Oral Exams in Combatting AI Use in Universities

As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to permeate higher education, educators face an increasing challenge in ensuring that students’ work is genuinely their own. One method gaining attention is the use of oral exams, a strategy that shifts away from traditional written assessments to create a more personalized and immediate evaluation of a student’s understanding. This approach, in many cases, helps to mitigate the risk of AI tools like ChatGPT influencing or even replacing student responses. However, while oral exams present several clear advantages in tackling this issue, they also come with their own set of challenges. In this analysis, we will explore the benefits and downsides of oral exams as an alternative to written exams in combating AI use at universities.

The Rising Threat of AI in Higher Education

The increasing use of AI in academia has prompted institutions to reconsider traditional assessment methods. AI tools, especially large language models like ChatGPT, offer students the ability to quickly generate sophisticated essays, solve complex problems, and even engage in creative tasks such as writing poetry. While these tools can be beneficial for research and learning, their misuse in exam settings undermines the academic integrity of assessments.

Written exams, long a staple of academic evaluation, are particularly vulnerable to AI intervention. Students can now input exam prompts into AI platforms, receiving tailored responses that bypass the necessity of independent thought and effort. This not only distorts the measure of student knowledge but also undermines the credibility of academic institutions, which rely on exams to assess students’ understanding and mastery of subject material.

To combat this, some professors, like Catherine Hartmann at the University of Wyoming, have turned to oral exams. This method is seen as a more direct way of assessing a student’s grasp of material, providing several advantages over written assessments in the fight against AI use in academic settings.

Benefits of Oral Exams in Preventing AI Misuse

1. Personalized Assessment of Understanding

Oral exams allow professors to engage with students in real time, asking follow-up questions and probing deeper into a student’s thought process. Unlike written exams, which are static and one-dimensional, oral assessments provide an opportunity for dynamic interaction. Professors can gauge not only the student’s knowledge but also their ability to think critically, explain concepts clearly, and respond to complex queries on the spot. This makes it difficult for students to rely on AI-generated answers, as they cannot simply paste responses into an oral exam scenario.

2. Immediate Verification of Student Knowledge

A key strength of oral exams is that they allow professors to immediately verify a student’s understanding. In a written exam, a student could potentially use AI to generate a coherent response, even if they lack the underlying comprehension. In contrast, oral exams provide the opportunity to ask follow-up questions or challenge a student’s reasoning, which is much harder for AI to mimic convincingly. For example, if a student cites a fact or concept incorrectly, the professor can immediately address this, ensuring that the student’s responses are grounded in their own understanding rather than external sources.

3. Decreased Opportunity for Cheating

While AI tools can assist students in producing written work, the same cannot be said for oral exams. Even if a student were to attempt to use AI during an oral exam, it would be immediately apparent if the student could not explain or defend their responses. The need for spontaneous verbal responses eliminates the time advantage AI provides during written exams, thereby reducing the opportunities for cheating.

4. Promotion of Critical Thinking and Communication Skills

Oral exams require students to think on their feet, engaging in live dialogue rather than relying on pre-written answers. This promotes critical thinking, as students must be prepared to articulate their reasoning, clarify their ideas, and defend their viewpoints in real time. Furthermore, oral assessments allow students to demonstrate their communication skills, which are increasingly valued in professional and academic settings. These skills are not as easily demonstrated in a written exam, making oral exams a more comprehensive evaluation tool.

5. Encouragement of Active Learning

Because oral exams often involve a back-and-forth exchange between the student and professor, they encourage a more active form of learning. Students must be prepared to engage in discussions and answer questions beyond the scope of the initial exam prompt. This approach fosters deeper engagement with course material and helps ensure that students are not just memorizing facts but are instead developing a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter.

Downsides of Oral Exams

While oral exams offer many advantages, they also present several challenges that must be considered, especially in the context of combating AI misuse in universities.

1. Time and Resource Intensive

Oral exams can be significantly more time-consuming than traditional written exams. Instructors must schedule and conduct one-on-one or small-group oral assessments for each student, which can take considerable time, especially in large courses. Additionally, professors need to be highly skilled in conducting these exams, as they must be prepared to ask insightful follow-up questions and manage the flow of the conversation. For many universities, especially those with large class sizes, this presents a logistical challenge that may not be feasible on a wide scale.

2. Potential for Bias and Subjectivity

While oral exams can provide a more personal and nuanced assessment, they also carry the risk of bias. Professors may unintentionally favor students with strong verbal communication skills or those who are more comfortable speaking in high-pressure situations. Additionally, the subjective nature of oral exams means that different professors might assess students’ responses in varied ways, potentially leading to inconsistencies in grading. This subjectivity can undermine the fairness of the assessment process, particularly in large courses with diverse student populations.

3. Student Anxiety and Stress

Oral exams can be more stressful for students than written exams. Many students may experience anxiety about speaking in front of a professor or being put on the spot. This added pressure can negatively impact their performance, leading to responses that do not accurately reflect their true understanding of the material. While oral exams may help assess verbal communication skills, they might not always reflect a student’s knowledge under pressure, especially for those who perform better in written formats.

4. Challenges in Scaling Up

For large classes or courses with hundreds of students, conducting oral exams can be an impractical solution. The time and resources required to evaluate every student individually may make this approach unsustainable for many institutions, particularly in fields with large enrollments. Professors would need to find ways to scale the oral exam process without sacrificing the depth of evaluation, which could limit its widespread adoption.

5. Technological Limitations

While oral exams may reduce the risk of AI use, they are not entirely immune to technological influence. In some cases, students might still have access to devices that allow them to search for answers during oral exams, either by reading from a hidden screen or using external help. While professors can limit this through monitoring and testing conditions, the increasing prevalence of technology in everyday life presents a persistent challenge in maintaining academic integrity.

Conclusion

In the battle against AI’s influence in higher education, oral exams present a promising alternative to traditional written assessments. They offer personalized, real-time evaluations that test a student’s true understanding and critical thinking skills, reducing the opportunities for AI-assisted cheating. However, oral exams also come with significant downsides, including logistical challenges, potential bias, and the risk of increased student anxiety.

While oral exams may not completely replace written exams, they offer an important tool for educators to consider in response to the changing landscape of education. By finding a balance between written and oral assessments, universities may be able to maintain the integrity of academic evaluations while adapting to the digital age.