Mapping Generative AI in STEM Assessment and Feedback: A Bibliometric Study

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58230/27454312.5282

Keywords:

bibliometric analysis, feedback, formative assessment, generative artificial intelligence, STEM education

Abstract

This study examines how research on generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in STEM assessment and feedback is distributed and conceptually organized. We analyzed 181 publications dated 2023–2026 from Scopus and the Web of Science Core Collection using bibliometrix and Biblioshiny. Annual output rose from four publications in 2023 to ten in 2024, 60 in 2025, and 107 in the incomplete 2026 observation period. The corpus comprised 108 harmonized publication venues and 652 authors, with international co-authorship of 8.84%. Applied Sciences and Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence each contributed nine publications. The author-keyword network displayed 40 nodes in four Louvain communities connecting GenAI technologies, disciplinary education, assessment, feedback, and learner-related concepts. In the All Keywords thematic map, large language models occupied the motor-theme quadrant and personalized learning the niche-theme quadrant. These findings characterize the organization of published research; they do not establish instructional effectiveness. Database coverage, incomplete current-year observation, lexical variation, and gaps in screening documentation limit the interpretation. The resulting map supports further investigation of disciplinary assessment validity, misconception-sensitive feedback, feedback uptake, delayed transfer, and human oversight.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

Bewersdorff, A., Seßler, K., Baur, A., Kasneci, E., & Nerdel, C. (2023). Assessing student errors in experimentation using artificial intelligence and large language models: A comparative study with human raters. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, Article 100177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100177

Cavalcanti, A. P., Barbosa, A., Carvalho, R., Freitas, F., Tsai, Y.-S., Gašević, D., & Mello, R. F. (2021). Automatic feedback in online learning environments: A systematic literature review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, Article 100027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100027

Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148

Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070

Farrokhnia, M., Banihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O., & Wals, A. (2024). A SWOT analysis of ChatGPT: Implications for educational practice and research. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(3), 460–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2195846

Lo, C. K. (2023). What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Education Sciences, 13(4), Article 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040410

Ouyang, F., & Jiao, P. (2021). Artificial intelligence in education: The three paradigms. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, Article 100020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100020

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., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Pepin, B., Buchholtz, N., & Salinas-Hernández, U. (2025). A scoping survey of ChatGPT in mathematics education. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 11, 9–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-025-00172-1

Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M. A., Bozkurt, A., Hickey, D. T., Huang, R., & Agyemang, B. (2023). What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments, 10, Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x

Yan, L., Sha, L., Zhao, L., Li, Y., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Chen, G., Li, X., Jin, Y., & Gašević, D. (2024). Practical and ethical challenges of large language models in education: A systematic scoping review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(1), 90–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13370

Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education: Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0

Downloads

Published

2026-11-10

How to Cite

Masitoh, S. I., Astra, I. M., & Handayani, D. (2026). Mapping Generative AI in STEM Assessment and Feedback: A Bibliometric Study. Didaktika: Jurnal Kependidikan, 15(4 November), 5555-5568. https://doi.org/10.58230/27454312.5282