A peer review model for supervised work Integrated learning assessment: design principles and implementation framework

Increasing emphasis on supervised assessment across higher education systems has led to widespread adoption of individual oral assessments, particularly in Work Integrated Learning (WIL) contexts. While such approaches support academic integrity and authentication of student work, they are resource-intensive and difficult to scale, raising questions about sustainability and pedagogical authenticity. This paper presents a peer review assessment model developed to address these challenges through pedagogy-led design rather than regulatory compliance. Drawing on design-based research, the study articulates the theoretical mechanisms underpinning the model, documents its iterative implementation across multiple semesters, and examines outcomes related to assessment integrity, student engagement, and workload sustainability. The model integrates peer presentation, questioning, and evaluation within a supervised assessment structure, activating evaluative judgement, professional participation, spontaneous articulation, and boundary-crossing capabilities within a single assessment activity. The paper contributes to assessment scholarship by demonstrating how authentic professional practices – specifically peer evaluation – can be enacted as supervised assessment without reliance on individual oral examinations. While developed within a specific regulatory context, the design principles and implementation insights presented offer transferable guidance for educators seeking scalable, authentic alternatives to interactive oral assessments in professional learning settings.