Cited by 6Student Assessment and FeedbackHigher Education Practises and EngagementEducational Assessment and Pedagogy

Improving assessment equity using Interactive Oral Assessments

Open access
Krautloher, Amita·2024·Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice

Abstract

Equity in assessment has been a major issue plaguing the higher education sector for a long time and although efforts have been made to implement a variety of assessments to address this issue, the assessment design tends to ignore the increasingly diverse student population. This article assesses the equity of Interactive Oral Assessments (IOAs) based on the principles of the McCES framework: match, comprehensible, challenge, elicit, and scaffold. Accordingly, the process of designing and administering IOAs is compared with each of the five principles and shows that the assessment environment for students from equity backgrounds is significantly improved. To do this, the data collected from teaching staff and students from a two-year mixed methods research project at a regional university in Australia is used to evaluate the claim. The findings demonstrate that IOAs offer an opportunity to assess students’ learning and clarify their ability to achieve learning outcomes which aligns with the McCES framework; therefore, it is argued that IOAs are an equitable assessment approach. The implications of the findings for academics, students, and educational institutions are significant. For academics, they can be confident that their assessment approach is equitable. For non-traditional students, the chances of succeeding in assessments and improvement in learning are enhanced. For educational institutions, a direct impact on reducing the gap between the performance of mainstream s…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.53761/4hg1me11

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Authors
Krautloher, A.
Affiliations
Charles Sturt University (AU)
Corresponding author
Krautloher, Amita
Venue
Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice
Published
2024-03-29
Volume
21
Issue
04
ISSN
1449-9789 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4393344404
Cited by
6
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3
FWCI
7.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • Charles Sturt University Research Output (CRO) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Practises and Engagement
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
Keywords
assessment equity, non-traditional students, student diversity, assessment design, student retention, attrition, higher education assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review