Problem setting
One indicator of the quality of a degree programme is how graduates can speak about their subject, particularly in unrehearsed settings. The effectiveness of a professional or managerial employee greatly rests on whether they can converse about what they have recently analysed. We also know that in the graduate job market selection process, unscripted questions are likely to be a decisive aspect, be it within interview, or in the small talk between structured elements.
Problems in developing students’ speaking and listening skills may exist at all levels of education including through school, with lack of progress perhaps exacerbating any differences based on socioeconomics and family education background; in the context of widening participation in higher education, this can exist as a challenge facing universities and colleges.
In a recent literature scoping study, Heron et al (2023) note that while subject oracy has been researched in the school and the foreign language higher education setting, very little analysis exists in the first language degree studies context. The authors go on to depict subject oracy as a key process competence for further learning and a major factor in graduate employability, social mobility and as a distinct component of academic literacy.
In view of the above, the student’s ability to contribute in unrehearsed conversation about topics remains a key aspect to be developed and assessed on degree programmes.
There are, however, reasons for thinking that on some courses, despite a variety of teaching, learning and assessment approaches, this aspect may have over the years, diminished or lost its centrality.
There are also reasons for thinking that unless some alterations, especially on assessment are made, the requirement of articulacy on material learnt, may be even more fully circumvented.
Reflecting on recent times, a possible limiting factor on assessing this kind of articulacy may have been the professional concern for consistency and clarity of assessment experience. Making sure students know what is required of them, and ensuring no differences of rigour/challenge occur across students on the same assessment, may have deterred tutors from going forward with unscripted pertinent questions in live assessments, beyond those – perhaps scaffolded - to ensure all assessment criteria and learning outcomes have been met.
Looking ahead, the difficulty with reliance on written assignments and indeed the constrained – chiefly rehearsed – presentation format is that deployment of artificial intelligence, may bypass the need of this articulacy for assessment success.
Possible ways forward
Building the ability to participate in unpredictable conversation requires practice, developing students’ ability to interact, make mistakes and recover from these mistakes. Essentially then, developing and ensuring student articulacy in terms of unscripted ‘talking shop’ means increasing subject conversation in teaching, learning and in assessment.
Regarding the teaching and learning process, this may relate to greater use of in-session methods such as roundtable discussions or mini-presentations based on recently covered topics and readings, a key element being that ahead of class, a portion of the task questions is not published. Seeing subject articulacy here as a key process as well as outcome is relevant because of the value of in-class peer learning especially as mutual gap-filling between students.
The circularity of benefit to learning through such shop talking is also reinforced when we remember that in the longstanding cone and pyramid models of education, explaining to each other is one of the most effective formats, alongside activity-based learning, for retention and understanding of subject material (Dale, 1954; NTL, 1954).
Concerning assessment, clarity on the prospect of unscripted exploratory questions, be it at the end of a presentation, or the second phase of an oral assessment, is important. Inclusion in published course/module documentation is vital, especially as explicit coverage in assessment rubrics and criteria – perhaps with allocated weighting so that parity and equity is recognised by students.
We also note that especially in the case of vocational education, authentic assessments such as role play interviews, court case scenarios, micro-teaches, poster campaigns and meetings, may have valuable applicability, provided the unscripted/unrehearsed aspect is maintained and clarified. As well as assessment and rubric design, we would advocate that tutors also work and reflect on their capabilities in asking questions that, while thematically variable, have some consistency regarding level and challenge for a given cohort of students. Guidance here should come from the cognitive domain taxonomy (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill and Krathwohl, 1956).
Effective employees
Developing and demonstrating student subject/topic articulacy in teaching, learning and assessment not only helps ensure a stronger learning process, but should make graduates more effective in the job market and as effective employees.
We should also note that enabling students to become effective in processes that cannot be carried out for them by artificial intelligence, means that the roles they fulfil in organisations will be less vulnerable to AI replacement in the years to come.
Nathan Michael is an Advance HE Fellow and Vice Principal at The TEC Partnership, UK. An education graduate, his research includes pedagogy and college-based HE. Nathan’s teaching covered research skills and leadership and project management.
Russ Woodward is an economics graduate and teaches on the business degrees at University Centre, Grimsby: The TEC Partnership, UK.