Title of research report: Usage of Artificial Intelligence-based E-learning platforms in Primary
Education: The Current State and Trends
Name of student: Xiaoyan Luo
ID number: 22102310
Name of supervisor: Dr.Yuliya Khrypko
Name of examiner: Clement Swarnappa
Summary of examination:
Context of the research
This 45 credit ARP completed by Xiaoyan Luo aims to address the “Usage of Artificial Intelligence-based
E-Learning Platforms in Primary Education”. It aims to complete a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) on
the current state and trends. The research primarily focuses on answering three research questions. (a)
What are the strengths and weaknesses, (b) How can the weaknesses be mitigated and (c) What are the
trends in future development of such systems. The research is limited to primary education and other
levels of education are excluded in the study. The report uses substantial literature to discuss the various
types of AI based E-Learning platforms and their characteristics. A good number of literatures from
varied sources have been used in the review of the literature. This thesis has considered 600+ literature
sources for the purpose of this study. However, after applying the criteria, the thesis has considered to
examine 560 sources based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The marker at this point feels that
the author could have tightened the inclusion/exclusion criteria to reduce the number of papers to be
examined. However, it was considered okay. Data analysis used in this research is apt to the need of the
study. The author has provided a detailed SLR summary of the papers chosen for the study from pages
33 – 41. It is also acknowledged that choosing the articles published within the recent 5 years is a good
approach. However, I would also like to know if there were any very essential and interesting articles
about AI before this search year which is of significance and why it was ignored as part of the study. A
paragraph explaining why the author chose not to include articles published before 2019 would be
appreciated.
Approach towards the research questions
While answering research question 01, the author has tried to identify the strengths and weakness of
using AI in education. Though there are mentions here and there, I found it difficult to find a clearer
focus on primary education. This was critical to me as a reader and the author had clearly mentioned
that this study excluded any other levels of education including Early Childhood, School, and tertiary
education. In addition, most of the weaknesses highlight a generic view of the weaknesses of AI-based E
learning, rather than for primary school learners. While the marker appreciates the work done by the
author, they would also want to acknowledge that more focused reading could have been done in this
area. The author has addressed mitigating the weaknesses well using appropriate reference articles
which addresses research question 2 partly. However, I have suggested that the author includes a
paragraph to clarify those issues that are not possible to be mitigated through various other
mechanisms. There is a substantial coverage of the various present and future trends in AI based E
learning techniques. I would like to see how these trends can be adapted to primary education or how
does the author intend to support these trends as suitable for a new or revised E learning system for
primary education?
Conclusion:
This study would have been complete in all aspects if there were a few reviews of an existing AI based E-
learning system for primary education. It would help the reader to visualize the research questions
better. However, it is a good starting point to discuss this topic as the future of education at all levels
could have a AI component to it.
Marking Report
Topic Description Max. Points
points awarded
Section 1: Knowledge of subject (35%)
Clarity of purpose: Good presentation here. Research questions 5% 5%
are appropriate and timely.
Context for research: There are good opportunities for research in 15% 12%
this area. Most of the major elements are
covered in this thesis. Please see the
examiner’s report for more details.
Literature review: Substantial literature review 15% 13%
Section 1 total 35% 30%
Section 2: Interpretation, analysis, and originality (weighting 55%)
Appropriateness and adequacy Yes. Good research method chosen. Though 10% 10%
of the study design, not every possibility in this method is covered,
methodology: I find the tools appropriate for a 45-credit
thesis.
Management of the research Yes. Research approval attached as an 5% 5%
approval and any ethical appendix. As this research did not involve
aspects of the research: human participants as part of the study, it did
not require ethical approval.
Data analysis/reflective Mostly covered. Please refer to the examiners 15% 10%
critique: report for further information.
Interpretation: Fairly covered. 10% 8%
Discussion, originality, Yes. Though some critical analysis of the 10% 7%
contributions: findings could be appreciated, I find the work
substantial for a 45 credit thesis.
Conclusions/recommendations: Good. 5% 4%
Section 2 total 55% 44%
Section 3 : Style and presentation (weighting 10%)
Clarity: Fair, except for a few typos. 3% 2%
Presentation: Excellent 3% 3%
Referencing: Yes. APA and most references used are as per 4% 3%
the requirement and inclusion.
Section 3 total 10% 8%
TOTAL MARKS OBTAINED 100% 82%
Required amendments and recommendations:
1. In page 27, the author refers to 560 papers met the criteria. However, in page 28, paragraph 2, it
refers to 56 articles.
2. Include a paragraph to explain how the author confined the relevance from 560 chosen articles
to 230 articles. Was there a selection criterion applied or was it by plain text reading of the
article. It seems huge to read 560 articles at this level of research to identify the selection. This
can be done by either tightening the inclusion/exclusion criteria to reduce the number of chosen
articles or by using a screening criterion to identify the selected articles.
3. Can you also include a paragraph under Section 4.4 to include issues that do not have substantial
mitigation support. Or what are those pain points still to be addressed which limits the use of AI
based E learning in primary school systems?
4. Include a paragraph at the end of Section 4 to discuss how these trends can be applied to an AI
based E learning for primary school LMS.
