Theorising the academic viva in higher education: the argument for a qualitative approach

Abstract

The argument made in this essay is that it is necessary to theorize a form of assessment—the academic viva in higher education. It is threatened with extinction because of its high cost compared with written exams, multiple choice and other forms of assessment. However, little empirical research, both in Norway and internationally, has been undertaken to reveal what is actually going on in the viva. This has partly been because it has been difficult to gain access to systematically observe the viva examination as it takes place. In the qualitative research presented by the author, on the higher education viva in Norway, permission was obtained to film a number of master’s in education vivas where candidates defended 50,000‐word dissertations. Three research questions were asked: how was the viva talked into being, what kinds of judgements were made by examiners, and, lastly, what would a validity argument look like for the viva? Answering these research questions moves some way to proposing a theory of the viva and hence providing a foundation for determining whether its continued existence is legitimate, at least from a theoretical and qualitatively researched point of view.

Notes

1. All participants have been made anonymous to protect identity.

2. Mot bunnen av side 41 har du fem kategorier. Kommer de fra din data?

Ja.

De kommer fra dine data. Ikke fra luften. De går sammen. Men det er en ting som jeg savner en mer eksplisit diskusjon av erfaring og refleksjon.

Ja, jeg er enig. Men likevel, erfaring og refleksjon var en underliggende tema gjennom avhandlingen.

Jeg er enig. Men hva med taus kunnskap? Kunne det har vært eksplisit? Hvordan kunne du ha inkludert dette?

Jeg kunne har gjort det. Jeg tenkte på det. Men du vet hvordan det er, du tar valg i prosessen med den aktuelle fysiske presentasjon.

3. Vil noen stå bak maskin eller skal det bare gå?

La den gå fordi etterhvert glemmer vi at den står på.

Hvor skal vi plassere kandidat?

4. An argument can be made to disrupt the narrative so that it is multi‐directional, polyphonic and multi‐punctual in origin and conclusion. See Dobson (2005).

5. Vagle also demonstrated that final‐year students in secondary school demonstrated better grades in the oral Norwegian exam as opposed to the written Norwegian exam. The reasoning she cites for this difference is: ‘pupils in the oral had the opportunity to document their understanding of the subject in dialogue with examiners and the opportunity to supplement and correct what they presented’ (Vagle 2005, 77).

6. Hva foreslår du som forel⊘pig karakter? Det er C, det er det vi egentlig mener.

Ja, ja, det er det vi mener.

Med mulighet å gå opp til B

B om han er overbevisende.

7. Messick (1989) talked of construct irrelevance and construct under‐representation to refer respectively to a test that either measured irrelevant constructs or under‐represented constructs that the test was designed to measure.