Academic integrity and oral examination: an Arabian Gulf perspective
Abstract
Academic dishonesty is a major challenge facing educational institutions worldwide. Within the context of undergraduate education in the Arabian Gulf, oral assessment can help validate the originality of student work, whilst simultaneously facilitating assessment in a mode highly resonant with the region’s own educational traditions and collectivist cultural norms. The present study aims to examine student perceptions of a group-based oral examination. This was introduced as an alternative to written examinations, and as an adjunctive assessment of a course essay. Three undergraduate sections (N = 75) of an introductory psychology course at Zayed University in the United Arab Emirates sat the oral examination. Participants were later surveyed about their experience immediately after the exam (prior to knowing their grade). The dominant themes to emerge from the analysis were relief, satisfaction with the process and ecological relevance. Another theme was a perception of fairness and promotion of academic integrity. The group oral exam appears to provide a well-tolerated, culturally resonant means of assessment, which also promotes academic integrity within the present Arabian Gulf context.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Oral assessments offer advantages in higher education, particularly ability to assess deep understanding and critical thinking while developing workplace-relevant communication skills.
“Oral assessments offer several significant advantages in higher education, particularly in their ability to assess students' deep understanding and critical thinking capabilities while simultaneously developing workplace-relevant communication skills that employers value (Brink & Costigan, 2015;Thomas et al., 2014).”
From Replacing Traditional Written Laboratory Reports with Interactive Oral Assessments: Enhancing Laboratory Skill Assessment in Undergraduate Genetics Education (2026) · cites this paper as Thomas et al., 2014
Cites
Al-Harthi, A. S. (2006) · The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v6i3.263 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Della Vedova, C. B., Birbeck, D., & Davey, S. K. (2026) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-026-10380-3
- Authors
- Thomas, J., Raynor, M., & McKinnon, M.
- Affiliations
- Zayed University (AE)
- Australian National University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Thomas, Justin
- Venue
- Innovations in Education and Teaching International
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-05-13
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 533-543
- ISSN
- 1470-3297 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-3300
- OpenAlex
- W1996970156
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 1.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Innovations in Education and Teaching International (publishedVersion)
- ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Keywords
- academic integrity, oral examination, academic dishonesty, student perceptions, assessment fairness, collectivist culture, Persian Gulf, undergraduate education, alternative assessment, essay scoring, Zayed University
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review