Our objective of teaching academics how to design and implement Interactive Oral Assessments led to the establishment of a Community of Practice but we achieved so much more. The cross-discipline academics involved were motivated to make change in their subject design, through increased expertise in assessment design and constructive alignment.

Professional development in higher education with a focus on teaching and learning is challenging in every context for different reasons. Even before the pandemic, academics were time poor and impacted on by relationships, culture, experience, expectations in their context. We sought to facilitate professional development that impacted on pedagogical practice, was a transformative experience, and that also recognised that to upskill academics into new technologies, an element of transactional learning is required.

During the pandemic, Charles Sturt invested a high level of resources to upskill academic staff in using new technology to pivot to online delivery. Simultaneously, it was essential to train all academics on how to teach effectively online. So Amita, as educational designer, introduced the concept of Interactive Oral Assessments, believing oral assessments might offer a better alternative to traditional assessments and exams.

Learning a new assessment approach along with challenges of isolation over lockdown in a multi-campus university would require time and effort. So it seemed appropriate to establish a community of practice instead of single, transactional professional development session. Amita was tasked with facilitating the community of practice with the support of an external mentor from Griffith University where this approach originated.

We showcased the interactive oral assessments and invited academics to express interest in joining the community of practice. Some joined as they were dissatisfied with their subject design and assessments. They said their frustration was with assessments that did not clarify gaps in students’ knowledge enough to effectively assess learning. There were concerns around academic integrity breaches, lack of student engagement and the need to prepare students’ professional skills. They wanted to see how students were learning and not just what they were learning. The CoP offered a perfect platform for academics from Engineering, Theology, Health and Nutrition, Education, and Veterinary Science, and educational designers, to meet and resolve these tensions. A series of focus groups were set up to gather feedback while members wrote personal reflections.

Participants described the connections they made in the CoP as being “about learning from others” because it “gave me confidence” and the opportunity to gain “nuggets of gold from others”. They felt a sense of belonging as they solved their own and others’ challenges, and a sense of commitment to each other.

The cross-disciplinary nature of the community of practice was powerful as people started to think outside their boxes and “felt released from being in a silo”. They felt encouraged to implement a new assessment approach and it was noted that without it they would have most likely quit when facing challenges. It was the collective activity that encouraged new teaching practice.

For these academics, previous traditional professional learning experiences had not changed practice. Engaging in the community of practice sustained their perseverance and motivation and to learn from each other. The experience was about transforming their practice as they clarified the delivery of their subjects, order of topics, and created learning activities to help develop students’ skills, knowledge, and confidence. They highlighted the importance of peer support, a sense of belonging, access to purposeful resources, and the challenges of the learning process.

The dynamic and purposeful community of practice approach that emerged in this experience was effective in helping academics to learn a new assessment strategy and implement it successfully in their first trial.