IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bcp/journl/v5y2021i09p378-383.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reliability of Assessing Oral Presentations by the University Professionals

Author

Listed:
  • Mustapha Sherif Abdulkadir (Ph.D)

    (189/1, 2nd Lane, Werellawatta, Yakkala, Sri Lanka)

  • R.M.M.P. Rathnayaka

    (Department of Agricultural Extension, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka)

  • V.N. Kodithuwakkuge

    (Department of Crop Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka)

  • C.K. Beneragama

    (Department of Crop Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka)

Abstract

The fairness and precision of evaluation of Oral Presentations of students by university professionals have become a debatable subject. The effectiveness of the evaluation of PowerPoint presentations was seriously questioned by the students due to its unreliability of scoring procedure. Therefore, it’s important to establish a planned evaluation system for oral presentation based on PowerPoint, to guarantee the fairness for every student. To minimize the potential biases, most of the universities presently adopt Objective Structured Evaluation systems to enhance the transparency and the reliability of the assessments. In view of that, the present study analysed the biasness of assessing the oral presentations of a student cohort of a university. For this study, mean score of each student received from each examiner was taken. Single-factor ANOVA tests were conducted to analyse variances to compare three examiner groups; professors, senior lecturers and probationary lecturers. Tukey simultaneous test was conducted to identify mean differences in each comparison. Strong evidence of differences among the three examiner groups was present. Within the most senior level of professionals, a greater degree of variance was also identified. In addition, there is a variance within the senior lecturer group while the probationary lecturer group did not reflect any significant variance. In conclusion, our findings demonstrated statistically significant differences in the marks awarded for the PowerPoint presentations of undergraduates as influenced by examiners’ experience and seniority both in between examiners and within the same level of examiners.

Suggested Citation

  • Mustapha Sherif Abdulkadir (Ph.D) & R.M.M.P. Rathnayaka & V.N. Kodithuwakkuge & C.K. Beneragama, 2021. "Reliability of Assessing Oral Presentations by the University Professionals," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 5(09), pages 378-383, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bcp:journl:v:5:y:2021:i:09:p:378-383
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/Digital-Library/volume-5-issue-9/378-383.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://rsisinternational.org/virtual-library/papers/reliability-of-assessing-oral-presentations-by-the-university-professionals/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Friederike Mengel & Jan Sauermann & Ulf Zölitz, 2019. "Gender Bias in Teaching Evaluations," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(2), pages 535-566.
    2. Camerer, Colin & Loewenstein, George & Weber, Martin, 1989. "The Curse of Knowledge in Economic Settings: An Experimental Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(5), pages 1232-1254, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cappelen, Alexander W. & Falch, Ranveig & Tungodden, Bertil, 2019. "The Boy Crisis: Experimental Evidence on the Acceptance of Males Falling Behind," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 6/2019, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics, revised 01 Mar 2019.
    2. Antonio Cabrales & Lorenzo Ductor & Ericka Rascon-Ramirez & Ismael Rodriguez-Lara, 2025. "Gender Stereotypes and Homophily in Team Formation," Working Papers DTE 648, CIDE, División de Economía.
    3. Matthews, Michael J. & Anglin, Aaron H. & Drover, Will & Wolfe, Marcus T., 2024. "Just a number? Using artificial intelligence to explore perceived founder age in entrepreneurial fundraising," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 39(1).
    4. Ductor, Lorenzo & Prummer, Anja, 2024. "Gender homophily, collaboration, and output," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 477-492.
    5. Masso, Jaan & Meriküll, Jaanika & Roosaar, Liis & Rõigas, Kärt & Paas, Tiiu, 2025. "What determines the gender pay gap in academia?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    6. Kerschbamer, Rudolf & Neururer, Daniel & Gruber, Alexander, 2019. "Do altruists lie less?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 560-579.
      • Rudolf Kerschbamer & Daniel Neururer & Alexander Gruber, 2017. "Do the altruists lie less?," Working Papers 2017-18, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck, revised 09 Nov 2017.
    7. Aman, Hiroyuki & Motonishi, Taizo & Ogawa, Kazuhito & Omori, Kozo, 2024. "The effect of financial literacy on long-term recognition and short-term trade in mutual funds: Evidence from Japan," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 89(PB), pages 762-783.
    8. Langer, Thomas & Weber, Martin, 2003. "Does binding or feedback influence myopic loss aversion : an experimental analysis," Papers 03-20, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    9. Rode, Julian, 2007. "Truth and Trust in Communication: An Experimental Study of Behavior under Asymmetric Information," Ratio Working Papers 111, The Ratio Institute.
    10. David Danz & Dorothea Kübler & Lydia Mechtenberg & Julia Schmid, 2015. "On the Failure of Hindsight-Biased Principals to Delegate Optimally," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(8), pages 1938-1958, August.
    11. Lorenzo Ductor & Sanjeev Goyal & Anja Prummer, 2018. "Gender & Collaboration," Working Papers 856, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    12. Brad M. Barber & Wei Jiang & Adair Morse & Manju Puri & Heather Tookes & Ingrid M. Werner, 2021. "What Explains Differences in Finance Research Productivity during the Pandemic?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 76(4), pages 1655-1697, August.
    13. Swee-Hoon Chuah & Robert Hoffmann & Jeremy Larner, 2019. "Is knowledge curse or blessing in pure coordination problems?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(1), pages 123-146, July.
    14. Chauvin, Juan Pablo & Tricaud, Clemence, 2022. "Gender and Electoral Incentives: Evidence from Crisis Response," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 12411, Inter-American Development Bank.
    15. Laura Hospido & Carlos Sanz, 2021. "Gender Gaps in the Evaluation of Research: Evidence from Submissions to Economics Conferences," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 83(3), pages 590-618, June.
    16. Lena Janys, 2021. "Testing the Presence of Implicit Hiring Quotas with Application to German Universities," Papers 2109.14343, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2021.
    17. Sievertsen, Hans H. & Smith, Sarah, 2025. "Do female experts face an authority gap? Evidence from economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    18. De Paola, Maria & Gioia, Francesca & Scoppa, Vincenzo, 2022. "Female leadership: Effectiveness and perception," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 201(C), pages 134-162.
    19. Offerman, Theo & Sonnemans, Joep, 1998. "Learning by experience and learning by imitating successful others," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 559-575, March.
    20. Sarah Shandera & Jes L Matsick & David R Hunter & Louis Leblond, 2021. "RASE: Modeling cumulative disadvantage due to marginalized group status in academia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(12), pages 1-20, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bcp:journl:v:5:y:2021:i:09:p:378-383. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Dr. Pawan Verma (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.