Universities are increasingly turning to oral exams to stop students using artificial intelligence (AI) to cheat.
Some unis say it allows teachers to more accurately test students’ knowledge.
Meanwhile, some NSW schools are also using oral exams to prevent cheating.
Oral exams – or “viva voces” – are one of the oldest assessment methods. But they are not a foolproof solution as universities and schools struggle to ensure academic integrity. Here’s why.
A brief history
Oral exams date back to ancient Greece. Teachers would ask students questions, which needed to be responded to on the spot to show their knowledge of a subject.
They became less common over time as written exams were easier to administer across growing numbers of students. But oral assessment never disappeared and has remained in many schools and unis.
Aside from testing a student’s knowledge, oral exams allow examiners to ask a student immediate questions and prompt them to clarify points further. An oral exam can also help students develop their public speaking and communication skills.
Not fair for all students
Despite these benefits, oral exams can create barriers for some students.
Research suggests they can increase students’ social anxiety. A German study found uni students experienced more anxiety in oral exams than written ones. If students are overly anxious, they may not be able to show examiners what they actually know.
Oral exams may also unfairly disadvantage students when they are required to speak in their non-native language. These students might have a strong understanding of the subject but might need more time to express that understanding.
Consistency can be a problem
Research suggests it is also difficult to ensure oral exams are consistent.
For example, a study of oral exams in Norwegian secondary schools found initial student presentations ranged from five to 16 minutes. At the same time, follow-up discussions ranged from seven to 23 minutes. This gave students unequal opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge. A follow-up study found with the same examiners, some students received fewer than ten questions while others received nearly 50.
These variations may not always be intentional, but they can have real impacts for students.
Can they really stop cheating?
As a measure against cheating, oral assessments are not perfect.
A student could use AI to rehearse and remember convincing answers. Another student who wrote every word may freeze under pressure.
If we are just using oral exams as an “AI lie detector”, it can turn assessment into a test of confidence, rather than learning or effort.
Making assessments fairer
My research shows effective forms of school assessment must:
-
produce trusted and reliable results
-
treat all students fairly
-
allow appropriate flexibility for students’ different needs
-
measure the intended learning. For example, a science oral should assess scientific reasoning, not speaking confidence, while an English oral would be a more appropriate place to assess speaking skills.
For oral exams, this might involve assessors telling students ahead of time the purpose of the assessment, its marking criteria and the types of questions they may be asked by examiners.
Students should also have regular opportunities to practise speaking, enough thinking time to answer questions and any appropriate adjustments made to help them feel more comfortable, for example, choosing the time of their exam, and whether they’d prefer sitting down or standing up to speak.
Examiners should use agreed, consistent prompts for follow-up questions so students have comparable opportunities to demonstrate their learning.
Along with a shared marking template, other teachers checking a sample of marks can also provide oversight without creating an unmanageable workload.
Assessments in the age of AI
Research suggests oral exams are most useful when used alongside written or practical assessments, rather than replacing them.
For example, rather than replacing a history essay with an oral exam, students could submit an annotated essay draft and reference list, followed by a five-minute conversation with the teacher. In this discussion, the student might explain their decision to include a specific reference, one notable revision they made and how any AI assistance shaped their thinking.
A well-designed oral exam can show how students have engaged with a topic, and support a meaningful conversation between teacher and student. This can strengthen assessment and trust.
Used as a form of interrogation, it may simply replace an integrity problem with a fairness problem – as well as a lot more work for examiners.
Nicole Brownlie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
