A university asks you to attend a viva because it doubts whether an assignment is your own work. You may feel that the meeting is an exam you never agreed to sit. Before preparing answers, establish what the university intends to decide. An authorship interview, an assessed oral examination and a disciplinary hearing can have different purposes and consequences.
The strongest preparation helps you explain your actual work accurately. It does not involve learning an artificial story or rehearsing impressive answers written by somebody else. For a parent helping a student, the aim is to make the evidence manageable while leaving the student’s explanation in their own voice.
Ask what the viva is for
Request written confirmation of whether the meeting gathers information, determines misconduct or forms part of the original assessment. Ask which rules authorise it and who will make the eventual decision. Clarify whether a poor performance can itself affect the mark or whether the meeting is being used only as evidence about authorship.
This matters because the student needs to understand the issue being tested. A meeting about whether particular passages were generated by AI should not become an unexplained investigation into unrelated modules. If the university expands the concern, ask for the revised allegation and a reasonable opportunity to prepare an answer.
Request the concern before preparing a defence
An invitation that merely says “discuss your work” leaves considerable uncertainty. Ask which features prompted concern: terminology, references, differences from earlier work, a detection report or an apparent inability to explain a source. Request the relevant report and the comparison material where these form part of the case.
The OIA has identified the importance of allowing students to answer concerns about AI and of considering authorship interviews fairly a standard grounded in Public Law. Its casework note also recognises that delay and a student’s circumstances can matter when interpreting answers. These points should support a focused request about your meeting, rather than a generic accusation that the whole process is unlawful. [1]
Reconstruct your reasoning, not just your final wording
Read the assignment once without taking notes, then explain its central answer aloud in ordinary language. Next, identify the main steps in the argument. Why did you choose those sources? What alternatives did you reject? What evidence changed your view? Where is the work less persuasive than you would now like?
Build a one-page map connecting the question, each section and its supporting material. This is a preparation aid, not a replacement assignment. If the university allows notes, ask whether this document can be used. If it does not, the exercise still helps you understand the work without memorising sentences.
Use original materials to refresh your memory
Gather genuine drafts, reading notes, supervisor feedback and document histories. Start with the earliest version you can find and follow the development of the argument. Note substantial changes and why you made them. An email about restructuring a chapter may explain a sudden difference between two drafts.
Preserve these materials the kind of evidence-handling discipline central to Dispute Resolution before organising copies. Do not alter the original files to make them match your recollection. If a document was reconstructed after the allegation, label it accordingly. A transparent account of an incomplete record is more credible than a polished history that cannot withstand questions about dates.
Prepare for questions about sources
Check the sources actually cited, including page references where available. Be ready to explain how a source contributed to your reasoning. You do not need to pretend to remember every line of a long book. Distinguish reading the full text from relying on an abstract, lecture discussion or another author’s account.
If you discover a mistake, record it. A wrong year, misplaced quotation or unavailable source needs an honest explanation. Avoid replacing a questionable reference with a different source and then presenting the new source as the one originally consulted. Keep the distinction between correcting the essay now and explaining how it was produced then.
Explain your working methods precisely
A student’s process can involve voice dictation, translation, accessibility software, grammar checking or drafting in another language. Describe what actually happened and connect it to the applicable assessment instructions the kind of documents at the heart of any Education Law case. The name of a tool alone rarely explains its role; a function that changes punctuation is different from one that generates an argument.
If you used AI, identify the extent of that use accurately. If you did not, avoid speculating about why a detector produced a particular result unless you have a sound basis. The viva should answer the concerns about your submission, not become a debate about every advantage or weakness of AI technology.
Address access needs before the meeting
If disability, a health condition or communication difficulties affect your ability to respond, make a specific request. Possible arrangements to discuss include breaks, accessible documents, additional processing time or clarification of questions. Explain the barrier and the adjustment sought, supported by relevant existing evidence where available.
Do not leave this until after an adverse outcome if you already know the problem. Equally, a student who becomes unwell during the meeting should say so and ask for it to be recorded. A parent can help draft the request, but the student’s preferences and consent should guide the involvement of others.
Practise useful answers rather than perfect ones
Ask a trusted person to question the logic of your assignment. Practise responses such as “I used that source because…” and “The earlier draft took a different approach because…”. If you cannot remember something, explain what you do recall and whether a contemporary record could clarify it.
Do not ask another person or an AI tool to invent explanations for unfamiliar passages. That risks creating further inconsistencies. Acknowledging the limits of your memory is different from admitting that you did not write the work. The context, evidence and applicable procedure will determine what the university makes of the answer.
An illustrative preparation exercise
Imagine a fictional student asked why a dissertation uses a particular statistical method. Their original notes show that the supervisor suggested comparing two approaches. The student can explain the choice, identify the email and acknowledge a limitation in the analysis. That is a concrete account of development rather than a recitation of a textbook definition.
If the student cannot explain an advanced passage, the next step is to examine its origin honestly. It may reflect an inadequately understood source, an editing intervention or another issue. This example illustrates preparation only; it does not establish a defence or describe an Aldwych Legal client.
During and after the viva
Listen to the question and ask for clarification if its meaning is uncertain. Separate what you remember from what you infer. Where a new document is introduced, ask for time to read it before answering. Check the university’s rules before recording the meeting yourself; request its arrangements for keeping and sharing a record.
Afterwards, write a dated note of the questions, answers and any procedural concerns while they remain fresh. If the university provides minutes, identify material inaccuracies promptly with specific corrections. Ask when the next decision is expected and whether further evidence can be submitted. Keep any original response deadline under review.
Getting support with the process
Aldwych Legal’s work on academic misconduct and university appeals includes helping students organise evidence and prepare clear responses to institutional concerns. Adam Hussain, the firm’s principal lawyer, brings that education-dispute experience to the review of the allegation, assessment rules and available authorship materials. Preparation should improve accuracy and confidence without scripting a false account.
Send the invitation, the assignment, the assessment instructions and the meeting date when seeking help. Call or WhatsApp 020 4584 2472 or email info@aldwychlegal.com. Students and parents across England and Wales can obtain an initial assessment of the support appropriate to their circumstances.
About Adam Hussain
Adam Hussain is Aldwych Legal’s Founder & Managing Director and head lawyer. His academic misconduct work includes reviewing allegations and helping students organise clear written responses and prepare to explain their evidence at university meetings. He holds an LL.M. in International Business Law from King’s College London, has completed Bar training and Practical Legal Training, and is a PhD doctoral researcher in Legal Science at Royal Holloway, University of London.
