina-tions are a missing component to pedagogical diversification.

This is not to say that political science has not diversified its teaching and testingtechniques. Active learning is increasingly emphasized within the classroom, asresearch has shown, since students who are actively engaged with the material learnmore and perform at higher levels (Angelo 1993; Eison 1990). A common example ofactive learning is requiring students to teach or explain a topic to one another. Thisprovides an opportunity for students to consider a particular idea or concept andthen to discuss it, using their own words. An oral exam requires students to do asimilar action, just under different circumstances and conditions. Not only does thisform of active learning emphasize critical thinking skills but also research has shownthat students who can connect what they know with what they are learning are morelikely to retain the knowledge long term (Angelo 1993; Cashin 1985).

Applying oral examinations as a tool in our testing assessment repertoire alsoaddresses issues of confidence and competency in oral delivery. For many within for-eign language departments, as well as the social sciences, students tend to appearanxious when speaking in front of the class, either during presentations or, for thequiet student, during class discussion (Aski 1998). Research suggests students whoare ‘‘highly anxious’’ find oral skills problematic (Price 1991). Communication scho-lars find that oral communication psychological anxiety peaks in the anticipatory orprespeaking period and physiological anxiety peaks when students begin speaking(Behnke and Beatty 1981a, 1981b; Behnke and Carlile 1971; Behnke and Sawyer2001). This anxiety can be diminished through habituation and practice (Behnkeand Sawyer 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001; Sawyer and Behnke 1999, 2002).

Communication anxiety is often demonstrated in the students’ behavior and isobservable by audience members (Finn, Sawyer, and Behnke 2003; Mulmac andSherman 1974; Trussel 1978). There are both language indicators (i.e., volume, pitch,rate, pauses, etc.) and physical indicators (i.e., eye contact, gestures, body movement,sweating, trembling, etc.) that visibly demonstrate speaker anxiety (Ayres 1989;Behnke, Beatty, and Kitchens 1978; Clevenger 1959; Clevenger and King 1961; Finn,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Sawyer, and Behnke 2003; Mulac and Sherman 1974). Communication scholars alsoreported four independent factors of speech-anxiety behaviors: rigidity, inhibition,disfluency, and agitation (Finn, Sawyer, and Behnke 2003; Mulac and Sherman1974). These visual cues indicate to the audience the level of speaker anxiety. Practice,awareness, and habituation can help lessen the speech anxiety of students.

Although this has not been extensively researched in political science, it is logicalto assume that there is a kind of block or presence of anxiety that impedes the devel-opment of some students’ oral communication skills especially in classroom environ-ments. This frustration is amplified for most ‘‘highly anxious’’ foreign languagestudents since they feel their efforts and preparation do not mimic their oral results(Bailey 1983; Price 1991). Many in the social sciences have had students who fail tomeet expectations when required to speak or present in class due to anxiety orbecoming overly flustered by the activity. Regularly incorporating oral examinationsalong with other speaking requirements in the classroom will enhance studentconfidence and improve speaking abilities as they gain more experience articulatelyvoicing their thoughts and opinions.

In addition, oral examinations require students to address their oral problem-solving skills (Rusterholz 1990). In life after college, all of our students will be askedto recall facts, to think critically, and to respond in impromptu situations. These sce-narios can cause anxiety and stress for all, even the most prepared, but it is a learningexperience neglected in higher education. Adapting and incorporating oral exams asa regular component of classroom testing will help ease this fear and anxiety throughpractice and repetition.

One avenue in which the foreign languages utilize the oral exam and oral profi-ciency are in business language classes. Students studying a foreign language need tobe able to write clearly, to ascertain what they read, to understand what others say,and to be lucid speakers in another language (Rusterholz 1990). This is not only animportant skill for those studying a foreign language but for native speakers as well.Non-foreign language courses often neglect this component in the education ofundergraduates outside of obligatory communication or speech classes yet is a skillthat the social sciences could be emphasizing in their curriculum.

The hesitancy of orally driven testing may stem from three main impediments.First, students and=or teachers may prefer more familiar testing methods that areless subjective, more straightforward, and easier to grade (Bacon and Finneman1990). Students perceive the standard bubble sheet, multiple-choice exam, as aneasier testing method and they are generally easier for instructors to devise andgrade. Second, there is a perception that oral exams are time consuming and difficultto develop, as well as grade, than more traditional standardized examinations(Sieloff Magnan 1991). Finally, because there are no established criteria for whatoral examinations should cover and entail, the vagueness and uncertainty of oralexaminations for both the student and instructor may leave them uneasy (SieloffMagnan 1991).

The following sections focus on two main areas. First, we discuss our ownexperiences implementing oral exams and the observed responses and feedback fromour students. We use this knowledge to guide our discussion on the usefulness of oralexams as an assessment tool. Second, we provide suggestions for incorporating oralexams as part of the pedagogical assessment tools for the social sciences. We discussthe perceived strengths and weaknesses of oral exams in subsequent sections as well.Our hope is that by examining the use of oral exams in the classroom setting and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

demystifying some of the fears that surround this testing tool, oral exams will beviewed as a more welcomed and integral part of undergraduate education.

Observations and Experiences

We administered oral exams to approximately 125 students enrolled in undergradu-ate political science courses over a period of four semesters. Three semesters corre-sponded with a Women, Politics and Public Policy course and one semester involvedan Introduction to Environmental Policy course. Exams were administered over atwo-day period during each semester and students were given the opportunity to signup for a 15-minute exam time. Approximately 30 exams were administered each day.Time was strictly monitored in order to circumvent any potential conflicts.

During all four semesters of observation, both oral and written exams wereadministered in undergraduate political science classes. Written essay exams weregiven as midterm tests and oral exams were used as comprehensive final tests.The structure of the oral exam was the same for all students. Each student was givenfive main questions during a 15-minute period. Questions were randomly assignedfrom a question bank that was compiled over the course of each semester. No twostudents were asked the same list of questions. Students began by answeringquestions more broad in nature and ended with more specific questions. The broadquestions were designed to explore students’ knowledge of themes and connectionsamong the themes and issues; the specific questions gave students the opportunity todemonstrate more specialized knowledge of various topics. Overall, instructors werespecifically looking for students to demonstrate the following skills: (1) ability tocommunicate concise responses and fully answer questions; (2) ability to referencespecific class discussion topics and readings; (3) ability to think on one’s feet; (4)ability to demonstrate both broad and specific knowledge (i.e., ability to generallytalk about the themes, as well as provide specific examples from the readings);and (5) ability to manage time and maintain focus.

Instructions and preparation for the oral exam were provided to students onthree separate occasions over the course of the semester.2 First, students were madeaware of the oral exam requirement during the first day of class. In addition, anoverview of the exam was provided in the syllabus. Second, students were given ahandout approximately three weeks prior to the exam that provided additionalinstructions concerning the procedures for the exam, as well as sample questionsand responses (see Appendix 1). This handout also provided tips on how best to pre-pare for the exam. Third, students participated in a review=Q&A session the weekprior to the test administration. During this time, mock oral exams were given tostudents who volunteered, as well as examples of types of questions and answers.An example of a possible test question is as follows: the text introduces the idea thatwomen tend to hire more women to work in their administrations as opposed tomale-led administrations. How does this practice impact society’s view of womenin office? Does this ultimately impact women’s ability to achieve objectives whilein office? A ‘‘correct’’ response would include the following components: (1) descrip-tion of society’s view of women in general as well as trends regarding their roles inpolitical office; (2) discussion of society’s view of women as being more collective,while men are viewed as more individualistic; therefore this type of hiring practicewould perpetuate this view; (3) discussion of gender norms regarding women inleadership positions; (4) discussion of the masculinization of power and executive


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

positions; and a conclusion with a (5) discussion regarding the achievements womenhave made in office, as well as whether these achievements have influenced societalview of women and their successes.

This question example could have been used for an essay test as well, but again,oral exams can further probe student comprehension. For example, the student’sresponse may include a discussion of women’s achievements in general and contex-tualize their response in regards to the women’s movement and the role of womenboth in the public and private spheres. After hearing this response, the professorcould as ask follow-up questions regarding specific examples of achievements womenhave made in leadership positions and whether these achievements have influencedthe view and successes of women in power today. This type of follow up providesthe student an opportunity to further demonstrate higher levels of thinking (i.e.,analysis, synthesis, and evaluation). If this question were posed in an essay format,the student would have missed an opportunity to demonstrate his or her level ofunderstanding, which could influence the overall test grade.

In general, the benefits of oral exams, especially when compared to writtenexams, outweighed the weaknesses and were readily apparent. The primary benefitfor the students was the opportunity to clarify responses, as well as provide morein-depth responses. Instructors were also able to ask follow-up questions that eitherexpanded upon or clarified student responses. Oftentimes, students would go intogreater detail on certain questions, which demonstrated their extensiveness andunderstanding of the issue(s).

Regarding the weaknesses of oral exams as relating to instructors, time andpersonal bias seem to be the primary concerns. Instructors who have large classeswill need to allow for more time to administer tests. In terms of personal bias influen-cing grading in our specific cases, this does not appear to be any more of an issuewhen compared to written exams for two reasons. First, instructors were able toask for clarification if responses were unclear or limited. This provided studentsmore opportunity to clarify and=or to improve responses. Second, instructors taperecorded all student responses and did not assign grades during the actual exams.Grades were assigned after listening to the taped responses and reviewing notestaken during the actual exams.

The primary weakness observed by the instructors was the level of student anxi-ety during the oral exam. Typically, students verbalized their anxiety prior to as wellas during the exam. Students also provided nonverbal cues that relayed their anxietyto the instructor such as fidgeting and tapping, inability to maintain eye contact, andasking to have questions repeated numerous times; all of which communicationscholars define as psychological and physiological anxiety cues (Ayres 1989; Behnke,Beatty, and Kitchens 1978; Clevenger 1959; Clevenger and King 1961; Finn, Sawyer,and Behnke 2003; Mulac and Sherman 1974). Student anxiety was minimized asstudents showed greater ease when exams mimicked a more conversational flow.

Student response following the completion of the oral exams was primarily posi-tive. Prior to the exam, most students verbalized their concern regarding difficultysince they had not previously taken an oral exam. During the actual exams, manystudents seemed to relax shortly after the test commenced and were surprised at theirability to ‘‘think on their feet,’’ as well as their level of ease at the end of the exam. Atthe end of the exam, many students commented that the exam was not as difficult asthey had assumed and prepared for the ‘‘absolute worst.’’ Students also seemed togain confidence following the oral exams and were able to speak more easily and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

frequently during class. Many students also provided positive comments on courseevaluations regarding the oral exam requirement.

The oral exams were a positive experience for the instructors as well. The sche-duling and administration of the exams required minimal effort and grading did notnecessitate additional time when compared to written essay exams. The instructorsfound that oral exams are far more flexible than written exams in terms of formulat-ing questions, as well as providing opportunities to ask students follow-up questions.Oral exams also provided instructors the opportunity to interact with students on adifferent, more individualized level than in a classroom.

An additional benefit of using oral exams is the virtual elimination of academicdishonesty. Since the oral exam questions are drawn from a vast database, no twostudents receive the same questions. Second, the oral exams are administered on aone-on-one, closed door, closed book basis. During the examination process thereis no way for the test-taker to communicate with others outside of the examinationsetting. While administering oral exams for a large class is a big time investment itdoes ensure a testing environment that eliminates both the temptation and engage-ment of academic dishonesty.

Recommendations

Testing higher levels of knowledge should be one of our main objectives as educa-tors. Existing testing methods fail to address higher levels of cognition like analysis,synthesis, and evaluation (Bloom 1984). Our experiences using oral exams in theclassroom suggest that there is an opportunity within the social sciences to incorpo-rate this evaluation tool. While further empirical research on the use of oral exams isneeded, we are able to offer suggestions in the mean time to those who welcome theuse of oral exams in their classes.

To the Instructor

When considering the use of oral exams in the classroom it is important to evaluatethe learning objectives you hope to achieve within the course(s). The more accuratelyyou can assess what you want your students to learn, the easier it will be to designthe oral exam. Preparing students ahead of time also provides direction within theclass and can encourage greater student discussion. The goals are to improve thecomfort, as well as communication between the instructor and student, as well asdiscussion among the students, which will help decrease the level of anxiety comeoral examination time.

When designing questions for the oral exam, there are two things that must beconsidered. First, bear in mind course learning objectives and consider what it is spe-cifically that you expect students to recall during the exam. While the oral exam canbe used for both factual and critical thinking questions, we believe it is more worth-while for both the instructor and student as a critical learning exercise. One benefit tothe oral exam is the opportunity to ask clarifying and=or follow-up questions. Whenwriting essay exams students are not always clear when explaining their points orthought process. Oral exams provide instructors the opportunity to clarify students’thoughts in order to make sure responses are understood. As this is not possible onan essay exam, students may feel oral exams are ‘‘more fair’’ because they areallowed to further explain or to justify their responses.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Like any subjective examination, there is concern about how to grade fairly. Sincethe exam is oral, it may be a good idea to ask students if you can tape record theirresponses for further assessment when assigning grades. This provides you with theopportunity to go back to individual student’s responses and to evaluate the meritof their response. Note taking can also be used during the examination to record stu-dent’s responses, but this may increase their anxiety and may distract you from theirfull response. Again, tape recording student responses would circumvent this pro-blem. Second, depending upon the nature of the question, you can have a generalguide that indicates correct and incorrect responses; for example, a particular themeor body of literature from the course that is pertinent to the response. Providing ageneral guideline or outline for each question may also be helpful. It will providetransparency for your students and may avoid grade dispute discussions. In addition,it will provide the instructor with a concrete guideline for exam expectations.

Since oral exams are uncommon in the social sciences, it is possible that youand=or the student may be quite anxious over the whole experience. There areseveral ways to diffuse this anxiety. One is to begin a discussion with the studenton a topic other than the examination to help them relax and to get their mindoff the situation. Some students are extremely anxious when they see you writingwhile they are speaking and can become self-conscious and self-sensor themselvesbecause they perceive your note taking as a sign of poor performance. Others maybe rattled by the tape recording; if a student is extremely bothered by the recordingor note taking it may be necessary to abandon both efforts and wait until the studentleaves to record your assessment. The oral exam should serve as a positive learningexperience for both teacher and student. Doing our best to foster a conducive envir-onment is paramount to helping students feel more comfortable and confident intheir speaking abilities.

One criticism of oral exams is test administration is time consuming. In somerespects, this assessment is correct. Setting aside 15–20 minutes per student to admin-ister the test is a significant investment. However, when you consider the time it takesto write and grade an essay exam, the time difference is of little consequence. Whileoral, as well as essay, exams are much more time consuming than the electronic grad-ing that accompanies multiple-choice examinations, the individualized contact withstudents, test flexibility, and ability to clarify or follow-up responses far outweighpotential weaknesses.

To the Student

An oral exam requires a different type of preparation than a written exam but shouldnot be considered any more arduous. In practice, college students are increasinglyjuggling their time between academics, athletics, and other extracurricular work,jobs, and socializing. For those who have never taken an oral exam, the thoughtof preparing for such a test may seem daunting. Having both received and given oralexams, our advice is as follows. Students must take an active role in their educationby attending class, taking notes, and doing the required readings. These activitieshelp students to understand, as well as to organize important and relevant coursematerial. Since oral exams are more than likely going to require you to think criti-cally about the material, students must challenge themselves throughout the semesterto engage the material at perhaps a deeper level than required for other courses. Stu-dents must also speak up during class; one way to improve one’s level of comfort, as


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

well as comprehension of the subject matter is to start talking about it. Finally, if youare concerned about the oral exam itself or are uncomfortable with the material, seekout your instructor early on in the semester to talk about your anxiety or get extraguidance with the course material. Discussing course material one-on-one through-out the semester with the instructor will increase your level of comfort as well.

As we suggested to instructors, the oral exam should be no more subjective thanan essay exam and the same precautions that ensure fair grading practices should beutilized. Instructors who use oral or essay exams attempt to minimize bias and to max-imize fairness. One way to approach this issue in advance is to ask your instructor howthey will be grading the examination and the kinds of responses they are looking for.

As mentioned previously, it is not uncommon for the student to be anxiousabout an examination, particularly if they have never taken an oral exam before.One way to alleviate anxiety is to practice, practice, practice. This may mean speak-ing up more in your class(es), going to office hours to talk about the material or youranxiety with your instructor, or talking to yourself in the bathroom mirror. What-ever method you choose, acknowledging your anxiety and attempting to addressyour fears will leave you more confident, even if only slightly, when you go in to takethe actual exam.

Although the oral exam may seem daunting and intimidating at the time, it ispossible that you will get more out of this method of examination than others. Therewill be a time in the future, be it in a business meeting, a run in with your superior inthe hall, or even in a casual conversation over lunch with your friends when you willbe asked in an impromptu situation to speak about a particular experience, event, orissue. Experience with oral exams will help advance your critical thinking, improveyour ability to link advanced concepts and thoughts without preparation and contri-bute to your level of confidence to orate on the topic. These life skills are much moretransferable than a multiple-choice exam you will forget in six months.

Finally, oral exams at the undergraduate level are designed to be one-on-oneassessments of knowledge. Think of them as a spoken essay exam, with a few morequestions, but takes less time to complete. Instead of spending 2–3 hours in a writtenexamination, an oral exam is over in less than a half hour. Your preparation for anoral exam should be no more time consuming or in depth than an essay examination.And the best part of all, there is no writer’s cramp at the end!

Conclusion

The introduction of oral exams to the social sciences, specifically to political science,has the potential to be both useful and enlightening for students and facultymembers. In general, the experiences described were positive for both students andinstructors and the benefits seem to outweigh the weaknesses. Instructors benefitedfrom the individualized contact with students, as well as the flexibility afforded bythe structure of oral exams. Students were able to answer questions face-to-face,which potentially contributed to their level of confidence and provided real-life skills.Part of advancing the discipline of political science is teaching and preparing ourstudents to be competitive in their postcollege careers. The experience of an oralexam will provide a life skill that students can use beyond college. Oral exams enablestudents to become more confident in their communication skills as well as their abil-ity to answer challenging questions in intellectual settings. In the end, undergraduateeducation should prepare students for life beyond the classroom. Whether students


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

are applying for jobs or furthering their education, the experience provided by oralexams is beneficial.

Notes

1. When searching, we used the keywords political science, oral exams, and undergraduate.2. The material provided to the students to prepare for the oral exam, including sample

questions and responses are located in Appendix 1.

References

Angelo, Thomas A. 1993. ‘‘A Teacher’s Dozen: Fourteen General, Research-Based Principlesfor Improving Higher Learning in Our Classrooms.’’ AAHE Bulletin April: 5–8.

Aski, Janice M. 1998. ‘‘Theory into Practice: Italian Quizzes and Exams as a Reflection of theCurriculum.’’ Italica 75(4): 477–494.

Ayres, Joe. 1989. ‘‘The Impact of Communication Apprehension and Interaction Structureson sInitial Interactions.’’ Communication Monographs 56: 75–87.

Bacon, Susan M. and Michael D. Finneman. 1990. ‘‘A Study of Attitudes, Motives, andStrategies of University Foreign-Language Students and Their Disposition to AuthenticOral and Written Input.’’ The Modern Language Journal 74: 459–473.

Bailey, Kathleen M. 1983. ‘‘Competitiveness and Anxiety in Adult Second LanguageLearning: Looking at and through the Diary Studies.’’ In Classroom Oriented Researchin Second Language Acquisition, eds. Herbert W. Seigler and Michael H. Long. Rowley,MA: Newbury House.

Behnke, Ralph R. and Chris R. Sawyer. 1998. ‘‘Conceptualizing Speech Anxiety as a DynamicTrait.’’ Southern Communication Journal 63: 160–168.

Behnke, Ralph R. and Chris R. Sawyer. 1999. ‘‘Milestones of Anticipatory Public SpeakingAnxiety.’’ Communication Education 48: 1–8.

Behnke, Ralph R. and Chris R. Sawyer. 2000. ‘‘Anticipatory Anxiety Patterns for Male andFemale Public Speakers.’’ Communication Education 49: 187–195.

Behnke, Ralph R. and Chris R. Sawyer. 2001. ‘‘Patterns of Psychological State Anxiety inPublic Speaking as a Function of Anxiety Sensitivity.’’ Communication Quarterly 49(1):84–94.

Behnke, Ralph R. and Larry Carlile. 1971. ‘‘Heart Rate as an Index of Speech Anxiety.’’Speech Monographs 38: 65–69.

Behnke, Ralph R. and Michael J. Beatty. 1981a. ‘‘A Cognitive-Physiological Model of SpeechAnxiety.’’ Communication Monographs 48: 158–163.

Behnke, Ralph R. and Michael J. Beatty. 1981b. ‘‘A Comparison of Anticipatory andPerformance Anxiety in Public Speaking.’’ Texas Speech Communication Journal 1: 3–6.

Behnke, Ralph R., Michael J. Beatty, and James T. Kitchens. 1978. ‘‘Cognitively-ExperiencedSpeech Anxiety as a Predictor of Trembling.’’ Western Journal of Speech Communication42: 270–275.

Benhabib, Seyla. 1996. Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political.Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Bloom, Benjamin S. 1984. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Bohman, James. 1996. Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy.

Cambridge: The MIT Press.Boyer, Ernest L. 1990. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Ewing, NJ:

Advancement of Teaching.Campbell, David E. 2000. ‘‘Social Capital and Service Learning.’’ PS: Political Science and

Politics 33(3): 641–645.Carpini, Michael X. Delli and Scott Keeter. 2000. ‘‘What Should Be Learned though Service

Learning?’’ PS: Political Science and Politics 33(3): 635–637.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Cashin, William E. 1985. ‘‘Improving Lectures.’’ IDEA Paper No. 14. Manhattan: KansasState University, Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development.

Cashin, William E. 1987. ‘‘Improving Essay Tests.’’ IDEA Paper No. 17. Manhattan: KansasState University, Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development. In Fieldguide forTeaching a New Century, eds. Bernice A. Pescosolido and Ronald Aminzade. ThousandOaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Clegg, Victoria L. and William E. Cashin. 1986. ‘‘Improving Multiple Choice Tests.’’ IDEAPaper No. 16. Manhattan: Kansas State University, Center for Faculty Evaluation andDevelopment. In Fieldguide for Teaching a New Century, eds. Bernice A. Pescosolidoand Ronald Aminzade. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Clevenger, T. 1959. ‘‘A Synthesis of Experimental Research in Stage Fright.’’ QuarterlyJournal of Speech 45: 134–145.

Clevenger, T. and T. R. King. 1961. ‘‘A Factor Analysis of the Visible Symptoms of StageFright.’’ Speech Monographs 28: 245–247.

Croteau, David and William Hoynes. 1991. ‘‘A Transitional Teaching Experience: LearningGroups and the First-Time Teacher.’’ Teaching Sociology 19(1): 28–33.

DoDolan, Julie, Mellissa Deckman, and Michele L. Swers. 2007.Women and Politics: Paths toPower and Political Influence. Upper Saddle River: Prentice.

Dorf, Michael and Charles Sabel. 1998. ‘‘A Constitution of Democratic Experimentalism.’’Columbia Law Review 98: 267–473.

Dryzek, John S. 1990. Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Eison, James. 1990. ‘‘Confidence in the Classroom: Ten Maxims for New Teachers.’’ CollegeTeaching 38: 21–25.

Finn, Amber N., Chris R. Sawyer, and Ralph R. Behnke. 2003. ‘‘Audience-Perceived AnxietyPatterns of Public Speakers.’’ Communication Quarterly 51(4): 470–481.

Fishkin, James. 1991. Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform.New Haven: Yale University Press.

Gabardi, Wayne. 2001. ‘‘Contemporary Models of Democracy.’’ Polity 33(4): 547–568.Gagne, Patricia and Richard Tewksbury. 2003. The Dynamics of Inequality: Race, Class, Gen-

der, and Sexuality in the United States. Upper Saddle River: Prentice.Habermas, Jurgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of

Law and Democracy (trans. William Rehg). Cambridge: MIT Press.Hildreth, R. W. 2000. ‘‘Theorizing Citizenship and Evaluating Public Achievement.’’ PS:

Political Science and Politics 33(3): 627–632.Hunter, Susan and Richard A. Brisbin, Jr. 2000. ‘‘The Impact of Service Learning on

Democratic and Civic Values.’’ PS: Political Science and Politics 33(3): 623–626.Lord, Thomas and Sandhya Baviskar. 2007. ‘‘Moving Students from Information Recitation

to Information Understanding: Exploiting Bloom’s Taxonomy in Creating ScienceQuestions.’’ Journal of College Science Teaching 36(5): 40–44.

McQuaid, Kathleen K. 1992. ‘‘Guided Design Simulations in Introductory Level American Pol-itics and State and Local Politics Courses.’’ PS: Political Science and Politics 25(3): 532–534.

Mulac, Anthony and A. R. Sherman. 1974. ‘‘Behavioral Assessment of Speech Anxiety.’’Quarterly Journal of Speech 60: 134–143.

Nelson, Jacqueline. 1986. ‘‘Implementing Oral Exams as Part of the School Exam System.’’New Approaches in the Language Classroom: Coping with Change. Presented at theNational Modern Languages Convention, Dublin, Ireland.

Nitko, Anthony J. 2004. Educational Assessment of Students, 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Owen, Diana. 2000. ‘‘Service Learning and Political Socialization.’’ PS: Political Science andPolitics 33(3): 638–640.

Patterson, Amy S. 2000. ‘‘It’s a Small World: Incorporating Service Learning intoInternational Relations Courses.’’ PS: Political Science and Politics 33(4): 817–822.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Price, Mary Lou. 1991. ‘‘The Subjective Experiences of Foreign Language Anxiety: Interviewswith Anxious Students.’’ In Language from Theory and Research to Classroom Implica-tions, eds. Elaine K. Horwitz and Dolly J. Young. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Rushton, Patricia and Dennis Eggett. 2003. ‘‘Comparison of Written and Oral Examinationsin a Baccalaureate Medical-Surgical Nursing Course.’’ Journal of Professional Nursing19(3): 142–148.

Rusterholz, Barbara Lomas. 1990. ‘‘Developing Oral Proficiency in the Business FrenchClass.’’ The French Review 64(2): 253–260.

Sawyer, Chris and Ralph R. Behnke. 1999. ‘‘State Anxiety Patterns for Public Speaking andthe Behavior Inhibition System.’’ Communication Reports 12: 33–41.

Sawyer, Chris and Ralph R. Behnke. 2002. ‘‘Reduction in Public Speaking State AnxietyDuring Performance as a Function of Sensitization Processes.’’ Communication Quarterly50(1): 110–121.

Sieloff Magnan, Sally. 1991. ‘‘Just Do It: Directing TAs Toward Task-Based and ProcessOriented Testing.’’ In Assessing Foreign Language Proficiency of Undergraduates, ed.Richard V. Teschner. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

Smith, Elizabeth T. and Mark A. Boyer. 1996. ‘‘Designing In-Class Simulations.’’ PS:Political Science and Politics 29(4): 690–694.

Srole, Carole. 1994. ‘‘Pedagogical Responses to Student Diversity: History and Language.’’The History Teacher 28(1): 49–55.

Trussel, Richard P. 1978. ‘‘Use of Graduated Behavior Rehearsal, Feedback, and SystematicDesensitization for Speech Anxiety.’’ Journal of Counseling Psychology 25: 14–20.

Warren, Mark. 1996. ‘‘What Should We Expect From More Democracy? RadicallyDemocratic Responses to Politics.’’ Political Theory 24: 241–270.

Zdenek, Joseph W. 1989. ‘‘Oral Testing in the High School Classroom: Helpful Hints.’’Hispania 72(3): 743–745.

Appendix 1: Study Tips for Oral Exam

The oral exam is an opportunity for you to demonstrate your knowledge and criticalthinking skills, as well as your ability to verbally communicate your thoughts.Remember that you have 15 minutes so you need to remain focused and to provideconcise answers. Make sure you arrive on time since time will be strictly managed.Make-up exams will not be given under any circumstances. Exam location for April18 is _______; exam location for April 19 is ______.

Each of you will be asked questions regarding the DDS (‘‘Women and Politics:Paths to Power and Political Influence,’’ 2007) text and GT (‘‘The Dynamics ofInequality: Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality in the United States,’’ 2003) pgs.450–490, as well as general themes pertaining to women, politics, and public policy-making. The following is an example of a question pertaining to women, politics,and public policymaking: what are the potential difficulties that one faces whenexamining women’s issues based on the intersection of race, class and gender asopposed to examining only the ways in which inequality is maintained on the basisof race, class or gender?

How do you study for an oral exam?

1. Identify the main issues=themes that are found in the DDS readings and GT pgs.450–490, as well as any additional class discussion topics. In addition, identifythe main themes from the readings for the following topic headings listed onthe syllabus: the women’s movement, gender and self-identification, and culture,perceptions, and the media.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

2. What are the main components of each issue or theme?Example: women in the workplace1. Temporary workers

Issues: disadvantages women and minorities, helps businesses profit,provides flexibility for both workers and employers

2. Women in executive positionsIssues: advancement, comparable worth, leadership style, pay

3. Balancing home and workIssues: gender roles, ability to advance in job, criticism, commitment,

flexibility4. FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act).

Issues: benefit for workers, employers are more hesitant to hire women,defines family, loopholes, lack of pay, job security

5. Affirmative actionIssues: privileges certain groups, levels the playing field, perception that men

are losing power to women=minorities, discrimination3. Identify SPECIFIC readings and class discussion themes that support or refute

issues. Make sure you completely understand all of the arguments involved withthe themes=issues. You will need to be able to recall these arguments during yourexam in order to demonstrate specific knowledge.

4. Be able to discuss what truly matters regarding women and politics (e.g., gender,race, class, geography, leadership style, party affiliation, patriarchy, etc.), why itmatters, and how do we know that it matters?

What am I looking for?

1. Ability to communicate concise responses and fully answer the question(s).2. Ability to reference specific class discussion topics and readings.3. Ability to think on one’s feet.4. Ability to demonstrate both broad and specific knowledge.5. Ability to make connections across the spectrum of the class material.

What will happen?I will begin by asking a fairly broad question and will work towards more

specific questions. You will be asked 4 or 5 questions. All responses will be taperecorded and I will take notes.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

speak up! oral examinations and political science

Documents