Students rated AISSA's usability as excellent, with an average SUS score of 83.38 from 30 of 46 pilot students¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2029: tool and model accuracy changes quickly
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on a source with no registered publication record (a web page, book or unpublished report). It is kept because a design page cites it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The System Usability Scale administered to the 46 pilot students yielded an average score of 83.38 from 30 respondents, which the authors interpret as excellent perceived usability. → Alvaro Becerra 2026

Evidence¶

Alvaro Becerra 2026¶

Alvaro Becerra, Diego Gomez, Ruth Cobos. (2026). AISSA: Implementation and Deployment of an AI-based Student Slides Analysis tool for Academic Presentations. LASI Spain 26: Learning Analytics Summer Institute Spain 2026. https://orcid.org/0009-0003-7793-2682

q2 · i? · design · r2

Quantitative usability assessment in the UAM pilot: the SUS was administered to all 46 students, of whom 30 submitted responses. The article reports the average SUS score of 83.38 and characterizes it as "indicating excellent perceived usability"; no effect size or inferential test is printed.

"The results yielded an average SUS score of 83.38, indicating excellent perceived usability."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In a real academic pilot, AISSA processed 90 presentations reliably at 1–3 minutes per submission and an estimated cost of $0.06–0.07 USD per evaluation — related
• Students rated the usability of the AIvaluate assessment in the SUS 'good' range — related
• Students in initial deployment perceived AI-assisted feedback as highly coherent and useful, with excellent usability acceptance — a broader claim this one bears on
• The Bloom classification UI shows low perceived workload and high usability in a 50-participant user study — related
• The system receives a good average usability rating (SUS 69.7, grade B) but with wide individual variation, which the authors take to suggest UI consistency issues — related
• After design adjustments, the LAD achieved good–excellent usability (SUS M = 4.13, equal to 78.25%) — related
• Adults rated the LLM-powered iCub storytelling system as usable, with a total SUS score of 76.70 indicating good product usability — related
• The FACTRIA-aware chatbot received good usability ratings (SUS 70.84) and high usefulness ratings from most of the 11 stakeholders — related
• Experimental-group participants rated TibetCPR highly usable (SUS = 84.3, an Excellent rating), with the highest items on voluntary engagement and independent use — related
• Older adults rated the KOKU digital programme with excellent usability and high acceptability — related