TheOral simulationis one of the most effective teaching levers to supportExam preparationand, in particular, theMaturità 2026. For teachers, the challenge is not “getting students to repeat well,” but building a pathway that makes the student able to argue, make connections, manage time and pressure, and demonstrate awareness of their own learning. In this article we propose an operational model based onMulti-level questionsand explain howStudierAIcan support the design of structured simulations, with follow-up and reports useful for formative assessment. If you want to explore the features right away from a teaching perspective, you canstart for freeor learn more aboutwho we areand the project’s pedagogical approach.
Why oral simulation is crucial for the Maturità 2026
equivalentin objectives and criteria, but flexible in supports and pathways. In heterogeneous classes, differentiation can take place along four levers: question complexity, number of constraints, available supports, time allowed. The important thing is to keep the same competency rubric (what we observe), while modulating the conditions (how we get there)., the tendency to value transversal skills (argumentation, problem solving, citizenship, metacognition) makes it even more important to train oral performance as a complex skill, not as simple memorized exposition.
From a pedagogical point of view, frequent simulation works because it activates three well-known mechanisms:Linguistic scaffolding: a list of connectors (cause, consequence, comparison), an essential glossary, sentence starters (“My thesis is…”, “A significant example is…”).(retrieving information without notes consolidates memory),Non-substitutive visual supports: concept maps built by the student, timelines, procedure outlines (e.g., in mathematics or physics) to reduce working-memory load.(reduces recurring errors and improves the quality of explanations), andTime and turns: more time to plan the presentation, questions broken into sub-questions, the possibility to rephrase the request.(desensitization: anxiety decreases when the situation is predictable and practiced). In class, this translates into a practical principle: better short, regular simulations with stable criteria than a few high-stakes “event interrogations.”
ASubject matter also matters. In Italian and history, multi-level questions can bring out interpretation and use of sources (“Which stylistic choice supports the theme?”, “Which cause do you consider most decisive and why?”). In mathematics and science, level 2 can be a procedure on a typical exercise, while level 3 can ask students to discuss assumptions and limits of the model (“Under what conditions does this law not apply?”). In languages, the focus can include communicative strategies (paraphrasing, handling lexical gaps) as part of self-regulation.well-designed trains simultaneously: (1) clarity and structure of the discourse; (2) relevant connections and not “list-like” ones; (3) ability to answer unexpected questions; (4) time management; (5) communicative stance (tone, rhythm, vocabulary). These are dimensions that rarely emerge with individual study, whereas they become visible and improvable when the student is put in a position to perform in a context similar to the exam.
What multi-level questions are and how they develop argumentative skills
How StudierAI supports teachers with multi-level questions and guided simulationsMulti-level questionsIntegrating digital tools makes sense when it reduces the teacher’s organizational load and increases the quality of feedback. From this perspective,
can be used as support for designing and running the simulation, keeping the teacher at the center of instructional choices. The goal is not to “automate assessment,” but to make it easier to build repeatable, differentiated, and documentable pathways in view of the
- .
- In practice, the support can be structured into five instructional uses, easily integrated into the classroom routine:
- Generating sets of multi-level questions by unit or core topics: starting from a topic (and your objectives), obtain a balanced sequence between recall, application, analysis, and metacognition, avoiding repetitions and “trick questions.”
- Adapting to the student’s profile: adjust difficulty, constraints (e.g., number of required pieces of evidence) and supports (guided outline, keywords) to work on a realistic progression without losing the competency goal.
Guided simulation with follow-up: after an answer, propose coherent follow-up questions (e.g., “Can you justify it with an example?”, “Which counterargument would you consider?”), replicating the committee’s dialogic dynamic.
Reports for feedback and targeted remediation: a summary of strengths and recurring critical issues (e.g., implicit thesis, weak examples, imprecise vocabulary), with suggestions for micro-goals for the next simulation.Exam preparationMonitoring over time: compare successive simulations to observe progress on specific dimensions (coherence, time management, quality of evidence), making Exam preparation more visible and motivating.
A simple way to start in class is a 3-week cycle: week 1 micro-simulations (5–7 minutes) focused on level 1–2; week 2 systematic introduction of level 3 (argumentation and comparison); week 3 adding level 4 (metacognition) and consolidation with a rubric. In parallel, the student can practice individually between lessons, while you collect evidence to calibrate instruction.
If the goal is to make the
a sustainable routine (and not an additional burden), starting with tools that speed up question preparation and feedback delivery can make the difference. To try it with a class or in a small group, you can
and build a first set of multi-level questions on a unit already covered: it is often the fastest way to see a concrete impact on the quality of answers and on students’ confidence in view of the Maturità 2026.
3) Sequence of multi-level questions (4–8 minutes). Ask 1–2 questions per level, depending on time. The golden rule is: a question must require an argued answer, not a list. Cross-disciplinary example: “What is the central idea?”, then “Apply it to a case,” then “Compare it with another perspective,” finally “Which step put you in difficulty and why?”.
4) Immediate feedback and a measurable objective (2 minutes). Always close with two elements: an observable strength and a priority for improvement phrased as a behavior. Not “you need to study more,” but “in the next simulation, state the thesis within the first 20 seconds and use at least one causal connector for each step.”
To support the process, a lean rubric is useful (4 levels: basic/intermediate/good/advanced) on 3–4 dimensions. An effective example, easily shareable with students and families:
- Disciplinary content: accuracy, completeness, use of examples/evidence.
- Argumentation: explicit thesis, logical coherence, handling objections or alternatives.
- Communication: vocabulary, register, fluency, use of connectors, clarity of exposition.
- Self-regulation: time management, responding to questions, awareness of errors and strategies.
With rubrics and clear criteria, simulation also becomes a tool for equity: different students know what is being observed and how to improve. In addition, the class can work in lab mode: while one student presents, two classmates fill out a mini peer rubric (peer feedback) on just one dimension, reducing the load and increasing attention.
Personalization and inclusion: differentiating by levels, SEN/SLD and subjects
An effective simulation is not rigidly “the same for everyone”: it isequivalentin objectives and criteria, but flexible in supports and pathways. In heterogeneous classes, differentiation can take place along four levers: question complexity, number of constraints, available supports, time allowed. The important thing is to keep the same competency rubric (what we observe), while modulating the conditions (how we get there).
For students with SEN/SLD, some practical choices improve performance without lowering the cognitive bar:
- Linguistic scaffolding: a list of connectors (cause, consequence, comparison), an essential glossary, sentence starters (“My thesis is…”, “A significant example is…”).
- Non-substitutive visual supports: concept maps built by the student, timelines, procedure outlines (e.g., in mathematics or physics) to reduce working-memory load.
- Time and turns: more time to plan the presentation, questions broken into sub-questions, the possibility to rephrase the request.
- Focused assessment: distinguish in the rubric between “content” and “form” when provided for by the PDP, without confusing decoding difficulties with lack of understanding.
Subject matter also matters. In Italian and history, multi-level questions can bring out interpretation and use of sources (“Which stylistic choice supports the theme?”, “Which cause do you consider most decisive and why?”). In mathematics and science, level 2 can be a procedure on a typical exercise, while level 3 can ask students to discuss assumptions and limits of the model (“Under what conditions does this law not apply?”). In languages, the focus can include communicative strategies (paraphrasing, handling lexical gaps) as part of self-regulation.
The key, to maintain equity, is to state upfront which elements are non-negotiable (clear thesis, coherence, use of evidence) and which can be supported (outline, maps, time). In this way personalization does not become “indiscriminate facilitation,” but a pathway that brings everyone toward the same exam competence: sustaining a comprehensible, well-founded, and aware discourse.
How StudierAI supports teachers with multi-level questions and guided simulations
Integrating digital tools makes sense when it reduces the teacher’s organizational load and increases the quality of feedback. From this perspective,StudierAIcan be used as support for designing and running the simulation, keeping the teacher at the center of instructional choices. The goal is not to “automate assessment,” but to make it easier to build repeatable, differentiated, and documentable pathways in view of theMaturità 2026.
In practice, the support can be structured into five instructional uses, easily integrated into the classroom routine:
- Generating sets of multi-level questions by unit or core topics: starting from a topic (and your objectives), obtain a balanced sequence between recall, application, analysis, and metacognition, avoiding repetitions and “trick questions.”
- Adapting to the student’s profile: adjust difficulty, constraints (e.g., number of required pieces of evidence) and supports (guided outline, keywords) to work on a realistic progression without losing the competency goal.
- Guided simulation with follow-up: after an answer, propose coherent follow-up questions (e.g., “Can you justify it with an example?”, “Which counterargument would you consider?”), replicating the committee’s dialogic dynamic.
- Reports for feedback and targeted remediation: a summary of strengths and recurring critical issues (e.g., implicit thesis, weak examples, imprecise vocabulary), with suggestions for micro-goals for the next simulation.
- Monitoring over time: compare successive simulations to observe progress on specific dimensions (coherence, time management, quality of evidence), making Exam preparation more visible and motivating.
A simple way to start in class is a 3-week cycle: week 1 micro-simulations (5–7 minutes) focused on level 1–2; week 2 systematic introduction of level 3 (argumentation and comparison); week 3 adding level 4 (metacognition) and consolidation with a rubric. In parallel, the student can practice individually between lessons, while you collect evidence to calibrate instruction.
If the goal is to make theOral simulationa sustainable routine (and not an additional burden), starting with tools that speed up question preparation and feedback delivery can make the difference. To try it with a class or in a small group, you cansign up for freeand build a first set of multi-level questions on a unit already covered: it is often the fastest way to see a concrete impact on the quality of answers and on students’ confidence in view of the Maturità 2026.
