If they wrote it, they can defend it
Prova reads each submission and conducts a spoken defense tailored to it — probing the choices, the reasoning, the weak points. Work a student didn't do reveals itself within minutes of conversation.
Academia already solved this — for one student at a time
The dissertation defense exists because universities have always known that a document alone proves nothing. The proof is in the room: can the candidate explain their choices, respond to challenges, and reason beyond what's on the page?
That check was reserved for the end of a PhD because it cost a committee an afternoon per candidate. Meanwhile, every undergraduate essay and project — the work most exposed to AI generation — got no defense at all. The document was the grade.
Prova brings the defense to everyday coursework. Students submit as usual; then each one sits a short, adaptive spoken defense of exactly what they submitted. Two students can submit similar work with entirely different understanding behind it — the defense is what tells them apart.
From submission to evidence in four moves
Prova reads the work
The submission is analyzed against your assignment brief and rubric — its argument structure, methods, and specific choices become the exam material.
Questions only this work raises
Why this framing and not the alternative? What's the weakest step here? What happens to your conclusion if this assumption fails? Generic prep doesn't help.
Follow-ups find the floor
Strong answers earn harder questions; vague ones get unpacked. The conversation finds where genuine understanding ends — for every student, in minutes.
You get the evidence
Rubric-aligned evaluation, quoted moments from the defense, full transcript and recording. You decide the grade with the whole picture in view.
One format, many courses
Writing-intensive courses
Essays and research papers are the most AI-exposed formats in the curriculum. A ten-minute defense restores their value as evidence of thinking — without abandoning writing itself.
Programming and technical projects
AI writes code fluently; explaining architecture decisions, trade-offs, and failure modes of your own project is a different matter. Code defenses separate builders from submitters.
Group projects
Individual defenses of shared work make each member's contribution — and comprehension — visible. The perennial free-rider problem finally has an instrument.
Capstones and undergraduate theses
Give every capstone the defense a dissertation gets — as a milestone check mid-project, a final examination, or both.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is oral defense software?
Oral defense software conducts a structured spoken examination about work a student has submitted — an essay, project, codebase, lab report, or thesis. Prova reads the submission, generates questions specific to it, conducts the defense in real-time conversation, and delivers a rubric-aligned evaluation with transcript to the instructor.
How does Prova generate questions about a specific submission?
Prova analyzes the submitted work against your course materials and rubric, then asks about the specific choices in it: why this argument or method, what the weakest point is, what would change under different assumptions. Follow-ups adapt to the student's answers, so the defense goes as deep as the student's understanding allows.
Does this work for group projects?
Yes — this is one of the most requested uses. Each group member completes an individual defense of the shared submission, which surfaces who can actually explain the work. Free-riding stops being invisible.
What kinds of work can students defend?
Essays and written arguments, research papers, code and technical projects, lab reports, business cases, design work, capstones and theses. If a student submitted it, they can be asked to explain and defend it.
How much of the grade should the defense carry?
Faculty typically start with the defense as a gate or a modest percentage, then increase its weight as they calibrate. Even a lightly-weighted defense changes behavior: students who know they must explain their submission engage with it very differently while producing it.