From Sentiment Classification to Actionable and Responsible Feedback: A Scoping Review and Evidence Map of NLP in Student Evaluation of Teaching, 2015-2026
TL;DR
The findings are descriptive and do not support causal claims of progress: technological coexistence and uneven reporting are part of the map, but the A2+ to A3+ cliff is the contribution, not a quality ladder.
Abstract
Natural language processing (NLP) applied to open-ended teaching-evaluation comments (Student Evaluation of Teaching, SET) has tracked the field's technical evolution--from lexicons and conventional classifiers to transformers and large language models (LLMs)--but it is not evident that this technical diversification has been accompanied by corresponding gains in educational value and robustness of the evidence. This scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) maps 421 studies (2015-2026, 2026 partial) along a technical axis (RQ1) and four value dimensions (RQ2-RQ5). Dual mutually blinded LLM screening with sampled human adjudication coded seven extraction domains, with targeted codebook-boundary review at synthesis. The joint map's sharpest quantified gap is the actionability discontinuity: demonstrated output or stronger (A2+: 258/421; 61.3%) versus intended-user evaluation or stronger (A3+: 49/421; 11.6%), a 49.7 percentage-point drop. Sentiment analysis remains the modal task (300/421); diagnostic and generative depth is a substantial minority (D4-D5: 28.2% of resolved cases); a formal fairness metric is rare (1.9%). The findings are descriptive and do not support causal claims of progress: technological coexistence and uneven reporting are part of the map, but the A2+ to A3+ cliff is the contribution, not a quality ladder.
