For most Honours students, the thesis represents the culmination of their year’s work, a single written document that stands as the primary evidence of their learning. Yet anyone who has lived through the process of distilling months of intellectual effort into that format knows the assessment may not fully capture what a student has actually learned.
Those of us who have supervised Honours students will recognise the patterns: the student who runs out of time and submits work that reflects only a fraction of their effort; the budding researcher who struggles to translate the complexity of a new discipline into the conventions of academic writing; and the largely absent student who produces a polished and compelling narrative. We are not unfamiliar with the shortcomings of a thesis as a single measure of student learning.
As generative AI tools increasingly become effective writing assistants, the assumption that the thesis is a valid and sufficient measure of the Honours year can no longer be left unexamined.
An argument for the oral assessment
One response to this challenge is the (re)introduction of the oral examination to the Honours program. Oral assessment has a long history in higher education, particularly in doctoral examination, but it remains underutilised at the Honours level in Australia. At its best, the oral is not simply a defence of the thesis. It is an opportunity to assess what the written document cannot always reveal: the student’s depth of understanding, their capacity to think on their feet, and their ability to engage critically with their own research.
Where a thesis can be polished, revised, and, increasingly, AI-assisted, the oral is immediate and personal. It asks students to explain their choices, justify their interpretations, and respond to unexpected questions. These are indeed the ideal learning processes that we should design for an Honours culminating assessment, and they align closely with the outcomes common to most Honours programs (for example: “Communicate concepts and findings in…”).
There are several ways to employ oral assessment, and we invite you to consider what combination of characteristics will suit your research context best. For those at the University of Sydney, please see the intranet for relevant policy requirements.
Interactive Oral Assessment places dialogue at the centre of the assessment process. Here, the assessors engage in a structured conversation to allow the student to demonstrate their progress toward a learning outcome. Unlike the viva, the student’s first response to a prompt is not their final one. An examiner may ask a follow-up question, challenge the response for further detail, or provide additional considerations for the student to integrate into their thinking. It is a genuine attempt to understand what the student has learned.
Q&A: This format sits between the formality of the viva and the conversational openness of the interactive oral. Here, assessors pose a prepared set of questions and the student responds to each in turn. The questions may be shared with the student in advance or posed on the day. The Q&A offers a degree of structure and consistency that makes it particularly useful where there are multiple assessors or where comparability across students is a priority. The risk sits with students memorising responses rather than engaging in the kind of dialogue that develops to critical thinking.
Before the thesis is finalised: Oral assessments undertaken before the submission of the thesis reinforce the idea that the written work is not the primary outcome. What matters is that students can articulate, justify, and critique the research that they have undertaken thus far. The placement of the oral assessment before the thesis also provides a unique opportunity for assessors to shape the student’s learning and inform the subsequent written work. This creates an environment where the assessment is both of and for learning (Droulers, et al., 2026).
After the thesis has been submitted (but not yet assessed): This timing has two specific benefits. Practically, it eases the time pressure on assessors to mark the thesis quickly. Pedagogically, the oral becomes not a confirmation that the student “knows” what is in the thesis, but a chance for them to demonstrate the critical thinking that went into it. Assessors may not be content experts, but are likely to be able to ask questions within their discipline that allow students to demonstrate their learning at a level appropriate for Honours.
After the thesis has been assessed: The goal here is still to assess the student’s learning rather than the content of the thesis. This timing lets assessors reflect on the work the student has undertaken and ask targeted questions about specific challenges or issues that surfaced during marking.
Fraction of the final unit/honours mark as a percentage (x%): As assessments and grades invariably drive learning in students, assigning a fraction of the final mark to the oral assessment indicates the value we place on the process of making a critical argument for one’s work. What that fraction might be in your own context will likely reflect the place of written work in your discipline.
A hurdle task: It may be appropriate or necessary to give the oral assessment the additional weight of hurdle or barrier status, that is, if a student fails the task, they fail the unit (and hence honours). The message is clear: if you are unable to speak to your research work, your progress, and your findings, you have not met the expectations of an Honours qualification. However, this decision should be made carefully because it is consequential to student progression.
Why rubrics matter for oral assessment
The introduction of an oral assessment raises an immediate practical question: how do we assess fairly and consistently? Like written assessments, oral assessments benefit from rubrics – they offer a shared language between examiners and students, and a tool that sets expectations and boundaries around the learning outcomes central to the Honours program.
Rubrics are familiar tools in higher education assessment, but their value in oral contexts is sometimes underestimated. Without a shared framework, oral assessment is vulnerable to the very inconsistencies we might otherwise attribute to written work. Assessors may weigh different qualities differently, respond to presentation confidence rather than conceptual depth, or be influenced by factors unrelated to the learning outcomes. A well-designed rubric makes the criteria for judgement explicit, supports consistency across assessors, and provides students with a transparent account of what is expected.
Rubrics can provide a mapping tool for educators and students, making explicit how the assessment is addressing the learning outcomes of the Honours program. Program directors should decide whether students need to meet outcomes holistically – passing the assessment overall – or at the level of individual criteria, meaning students must reach a passing standard on each row (or on specifically named rows) of the rubric. Where the oral is the only secure assessment in a program, the criterion-level approach is necessary to ensure each learning outcome is individually assured.
Tips and considerations for educators
Designing and implementing oral assessment for Honours is not without its challenges. The following considerations may help:
Oral assessment as part of an ecology
The oral examination does not exist in isolation, and nor should it. Honours assessment works best when it is understood as an ecology of evidence, a set of complementary measures that together tell the story of a student’s learning across the year.
Supervisors occupy a unique position in this ecology. No one knows the Honours student’s intellectual journey better than the supervisor who has accompanied them through it. Supervisors are best placed to identify a disconnect between the thesis as submitted and the research process they have observed – ensuring that the assessment picture is complete and that the written document is read in the context of the student’s broader intellectual development across the year. From the perspective of the university, the assessment ensures that students meet the learning outcomes of the degrees that the University awards.
Intentional milestones and structured check-ins also play an important role. When students are asked to make their progress visible at regular points across the Honours year, assessment becomes a continuous process rather than a single high-stakes event. This reduces the risk of what has been described as the “black box assignment” (Winstone et al., 2026), where the thesis arrives at the end of the year as a product potentially disconnected from the learning process that produced it. Milestones create opportunities for early feedback, allow examiners to track development over time, and support students in staying on track.
None of this renders the thesis redundant. It remains a significant intellectual achievement and an important measure of what a student can produce. The shift we are proposing is not away from the thesis, but towards a richer set of metrics that together provide a more complete and honest account of whether a student has met the learning outcomes of the Honours program.
Thank you to the School of Medical Science (SOMS) Honours team for sharing the below rubric, currently used for a 15 minute presentation (plus 10 minutes Q and A) at the end of a 36 credit point research project.
| High 1st Class | 1st Class | 2nd Class (I) | 2nd Class (II) | 3rd Class | Pass | Mark | |||||||||
| Background, aims and hypothesis (20%) | Outstanding quality and quantity of background presented in the context of established and the most recent research
Rationale and significance are clear and expertly synthesised with the background material Aims and hypothesis presented in a highly innovative fashion and perfectly linked with the background material |
Excellent quality and quantity of background material presented in the context of established research
Rationale and significance are clear and very well synthesised with the background material Aims and hypothesis very clearly presented and well linked with the background material |
Good quality and quantity of background material presented in the context of established research
Rationale and significance are clear and well synthesised with the background material Aims and hypothesis clearly described and linked with the background material |
Adequate quality and sufficient amount of background material
Rationale and significance are only briefly mentioned Aims and hypothesis adequately described and somewhat linked with the background material |
Insufficient background material of poor quality
Rationale and/or significance are unclear Aims and hypothesis poorly described and poorly linked with the background material |
Background material is absent or of very poor quality
Rationale and significance are not mentioned Aims and hypothesis not stated |
|||||||||
| 100 | 95 | 90 | 85 | 82.5 | 80 | 79 | 77.5 | 75 | 73 | 70 | 67 | 65 | 64 | ||
| Explanation of results and data interpretation (20%) | Outstanding explanation and very clear articulation of key research findings
Data interpreted with high-level critical thinking and expert understanding Future directions very well considered and clearly articulated |
Very good explanation and clear articulation of key research findings
Data interpreted with some critical thinking and a deep understanding Future directions are thoughtful and clearly articulated |
Good explanation and mostly clear articulation of key research findings
Data interpreted with a good understanding Future directions have been given some consideration and are clearly articulated |
Sufficient explanation of the research findings. Only some key findings were clearly articulated
Data interpreted with some understanding Future directions are not well considered but clearly articulated |
Insufficient explanation of the research findings. The key findings were poorly articulated
Data interpreted with limited understanding Future directions lack serious thought and are poorly articulated |
Insufficient and poorly articulated explanation of the research findings
Data interpreted with poor understanding No future directions discussed |
|||||||||
| 100 | 95 | 90 | 85 | 82.5 | 80 | 79 | 77.5 | 75 | 73 | 70 | 67 | 65 | 64 | ||
| Organisation and slide quality (20%) | Flawless presentation and structure in all aspects
Slides are extremely well organised and coherent, extremely easy to follow Slides very visually appealing with no unnecessary or distracting transitions |
Very good presentation, with excellent structure
Slides organised in a logical order that is easy to follow Slides visually appealing with no unnecessary or distracting transitions |
Good presentation in a logical order but not always easy to follow
Most slides visually appealing with few unnecessary or distracting transitions |
Some flaws in organisation and coherence making it difficult to follow
Some slides visually unappealing containing some unnecessary or distracting transitions |
Major flaws in organisation making it extremely difficult to follow
Most slides visually unappealing containing many unnecessary or distracting transitions |
Talk structured illogically. Impossible to follow
Slides visually unappealing and unnecessary or distracting transitions |
|||||||||
| 100 | 95 | 90 | 85 | 82.5 | 80 | 79 | 77.5 | 75 | 73 | 70 | 67 | 65 | 64 | ||
| Communication and engagement (20%) | Flawless articulation and confidence, very clear voice, easily heard, very good pace
Speaks with perfect fluctuation and inflection Keeps eye contact to engage audience Perfectly timed |
Excellent articulation and confidence, mostly clear voice, and/or easily heard
Speaks with volume fluctuation and inflection Keeps eye contact to engage audience Keeps to time |
Good articulation, mostly clear voice, and easily heard
Attempts to speak with volume fluctuation and inflection Attempts to make eye contact to engage audience Briefly over time |
Some defects in oration skills
Speaks with some volume fluctuation and inflection, and some eye contact to maintain audience interest Briefly over time |
Some defects in oration skills
Speaks unclearly and unevenly paced. Little eye contact and engagement with audience Significantly over or under time |
Major defects in oration skills
Very poor voice modulation No eye contact and engagement with audience Significantly over or under time |
|||||||||
| 100 | 95 | 90 | 85 | 82.5 | 80 | 79 | 77.5 | 75 | 73 | 70 | 67 | 65 | 64 | ||
| Responses to questions (20%) | Understood and/or clarified all questions
Outstanding answers to the questions, demonstrating an expert understanding of the literature related to the project Outstanding evidence of critical thinking in formulating a response Never strayed off topic |
Understood and/or clarified almost all questions
Excellent answers to the questions, demonstrating an excellent understanding of the literature related to the project Clear evidence of critical thinking in formulating a response Almost never strayed off topic |
Understood and/or clarified most questions
Good answers to the questions, demonstrating a good understanding of the literature related to the project Evidence of some critical thinking in formulating a response Some responses strayed off topic |
Understood and/or clarified some questions
Adequate answers to the questions, demonstrating some understanding of the literature related to the project Limited evidence of critical thinking in formulating a response Many responses stray off topic |
Understood and/or clarified some questions.
Poor answers to the questions indicating poor understanding of the literature related to the project Deficiencies in critical thinking to formulate response Responses frequently stray off topic |
Could not understand or clarify the questions
Could not answer any of the questions No critical thinking in formulating a response Responses were unrelated to the topic |
|||||||||
| Criteria | Exceptional | Developing | Not Yet Competent |
| Background, aims and hypothesis (30%) | Demonstrates a sophisticated and nuanced understanding of the field.
Situates the research within current and seminal literature with confidence and precision.
Articulates the rationale and significance of the work with clarity and originality.
Aims and hypothesis are defended with rigour and clearly linked to the broader research context. |
Demonstrates a sound understanding of the relevant literature and can articulate the rationale for the research.
May rely on familiar or rehearsed explanations and show limited capacity to engage beyond prepared material.
Aims and hypothesis are clearly stated but connections to the broader field lack depth or nuance. |
Demonstrates a limited or superficial understanding of the background literature.
Struggles to articulate the rationale or significance of the research.
Aims and hypothesis are poorly defined or the student is unable to defend the logic underpinning them. |
| Methods (20%) | Demonstrates a thorough and critical understanding of the methodological choices made.
Justifies decisions with confidence, acknowledges trade-offs, and shows awareness of alternative approaches.
Engages thoughtfully with follow-up questions and integrates new considerations into their response.
When prompted able to accommodate new ideas and or limitations into methodological considerations. |
Demonstrates a working understanding of the methods used and can describe the key steps.
Justifications for methodological choices are present but may be superficial or rely on convention rather than critical reasoning.
Limited capacity to engage with alternatives or unexpected questions. |
Demonstrates a limited understanding of the methodological choices made.
Unable to justify key decisions or engage meaningfully with questions about the design.
Responses suggest the methods were followed without critical engagement. |
| Results and data interpretation (30%) | Articulates findings with clarity and precision.
Demonstrates high-level critical thinking in interpreting results, including speaking to patterns, anomalies, and implications.
Engages confidently with challenging questions and shows an ability to think beyond rehearsed explanations. |
Can describe the key findings and offer a reasonable interpretation.
Critical engagement with the data is present but may be limited in depth or scope.
Responses to follow-up questions are adequate but show limited capacity to extend thinking beyond prepared material. |
Demonstrates a limited ability to articulate or interpret findings.
Responses are descriptive rather than analytical.
Struggles to engage with questions that require thinking beyond a rehearsed account of the results. |
| Limitations and future directions (20%) | Demonstrates a critical appraisal of the limitations of the research.
Identifies methodological, theoretical, and contextual constraints with nuance.
Future directions are specific, well-reasoned, and clearly informed by the findings and their limitations. |
Can identify the main limitations of the study and suggest plausible future directions.
Engagement with limitations may be formulaic or superficial, and future directions may lack clear grounding in the findings. |
Demonstrates limited awareness of the limitations of the research or is unable to engage critically with them.
Future directions are absent, vague, or disconnected from the findings and limitations of the study. |
A scoring rubric differs from the ‘classic’ rubric used more ubiquitously throughout higher education. Rather than describing performance across a range of grade bands, a scoring rubric defines a single descriptor for the ideal or expected outcome against each criterion. Examiners then record notes and provide feedback on the extent to which the student has met that standard. Scoring rubrics may be particularly appropriate where the goal is to assess competency, that is, whether a student has met a threshold or not yet met it.
Scoring rubrics do come with their benefits and with some cautions. Their binary nature collapses the full range of student performance into just two categories. As potential benefits, the approach simplifies the marking process and can allow students to focus their efforts less on specific marks and more on learning (Nilson, 2015). Programs considering a scoring rubric should weigh these trade-offs carefully against their assessment purposes.
This is an example a scoring rubric based on the SOMS example from above.
| Criteria | Descriptor | Feedback |
| Background, aims and hypothesis | Background presented in the context of established and the most recent research Rationale and significance are clear and well synthesised with the background material Aims and hypothesis presented in a novel fashion and linked with the background material |
|
| Explanation of results and data interpretation | Clear explanation and articulation of key research findings Data interpreted with high-level critical thinking Future directions very well considered and clearly articulated |
|
| Organisation and slide quality | Presentation and structure are coherent and clear Slides are well organised and coherent, easy to follow Slides appropriate for disciplinary/scholarly context with no unnecessary or distracting transitions |
|
| Communication and engagement | Articulation, confidence, voice, and pace appropriate Has a clear sense of audience Timing appropriate |
|
| Responses to questions | Understood and/or clarified questions Questions answered, demonstrating an understanding of the literature related to the project Evidence of critical thinking in response to questions Strayed on topic |
Developing your own rubric
Whether you prefer to adapt an existing rubric to your own context or build one from scratch, Introduction to Rubrics, by Dannelle Stevens, is an excellent resource to guide you through the process. (The book is available online for those with a University unikey.) The author walks through four stages as a step-by-step process for making a rubric your own:
Reflection is a time to ask ourselves several questions about the assessment and its purpose. For an Honours oral assessment, this might include: What would I like my students to demonstrate? What evidence would I like my students to show? What would my highest expectations look like? What would borderline performance look like, that is, what is the least I might accept short of failing?
Listing: In listing, we turn our attention to describing how to capture the details of the assessment task. The learning objectives for Honours units will vary by discipline, but some elements may be familiar across most contexts, such as, “Identify research questions, design research plans and carry out experiments that address and test hypotheses in…” (Science Handbook). Our grade descriptors above give some examples of how this might look in practice.
Grouping and labelling: This stage synthesises common elements, or “chunks,” in the assessment task. For oral assessments, the groupings might resemble those listed in the “criteria” column above.
Application: In this final stage, we “transfer our groupings and labelling to a rubric grid” (Stevens, 2023, p. 48). Our lists might become our highest expectation, whether that is First Class Honours, High Distinction, or “Exceptional,” with other grade descriptors filling out the lower performance levels.
In addition to these stages, Chapters 4 and 5 of Introduction to Rubrics share interesting methods for involving students and colleagues in the design of these templates.
Where to go from here?
There is support for you in developing oral assessments, as well as for your students in preparing for the assessment.
- Rubrics writing workshops are offered through the Division of Teaching and Learning.
- Interactive Oral Assessment workshops are offered through the Division of Teaching and Learning.
- The Interactive Oral Exchange is a monthly meeting of colleagues from across Australia and NZ who are all actively engaging in oral assessments.
- The Learning Hub offers dedicated support for students undertaking oral assessments (or developing writing skills).
Would you like to learn more?
Droulers, M., Krautloher, A., & Shaeri, S. (2026). Interactive oral assessment: co-existence of formative and summative purposes. Teaching in Higher Education, 31(1), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2025.2549945
Nilson, L.B. (2014) Specifications grading: Restoring rigor, motivating students, and saving faculty time. Routledge.
Stevens, D. D. (2023). Introduction to rubrics: An assessment tool to save grading time, convey effective feedback, and promote student learning (2nd ed.). Routledge.
