A/Prof Popi Sotiriadou, Associate Professor in the Department of Tourism and Marketing at Griffith University

Interactive oral (IO) assessments have gained prominence in higher education in response to generative artificial intelligence and their promise of more authentic, individualised evidence of learning. Yet important questions remain: have these benefits been realised in practice, and how do institutions address concerns about scalability, validity and equity?

Drawing on multi-institutional research, longitudinal implementation studies and a systematic review of advancements and applications of IOs since their inception, this keynote synthesises what is now known about IOs beyond early experimentation. It examines how design choices shape rigour and student experience, how staff workload evolves over time, and how structured professional judgement can strengthen reliability and fairness when paired with transparent criteria and inclusive design.

The presentation reframes IOs not as a defensive reaction to AI, but as part of a broader recalibration of assessment, foregrounding feedback, learning-in-action and student agency. The keynote concludes by setting out a sector-wide agenda for embedding IO assessments as a credible, equitable and scalable feature of contemporary assessment practice.

Dr Eduardo Oliveira and Dr Maria Read, FEIT, University of Melbourne

This presentation reports on the implementation of Interactive Oral Assessments in a large graduate software engineering subject with approximately 150 students. Introduced in response to growing use of generative AI and concerns about assurance of learning, the IOA simulated client consultations in which student teams defended their architectural decisions using authentic artefacts. This session moves beyond theory to practice: the presenter will share the co-designed assessment rubrics, the specific tutor training and calibration workflows, and video excerpts of actual student assessments. Attendees will gain a scalable framework for strengthening assessment integrity and student engagement in project-based curricula.

Case study

Dr Helena Robinson and Dr Luis Lozano Paredes, University of Technology Sydney

As generative AI reshapes graduate work and disrupts entry-level roles, universities face renewed pressure to assess the “human-centric” skills that AI cannot replace. This presentation shares a case study from a large transdisciplinary elective subject in which three interactive oral assessments are used as a developmental spine across the curriculum. Designed as dialogic, workplace-aligned conversations rather than scripted performances, these assessments scaffold students’ communication, sensemaking, judgement, and reflexivity while embedding academic integrity by design. Drawing on recent scholarship, the presentation examines design principles, practical challenges, and evidence of effectiveness when implementing interactive oral assessment at scale.

Dr Xuan Vu and Prof Liana Jacobi, FBE, University of Melbourne

The role of Faculty of Business and Economics graduates increasingly requires skills to enable their active involvement in collaborative and creative problem solving and data-based decision-making. Over the past two years, our team has introduced a new research-based capstone learning experience within the large third-year subject Econometrics 2 (40% of final mark) to address those skill needs. Our newly developed multi-stage semester-long capstone learning experience with interactive oral assessments safeguards the integrity in the presence of AI while improving student learning and experiences.

Dr Paul Beuchat, Shen (Jason) Zhan, Dr Shannon Rios, Dr Madhurima Das, Dr Jillian Kenny, Prof Katja Hölttä-Otto, FEIT, University of Melbourne

This study explores student and staff perceptions of team-based Interactive Oral Assessment (IOA) in a compulsory engineering master's subject. The authentic scenario simulates team discussions with higher-level management, developing students' ability to communicate engineering decisions and justifications concisely and coherently as a team. Using a qualitative-dominant mixed-methods approach with focus groups, interviews, and surveys, findings reveal that team-based IOAs contribute to team building and instructor oversight and create generally positive experiences for both students and instructors. Interactive team discussions during summative IOAs emerged as a major teaching highlight. These evidence-based insights supported increasing IOA weighting from 12.5% to 30%.

Hasti Samadi and Dr Geela Chee, FEIT, University of Melbourne

Interactive Oral Assessments (IOAs) are increasingly promoted as authentic and integrity-enhancing alternatives to written assessment in the age of generative AI. However, empirical evidence examining whether IOAs deliver equitable outcomes at scale remains limited. This presentation reports on a multi-iteration study of IOA implementation in a large undergraduate data science subject. Drawing on assessment outcomes, examiner-level marking patterns, student feedback, and design artefacts, the study examines how examiner judgement and enacted cognitive demand shape equity and validity. Findings show persistent examiner-linked variation despite repeated design refinements, pointing to an under-examined source of inequity in interactive oral assessment.

Case study

Dr Claudia Diaz and Amita Krautloher, Charles Sturt University

This presentation shares insights from a three-year study implementing Interactive Oral Assessments (IOAs) in an information dense online Biopsychology subject at a regional Australian university. IOAs were introduced to enhance psychology literacy skills and academic integrity, deepen learning, and improve inclusivity for diverse cohorts. Mixed methods findings show IOAs were viewed as more secure than traditional assessments and valuable for learning, despite being perceived as more demanding. Students, particularly those with higher academic and emotional support needs, reported feeling more included, engaged, and motivated. Initial anxiety frequently shifted to positive experiences, demonstrating IOAs’ transformative potential in online learning for diverse cohorts.

Dr Narelle Hunter, A/Prof Masha Smallhorn and Dr Chris Della Vedova, Flinders University
Dr Sarah Davey, Adelaide University

Large first-year courses face growing pressure to uphold academic integrity in a time of generative AI (GenAI) while ensuring authentic and equitable assessment at scale. Interactive Oral Assessments (IOAs) offer a rigorous, conversational format that enables students to demonstrate understanding, while mitigating risks associated with GenAI. This presentation reports on the replacement of a written laboratory report with an IOA in a large first-year biology course. We outline strategies that supported scalable implementation, including practise sessions, an asynchronous chatbot, structured feedback and staff training. We discuss key considerations around equity, student preparation and managing assessment anxiety in IOA contexts.

Nancy Mase and Dr Andrea Pianella, ABP, University of Melbourne

Interactive oral assessments (IOAs) are increasingly promoted as a secure and authentic response to generative AI in higher education. But what empirical evidence supports these claims? This presentation draws on a systematic review of research on generative AI in higher education, with particular attention to speaking and oral performance. Findings reveal that while writing-focused AI research is expanding rapidly, evidence on speaking, oral assessment, and sustained performance outcomes remains limited and methodologically uneven. The review highlights critical gaps regarding scalability, validity, and equity, offering a cautious and evidence-based perspective on the promises and limits of IOAs.

Dr Heather Gaunt, Museums & Collections and Rosie Shea, MDHS, University of Melbourne

This presentation reports on a Medical Humanities subject for third year MD students at the University of Melbourne, introducing an oral assessment embedded in a museum based experiential curriculum. Students prepare for the assessment by viewing a video on visual analysis and writing a 500-word literature summary. The students then complete 30-minute oral presentations, in visual analysis and clinical connections, in pairs during a regional gallery field trip. Thematic analysis of focus groups across two iterations indicates high engagement: novelty, peer shared experience, perceived safety, and collaborative meaning making, enhanced learning and managing uncertainty. The approach is transferable across disciplines. week intensive Medical Humanities subject for thirdyear MD students at the University of Melbourne, introducing an oral assessment embedded in a museumbased experiential curriculum. Students prepared via a video on visual analysis and a 500word literature summary, then completed paired 30minute oral presentations during a regional gallery field trip (20 min visual analysis, 10 min clinical connections). Thematic analysis of focus groups across two iterations indicates high engagement: novelty, peer shared experience, perceived safety, and collaborative meaningmaking enhanced learning and managed uncertainty. The approach is transferable across disciplines.

Dr Chris Della Vedova, Flinders University and Dr Sarah Davey, Adelaide University

This presentation shares evidence-based lessons from implementing interactive oral assessments (IOA) in two distinct formats within an undergraduate Genetics course: regular short "mini-IOA" replacing written laboratory reports, and a longer "major-IOA" replacing the final written examination. Drawing on 15 years of longitudinal mixed-methods data from 722 students, findings demonstrate significantly improved academic performance, enhanced student satisfaction, and equitable outcomes across diverse cohorts. Key implementation lessons cover assessor training, scaffolding strategies, managing student anxiety, and maintaining academic integrity in an era of generative AI. Practical strategies for cross-disciplinary adaptation will be shared.

Dr Elena Balcaite, Arts, University of Melbourne

In experiential and work-integrated learning (WIL) pedagogies, reflection transforms real-world experiences into learning. This presentation examines a case study of interactive oral assessment in an undergraduate WIL placement subject. Drawing on the instructor’s reflections and student survey data, it explores whether the transformative potential of reflective practice in WIL can be assured through a structured sequence of interactive oral assessments and face-to-face marking of the final portfolio. Considering the subject’s online delivery mode, the presentation uses situated examples from the subject to also interrogate the validity of online forms of interactive oral assessment.

Ben Loveridge, SASS and A/Prof Jen Martin, Science, University of Melbourne

This presentation explores the use of avatar-based virtual environments to support graduate researchers preparing for high-stakes interactive oral assessments, including the newly introduced Viva. Fear of public speaking is common, and opportunities for authentic practice with targeted feedback are limited. A 2025 pilot using a VR platform enabled participants to rehearse presentations before virtual audiences while receiving real-time AI feedback. Initial responses showed potential for the system while highlighting challenges to deliver at-scale. A larger mixed-methods study is planned for 2026 to evaluate impacts on speaking anxiety, preparedness, and speaking confidence. This research contributes to scholarship on technology-enhanced assessment preparation in higher education.