AI-enhanced skill assessment in higher vocational education: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
This study synthesizes empirical evidence on AI-supported skill assessment systems in higher vocational education through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Despite growing interest in generative AI within higher education, empirical research on AI-enabled assessment remains fragmented and methodologically uneven, particularly in vocational contexts. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, 27 peer-reviewed empirical studies published between 2010 and 2024 were identified from major international and Chinese databases and included in the analysis. Using a random-effects model, the meta-analysis indicates a moderate positive association between AI-supported assessment systems and skill-related learning outcomes (Hedges’ g = 0.72), alongside substantial heterogeneity across study designs, outcome measures, and implementation contexts. Subgroup analyses suggest variation across regional and institutional settings, which should be interpreted cautiously given small sample sizes and diverse methodological approaches. Based on the synthesized evidence, the study proposes a conceptual AI-supported skill assessment framework that distinguishes empirically grounded components from forward-looking extensions related to generative AI. Rather than offering prescriptive solutions, the framework provides an evidence-informed baseline to support future research, system design, and responsible integration of generative AI in higher education assessment. Overall, the findings highlight both the potential and the current empirical limitations of AI-enabled assessment, underscoring the need for more robust, theory-informed, and transparent studies as generative AI applications continue to evolve.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Most research has focused on general higher education or broad learning contexts, with comparatively little attention to vocational education, where practical application and skill transfer are central.
“First, most research has focused on general higher education or broad learning contexts, with comparatively little attention to vocational education, where practical application and skill transfer are central (Sun and Tian, 2026).”
From Responsible use of generative AI in Chinese vocational education: eye-tracking evidence on source verification and immediate near-transfer across three information-seeking conditions (2026) · cites this paper as Sun and Tian, 2026
Cites
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 · Cited by 108,283 · see citing works
Makransky, G., & Petersen, G. B. (2021) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-020-09586-2 · Cited by 1,438 · see citing works
Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education: Learning for the Longer Term
(2007) · doi:10.4324/9780203964309 · Cited by 1,049 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ma, J., Yue, H., & Li, X. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1946196
- Authors
- Sun, X., & Tian, H.
- Affiliations
- Yibin Vocational and Technical College (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Tian, Haoheng
- ORCID
- Sun, Xia
- Venue
- Informatics
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2026-01-28
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 20
- ISSN
- 2227-9709 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W7125968677
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9
- FWCI
- 8.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Vocational Education and Training
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
- Keywords
- generative AI in education, higher vocational education, evaluation system, responsible AI adoption, higher education assessment
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