Recent European policy documents emphasise competence-based education, formative assessment, transparency, and learner autonomy as key principles of assessment reform. At the same time, growing access to AI tools capable of generating written texts has intensified concerns about academic integrity and validity. These challenges extend beyond the European Union. In Kazakhstan, ongoing curriculum and digital reforms have led teachers to report similar difficulties in verifying authorship and assessing authentic understanding. This study addresses both local and European concerns and contributes to international discussions on assessment systems responding to AI.

Recent research highlights the widespread use of AI among secondary and tertiary students and its implications for assessment design. Many students regularly use tools such as ChatGPT for writing, summarising, and idea generation, often without clear ethical guidance (Baig, 2025; HEPI, 2025). Studies in secondary education report increasing AI-assisted writing and problem-solving, alongside teacher uncertainty about detection and regulation (Eke, 2023). International organisations warn that detection technologies alone cannot ensure assessment validity and recommend redesigning tasks to prioritise reasoning, learning processes, and interaction (UNESCO, 2023; OECD, 2024).

One response is renewed attention to spoken argumentation as both a learning goal and assessment format. Argumentation is recognised as central to critical thinking, disciplinary understanding, and civic participation (Kuhn, 1991; Osborne, 2010). Research shows that structured oral argumentation improves conceptual development and deeper understanding when students justify claims and respond to counterarguments (Nussbaum, 2023). Unlike writing, spoken argumentation occurs in real time, making reasoning visible and limiting reliance on artificial intelligence.

Assessment theory supports the pedagogical value of dialogic and formative approaches. Black and Wiliam (2009) argue that assessment in classroom interaction enhances learning by making thinking explicit and enable timely feedback. Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) emphasise the importance of transparent criteria and peer assessment. From this perspective, assessment is viewed not as a tool for measurement, but as an integral part of instruction that shapes students’ understanding of quality and supports ethical academic practices.

The Socratic seminar represents an appropriate format for integrating spoken argumentation into assessment. Grounded in dialogic traditions, Socratic seminars engage students in structured discussions around shared texts or concepts, encouraging interpretation, critique, and collaborative knowledge construction (Adler, 1982). Empirical studies report positive effects on students’ critical reading, reasoning, and oral communication, especially when discussions are supported through explicit scaffolding and reflective feedback (Billings & Fitzgerald, 2002). More recent research suggests that combining inner-circle participation with outer-circle observation and peer assessment allows teachers to observe both performance and process and increases students’ awareness of argumentative quality (Copeland, 2023).

Argumentation skills can be applied across disciplines when supported by consistent instructional frameworks. In science education, structured argumentation supports scientific reasoning and conceptual understanding (Driver et al., 2000), while in language education oral discourse fosters interpretative and evaluative competence (Swain, 2006). However, relatively little research has examined the systematic development and assessment of spoken argumentation across subjects within a shared pedagogical design, particularly in relation to the emerging challenge of AI-related academic dishonesty.

The present study seeks to address this gap by investigating an adapted Socratic seminar model implemented as an assessment tool in Grade 10 English and Biology classrooms in Kazakhstan.

Research Questions

The study is guided by the following two research questions:

1. To what extent does the implementation of an adapted Socratic seminar approach improve Grade 10 students’ spoken argumentation skills across English and Biology?
2. How does the use of transparent assessment criteria and peer assessment within Socratic seminars influence student engagement and the reliability of spoken argumentation assessment?

The study employed an exploratory action research design to investigate the development and assessment of spoken argumentation skills across subjects and to improve classroom practice through systematic inquiry. Action research was considered appropriate because it allowed the researcher-teachers to identify a pedagogical problem arising from everyday practice, implement a targeted intervention, and reflect on its effects within an authentic instructional context (Cresswell, 2013). Participants were eight Grade 10 learner groups comprising 96 students selected through convenience sampling as they were taught by the researcher-teachers during the same academic year at the Nazarbayev Intellectual School of Karaganda City. The shared institutional context implied comparable curricular requirements in English and Biology and enabled cross-group and cross-subject comparison while maintaining ecological validity. The intervention was implemented over one academic term following a cycle of problem exploration, planning, action, observation, and reflection. At the initial stage, difficulties were identified in both the development and reliable assessment of spoken argumentation, particularly in relation to clarity of claims, use of evidence, logical coherence, and responsiveness to counterarguments. Hence, an instructional strategy was adapted from the classical Socratic seminar model. The adaptation focused on scaffolding argument construction and engaging students in the co-creation of explicit assessment criteria for peer observation rubrics. During the action phase, the adapted Socratic seminar approach was implemented in all eight groups. In English lessons, students discussed literary texts, while in Biology lessons they analysed target scientific concepts. In each seminar, students in the inner circle participated in guided discussion, sharing interpretations and responding to peers, while students in the outer circle observed and conducted peer assessment using the agreed rubrics. A mixed-methods approach to data collection was adopted. Quantitative data were obtained from rubric-based scores on pre- and post-intervention speaking tasks. Descriptive statistics were used to examine changes in mean scores across groups and subjects. The overall mean score increased from 11.4 to 15.8, showing an average improvement of 4.4 points. The biggest increase was observed in the use of evidence (from 2.6 to 4.3) and reasoning (from 2.4 to 4.0). Qualitative data were collected through teacher observation notes and focus-group discussions. Qualitative analysis revealed that 18 out of 24 students reported increased confidence in speaking, and 15 students indicated that the rubric made assessment criteria clearer. The qualitative data were coded thematically into three main themes: development of argument structure, increased learner awareness of assessment criteria, and implementation challenges.

The present study demonstrates the potential of an adapted Socratic seminar approach to support both the development and assessment of spoken argumentation skills across English and Biology and responding to the emerging challenge of AI-related academic dishonesty. The findings indicate that transparent criteria, peer assessment, and structured dialogic interaction can enhance students’ ability to formulate clear claims, use supporting evidence, and engage more confidently in academic discussion. Importantly, similar patterns of improvement were observed across subjects, suggesting that argumentation skills are transferable when consistent instructional and assessment frameworks are applied. From a methodological perspective, the study confirms the value of action research as a means of improving assessment practice in authentic classroom contexts. The combination of quantitative and qualitative data provided a detailed picture of both learning outcomes and classroom processes and highlighted the importance of triangulation when evaluating complex oral competencies. At the same time, the challenges reported by teachers, particularly the difficulty of facilitating discussion while conducting reliable assessment in time-constrained settings, underscore the need for further refinement of assessment tools, increased use of peer and self-assessment, and professional development focused on dialogic evaluation strategies. At a broader level, the study contributes to European and international debates on assessment reform in the age of artificial intelligence. Rather than relying on detection technologies or restrictive policies, the findings support a pedagogical shift towards assessment designs based on reasoning, interaction, and process. Spoken argumentation offers a sustainable response that not only reduces opportunities for AI-generated work but also strengthens core competences, such as critical thinking, communication, and learner autonomy.

Adler, M. J. (1982). The Paideia proposal: An educational manifesto. New York: Macmillan. Baig, M. I., & Yadegaridehkordi, E. (2025). Factors influencing academic staff satisfaction and continuous usage of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22(1), 5. Billings, L., & Fitzgerald, J. (2002). Dialogic discussion and the Paideia seminar. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 907–941. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. Nussbaum, E. M., Dove, I. J., & Putney, L. G. (2023). Bridging Dialogic Pedagogy and Argumentation Theory through Critical Questions. Dialogic Pedagogy, 11(3). Copeland, M. (2023). Socratic circles: Fostering critical and creative thinking in middle and high school. Routledge. Cresswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. HEPI. (2025). Student generative AI survey 2025. Oxford: Higher Education Policy Institute. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eke, D. O. (2023). ChatGPT and the rise of generative AI: Threat to academic integrity?. Journal of Responsible Technology, 13, 100060. Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. OECD. (2024). Artificial intelligence in education: Challenges and opportunities. Paris: OECD. Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science. Science, 328(5977), 463–466. Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency (pp. 95-108). UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. Paris: UNESCO.