The oral exam is a structured, individual assessment focused on your understanding of the core ideas of the course. It is not a debate, performance, or test of confidence.
You may ask for clarification, pause to think, or revise an answer during the exam.
The exam covers the central learning objectives of the course, not every example or technical detail.
You may be asked to:
The exam will not require:
Your exam is evaluated using a standardized rubric. Grades are based on the substance of your responses, not confidence, presentation style, or speed of speech.
Evaluation criteria include:
Conceptual Understanding
Accuracy and depth of understanding of core concepts.
Reasoning & Connections
Ability to explain why ideas work and relate concepts to one
another.
Communication & Precision
Clarity of explanation and appropriate use of course
terminology.
Responsiveness to Feedback
Ability to refine or improve responses when prompted.
Follow-up questions are used to clarify reasoning and allow improvement; a partially correct answer can often be strengthened through explanation.
Possible grades include A, B, C, or F. I’m inclined to avoid +/- grading, but reserve the right to modify the letter grade based on either oral exam performance or your cumulative performance on the standard assessments (e.g., a B on the oral exam, accompanied by excellent attendance, participation, and performance on written exam can be grounds for a B+)
An example rubric is given at the end of this document.
To ensure consistency and fairness:
Oral exams may be audio recorded for grading verification purposes and are used only in the event of a grade question.
Your oral exam will be evaluated using the criteria below. Performance is assessed based on the substance of your responses rather than confidence, speaking style, or speed. Each of these criteria may be evaluated holistically or associated with individual topics (e.g., testing conceptual understanding on t-tests, distinct from conceptual understanding on ANOVA).
Conceptual understanding gets at the question of – can you explain the material to me and how it is used. I’m looking for a demonstration that you have a holistic understanding of a topic.
Example: You can explain the process of hypothesis testing with all of the relevant constructs and how they are used as part of a cohesive framework.
Strong
Demonstrates accurate and flexible understanding of core concepts;
explanations reflect clear comprehension.
Adequate
Demonstrates basic understanding with minor imprecision or small
gaps.
Needs Improvement
Shows significant misunderstandings or relies on memorized language
without understanding.
Reasoning and connections addresses the underlying machinery. Can you explain to me why something works a particular way, relating to other ideas in the class.
Example: How does regression with a single categorical variable relate to ANOVA? How does this generalize when we introduce quantitative variables?
Strong
Clearly explains why ideas work, connects concepts across the
course, and applies ideas to new situations.
Adequate
Follows standard reasoning but struggles to generalize or make
connections.
Needs Improvement
Reasoning is incomplete, unsupported, or inconsistent.
Communication and precision is measured on the ability to provide information that is needed without including information that isn’t. It would not be enough to enumerate every component of hypothesis testing without tying each one together coherently. Including extraneous information suggests a lack of understanding.
Example: Why is \(|t| < C\) equivalent to \(p > \alpha\). An imprecise answer may conflate \(\alpha\) and critical values, saying something like “the t-statistic is past \(\alpha\).” An adequate example would be a case where “I know what you mean”
Strong
Communicates ideas clearly and uses course terminology
accurately.
Adequate
Ideas are understandable but occasionally vague or imprecise.
Needs Improvement
Explanations are difficult to follow or consistently imprecise.
Sometimes we make mistakes or momentarily struggle with recall – this exam is not testing that. Rather, this section evaluates how you respond to prompting or prodding when an error made. Is the error immediately identified and corrected? How much structure or information do I add before you respond correctly? How well are you able to respond to follow-up questions?
Example: In identifying the covariate of an indicator variable being zero, you indicate that there is no association. If I point out that there are three categories in that variable (e.g., drive train), you note that the coefficient is actually testing the difference between that category and the reference category, with overall association determined by the F statistic.
Strong
Effectively refines or corrects responses in response to follow-up
questions.
Adequate
Makes limited improvements when prompted.
Needs Improvement
Does not meaningfully engage with clarification or correction.