Cited by 95Artificial Intelligence in EducationEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningEducational Technology and Pedagogy

A systematic review and meta‐analysis of AI ‐enabled assessment in language learning: Design, implementation, and effectiveness

Chen, Angxuan, Zhang, Yuyue, Jia, Jiyou, Liang, Min, Cha, Yingying, Lim, Cher Ping·2025·Journal of Computer Assisted Learning

Abstract

Background: Language assessment plays a pivotal role in language education, serving as a bridge between students' understanding and educators' instructional approaches. Recently, advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies have introduced transformative possibilities for automating and personalising language assessments. Objectives: This article aims to explore the design and implementation of AI‐enabled assessment tools in language education, filling the research gaps regarding the impact of assessment type, intervention duration, education level, and first language learner/second language learner (L1/L2) on the effectiveness of AI‐enabled assessment tools in enhancing students' language learning outcome. Methods: This study conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis to examine 25 empirical studies from January 2012 to March 2024 from six databases (including EBSCO, ProQuest, Scopus, Web of Science, ACM Digital Library and CNKI). Results: The predominant design in AI‐driven assessment tools is the structural AI architecture. These tools are most frequently deployed in classroom settings for upper primary students within a short duration. A subsequent meta‐analysis showed a medium overall effect size (Hedges's g = 0.390, p < 0.001) for the application of AI‐enabled assessment tools in enhancing students' language learning, underscoring their significant impact on language learning outcomes. This evidence robustly supports the practical utility of these tools in educational contexts. Conclusions: The analysis of several moderator variables (i.e., assessment type, intervention duration, educational level and L1/L2 learners) and potential impacts on language learning performance indicates that AI‐enabled assessment could be more useful in language education with a proper implementation design. Future research could investigate diverse instructional designs for integrating AI‐based assessment tools in language education.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jcal.13064

Cites

94 of 94 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, A., Zhang, Y., Jia, J., Liang, M., Cha, Y., & Lim, C. P.
Affiliations
  • Peking University (CN)
  • Education University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
Lim, Cher Ping
Venue
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-11-12
Volume
41
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 0266-4909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2729
OpenAlex
W4404281807
Cited by
67
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 50 · 2025: 17
FWCI
3.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Educational Technology and Pedagogy
Keywords
language assessment, language learning outcomes, automated assessment, AI architecture, first language learners, second language learners, upper elementary students, intervention duration, educational attainment, assessment types

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