What’s in a Name? Why the Term ‘AI Viva’ Misrepresents Assessment

What’s in a Name? Why the Term ‘AI Viva’ Misrepresents Assessment Dear Edtech, Names shape expectations, influence behaviour, and shape how both staff and students understand what an assessment is and what it is designed to do. Names matter because they carry meaning. Well chosen names provide clarity. Poorly chosen names create assumptions, blur distinctions and create confusion. In the context of education, shared understanding is critical, and terminology is never neutral. This issue must be paramount when naming educational tools. Our concern here however, is with the term AI viva. To understand why the term ‘AI viva’ is problematic, we must first understand what a viva actually is. Simply put, it gives the student an opportunity to verbally defend their work (Poole B, 2015). This definition hides that there is a more uniquely human element to the viva. It is the original form of scholarly exchange and requires engagement with another human. It develops critical thinking, communication, and confidence in a way that cannot be replicated or measured in a discussion with a chatbot. Regardless of educational value, practical pressures have long shaped how vivas can be used.  Historically, the essay came along later when the huge increase in student numbers during the red-brick expansion made mass viva defences unachievable. Using technology to support the viva does have precedence – the UK Council for Graduate education has provided advice to universities on conducting remote vivas since the Covid pandemic (UKCGE, 2020),  demonstrating that while the format can be changed, its core of scholarly exchange remains. The rise of AI caused concerns surrounding academic integrity which in turn led to vivas being suggested as a method to ensure that a student’s work was their own. However, with large student cohorts mass vivas are logistically impossible.  Edtech companies have taken this capacity problem and run with it, replacing the panel of experts with an AI. These tools are marketed under many names, including AI vivas and oral assessments. It is precisely these definitions that we challenge. These issues are particularly important given the questions surrounding assessment practice in HE. Questions around process versus product, proof of authorship, and the role of oral assessment* remain matters of ongoing discussion rather than settled practice. By attaching the names of more established assessment practices, technologies appear to offer straight forward solutions to complex assessment concerns whilst creating new ones all of their own.Using an established name projects an idea of safety and rigor in the assessment activity which may not be present in the newer AI-enhanced version of it. Our objection is not to AI-supported oral assessment. Our objection is to calling it a viva or any other familiar assessment term. For students and academics, naming is not a marketing exercise; it is the first step in understanding what is being asked of them. With this in mind Edtech companies should describe these tools plainly rather than purloining familiar terminology. The sector must recognise these tools for what they are: new assessment activities that deserve names of their own. In solidarity, The undersigned officers of The ALT Digital Assessment Special Interest Group: Gemma Westwood, Co-Chair Helen Greetham, Co-Chair David Callagan, Officer and AI in Summative Assessment Subgroup Co-Chair Sulanie Paramunagama, Officer * By oral assessments here we refer to the practice of assessing students verbally, rather than oral assessment as a product signifier. References Houston, G. (2020) Conducting Vivas online: A guide for institutions and candidates, UKCGE. Available at: https://ukcge.ac.uk/resources/resource-library/conducting-vivas-online-a-guide-for-institutions-and-candidates (Accessed: 18 September 2026). Poole, B. (2015) ‘Examining the doctoral viva: Perspectives from a sample of UK academics’, London Review of Education, 13(3). doi:10.18546/lre.13.3.12.