As an instructor for a core first-year undergraduate unit, like many other educators, I have had to quickly learn the ins and outs of conducting secure assessments. With increased use of GenAI, it has become pertinent that educators reflect on forms of assessments and their affordances. Moments such as these challenge traditional forms of teaching and assessment. They are also generative, prompting us to rethink what we want our students to achieve and how we might use assessment to measure learning, gauge students’ progress, and identify the support they may need. In 2026, I introduced interactive orals (IO) as secure assessment in my unit in Gender and Cultural Studies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
IO, first introduced in Griffith university in 2016, is argued as “a reliable, robust and quality alternative assessment to traditional exams” (O’Riordan et. al., 2026, p.494) and when dsigned well they “validate claims of enhanced engagement and outcomes, academic integrity, and employability skills” (Krautloher, 2024, p.4). IOs entail an unscripted conversation where the assessor provides students with conversation cues or prompts (O’Riordan et. al. 2026). Students are expected to present and converse about the designated topics and scenarios.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Listening to experiences of other educators who have used IO helped me understand and develop an open mind for the format and consider its affordance for a discipline like Gender Studies where writing essays has been the primary form of assessment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I introduced a 10-minute interactive oral with 20% weightage. Considering the unit had an enrolment of 167 students, I thought it prudent to conduct orals in a staggered way across a few weeks. They were held from weeks 10 to 13 and was attached to a group presentation activity. Group members presenting in a particular week underwent their individual IOs in the same week. Students were asked questions related to their group presentations as well as unit content from weeks 1-8. This provided an opportunity to assess individual contributions and reflections on the group activity as well as students\u2019 familiarity with overall unit content.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
While I am responsible for my units as the unit coordinator, I believe in working along with my teaching team, which consisted of three casual tutors including one who was an experienced tutor, another tutor who had taught the same unit with me last year and a third tutor who was completely new to teaching. Considering their different levels of experience, I kept the format simple. It was the team\u2019s suggestion to conduct IOs in a staggered way across the last few weeks of the semester. This would help maintain focused attention on a few students each week and help balance tutors\u2019 already busy teaching schedules as tutors had to block 2 to 3 additional hours each week outside of their timetabled class time. My tutors also had to book meeting rooms in advance to conduct the orals. It was useful to consider these issues alongside the team as I did not share the same concerns as a staff member with access to an office. My team and I brainstormed issues and concerns coming up with creative solutions in figuring out meeting rooms, developing booking sheets, and developing a standard bank of questions. We maintained an informal WhatsApp group for quick questions regarding unanticipated situations. Collaborating with my peers, being receptive to their ideas, and taking into consideration the challenges and constraints they face as casual academics have been instrumental to the success of this assessment activity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In order to keep the marking consitent and well calibrated, I developed a marking rubric. Students were assessed based on (i) their individual engagement with the group presentation activity, (ii) demonstrated engagement with theoretical concepts and ideas from the unit, and (iii) the ability to explain and communicate ideas clearly. The rubric was discussed together with the teaching team and allowed tutors to mark students in real time without having to provide a lot of qualitative feedback making it an efficient way to mark while the conversation was still fresh in assessors’ minds and being attentive to pressures on casual tutors’ time. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Although I was hesitant about conducting these orals, after all these assessments were completely new territory and lacked examples in my discipline, I really enjoyed the opportunity to talk to students one-on-one. As educators of large units, we often find very little time to connect with students across the entire cohort. A lot of the verbal feedback we receive comes from confident, extrovert students and not from the quiet ones. The IOs allowed us to talk to each student not only to assess how they made meaning of the unit content but also as an opportunity to connect. Several students spoke about how much they were enjoying the unit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Considering that most students would not feel confident to provide critical feedback in person, I developed a 6-questions anonymised, informal survey to collect critical feedback regarding the orals. Out of 21 responses to the question on \u2018did you find the one-on-one interactive orals helpful?\u2019 81% responded \u2018yes\u2019 and 10% responded \u2018somewhat.\u2019 In more open-ended qualitative feedback, several students shared that although they were scared initially, they enjoyed the format. A student who loved the orals shared \u201cit is a good idea to show your knowledge and reflection of the lectures and readings. And it can force us to actively attend the lectures.\u201d<\/em> Another student mentioned that they appreciated the conversation format where the goal was “let’s make sure you understand the content”<\/em> and less of “do you know the word-for-word definitions and examples of certain things.”<\/em> It was affirming to find that the intention behind using the format was received similarly by students.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A student with ADHD shared that they found the format to be \u201ca good balance of examination, and less formal structuring that reli[e]ved the stress of exams while still allowing [them] to demonstrate understanding of course content.\u201d<\/em> While appreciating that this was the experience of one student, I was nevertheless relieved to hear this as I worried that this form of assessment might unintentionally create barriers for some students. Hearing from a student with ADHD helped me realise the importance of developing assessments with care and creating an affirming learning environment. In contrast, another student shared, \u201cInteractive oral tests are actually very tormenting and nerve-inducing for those who have poor or slightly inferior oral skills.\u201d<\/em> This was again useful in thinking about how students with specific needs might need different kinds of support, and reflect on what might be done differently to create more equitable processes. Using Crenshaw\u2019s (2015) concept of intersectionality\u2014which talks about a different form of experience created at the intersection of two or more axes of marginalisation\u2014is useful as it helps attend to the specific learning needs of students located at the intersections of multiple axes of oppression, such as experiences related to their gender intersecting with race or nationality, or a learning disability. As a feminist educator, I also find it useful to be constantly reflexive of my own practice and assess my own biases and assumptions. Sometimes it is not so much about the format, but how they are run.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here are some reflections on how I might plan to do them differently next time:<\/p>\n\n\n\n I find IOs a useful way of assessment. While many of us work with assumptions that students may not enjoy them or even actively fear them, I understand now that that may not be the case for all students. Creating a good environment for the assessment and providing clear instructions can be a useful strategy. While I did have to rush to introduce IOs without much time for preparation or experience, it generated for me fresh insights on teaching and assessments in more creative ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n References:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Crenshaw, K. (2015).\u00a0Why intersectionality can’t wait: Intersectionality was meant to help people understand each other, not to divide them<\/em>. Washington, United States: WP Company LLC d\/b\/a The Washington Post. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.proquest.com\/blogs-podcasts-websites\/why-intersectionality-cant-wait\/docview\/1716172485\/se-2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n