Assessment as a Point of Connection: Piloting Interactive Oral Assessment in MGTM900291 Critical and Creative Thinking

Alice Boer-Endacott and Seth Robinson

In Semester 1 2025, we took over the co-ordination of MGMT90291Critical and Creative Thinking. The goal of this subject is in the name, but the approach comes with room to manoeuvre. While in the humanities there is an almost universal agreement on the importance of these skills, the concepts themselves—even the ways in which their defined—can often be nebulous and abstract.

In taking over the subject, we found there was an opportunity to rethink the curriculum and content, considering how we might design a subject that provided clarity on these ideas, beginning with a theoretical understanding, that was developed with the addition of practical techniques and skills that allow students to hone their personal critical thinking and creative practices.

In considering assessment design in particular, we were eager to consider authentic assessments that applied these skills and circumvented the experience all humanities scholars dread given the developments of the last few years: reading sixty essays written by ChatGPT. As a result, we focused on three assignments: a reflective, weekly journal; a creative pitch, presented to and workshopped with peers; and a final, Interactive Oral Assessment.

This redesign also coincided with the introduction of the university’s secure assessment principles and the Faculty of Arts’ Interactive Oral Assessments pilot, which provided an opportunity to consider how our work might align with, and help inform this pilot program.

As defined by the CSHE, Interactive Oral Assessments (IOA) are “unscripted, real-time, two-way conversations between students and assessors, centred on key topics that are aligned with subject and/or program learning outcomes.”

In our IOA, Students were given an initial, intentionally broad, provocation: 'what is your biggest takeaway from the subject's exploration of critical and creative thinking?' ahead of time. They had a maximum of three minutes to share their prepared answer (we used an egg timer to visually represent this), and were allowed to bring in a single, hand-written cue-card to consult during this first answer and across the rest of the assessment.

Our subsequent questions were largely dictated by what they student said. In some instances we asked them to elaborate further, either through explicit reference to a reading, expansion on their original point, or through redirecting them to consider other modules and content  that they might have not touched on (for instance, in the case of students who focused on the critical thinking modules,  we asked them about creative thinking).

We additionally zeroed in on key questions and discussion points that proved useful in drawing out student knowledge and comprehension. Examples included:

“was there something you still are struggling to understand?”

“what was your favourite reading or lecture, and why,?

“how did you prepare for this assessment?”

“how have you applied some of these concepts into your everyday life?”

While both of us were in the room, one took the role of interviewer while the other noted down the student’s responses and provided a preliminary mark. Once the student left the room, we briefly conferred and agreed upon a mark.

Reflecting on our experience with this assessment design, we found this to be a profoundly positive experience.

Students demonstrated understanding of key ideas explored in the course, with most able to anchor their knowledge and provide specific references (usually to at least two key texts), while drawing broadly on ideas from as many as eight or nine of the modules (reinforced by our rubric design).

This assessment also offered students the opportunity to give us feedback on the material, with comments across the interactive oral assessment including:

as teachers you didn’t give us the answer but led us to understand the answer by ourselves

I realised critical thinking is a deliberate practice; people do a lot of decision making, but that’s not necessarily critical thinking

We conducted an exit survey to capture student experiences in the immediate aftermath.

When asked if students would be willing to do this kind of assessment again, 17 (85%) respondents said yes. This is heartening. While 55% of respondents indicated their belief going in that the assessment would be difficult or extremely difficult, nobody said they found it extremely easy or extremely difficult, meaning that it was challenging without being impossible.

Student reflections included:

Before the exam, I thought I wouldn't be able to finish this oral test, but after the exam, I found that I actually did it. Although I might not have answered some questions particularly well, I really liked the atmosphere of the whole exam.

It’s a good experience because it diversifies your learning rather than it strictly be written papers or formal written exams, which can also be very difficult. Students should experience all forms of learning applications even though it may be a bit uncomfortable at times. You might not realise it but you could be good at oral examinations if you don’t try.

This latter reflection echoes an observation made in the Dean’s Conversation on July 28 about the future of the lecture: assessment models based solely on written essays mean students can pass a subject despite not attending, or listening to, any lecture. Such assessments require students to engage deeply, but only with a narrow slice of the course content. By contrast, IOAs can range across the entire subject.

While some students came in with their initial response likely prepared (perhaps with help from an LLM) and memorised, the majority of the assessment was clearly based on their own knowledge, learning, and experiences with the subject content.

Overall, the IOAs offered us the opportunity to connect with and assess our students in a novel, personal way. For other academics interested in implementing such a model, some considerations for how to do this might include:

• Modelling the activity: we presented a mock oral exam in week 12 of semester, wherein each of the teaching team took a turn being examined. We then went through the rubric with students to demonstrate how we each scored (H1!).
• Work as a team: we undertook the examinations as a teaching team, taking turns to examine and take notes. This proved valuable, as it gave the students an individual to connect with (without it feeling like we were ganging up on them), while the other marked. It also allowed us an element of mental reset and helped manage fatigue.
• Consider how oral the examination is scaffolded to the rest of the assessment: For us, the oral examination aligned nicely with the reflective journal assessment, which gave students a week-by-week opportunity to reconcile what they had learned. We provided the marks and feedback on their final journal entries prior to the examination. The oral examination often allowed students an opportunity to articulate this knowledge and build on those journal entries and accompanying feedback. We are now considering how we might create more of a formal connection between these two assessments.

We found the IOA process allowed us the opportunity to connect with students on an individual level (something often lost when marking upwards of 30 essays), while giving students the opportunity to articulate not only what they had learnt, but how they had learnt it. This meant we were largely very engaged as markers, and delighted as teachers. There is a potential here, as we move to more secure assessment, not only to guarantee that we are not reading essays by ChatGPT, but to bring the human connection back to the classroom.