This innovation presents the development and implementation of the Dialogue Dashboard, an innovative

assessment tool designed for the English for Occupational Purposes course, specifically targeting the Mock

Meeting evaluation. The tool addresses challenges in consistently and accurately assessing students’ use of

language functions and argumentation skills during academic discussions. Traditional rubrics lacked specificity

simplifies the evaluation process, reduces cognitive load on instructors, and enhances assessment accuracy.

The impact of the Dialogue Dashboard is significant. It promotes more objective, consistent, and efficient

evaluation of communicative competence in simulated professional contexts. Educators benefit from clearer

evidence of student performance, enabling improved feedback and alignment with instructional goals. Students

gain clarity on assessment criteria, leading to better preparation and more focused engagement in discussions.

Overall, the Dialogue Dashboard exemplifies a practical, adaptable solution for advancing language and

critical thinking assessment in higher education.

Effective communication is fundamental to 21st-century education; nonetheless, the evaluation of students'

occupational purposes.

Therefore, the Dialogue Dashboard was developed during the English for Occupational Assessment known as

the Mock Meeting. The aim of this evaluation was to assess students' competency in speaking within a

specified context. Multiple rubrics were included to facilitate the evaluation process; however, it was found

that verifying the functions they used during the discussion was quite challenging. Consequently, the Dialogue

Dashboard was created to enable a clearer and easier assessment of the use of language functions in simulated

meeting environments.

Assessment tools in academic discussions often exhibit a limited focus on specific language functions such as

clarifying, agreeing, disagreeing, and summarizing. This oversight results in incomplete evaluations of

discussions. This gap creates challenges in real-time assessment, hindering educators’ ability to provide

accurate, immediate feedback. Addressing these issues requires the development of more focused, consistent,

and user-friendly assessment frameworks that facilitate the practical evaluation of language use in dynamic

academic settings (Furtak & Ruiz-Primo, 2008; Bheda, 2022).

Below are the objectives of the innovation:

1. To develop an innovative evaluation tool that integrates language function assessment with

argumentation rubrics.

2. To address inconsistencies in the assessment of students’ language and argumentation skills in academic

discussions.

functions during discussions (Politis et al., 2023; Tauchid, Putri, & Suwandi, 2024). The Dialogue Dashboard

provides a straightforward and effective way to monitor and evaluate language function use in simulated

meeting settings, which helps to expedite this process (Gao, Roever, & Lau, 2024). The invention is based on

the two-stage Mock Meeting Assessment, which consists of a group discussion and an individual presentation.

The Latter Stage is Where it is Most Important to Evaluate Students' Participation and use of Language

Functions. The Dialogue Dashboard offers Specialised Evaluation Forms with two Distinct but

Complementary Tables: Table 1 (The Dashboard Dialogue) for Systematic Tracking of Language Function use

and Table 2 (Comment Board) to Gather Qualitative Feedback on Student Performance. This is Because The

Previous Rubric Was General and Lacked Specificity in Certain Aspects (Politis Et Al., 2023). The Instructor

uses these tables Simultaneously During Tests for Different but Related Reasons, Which Improves the

developed as part of the methodology. A systematic table that recorded language functions—like clarifying,

agreeing, or summarizing—those students used during group discussions made up the Dashboard Dialogue,

which enabled teachers to annotate these functions in real time. Simultaneously, the Comment Board was

created for qualitative documentation, allowing instructors to document in-depth observations on students'

critical thinking abilities, participation, and communication effectiveness.

Five groups of 86 final-year students enrolled in the English for Occupational Purposes course participated in

the tool's pilot and five instructors were chosen to be interviewed after they have used this for their assessment.

To reduce reliance on memory or post-session evaluation, instructor used the Dashboard to conduct concurrent,

immediate assessments during live mock meetings, which is how the data was collected. By combining

qualitative performance observations with quantitative language function usage, this dual-table method

In the pilot, 78% of students reported finding it easier to understand the criteria when viewing the Dialogue

Dashboard before their presentation. Additionally, 3 out of 5 instructors and 2 instructors prefer the evaluation

to be more specific but they agreed that by having the structured evaluation tables improved the overall

assessment process. By using a mixed-method approach, it was possible to guarantee a thorough and accurate

evaluation of students' linguistic proficiency as well as their ability to argue in authentic communication

situations. This improved feedback helped students become more prepared for communication in the

workplace. The accuracy and consistency of language function assessment in scholarly discussions were

greatly improved by the introduction of the Dialogue Dashboard. Evaluations became more trustworthy and

transparent because of instructors’’’ ability to objectively monitor students' use of critical communication skills

also mentioned about the need to make it more detailed for future used.

This innovation offers a novel, integrated approach that combines language use evaluation with argumentation

skill assessment in a single user-friendly format. It stands out by:

 Bringing together linguistic and critical thinking evaluation in real-time academic discourse

 Providing both structured and flexible scoring methods

 Being adaptable for both manual and digital use (e.g., Google Forms, Socrative)

It is suggested that for future research, these tables can be utilized clearly by adding specific descriptors in

language form and functions and can be utilized into digital used.

Thank you to all members and respondents both students and instructors.

ExamSoft. https://examsoft.com/resources/limitations-current-assessment-practices-solutions/

2. Furtak, E. M., & Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2008). Comparing written responses to classroom discussion

responses: Thoroughness and logic in student thinking. Foundations of Education and Instructional

Assessment. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Education and Professional

Assessment-/Assessment Strategies/17.03: How can classroom discussions be used for assessment

3. Politis, Y., Clemente, I., Lim, Z., & Sung, C. (2023). The development of the conversation skills

assessment tool. Autism Developmental Language Impairment, 8, Article 23969415231196063.

https://doi.org/10.1177/23969415231196063