Improving assessment equity using Interactive Oral Assessments
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
IOAs offer the opportunity to assess students' learning and clarify their ability to achieve learning outcomes in an equitable manner.
“This observation aligns with recent work demonstrating that IOAs offer the opportunity to assess students' learning and clarify their ability to achieve learning outcomes in an equitable manner (Krautloher, 2024).”
From Replacing Traditional Written Laboratory Reports with Interactive Oral Assessments: Enhancing Laboratory Skill Assessment in Undergraduate Genetics Education (2026) · cites this paper as Krautloher, 2024
Cites
The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354 · Cited by 2,428 · see citing works
Sotiriadou, P., Logan, D., Daly, A., & Guest, R. (2020) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2019.1582015 · Cited by 265 · see citing works
Equity, justice and standards: assessment decision making in higher education
Stowell *, M. (2004) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602930310001689055 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kofinas, A. K., Tsay, C. H., & Pike, D. (2025) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13585 · Cited by 207 · see citing works
Della Vedova, C. B., Birbeck, D., & Davey, S. K. (2026) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-026-10380-3
- Authors
- Krautloher, A.
- Affiliations
- Charles Sturt University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Krautloher, Amita
- ORCID
- Krautloher, Amita
- Venue
- Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice
- Publisher
- Open Access Publishing Association
- 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
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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