The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessment and learning outcomes for generative AI in higher education: A scoping review on current research status and trends
Open accessAbstract
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) impacts higher education assessment and learning outcomes, which are closely related and intertwined. Literature suggests that educators and researchers have many varied concerns regarding student assessment in the higher education GenAI context, such as how to assess students’ learning and the new (refocused) learning outcomes that emerged in GenAI-facilitated learning environments. To provide evidence-based insights into and answers to these concerns, we conducted a scoping review by collating literature in relevant research areas. Following a five-stage scoping review framework, we collaboratively collected and coded 34 studies. The three assessment approaches identified in the review were traditional assessment, innovative and refocused assessment and GenAI-incorporated assessment. The new, refocused learning outcomes identified were career-driven competencies and lifelong learning skills. The review also revealed that most research designs were qualitatively oriented (e.g., with exploratory design, descriptive research, ethnographic research and phenomenological research). This study proposes a holistic diagram showing the current research status and trends. It suggests five future research directions: innovative assessment designs, collaborations among assessment approaches, new learning outcomes, relationships between assessment approaches and learning outcomes, and quantitative or mixed research studies. Implications for practice or policy: Traditional assessment methods in higher education do not operate effectively in the GenAI era. Innovative and refocused assessment and GenAI-incorporated assessment are promising strategies to assess student learning. Career-driven competencies and lifelong learning skills are new focused learning outcomes evolved from the use of GenAI. More quantitative and mixed research studies should be conducted to provide additional empirical evidence on the impact of GenAI on student assessment and learning outcomes.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
GenAI is capable of producing human-like feedback that closely resembles human responses by leveraging large language models.
“GenAI is capable of producing human-like feedback that closely resembles human responses by leveraging the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) (Foung et al., 2024 ; Weng et al., 2024 ).”
From Socratic Mind: Impact of a Novel GenAI-Powered Formative Assessment Tool on Student Learning and Higher-Order Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as Weng et al., 2024
Citations
Cites
Future research recommendations for transforming higher education with generative AI
Chiu, T. K. F. (2024) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100197 · Cited by 511 · cited 9×
“Addressing the assessment-related challenges in higher education within the context of GenAI is an urgent research topic (Chiu, 2024) that requires more attention.”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationAli, K., Barhom, N., Tamimi, F., & Duggal, M. (2024) · European Journal of Dental Education · doi:10.1111/eje.12937 · Cited by 152 · cited 12×
“For example, Exintaris et al. (2023) described a classroom exercise integrating metacognitive scaffolding and problem-solving practice, along with students’ critique of solutions generated by ChatGPT.”
BackgroundInfluentialDo teachers spot AI? Evaluating the detectability of AI-generated texts among student essays
Fleckenstein, J., Meyer, J., Jansen, T., Keller, S. D., Köller, O., & Möller, J. (2024) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100209 · Cited by 126 · cited 3×
“…thinking, problem-solving and communication skills (Almasre, 2024; Banihashem et al., 2024; Bearman et al., 2024; Blanke, 2024; Cotton et al., 2023; Fleckenstein et al., 2024); and open-ended assessments in which students were encouraged in aspects of originality and creativity (Eager & Brunton,…”
BackgroundInfluential
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mastering knowledge: the impact of generative AI on student learning outcomes
Pallant, J. L., Blijlevens, J., Campbell, A., & Jopp, R. (2026) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2025.2487570 · Cited by 141
Peterson, S. (2025) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1610836 · Cited by 30
Lee, J., Hung, J.-T., Yilmaz Soylu, M., Popescu, D., Cui, C. Z., Grigoryan, G., Joyner, D. A., & Harmon, S. W. (2026) · Technology, Knowledge and Learning · doi:10.1007/s10758-026-10007-6 · Cited by 23
Evaluation of Generative AI Use to Foster Critical Thinking in Higher Education
Oliva-Córdova, L. M., Álvarez-Icaza, I., & George-Reyes, C. E. (2025) · IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje · doi:10.1109/rita.2025.3597848 · Cited by 17
Stratton-Maher, D., & Kelly, J. (2026) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2025.106961 · Cited by 21
Fedoruk, B. D. (2025) · Journal of Educational Informatics · doi:10.51357/jei.v6i1.314 · Cited by 3
Susena, Y. S., Arianto, F., Khotimah, K., Andrianto, R. E., & Syuhada’, M. (2026) · Reading Psychology · doi:10.1080/02702711.2026.2644973 · Cited by 1
Falade, A. M., & Mesioye, A. E. (2026) · Methods in Science and Technology Studies · doi:10.64539/msts.v2i1.2026.415
Metadata
- Authors
- Weng, X., XIA, Q., Gu, M., Rajaram, K., & Chiu, T. K. F.
- Affiliations
- Education University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Nanyang Technological University (SG)
- Venue
- Australasian Journal of Educational Technology
- Published
- 2024-10-18
- ISSN
- 1449-3098 (ISSN-L)
- 1449-5554
- OpenAlex
- W4403524471
- Cited by
- 161
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 114 · 2025: 47
- FWCI
- 65.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DR-NTU (Nanyang Technological University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- generative AI, higher education assessment, learning outcomes, assessment innovation, traditional assessment, lifelong learning skills, student assessment, research trends
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