This case study explores the design and use of Professional Conversations as an authentic oral assessment within credit-bearing career development modules, supporting reflective, work-related learning, and employability.
Our challenge / opportunity
Our 20-credit, year-long career development modules are structured around work-related learning, with a focus on personal and professional development, self-awareness, reflective practice, and skills development. A key aim was to enable students to articulate their development and contribution in workplace-relevant contexts and practices.
Our challenge was to design an authentic assessment that would allow students to demonstrate their learning meaningfully, beyond traditional written assignments.
Our solution (approach)
We introduced professional conversations as a form of structured oral assessment. This approach builds on earlier practice within the modules using assessed interviews to support authentic articulation of learning (Jung, 2011). In the process we developed an approach that reflects contemporary priorities around active, experiential and AI-resilient assessment.
Assessment aims and structure
The Professional Conversation was designed as a scalable, authentic assessment that is less performative and less intimidating than formal interviews, whilst still maintaining rigor, robustness, and fairness.
Students were required to articulate their development objectives, impact, and underpinning rationale through a live, structured discussion. The format was based on the type of discussion an employee might hold with a manager or other professional in a workplace environment. At Stage 3 and Masters level, the assessment included one or two professional conversations, linked to submitted artefacts (e.g. assignment 1 – a personal development plan and assignment 2 – an achievement/impact portfolio). The artefact and the professional conversation together formed a single, integrated summative assessment.
Students were given guidance on the structure of the conversation and indicative lines of questioning aligned to the module learning outcomes and their submitted work.
The Assessment and Marking process
For Masters students, conversation 1 (10–15 minutes) focused on the professional development plan. Conversation 2 (approximately 15 minutes) focused on evidencing and analysing their own development, contribution, and impact.
Assessment was conducted by a single assessor with audio recording of all conversations for calibration discussions, double-marking, and moderation and quality assurance, within and across the marking team.
Markers typically took provisional notes during conversations, with full feedback and marks usually finalised after each block of assessment slots with scope to revisit the audio recording if needed. Ensuring consistency across a marking team requires making assessment criteria explicit and developing shared understandings of standards (Beattie et al., 2009), therefore a shared assessment-specific rubric underpinned this process. This was also provided to students in advance and discussed in teaching, with opportunities for students to practice some aspects of the conversation and receive peer feedback
Time investment
We typically planned approximately 45 minutes per student – bearing in mind variance between members of the marking team and ‘trickier’ cases. We aimed to provide meaningful, personalised feedback including meaningful feedforward guidance, consideration of evidence and academic integrity, whilst also ensuring the feedback clearly justified marks. External examiner commentary has consistently identified our feedback practice as exemplary.
This form of assessment is not necessarily a time-saving approach and can be comparable to marking a written assignment. However, it offers greater variety, authenticity, and engagement as students discuss individualised experiences rather than reproducing scripted responses. Despite the intensity, it was experienced as a meaningful and engaging process by staff.
The impact (results)
Students reported feeling a bit nervous before the professional conversation but found it generally less stressful than an assessed interview. They appreciated the opportunity to think through and articulate their experiences through structured questions, often recognising achievements they had not surfaced previously. It was assessment for learning, and not just assessment of learning.
Student feedback also indicated that it supported their next steps. When they were engaging with graduate-scheme interviews or moving on after university, they’d already had an experience that was relevant professionally, not just in terms of getting through recruitment and selection, but also for conversational contexts such as progress or performance reviews. Feedback from graduates tells us that on reflection they could really see the connection.
Lessons learned
The challenge lies in preparing in advance for rigour, robustness, and consistency. If you’re working within a teaching or marking team, having a shared, well-developed rubric and assessment criteria to work from is essential. It’s also critical to have those honest, and occasionally spiky, calibration discussions beforehand to surface and resolve where people might see or interpret something differently.
One strength of this assessment is that students can anticipate the general lines of questioning, helping to support confidence. Students were allowed to bring in a page of notes (1 or 2 sides of A4) with bulleted outlines or key points (not a script) as an aide de memoire. Advance scaffolding is critical. The assessment preparation guidance and teaching support provided ahead of time (lecture, seminar activities, and one-to-one tutorials) focussed on supporting students in learning how to respond with both structure and authenticity.
We work with a diverse range of international students, and it is our professional responsibility to be aware of fairness and cultural equitability. But language fluency remains an ongoing challenge. When students are not working in their first language, you recognise that things can take longer to process. However, as it doesn’t typically fit under something that would be covered by an SSP for assessment adjustments (e.g., extra time) it’s not clear how to address this challenge fully.
For students who may have challenges related to neurodivergence or shyness, a key learning point is to have options in place to come back to if needed. Adjustments such as extra time through the SSP process and the option for a five-minute break to manage distress or anxiety were available to help ensure an equitable and supportive learning environment.
Tips for colleagues
Plan carefully for oral assessments
- Design the assessment logistics carefully: plan structure, timing, prompts, and resources in advance. Try to anticipate challenges. Thorough preparation will pay dividends.
- Plan for how you will enact adjustments and ensure consistency in inclusive assessment practice.
- Develop robust rubrics and calibration processes to ensure consistency.
- Recording conversations is essential to support moderation and quality assurance. We used digital voice recorders.
Introduce the process to students
- Provide clear guidance to students on expectations and preparation.
- Clearly communicate in advance what the assessment will look and sound like to help them settle and perform at their best.
Be present and supportive as an assessor:
- Live assessment requires sustained focus, and a balance of professionalism and support, which can be taxing over long periods.
Skills and attributes
Students were able to develop the following attributes: [keep only relevant ones from the list below; these are linked to the tag page]
- Reflective and self-aware
- Self-management
- Self-directed learning
- Flexibility and resilience
- Critical thinking
- Problem solving
- Creative thinking
- Communication
- Collaboration
- Leading and influencing
- Future focused
Education for Life Strategy
This case study reflects the following aims of the Education for Life strategy: (remove irrelevant)
- Equity: To provide a core, universal offer for all students, including tailored provision where needed, to ensure equity of access, experience and in outcomes for all, regardless of background, identity, nationality, location or mode of study.
- Encounters with the Leading Edge: To put at the heart of our curriculum and learning experiences, encounters with our world leading research and the leading edge of industry and practice.
- Fit for the future: To ensure our students are fit for their future, our teaching is fit for the future of our offer, and our colleagues are fit for the future of HE
Further resources
Jung, J. (2011) Assessing learning from a student community engagement project. Education + Training, 53(2/3), 155–165.
Beattie, D., Gill, S., Wallace, K. and Wood, J. (2009) Are we all agreed it’s a 2:i? Making assessment criteria explicit. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 3(1), 36–42.
Authors
 |
Gigi Herbert Careers Consultant (Curriculum) Student Services gigi.herbert@newcastle.ac.uk |