Assessing oral presentations

Choose a university

Select a UK institution to view location-specific information throughout this website.

 

  1. Introduction.
  2. Quality issues.
  3. Mark sheets.
  4. A list of assessable features of oral presentations.
  5. Hints, tips and suggestions.
  6. Further information.

pdf Download PDF version here

 

1. Introduction

Oral communication skills have long been valued in some academic disciplines and areas of professional development; however the need to incorporate key skills development in all undergraduate degree programmes was underlined in the 1997 Dearing Review in the UK.  This government-funded report drew attention to the fact that not only did courses need to provide opportunities for students to practise and develop important employability skills but also that the skills should be recognised and valued in the assessment of the course.

One outcome of this is that assessed oral presentations are now commonplace in higher education and may be part of seminar and tutorial work for students, or used to assess the output of individual and group-based project and dissertation work.

 

2. Quality issues

Achieving and maintaining consistency in the marking of oral presentations is difficult.  It is, therefore, very important to have clear quality assurance systems in place as many of the normal mechanisms for checking the fairness and robustness of marking are not open to assessors when using this form of assessment.

  • Anonymous marking is impossible (you can see who you are marking!) and this may give more potential to personal bias of the marker's favouritism and dislike.  It is because of this that many institutions require that all summative oral assessments are carried out by at least two assessors who effectively carry out synchronous double marking.
  • The external examiner needs to be consulted in order to enable them to review the assessment arrangements and decisions from an external perspective.  Some externals will visit and observe some assessed presentations whilst others ask for them to be recorded.
  • Probably the single biggest quality issue is the transparency of what exactly is being judged in an oral presentation.  For example, will the content or subject matter be judged or will the focus be on how this is presented and explained (ie how will a factually comprehensive and accurate but poorly delivered presentation be compared with a shallow and error-riddled presentation that is beautifully delivered?).
  • It is usually the case that oral presentations are marked using a detailed marking sheet that describe the aspects of the presentation which are to be credited.  Sometimes the presentation and content are assessed separately; the assessment of the live presentation will focus on the student's presentation skills and students are also asked to provide an outline summary handout of their talk which can then be assessed for the quality of content.
  • Another concern is the ability to assess fairly the presentations made by native and non-native speakers of English.  Some disciplines attract very high numbers of international students who are not native speakers of English yet have to demonstrate high levels of communication using technically demanding and precise vocabulary.  Frequently there is little, if any, space dedicated to the attainment of these language skills in the curriculum.

 

3. Mark sheets

It is important to develop a list of assessment criteria that appropriately describe and weight the aspects of presentation which are to be valued on the course.  These should be given to the students well in advance, and in an ideal world the students should have an opportunity to practise before they are summatively assessed.

Jenny Moon provides a useful list of the features of an oral presentation that could be assessed, but it is stressed that only a small number of these can be effectively observed and judged ‘live'.

 

A list of assessable features of oral presentations

  • Is the breadth of the content sufficient?
  • Is the depth of the content sufficient?
  • Is the message of the presentation clearly put/argued?
  • Is the argument consistent?
  • Is sufficient evidence given to support arguments?
  • Is there evidence of appropriate critical thinking?
  • Are conclusions drawn appropriately?
  • Is the focus sharp/to the point?
  • Does the presenter put her own point of view in an appropriate manner?
  • Is the audience engaged - is their attention maintained by the presenter?
  • Is the response to questions and comment competent/accurate/adequate (etc)?
  • Is the personal organisation of the presenter adequate (eg managing questions, notes, props etc)?
  • Is time keeping managed well (enough)?
  • Is the presentation audible and clear (articulation)?
  • Does the speaker have ‘presence' and adequate confidence?
  • Is her posture appropriate?
  • Does she make appropriate eye contact?
  • Is the pacing appropriate?
  • Is the use of resources effective in quality, fitness for purpose etc (PowerPoint and other visual aids, handouts and marker board or flipchart)?
  • Is the presentation well structured?  Coherent approach?  Clear identity of beginning, middle and end?  Well ‘signposted' structure?
  • Is there use of creativity?  Is the content or presentation original or creative in some way?  Are there unexpected features in the presentation beyond the expected?

When considering the assessment criteria it is also useful to think about their relative importance.  Attainment of some of the criteria may be considered central and key whilst others are more optional or secondary.

The next question to think about is the way the criteria will be used to arrive at a mark or grade, and again there are several approaches in use in the UK.

  1. Do you wish to consider achievement of the criteria on an absolute, competency kind of measure, eg ‘passed/failed' or ‘achieved/not yet achieved'?  Or do you wish to award a mark for each criterion passed ?
  2. Do you want to have a sliding, graduated, scale of achievement for each criteria set between 'excellent' performance (5 marks) down to 'poor' performance (0 marks)?
  3. Do you want to allocate a mark for key sections of the presentation more holistically and give feedback against more detailed, broken-down, criteria but not allocate marks?

 

4. Hints, tips and suggestions

Staff have found the time costs of hearing student presentations in very large classes unaffordable.  One alternative is to ask students to present their findings and views visually either through the development of posters or websites.  Although such methods do not test oral presentation skills, they do challenge the students to think carefully about effective communication of their ideas and to consider the needs of different readers and audiences.

Involving the rest of the student group in giving constructive feedback to the presenting student(s) is an excellent approach.  Not only does this give fuller feedback to the presenter but encourages the listening students to engage more critically with the presentation, helping them to maintain concentration and focus whilst stimulating reflection on their own presentation skills.  This approach is frequently referred to as ‘peer assessment' even though the students may not be grading each other but simply offering feedback.

Some students are much shyer and more introverted than others and will find the whole business of giving an oral presentation very daunting and nerve-racking. It can be very helpful to provide clear guidance and some tips when they are preparing and rehearsing their talks - see for example the information provided for students through the LearnHigher CETL project at Brunel University.

 

5. Further information

Pickford, R. and Brown, S.,  2006.  Assessing Skills and Practice.  Key Guides for Effective Teaching in Higher Education, Routledge: London.  A very accessible text that offers guidance on the assessment of performance and practice and considers the needs of diverse student groups.  It also addresses many of the practical aspects of involving students in formative peer assessment.

Assessment by Oral Presentation.  Understanding What Our Geoscience Students Are Learning: Observing and Assessing, Topical Resources.  This website provides several useful examples of marking sheets and rubrics for assessing both individual and group presentations.

Morley, N., 2006.  Assessing Oral Presentations.  Higher Education Subject Centre for History, Classics and Archaeology.  Higher Education Academy Briefing Paper.  Provides detailed sample marking criteria for assessed presentations and instructions to give to students.

The National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, July 1997

Moon, J., 2002.  The module & programme development handbook: a practical guide to linking levels, learning outcomes & assessment.  London: Kogan Page, p129.