Reflecting on Oral and Video Quizzes
In spring 2026, I experimented with oral and video quizzes and oral exams in Math 232, Honors Multivariable Calculus. I used these assignments in conjunction with in-person summative exams at the end of each major unit.
I think it was overall a really valuable learning experience, and I definitely plan to continue it (with tweaks) in future semesters.
Special thanks to Hannah Turner and Nathan Willis, who shared their video/oral quiz materials from past semesters with me!
Context
This was a small course of about 20 students, who were first year students interested in advanced mathemaics (mostly math double majors). Math 232 emphasizes both proofs and computations, and it is the second course in a sequence (coming after proof-based linear algebra).
I had the support of one graduate TA for this course, who primarily graded homework problems and helped to grade exams. I did not end up using the TA to help with grading oral quizzes, though I did consider it.
Why oral and video quizzes?
I wanted to help my students develop their (mathematical) communication and collaboration skills. In particular, I wanted my students to learn how to explain and defend their ideas.
For first-year honors math courses, I believe it’s important to show students what doing advanced mathematics is about (it is not taking timed closed note exams!). I also believe it’s important to teach them skills that they need for future math courses.
Quiz logistics:
I assigned a total of 6 non-cumulative quizzes over the course of the semester, roughly occurring every two weeks.
However, to make the logistics manageable, for any given quiz (except the first one), roughly half the class would take an in-person oral quiz, and the other half would submit an online video quiz, instead.
Thus, each student would complete the following by the end of the semester:
- One introductory video quiz (2% of the grade)
- 2 in-person, out of class oral quizzes (6% of the grade)
- 3 out of class oral quizzes (6% of the grade)
Moreover, I arranged the schedule such that every student would take an oral quiz for both of the units in the course (differential multivariable calculus and integral multivariable calculus, respectively).
Quiz details:
For both the video and oral quizzes, the quiz questions were based entirely on problems from past homework assignments.
Thus, the students were incentivized to take the HW very seriously. The HW questions were a mix of proof, conceptual, and computational questions. To avoid double-penalizing students, the subset of problems that were graded for accuracy on the HW was mostly disjoint from the subset of problems that appeared on the quiz.
Moreover, because the quiz questions came directly from past HW assignments, the primary focus of the quizzes was for students to explain and defend their ideas, rather than having them figure out completely new questions on the spot.
Their target audience for their explanations was a fellow student in Math 232.
Video quiz details:
The video quizzes were asynchronous, to be submitted within a 48 hour period. I assessed a late penalty for any quizzes submitted after the deadline.
For the video quiz, I would assign one particular homework problem, and ask students to submit a video (unedited, and no longer than 5 minutes) of them explaining their solution from scratch. I also required them to submmit an image of what they wrote during the quiz (in case their writing was not legible in the video).
For the video quizzes, I allowed them to occasionally reference notes, as long as it does not affect the flow of their presentation. (e.g. their presentation should not be read from a script).
Oral quiz details:
The oral quizzes were in-person, without notes, during a recorded 30 minute appointment. Well-prepared students would complete the quiz within 10-15 minutes, but most students took 20-30 minutes to complete the quiz.
For the oral quiz, I would give them a selection of 4 problems from the homework. They would first choose one problem to present, and then I would choose a second problem for them to present. This allowed students agency in showing off what they understood, while also ensuring that there was full coverage in terms of both the topics and the types of problems (computational, conceptual, proofs).
During the oral quizzes, I would also ask them clarifying and/or follow-up questions to test their understanding. However, I emphasized that my role as questioner was observational, not antagonistic. I began every oral quiz with some version of this statement:
The way this differs from a video quiz is that this is a live conversation. So if I think you should explain something more, I’ll prompt you to do that. However, I’m not trying to trick you, I’m trying to gauge what you understand.
And if you get stuck, I’ll let you think about it for a little bit and get unstuck by yourself. But I’ll ask if you need me to give you a hint, I’ll give you a hint so that you can continue to show me what you know.
Grading:
Grading oral quizzes was actually very fast - I had a good sense of what general letter grade they would receive based on our ~30 minute conversation, and I would even tell students immediately afterwards what general letter grade to expect.
After all the oral quizzes were finished, I would then double check my notes and/or the recordings to make sure that I was being consistent with grading, and to decide on plus/minus letter grades.
For video quizzes, the process was similar - I would watch each video once to take notes and assign an initial letter grade, and then go back and make sure that I was consistent with grading if necessary.
Grading rubric:
For each problem, I used a grading rubric based on 3 major categories:
- Conceptual Understanding
- Do they understand which mathematical concepts are relevant?
- Do they have a mastery of the mathematical tools needed to solve the problems?
- Do they have the correct general strategy to solve the problem?
- For oral quizzes: Can they correctly answer any follow-up questions about relevant general concepts?
- Details
- Do they provide a full and complete explanation of the methods used to solve the problem?
- Are there any flaws or gaps in their logic?
- For oral quizzes: Can they correctly answer any follow-up questions about relevant general concepts?
- Mathematical Fluency
- Can they explain their solutions clearly and concisely, using correct mathematical terminology?
- Is their presentation logical and well-organized (what is said follows from what was said before)?
- For video quizzes: Is their presentation natural (e.g. is not read off of a script)?
The general sentiment of the rubric was that the conceptual understanding and details categories accounted for the main letter grade (e.g. A, B, C, etc.), and the mathematical fluency category would be the plus/minus adjustment. If you want to see the exact rubric I used, send me an email!
When I run oral quizzes again, I would make some changes to how I implemented my rubric. For example, I would add some quantitative elements to the rubrics, such as:
- How many major or minor (non-typographical) errors did they make?
- How many times did they need to be prompted or given a hint?
Miscellaneous advice:
On giving oral quizzes:
- Remember that oral quizzes can be stressful! If you implement oral quizzes, I think it’s important to make assignment design choices that take this into account (e.g. giving students flexibility in choosing problems, or allowing them to take hints so that they don’t get stuck).
- Be prepared for unprepared students, and be cognizant of time during the oral quizzes. I think it’s important to give students a chance to get unstuck. However, if a student is truly floundering, I think it’s usually better to move on, and give them the opportunity to return to the problem later.
On oral exams
Oral quizzes (as I’ve designed them) are not a replacement for in-person exams, because students are not asked to figure out how to apply their knowledge to new questions.
However, I think the oral quizzes prepare students well for oral exams, and I did use oral exams for makeup exams (and an optional redemption assignment).
My oral exams were similar to the oral quizzes, but the exams were held in-person during an hour-long appointment, and I allowed students the use of a notecard (I also allow a notecard for written exams).
For the oral exam, I gave students 1 proof-based question, 1 conceptual question, and their choice of 2 out of 3 computational questions. Just like the oral quizzes, I would also ask them clarifying and/or follow-up questions to test their understanding.