Authentic e-assessment in South African higher education: A systematic review of AI-driven assessment practices and challenges
Bianca N Mkhize-Simelane · Xolani Khohliso ORCID ↗
International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2026 · Vol. 15 / Issue 2 · 429-443
Publication metrics
External links open provider records or DOI searches. Provider counts are not combined. Mendeley readership measures saves, not citations.
Dimensions
Live provider badge. If unavailable, use the Dimensions link above.
Observed 21 Oct 2026, 07:22 UTC
Observed 21 Oct 2026 07:23 UTC
OpenAlex and Mendeley observations refresh on article visits, at most once per 24 hours. Unavailable data is not zero. Google Scholar opens a DOI search.
Citations received by this article, grouped by the year of the citing work. Crossref and OpenAlex lifetime totals remain separate in Publication metrics.
2017–2026 Annual history last updated:
Citations received
OpenAlex · year of the citing work
Hover over a year or focus the chart and use arrow keys to inspect values.
2017–2026 annual-history window. 2026 is year to date. Unknown years have gaps.
View data & coverage
2026 is incomplete. Within a successfully fetched ten-year window, omitted years mean zero. Years beyond a saved observation’s window remain unknown (—). Older citations are excluded, so this chart’s sum may differ from the OpenAlex lifetime total. The date above belongs to this annual history; an unsuccessful refresh keeps the previous observation.
Abstract
The growing use of AI in higher education has heightened interest in genuine e-assessment to improve assessment efficacy, inclusivity, and academic integrity. Nonetheless, the implementation of AI-enhanced assessment techniques in South African higher education is inconsistent, influenced by structural disparities, ethical dilemmas, and differing degrees of institutional preparedness. This study offers a qualitative systematic literature analysis that investigates the implementation issues and pedagogical ramifications of AI-enhanced genuine e-assessment at South African Higher Education Institutions (SAHEIs). The evaluation, structured using a PICo-informed framework and according to PRISMA principles, synthesised evidence from 49 peer-reviewed publications published from 2020 to 2024. A narrative theme synthesis was utilised to examine persistent patterns concerning implementation obstacles, ethical considerations, assessment change, inclusion, and governance. AI-driven assessment technologies have significant advantages, such as higher grading consistency, scalability, tailored feedback, and increased student involvement. Nonetheless, infrastructural constraints, ongoing digital disparities, inadequate faculty readiness, and the lack of cohesive institutional policies hinder these advantages. Ethical concerns, especially algorithmic bias, data privacy, and academic integrity, exacerbate the implementation of AI in varied and resource-limited settings. This analysis finds hybrid evaluation models that integrate AI automation with human judgement as the most pedagogically sound and ethically responsible method. The study indicates that AI-enhanced authentic e-assessment possesses transformative potential for SAHE, contingent upon context-sensitive policies, ongoing professional development, equitable infrastructure investment, and strong ethical governance frameworks.
Keywords: {'name': 'artificial intelligence (AI),'}, {'name': 'authentic e-assessment,'}, {'name': 'e-assessment,'}, {'name': 'higher education,'}, {'name': 'ethical governance'}
Authors & affiliations
Bianca N Mkhize-Simelane
Central University of Technology
Xolani Khohliso
Central University of Technology
Deposited references
Supplied references, not a list of publications citing this article.
DOI: 10.37284/ijar.8.1.3606
DOI: 10.4018/979-8-3373-2130-1.ch006
DOI: 10.16920/jeet/2024/v38i3/24246
DOI: 10.24310/ijtei.101.2024.17813
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5530978
DOI: 10.33050/itee.v3i1.680
DOI: 10.1109/MSCC62288.2024.10697011
DOI: 10.3389/bjbs.2024.14048
DOI: 10.26803/ijlter.23.11.27
DOI: 10.29138/educatio.v9i4.1585
DOI: 10.14742/ajet.9434
DOI: 10.4018/979-8-3693-2145-4.ch009
DOI: 10.30827/Digibug.59151
DOI: 10.34190/ejel.21.5.3114
DOI: 10.55041/IJSREM52367
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123258
DOI: 10.31893/multirev.2025016
DOI: 10.38140/ijer-2025.vol7.2.05
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-56953-1_11
DOI: 10.56880/experior31.6
DOI: 10.4018/979-8-3693-0240-8.ch008
DOI: 10.4337/9781035326020.00020
DOI: 10.29007/zqs7
DOI: 10.34190/icer.1.1.3180
DOI: 10.34190/icer.1.1.3231
DOI: 10.4018/979-8-3373-2130-1.ch002
DOI: 10.29333/pr/16677
DOI: 10.20961/ijie.v9i1.100723
DOI: 10.26803/ijlter.23.11.8
DOI: 10.1007/s10639-024-12820-x
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-33261-6_2
Perkins, M., Roe, J., & Furze, L. (2024). The AI assessment scale revisited: A framework for educational assessment. arXiv Preprint. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2412.09029
DOI: 10.30557/QW000079
DOI: 10.1002/tl.20625
DOI: 10.4018/979-8-3693-6170-2.ch009
DOI: 10.47577/teh.v11i.12908
DOI: 10.9734/ajess/2024/v50i101616
DOI: 10.22159/ijss.2024v13i1.52834
DOI: 10.14742/apubs.2024.1128
DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.1002176
DOI: 10.4018/979-8-3373-6018-8.ch004
DOI: 10.1080/2331186X.2023.2295654
DOI: 10.14742/ajet.8902
DOI: 10.4018/979-8-3373-2397-8.ch007
DOI: 10.4324/9781003482918-16
DOI: 10.4018/979-8-3693-5443-8.ch003
DOI: 10.34190/icer.1.1.3145
DOI: 10.37074/jalt.2024.7.1.12
DOI: 10.4018/979-8-3693-6351-5.ch008
DOI: 10.1186/s41239-024-00468-z