Dominance in a group oral examination
Second oral examination: a 20-minute group discussion on 'Is civil disobedience compatible with democracy?' Four candidates, one assessor. Candidate A speaks for about 12 of the 20 minutes, interrupts Candidate B twice, and makes two strong points: that civil disobedience addresses a defect in majority rule, and that it must be public and non-violent. When Candidate C introduces Rawls's idea of a nearly just society, A says, 'Rawls is irrelevant here', does not engage, and returns to the same two points. A's contributions are clear and accurate, but the group never develops the counterargument. The oral grid awards 30% to quality of argument, 30% to listening and engagement, 25% to use of evidence, and 15% to clarity. A provisional mark of 16/20 has been proposed. The second assessor objects that A dominated and should not be rewarded for airtime.
1. Using the grid, decide whether 16/20 is defensible for Candidate A; identify which criterion is most affected by the domination.
Read the worked answer
16/20 is not defensible. Quality of argument (30%) is strong: A's two points are accurate and relevant. Clarity (15%) is also strong. Use of evidence (25%) is moderate: A names no text and does not use Rawls when C raises him. Listening and engagement (30%) is weak: A interrupts B twice and dismisses Rawls without engaging. Weighted roughly: argument 14/20 × 30% = 4.2; listening 6/20 × 30% = 1.8; evidence 10/20 × 25% = 2.5; clarity 16/20 × 15% = 2.4; total ≈ 10.9, so around 11/20. The domination affects listening and engagement most, not clarity. Confidence alone should not lower the mark; the lower mark is justified by specific failures to engage with C's Rawls point and by interruptions.
2. What evidence from the discussion would you record to justify a lower mark, and how would you avoid penalising confidence alone?
Read the worked answer
Record: the timings (A spoke about 12 of 20 minutes); the two interruptions; the exact exchange 'Rawls is irrelevant here' and the absence of any follow-up; the two strong points in paraphrase; and the fact that the group never developed the counterargument. To avoid penalising confidence alone, separate 'speaks often' from 'does not listen'. A candidate can be confident and still score well on listening if they respond to others. Here the evidence is that A closed down C's contribution and repeated the same two points. The record should also note whether the assessor intervened; if not, A's dominance is partly a management issue. The mark should be justified criterion by criterion, not by 'dominated'.
3. How should the assessor manage the remaining oral examinations to make the group discussion fairer without changing the task?
Read the worked answer
For the remaining orals: set a short silent preparation period; assign each candidate a specific role (opener, challenger, synthesiser) and rotate; use a visible speaking cap or a 'one intervention then listen' rule; and have the assessor ask each candidate one direct question. Do not change the task or the criteria. The aim is to generate evidence for listening and engagement for every candidate, not to punish A. If A's mark is lowered, the record should show that the other candidates had opportunities to speak and that A's interruptions were the issue. After the session, the assessor should compare notes with the second assessor on the same evidence, not on impressions of dominance.