Mapping the Landscape of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Powered Assessment: A Bibliometric Analysis of Scopus and Web of Science (WoS)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37134/ejoss.vol12.Sp.13.2026Keywords:
artificial intelligence, AI-powered assessment, assessment , bibliometric analysis , BLRAbstract
The surge of interest in Artificial Intelligence (AI) in higher education has led to rapid growth in research regarding its potential applications in assessment. This study analyzes publication trends, document types, and citation patterns related to AI in educational assessment, alongside the emergence of AI-powered literature search platforms. Data from Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) databases (2020–2024) were retrieved for analysis. A total of 42 publications were analyzed using VOSviewer for keyword mapping and cluster identification, while Harzing’s Publish or Perish was utilized for citation metrics. The results show a consistent increase in publications related to AI-based assessment, with articles being the primary format. Keyword analysis revealed dominant clusters centered on student perceptions and automated grading systems. This study provides an updated bibliometric landscape that guides researchers in identifying research gaps and emerging directions in AI assessment, while highlighting how AI-powered search tools can enhance systematic literature mapping.
Downloads
References
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford University Press.
Butler, Y. G. (2018). English language education among young learners in East Asia: A review of current research. Language Teaching, 51(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000232
Council of Europe. (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing. https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2020
DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Hashim, H., & Yunus, M. M. (2020). English language learning challenges in rural schools and strategies to improve proficiency. Creative Education, 11(6), 1045–1055. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2020.116078
Hashim, H., & Yunus, M. M. (2020). ESL teachers’ perceptions on the use of speaking assessment in Malaysian primary schools. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(6), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.6.1
Leong, L. M., & Ahmadi, S. M. (2017). An analysis of factors influencing learners’ English speaking skill. International Journal of Research in English Education, 2(1), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.18869/acadpub.ijree.2.1.34
McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031
Mohammed, S. A., Rahman, M. S., & Yunus, M. M. (2021). Teachers’ readiness in implementing CEFR-aligned English curriculum in rural Malaysia. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 17(4), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.9734/AJESS/2021/v17i430422
Mohammed, A. A., Yunus, M. M., & Hashim, H. (2021). Challenges in assessing speaking skills among Malaysian ESL learners. Asian Journal of University Education, 17(3), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v17i3.14575
Mustapha, S. M., & Yahaya, A. (2013). Low English proficiency among Malaysian learners: Causes and strategies. English Language Teaching, 6(12), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n12p155
Noor, N. M., Mohamed, A. R., & Rahman, N. A. (2020). Achieving CEFR benchmarks in Malaysian ESL primary schools: Challenges and implications. Asian EFL Journal, 24(3), 75–98.
Noor, N. M., Aman, I., Mustaffa, R., & Seong, T. K. (2020). Language proficiency and learning challenges among rural ESL learners in Malaysia. Issues in Educational Research, 30(2), 533–551.
North, B. (2014). Putting the Common European Framework of Reference to good use. Language Teaching, 47(2), 228–249. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000205
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29(5), 489–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
Shang, Y. (2024). A meta-analysis of the reliability of second language proficiency assessments. Language Assessment Quarterly, 21(2), 145–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2024.1187649
Stemler, S. E. (2004). A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.7275/96jp-xz07
Sureeyatanapas, P. (2024). Analysing marking reliability in English speaking proficiency tests: A marking consistency approach. Language Testing in Asia, 14(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-023-00271-z
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Nurul Ashikin Izhar, Yahya Al-Dheleai
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
