Interactive Oral Assessments

This is a web-based version of a document by Ryan, Ziguras and Mulder (2025). To download a copy of the document click here.

Interactive Oral Assessments (IOAs) offer a dynamic and authentic approach to learning and assessment that can be effectively applied across a range of disciplines. When carefully integrated into the curriculum, IOAs can support deeper student learning, foster the development of key graduate capabilities, and promote academic integrity by providing clear evidence of individual learning. While implementing IOAs may present logistical and pedagogical challenges—such as scheduling, ensuring consistency of marking, providing equitable access, and the need to manage educator workload —these can often be mitigated through careful planning, thoughtful design and appropriate levels of institutional support and resourcing. This guide aims to support educators in leveraging the benefits of IOAs by offering practical advice for design and delivery.

Key Points

Overview:
  • IOAs are authentic and experiential assessments involving real-time unscripted conversations between students and assessors.
  • They are often designed to emulate real-world professional interactions or scenarios (e.g., job interviews; business pitches; contextualising creative works).
Benefits:
  • IOAs are known to promote deep learning, critical thinking, and the development of employability skills.
  • They are also useful for supporting academic integrity and providing assurances of learning.
Design and Format:
  • IOAs can be used for formative or summative purposes and should align with learning outcomes and/or graduate attributes.
  • Various formats are possible: individual vs. group, peer-involved vs. peer-excluded, artefact-based vs. stand-alone, and online vs. in-person.
  • The typical duration of an IOA is 10-15 minutes per student, with additional time for in situ marking.
  • Careful scaffolding and integration within the curriculum are crucial for student success.
Implementation and Delivery:
  • Assessors act as facilitators, using various types of prompts to guide the conversation.
  • Careful scheduling and logistical planning are necessary, especially for large cohorts.
  • Feedback can be immediate (verbal) and delayed (written), with options for self-assessment.
Quality Assurance:
  • Ensuring consistency and fairness requires assessor training and moderation.
  • Regular evaluation and review help maintain effectiveness and relevance.
Inclusivity and Equity:
  • Some students may be apprehensive or anxious about IOAs, so setting expectations and planning for flexibility is advised.
  • IOAs are equitable forms of assessment when they are appropriately scaffolded and implemented, and students are well-supported to succeed

Overview

What Are IOAs?

An IOA is an authentic, experiential form of assessment that can be used for either formative or summative purposes (TeachWell Digital, 2024). It involves unscripted, real-time, two-way conversations between students and assessors, centred on key topics that are aligned with subject and/or program learning outcomes.

IOAs are typically designed to emulate real-world professional interactions or scenarios (O'Riordan et al., 2025; Sotiriadou et al., 2020), thereby enhancing assessment validity and offering students practical experience navigating situations they are likely to encounter in their future careers (Fenton, 2025). Example scenarios include job interviews; defence of an approach, idea or argument; business pitches; and contextualising creative works (the Education at Melbourne site and this Teaching and Learning Innovation page offer additional examples).

While the specific format, task, or scenario involved in the IOA may vary depending on the discipline, subject matter, learning outcomes or student cohort (Click on Box 1 tab below for examples), the fundamental structure remains consistent; one or more assessors ask students a series of semi-structured questions, to which students respond in real-time (O'Riordan et al., 2025).

  • 1. Law
    Format: Individual
    Learning outcomes: Ethical reasoning, Argumentation
    Task: Students prepare a written legal opinion on a controversial privacy law scenario involving biometric data.
    IOA Focus: Students are questioned about ethical tensions, their legal reasoning, and how they would reconcile competing rights in a real-world legal setting.
    2. Environmental Science
    Format: Group
    Learning outcomes: Teamwork, Data literacy
    Task: Student groups conduct field sampling and co-author a biodiversity risk assessment report for a local wetland.
    IOA Focus: Each team member explains a specific aspect of the methodology and defends the interpretation of data. The group collectively negotiates next-step conservation actions in response to new simulated evidence.
    3. Nursing
    Format: Group
    Learning outcomes: Professional judgement, Rapid decision-making
    Task: Students work in teams to create a care plan for a simulated patient in a high-pressure emergency scenario.
    IOA Focus: In a debrief-style IOA, the group discusses key clinical decisions, justifies prioritisation of care, and reflects on team coordination under time pressure.
    4. Economics

    Format: Individual
    Learning outcomes: Critical thinking, Quantitative reasoning
    Task: Students analyse a dataset on inflation trends and submit a short policy briefing on interest rate recommendations.
    IOA Focus: Students defend their assumptions, evaluate alternate models or interpretations, and simulate advising a central bank official based on follow-up data.

Despite the inclusion of a question-and-answer format, IOAs are distinct from traditional oral exams, as they are designed to be nuanced, interactive, and dynamic, rather than simply rewarding information recall. IOAs are also different from oral presentations and objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) as they are personalised and unscripted, and the interactions are free-flowing and supportive in nature (Kalman et al., 2024). As IOAs are performed under assessment conditions, they can also be distinguished from the kinds of verbal interactions that typically occur between educators and students to support learning, such as supervision meetings that are held over the course of a research project, or tutorial-based discussions.

Why Use IOAs?

Interactive Oral Assessments offer several pedagogical benefits. They encourage deep learning and higher-order thinking skills by requiring students to justify their reasoning, and apply their knowledge across contexts (Carbonel, 2024; Fenton, 2025; O’Riordan, 2023; Tan et al., 2022). The dynamic nature of IOAs challenges students to think critically, synthesise information on the spot, and demonstrate understanding of the subject matter (Fenton, 2025; Logan-Fleming et al., 2024; O'Riordan et al., 2025). They also allow educators to identify key knowledge gaps or misconceptions students might have, which facilitates improvement of learning content and materials (Fenton, 2025).

When framed as a simulated professional scenario, IOAs can help students develop employability skills and desirable graduate attributes (Logan & Sotiriadou, 2020; O’Riordan, 2023; Sotiriadou et al, 2020). In many contexts, this approach may be more authentic, reliable and valid than traditional forms of assessment, such as essays or invigilated written exams (O’Riordan et al., 2025; Ward et al., 2024). Students may also find these kinds of IOAs to be more engaging and personalised than other traditional assessment formats (Krautloher, 2024; Logan & Sotiriadou, 2020).

Importantly, IOAs are also recognised for their capacity to support academic integrity and provide assurances of learning (Krautloher, 2024; Logan & Sotiriadou, 2020; Sotiriadou et al., 2020). These aspects of IOAs are crucial considerations in the rapidly evolving assessment landscape influenced by generative artificial intelligence. For these reasons, the University of Melbourne has classified IOAs as a form of secure assessment.

For more benefits of IOAs compared to traditional assessment formats, see this resource produced by Teaching and Learning Innovation.

Designing Effective IOAs

Alignment with Learning Outcomes

The design of an IOA should be carefully aligned with the subject’s learning outcomes and, where appropriate, the broader program-level graduate attributes (O’Riordan et al., 2025). This not only increases assessment validity but also supports constructive alignment across the curriculum. It is valuable for educators to therefore identify what competencies the IOA aims to assess; for instance, is the emphasis on communication skills, critical thinking, content application, or the ability to engage in disciplinary discourse? Such decisions will help inform the scenario, question structure, and marking criteria of the IOA. By clearly defining the assessment objectives in relation to learning outcomes, educators can create a more focused and effective assessment tool that accurately measures student progress and achievement in key areas.

Choosing the Task Format and Delivery Mode

Designing an IOA involves making several important decisions about format and mode of delivery. Click on the tabs below for more details.

  • The choice between individual and group IOAs is often informed by the professional scenario being simulated. For example, job interviews or clinical consultations lend themselves to individual formats, while business pitches or collaborative project reviews may be better suited to group formats. Group IOAs can also help with managing large student cohorts efficiently. However, when implementing a group format, consider including mechanisms to ensure individual students’ contributions are identifiable. These might include asking each student specific follow-up questions or prompting them to comment on sections of an artefact they did not specifically develop.

  • In design-based or creative disciplines, IOAs often occur during class time and involve peer interaction (e.g., to simulate critique sessions or exhibition presentations). While this format supports peer learning and may be highly appropriate in certain professional scenarios, it also requires careful guidance to students on their roles and expectations within the process. For example, clarify whether peers are required to ask questions of students, provide feedback on performance, or fulfill other specific roles. IOAs that exclude peer interaction may provide greater control over assessment conditions and be a more authentic choice, depending on the professional scenario (e.g., job interviews, business pitches). However, if this approach requires the IOAs to be held outside of regular class time (i.e. when peers are not present), it necessitates advance planning to mitigate scheduling issues.

  • Some IOAs are linked to a student-created artefact (e.g., a report, portfolio, or creative work) which becomes the basis for the interaction with the assessor. This format allows students to demonstrate their understanding of the artefact, explain their process, and contextualise and defend their work. Others are stand-alone tasks that simulate scenarios such as job interviews, public statements, or case briefings. The choice between these formats is ideally based on the learning outcomes and disciplinary norms. Artefact-based IOAs may require assessors to engage with (e.g., assess and mark) the submitted work prior to the IOA, as this enables them to prepare individualised questions and be attuned to potential academic integrity breaches during the IOA. This approach, however, necessitates time and resources, which must be factored into workload expectations.

  • Online IOAs, conducted via platforms like Zoom, offer logistical flexibility and accessibility but may raise concerns about assessment security. This is because it is possible for students to read from scripts or receive assistance from sophisticated generative AI tools. In extreme cases, students may even use digital avatars as impersonators. In contrast, in-person assessments provide a more controlled environment, enabling assessors to manage assessment security more effectively. They also allow assessors to observe non-verbal cues from students (e.g., body language) which can enhance their evaluation of student performance. However, in-person IOAs may present logistical challenges, such as the need to organise and acquire room bookings. Regardless of the chosen mode, clear protocols are essential to promote fairness and integrity.

  • IOAs typically range from 10 to 15 minutes per student, with an additional 5 to 10 minutes for in situ marking (O'Riordan, 2023). Logan and Sotiriadou (2020) suggest that a 10 to 15-minute IOA is roughly equivalent to a 4000-word written assignment, depending on the level of interaction involved. Longer sessions may be warranted for higher-weighted assessments (e.g., capstone projects), although Fenton (2025) advises against sessions exceeding 20 minutes. Essentially, when determining the appropriate duration for an IOA, educators are recommended to consider the complexity of the subject matter, the number of learning outcomes being assessed, the level of detail required in student responses, and the overall weighting of the assessment within the subject. The chosen duration should also remain manageable for assessors, without contributing to excessive cognitive load or fatigue.

Scaffolding and Integration Within the Curriculum

It is important that IOAs are appropriately scaffolded within the subject (or program), so that the skills being evaluated are developed incrementally. The placement of the IOA within the assessment design is a crucial element in this process, so it is important to consider whether the IOA will serve as a final summative evaluation or as a formative task scheduled earlier in the teaching period.

If the IOA is to be used as a final summative assessment, it is advisable to tailor teaching and learning activities and preceding assessment tasks to adequately prepare students for their evaluation (Fenton, 2025). These should comprise authentic and discipline-specific activities / tasks that build students’ confidence and competencies. For example, students could be supported to engage in practice IOA sessions, which may focus on the specific assessment topic, their communication, or both (click on Box 2 tab below for examples). The formative value of these sessions can be enhanced by building in opportunities for teacher or peer feedback or even self-assessment. It may also be valuable to design teaching and learning activities that explicitly boost students’ academic oracy skills (e.g., class-based discussions, debates, group work, presentations, think-pair-share activities).

  • 1. Law
    Format: Individual
    Learning outcomes: Ethical reasoning, Argumentation
    Scaffolding Exercise: Peer Argument Clinics.
    Before the IOA, students participate in a small-group ‘argument clinic’ where they present and challenge each other's reasoning in response to a practice legal scenario, receiving peer and tutor feedback on clarity, structure, and ethical framing.

    → Promotes dialogic rehearsal and metacognitive awareness of legal argument construction.

    2. Environmental Science
    Format: Group
    Learning outcomes: Teamwork, Data literacy
    Task: Student groups conduct field sampling and co-author a biodiversity risk assessment report for a local wetland.
    Scaffolding Exercise: Collaborative Data Walkthrough. Each group participates in a guided in-class workshop where they work through a simplified dataset from a previous field study, with structured prompts on cleaning, visualising, interpreting, and narrating key findings.

    → Builds familiarity with real data variability and hones shared interpretation and communication strategies.

    3. Nursing
    Format: Group
    Learning outcomes: Professional judgement, Rapid decision-making
    Scaffolding Exercise: Role-Play with Time-Pressure Simulation Cards. In teams, students role-play a short emergency care scenario using randomly drawn ‘event cards’ (e.g., sudden vitals drop, family distress), followed by a group debrief on clinical decision-making and prioritisation under pressure.

    → Develops rapid response and team communication skills in a safe, low-stakes context.

    4. Economics
    Format: Individual
    Learning outcomes: Critical thinking, Quantitative reasoning
    Scaffolding Exercise: Annotated Policy Brief Dissection. Students are given a high-quality past policy memo and, in pairs, annotate it with observations on data use, assumptions, and argument structure, followed by a class discussion on strengths and potential pitfalls.

    → Builds analytical literacy and models the expectations for evidence-informed oral defence.

If the IOA is not the final assessment, educators must then consider how students can apply their experience in the IOA, and the feedback they receive from assessors, to improve in subsequent tasks or performances. This approach ensures the IOA is an integral part of the learning process rather than an isolated event.

Scope and Criteria

Clear communication about the scope and expectations of the IOA is essential. It is important that students understand what topics may be covered, how the conversation will unfold, and what criteria they will be assessed against (Sotiriadou et al., 2020).

Share assessment rubrics with students early in the teaching period, outlining clear descriptors that map to levels of performance for each criterion. This allows students to adequately prepare, while also reducing the likelihood of marking appeals. Ensure that rubrics focus on relevant dimensions such as clarity of communication, depth of understanding, critical engagement, and application of knowledge (click on Table 1 tab below for an example).

  • CriteriaUnsatisfactory (Fail)Acceptable (Pass)Good
    (H3-H2A)    		Very Good (H2A)Outstanding (H1)

    Clarity of Communication

    Expression is unclear, disorganised, or difficult to follow; frequent hesitations or misused terminology.
    Communicates ideas in a basic and mostly comprehensible way, though with some lapses in fluency or terminology use.
    Generally clear and coherent delivery; appropriate vocabulary and structure used with minor slips.
    Expresses ideas fluently and confidently; language and tone are well-suited to purpose and audience.
    Highly articulate, persuasive, and engaging; delivery is polished, confident, and professional throughout.

    Depth of Understanding

    Demonstrates superficial or inaccurate understanding; key concepts are missing or misrepresented.
    Shows basic understanding of core ideas but limited ability to elaborate or explain interconnections.
    Demonstrates solid understanding of key concepts with some elaboration and use of relevant examples.
    Explores concepts with insight and nuance; integrates examples or perspectives with understanding.
    Demonstrates deep, integrated understanding; explains complex ideas with clarity and originality.

    Critical Engagement

    Little or no evidence of questioning, critique, or exploration of alternative viewpoints.

    Some engagement with issues, though mostly descriptive or reliant on surface-level commentary.

    Attempts some critique or reflection; may identify tensions or assumptions in the material.

    Thoughtfully critiques ideas and explores implications or limitations; considers multiple perspectives.

    Insightfully interrogates issues, synthesises perspectives, and challenges assumptions with intellectual rigour.

    Application of Knowledge

    Fails to apply relevant concepts or applies them inaccurately; no connection to real-world or scenario context.
    Applies basic concepts correctly in a general way; limited adaptation to the context.
    Applies knowledge appropriately; demonstrates some ability to adapt or transfer ideas to the scenario.
    Effectively applies knowledge with contextual awareness and flexibility; makes logical connections.
    Sophisticated and creative application of knowledge; demonstrates adaptive thinking and real-world insight.

To further enhance student understanding, Kalman et al. (2024) suggest providing a video exemplar of an IOA on an unrelated topic. Students can then practice using the rubric to assess this exemplar, gaining valuable insight into the assessment process and criteria, without risking direct imitation (O’Riordan, 2023). This approach not only helps to clarify expectations, but also actively engages students in understanding the assessment standards, promoting better preparation and potentially improving overall performance in the IOA.

Weighting

When determining the weighting of an IOA, it is helpful to consider its complexity and importance within the subject or program. For example, early-stage IOAs may carry lower weighting, while capstone-level IOAs may be more heavily weighted to reflect their integrative purpose. The duration of the IOA should also be appropriate to the assessment weighting. For example, the Interactive Oral Assessment Community of Practice at Charles Sturt University (2023) recommends that a 10 to 15-minute IOA is weighted at around 40% of the total subject mark.

Implementing and Delivering IOAs

Role of Assessors

In an IOA, the assessors serve as facilitators of a structured yet open conversation. Their role is to create a supportive environment that encourages students to elaborate on their thinking, connect ideas, and demonstrate nuanced understanding. Assessors will prompt students using open-ended and adaptable questions, probing deeper based on student responses. It may also be helpful to ask increasingly difficult questions over the course of the conversation, to differentiate student performance across the cohort (Fenton, 2025). Assessors will need to be well informed about the desired kinds of prompts to use (developing a bank of potential prompts for each learning objective might be helpful), and how much prompting is expected (Fenton, 2025). Three broad forms of prompts are particularly useful in IOA conversations:

  1. Redirecting prompts: These guide students back to the core task or encourage to clarification of vague or off-track responses. For example, “Can you link that back to the scenario we just discussed?” or “What evidence supports that claim?”
  2. Expanding prompts: These help draw out more detailed or nuanced responses when students provide surface-level answers. For instance, “Can you explain the implications of that choice?” or “What might be an alternative interpretation?” or simply “That’s interesting, tell me more …”.
  3. Synthesis prompts: These encourage students to integrate ideas, make connections, or reflect on implications. For example, “How do these two perspectives fit together?” or “What does this suggest about the broader issue?”

Using a mix of these prompt types supports a rich, responsive conversation that reveals the depth and flexibility of student understanding.

To assist with in situ marking during the IOA, it is helpful to provide assessors with a clear and well differentiated assessment rubric. It is crucial that they have access to this rubric prior to the IOA sessions to ensure familiarity and consistent application throughout the assessment process. Training in using the rubric prior to the IOA sessions (e.g., using exemplar video recordings) may also be valuable to increase familiarity and confidence and identify any potential marking inconsistencies or issues.

Scheduling and Logistical Planning

Careful planning and scheduling is crucial to the success of IOAs, particularly when implemented at scale. To streamline this process and reduce administrative burden, digital booking tools such as Canvas Appointments or Microsoft Bookings can be utilised. These tools allow students to select available time slots and receive automated reminders. Additionally, the teaching team may find it beneficial to use a collaborative online spreadsheet for planning purposes.

It may also be helpful to build in buffer time between sessions to limit cognitive load and fatigue for assessors. This allows for short breaks, note-taking, and preparation for the next student. Where feasible, the presence of two assessors can enhance reliability, though recordings may be used as an alternative for moderation purposes. Consideration should also be given to the assessment environment—ensuring it is quiet, private, and free from distractions.

Providing Feedback Comments

Feedback comments on IOAs can be both immediate and delayed. Real-time verbal feedback offers students an opportunity to reflect while the experience is still fresh, while written feedback—typically posted via the Learning Management System —allows for more detailed comments that students can refer back to in the future. Recordings of IOAs can also be shared with students for self-assessment. This approach allows students to review their performance objectively, potentially identifying areas for improvement that they may not have noticed during the live assessment.

Structured feedback strategies may include developing a set of pre-written comment banks, peer reviews, and student self-assessments. Educators might also prompt students to ask for feedback themselves or nominate areas they would like specific feedback on, helping to personalise and target the feedback process and develop feedback-seeking skills.

Teaching and Learning Innovation have also produced a resource focused specifically on planning and delivering IOAs.

Quality Assurance and Continuous Improvement

Ensuring Consistency and Fairness

Maintaining consistency in assessment can be a key challenge in IOAs, particularly in larger cohorts where multiple assessors are required. In these cases, it is generally helpful to ensure that all assessors have a shared understanding of the assessment criteria and rubric. Training sessions for assessors, where they calibrate their judgements using sample student responses or videos, are highly recommended. Ongoing moderation meetings can help identify and address discrepancies. O'Riordan (2023) recommends moderating marks between days (if applicable) and between markers to maintain ongoing consistency. Additionally, having assessors observe each other’s sessions can foster shared expectations and improve reliability across the team. Rotating assessors, providing rest breaks and limiting back-to-back sessions will also help reduce cognitive fatigue and maintain fairness. Obtaining audio or video recordings of IOAs may also provide useful evidence to refer to in the case of a marking appeal.

Evaluation and Review

It is valuable to engage in regular evaluation of IOAs to ensure they remain effective and relevant. This includes gathering student and assessor feedback, reviewing assessment data, and aligning tasks with current industry or disciplinary standards. Adjustments based on reflective practice after each teaching period will also help to refine IOA implementation.

Inclusivity and Equity

Research indicates that IOAs can be an equitable form of assessment (Krautloher, 2024), particularly when they are appropriately scaffolded and implemented within a subject and when students are well-supported to succeed (e.g., expectations and assessment criteria are clear, assessors ask individualised rather than general questions). Indeed, some students may find IOAs more engaging and less stressful than other forms of assessment, such as written exams (Tan et al., 2022; TeachWell Digital, 2024).

However, other students, such as those with social anxiety, neurodivergence, or lower English proficiency, may experience heightened apprehension towards an IOA, particularly if they have no prior experience with this assessment format (Fenton, 2025). It is useful for educators to therefore plan for flexibility while also endeavouring to maintain the integrity of the assessment (Sotiriadou et al., 2020). This might include offering slightly modified formats, providing additional preparation time, or allowing the presence of a support person during the IOA (Kalman et al., 2024). It is also critical to clarify what is being assessed and to avoid inadvertently evaluating attributes like articulation skills or language fluency unless they are explicitly included in the learning outcomes. Assessment accommodations should be handled in consultation with student support services, and any alternatives provided must remain fair and aligned with the task’s core objectives.

Support and Resources

  • The University of Melbourne’s Teaching and Learning Innovation deliver a wide and flexible range of expert services to support teaching, learning and assessment capability. They have produced a resource focused on planning and delivering IOAs, and a case study from Engineering (available here).
  • The Education at Melbourne site provides resources and information to support teaching staff at The University of Melbourne. They provide several examples of IOAs here.
  • The Academic Skills team at The University of Melbourne have produced a web resource to help students learn about interactive oral assessments, including how to prepare and what to do during the assessment. This resource can be easily embedded by teaching staff in subjects materials.
  • TeachWell Digital have produced a webpage with information and resources relating to IOA.
  • Griffith University have produced an eBook resource titled Interactive oral assessment; an authentic and integral alternative to examination.
  • The Interactive Oral Assessment Community of Practice at Charles Sturt University have developed an educator user guide and a video to help prepare students for IOAs.
  • Dublin City University’s Teaching Enhancement Unit provide practical advice, video examples, FAQs, and resources for educators about IOAs.
  • In this blog post for HERDSA Connect, Professor Jason Lodge and colleagues from The University of Queensland provide practical advice focusing on the pros and cons of implementing IOAs at scale.

Additional resources and academic articles about IOAs can be found in the List of References tab below. Detailed case studies are also provided below. If you would like to contribute a case study, please complete this form.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for Subject Coordinators

References

Dr Tracii Ryan, Professor Chris Ziguras & Professor Raoul Mulder, Centre for the Study of Higher Education
Last updated: July 2025

Acknowledgements

This resource was developed with the assistance of Kate MacDonald, Elena Balcaite, Leah Schwartz, Jamie Evans, Samantha Marangell, Grace Thompson and Maggie Singorahardjo.

Case Studies

Loading...