Cited by 111Online Learning and AnalyticsIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningEducational Technology and Assessment

A Systematic Review of the Effects of Automatic Scoring and Automatic Feedback in Educational Settings

Open access
Hahn, Marcelo Guerra, Navarro, Silvia Margarita Baldiris, De La Fuente Valentin, Luis, Burgos, Daniel·2021·IEEE Access

Abstract

Automatic scoring and feedback tools have become critical components of online learning proliferation. These tools range from multiple-choice questions to grading essays using machine learning (ML). Learning environments such as massive open online courses (MOOCs) would not be possible without them. The usage of this mechanism has brought many exciting areas of study, from the design of questions to the ML grading tools’ precision and accuracy. This paper analyzes the findings of 125 studies published in journals and proceedings between 2016 and 2020 on the usages of automatic scoring and feedback as a learning tool. This analysis gives an overview of the trends, challenges, and open questions in this research area. The results indicate that automatic scoring and feedback have many advantages. The most important benefits include enabling scaling the number of students without adding a proportional number of instructors, improving the student experience by reducing the time between submission grading and feedback, and removing bias in scoring. On the other hand, these technologies have some drawbacks. The main problem is creating a disincentive to develop innovative answers that do not match the expected one or have not been considered when preparing the problem. Another drawback is potentially training the student to answer the question instead of learning the concepts. With this, given the existence of a correct answer, such an answer could be leaked to the internet, making it easier for students to avoid solving the problem. Overall, each of these drawbacks presents an opportunity to look at ways to improve technologies to use these tools to provide a better learning experience to students.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/access.2021.3100890

Cites

114 of 114 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

13 of the 127 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Y. Takahashi and P. Vate-U-Lan, ''Toward understanding the impact of artificial intelligence on education: An empirical research in Japan,'' in Proc. Eur. Conf. Impact Artif. Intell. Robot., Academic, 2019, p. 433.
  2. J. Huang, C. Pieh, A. Nguyen, and L. Guibas, ''Syntatic and functional variability of a million code submissions in a machine learning MOOC,'' in Proc. AIED Workshops Proc., 2013, pp. 1-15.
  3. M. Zhang, ''Contrasting automated nad human scoring of essays,'' R&D Connections, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 1-11, 2013.
  4. P. Bancroft and K. Woodfors, ''Using multiple choice questions effec- tively in information technology education,'' Ascilite, vol. 4, pp. 948-955, Dec. 2004.
  5. Y. Sugamiya, T. Otani, R. Nakadate, and A. Takanishi, ''Construction of automatic scoring system to support objective evaluation of clinical skills in medical education,'' in Proc. 41st Annu. Int. Conf. Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. (EMBC), Jul. 2019, pp. 4177-4181.
  6. M. C. S. Manzanares, R. M. Sánchez, Á. A. González, M. del Camino Escolar Llamazares, and M. Á. Q. Dios, ''Detection of at-risk students with Learning Analytics Techniques,'' Eur. J. Invest. Health, Psychol. Educ., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 129-142, 2018.
  7. A. Bey, P. Jermann, and P. Dillenbourg, ''A comparison between two automatic assessment approaches for programming: An empirical study on MOOCs,'' J. Educ. Technol. Soc., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 259-272, 2018.
  8. A. A. Gamazo, X. B. Illa, M. J. Casany, C. M. Escofet, C. Quer, M. E. G. Rodríguez, Ó. R. Moral, A. U. Tubella, ''A software tool for E-assessment of relational database skills,'' Int. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 32, pp. 1289-1312, Jan. 2016.
  9. L. B. Moreira, A. D. Tamariz, and J. V. Fettermann, ''The use of texts mining in the support to corrections of discursive questions in a higher education institution,'' Texto Livre-Linguagem Tecnol., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 213-227, 2018.
  10. Z. Huang, Q. Liu, C. Zhai, Y. Yin, E. Chen, W. Gao, and G. Hu, ''Explor- ing multi-objective exercise recommendations in online education sys- tems,'' in Proc. 28th ACM Int. Conf. Inf. Knowl. Manage., Nov. 2019, pp. 1261-1270.
  11. M. Liu, Y. Wang, W. Xu, and L. Liu, ''Automated scoring of Chinese engineering students' English essays,'' Int. J. Distance Educ. Technol., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 52-68, Jan. 2017.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hahn, M. G., Navarro, S. M. B., De La Fuente Valentin, L., & Burgos, D.
Affiliations
  • Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (ES)
  • Escuela Superior de Ingeniería y Tecnología (ESIT), Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (UNIR), Logroño, La Rioja, Spain
Venue
IEEE Access
Published
2021
Volume
9
Pages
108190-108198
ISSN
2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3188564437
Cited by
111
References
127
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 4
FWCI
1.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Access (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Re-Unir (International University of La Rioja) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • PLeNTaS Project “Proyectos I+D+i 2019” (PID2019-111430RB-I00)
  • PL-NETO Project “Proyecto PROPIO UNIR” (B0036)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and Assessment
Keywords
automatic scoring, automated feedback, online learning, massive open online courses, essay scoring, multiple-choice questions, student motivation, instructor workload, grading bias, student learning experience

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review