Presentation and Oral Examination in a Simulated Work Setting

All Course Assessments

Overview of the Course

What is the subject context of the course?

This course deals with the geological activities related to underground excavations. It is focused on bridging the theory of geomechanics with industry practice.

What should students learn and be able to do at the end of the course?

By the end of the course, the students will be able to:
– integrate knowledge of geology, soil and rock mechanics, and groundwater hydraulics for the assessment of geological hazards and the selection of suitable locations for underground excavations,
– understand and predict the properties and behavior of rocks and soils in underground excavations,
– describe the basic principles of underground excavation and support methods and are familiar with selected regulations,
– communicate effectively in a professional engineering context by writing industry-style engineering geological reports and developing oral communication for technical audiences.

Why was the specific assessment format chosen?

Until FS2024, the mode of assessment included the compilation of two technical reports:

1. A qualitative assessment of geological hazards, and
2. a quantitative assessment of the hydro-mechanical response of rock during the tunnel excavation process.

Course evaluation feedback from FS2023 showed that the limited time and the large number of repetitive calculations required to predict the rock mass behavior in the second report reduced the time for students to acquire a deep understanding of the mechanics of rock mass behavior. The focus became the completion of the report on time.

Therefore, the mode of assessment of the second component was changed from a report to an oral presentation simulating an industry setting of an engineering geologist.

How are students prepared for the assessment?

Regular lectures and workshops support the students to complete the delivery tasks for the qualitative report and the presentation on quantitative assessment.

The workshops are led by assistants, a PhD student, and an Engineering Geology Masters student from the previous year. Regular feedback is provided to the students to improve their content for the final delivery.

The students are encouraged to brainstorm on how to condense and present their results within a short 15-minute presentation. The students are also provided with a suggested presentation structure and with a grading rubric for the presentations.

Shared Experience

How many times has the assessment been conducted in this format?

In FS 2025, it is the second time that oral technical presentations have replaced a quantitative report.

What contributed to the success?

The new assessment method demonstrated a clear improvement in the students’ ability to critically analyze and present the most important information within a limited period.

The rubric provided for students was very well received as clear instructions and expectations of the final presentation. In addition, an extended version of the rubric was used for a fair assessment of the presentations while minimizing the negative impact of biases and subjectivity on the final grades.

With the previous exam format, which involved submitting a report with calculations, it was still not possible to assess whether the students had understood the topic, despite 2-3 hours of correction work per report. The revised assessment structure allows us to assess the students’ understanding and reduces the workload for both the students and the teaching staff.

What were the challenges and how were they overcome?

The ratio between the students to assistants (6:1) may not had been sufficient to successfully implement individualized learning for the students during the workshops. To partially address this issue, this years’ course has been revised by introducing an additional lecture, to assist students with evaluating the accuracy of geotechnical parameters used in their calculations.

Are there any further developments planned?

We seem to have found a good solution for the quantitative part of the assessment, the calculations. The feedback from the students of FS 2025 now refers to the qualitative part, the report. We are reflecting on what adjustments to make in the future.

What tips would you give lecturers who are planning a similar assessment?

Providing guidelines to prepare for the presentations proved to be extremely useful for the students to structure the knowledge they gained through the course in a manner that will be useful in practice.

A simple change in the evaluation mode with no change to the content evaluated, still called for a substantial time commitment. Allow ample time to make the necessary adjustments in the course.