Midterms were Tuesday, so I'll comment on my use of testing.
How does testing in an audio-based course look different from testing in other courses?
The short answer is: it doesn't.
That isn't to say that other forms of evaluation don't differ; the podcasting project that I describe in other posts is worth 30% of students' final grades, and is unique to this class format.
However, since part of my aim in teaching this class is to evaluate whether using audio podcasts of literature can achieve comparable results as text, it follows that I should assess these results similarly as I would those in a print-centered class.
In my 44-student literature classes, I typically give midterm and final exams that include one section of identifications and one of short essays based on quotations. From list of seven quotations from stories or poems we have read, students choose four. For each quote, they must identify the source and context, and comment on its literary elements, using the following table as a reference:
I haven't finished grading these exams yet, but my initial observation is that students' exams demonstrate equivalent competencies for retention and analysis as those of other courses.
On the one hand, these results seem to demonstrate the success of using audio podcasts to foster literary study. On the other hand, however, they give the lie to my supposed audio focus, showing that while incorporating aurality and orality, the class has remained quite centered on traditional means of textual analysis and close reading.
There's much more to say about assessment, but I've got to get back to grading those exams!