Authors : John Kirby B. Espanto; Rolaida L. Sonza, Dit

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 4 - April

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/9fab4ezk

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26apr2053

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Senior High School (SHS) students often face challenges in selecting the most appropriate academic strand due to limited assessment tools and the continued reliance on traditional guidance practices. These methods frequently lack objectivity and comprehensive evaluation, resulting in mismatches between students’ competencies, interests, and their chosen academic pathways. Such misalignment may affect students’ academic performance, educational direction, and future career readiness. This study aimed to develop an AI-Driven Multi-Dimensional Course Assessment and SHS Strand Recommendation System designed to objectively evaluate student competencies and generate strand recommendations that align with learners’ abilities, interests, and career potential. The system intends to support students, teachers, and guidance personnel by providing data-driven insights that can assist in making informed academic decisions. The research employed a quantitative–descriptive design integrated with Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). The system was developed using an Input–Process–Output (IPO) conceptual framework combined with Agile Software Development Methodology, enabling iterative system improvement and structured data processing. The platform utilizes a 30-dimension assessment model measuring cognitive skills, literacy and communication abilities, technical aptitude, and personality-interest indicators. Student responses are processed through a structured scoring model and analyzed using an AI-powered evaluation module to generate strand recommendations, competency profiles, and career-related insights, which are presented in a downloadable evaluation report. The results are presented in a comprehensive evaluation report that users can download and use for academic guidance and decision-making. Evaluation results showed strong system performance and user acceptance. Based on the ISO/IEC 25010 software quality model, IT experts gave the system an overall mean score of 3.95, indicating a high level of software quality and functionality. System users rated the platform with an overall mean score of 4.00, interpreted as Highly Acceptable, reflecting positive user experience and effectiveness. This finding clearly demonstrates that the system can provide data-driven guidance in SHS strand selection, reduce academic-career mismatches, and support better educational alignment and long-term career readiness among students.

Keywords : Artificial Intelligence (AI), Multi-Dimensional Assessment, Explainable AI, Senior High School Strand Recommendation, Career Guidance System.

References :

1. Abbas, S., Latif, S., & Jabeen Khoso, F. (2023). Relationship between students’ cognitive abilities and cumulative grade point average at university level. Global Educational Studies Review, (VIII-I).
2. Abramov, D., & Clark, A. (2024). Redux: A predictable state container for JavaScript apps [Computer software]. https://redux.js.org
3. Al-Muhaidib, S. (2019). AI in education: Opportunities and challenges for teacher development. Journal of Educational Technology.
4. Alonso, A., & Romero, C. (2020). Analytics in education: Advances and applications of AI-based assessment tools. Journal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 251–266.
5. Anshari, M., Hamdan, M., Almunawar, M. N., & Lim, S. A. (2025). Strategic integration of AI-driven project management systems in public sector development projects: A comparative study of emerging and advanced economies. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 9(1), 1107–1115. https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.9123
6. Attali, Y., & Burstein, J. (2006). Automated essay scoring with e-rater® V.2. Educational Testing Service.
7. Baker, R. S., et al. (2020). AI and educational data science: Opportunities and challenges. Springer.
8. Bauat, Melgine, Bauat R. V., Marcos, M.I. P. (2021) Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Special Issue on ICITE2021, October147 -159
9. Beck, K., Beedle, M., van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., … Thomas, D. (2001). Manifesto for Agile Software Development. https://agilemanifesto.org
10. Ricci, F., Rokach, L., & Shapira, B. (2015). Recommender systems handbook (2nd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7637-6
11. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
12. Bernardo, A. B. I. (2019). Educational choices and career decision-making of Filipino learners. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 52(2), 165–189. https://doi.org/10.31710/pjp/0052.02.03
13. Bernardo, A. B. I. (2019). Factors influencing Filipino students’ career choices. Philippine Journal of Education and Human Development, 7(2), 14–25.
14. Bin Sidek, M. R. E., Impil, J. A. D., Marcos, M. J. B., Punzalan, E. E. M., Ramos, J. T., & Ador, Z. I. (2023). Exploring course mismatch among former STEM students: A narrative research. Cognizance Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 3(7), 78–90. https://doi.org/10.47760/cognizance.2023.v03i07.008. ResearchGate
15. Bulut, O., Shin, J., & Kim, Y. H. (2024). Artificial intelligence in educational assessment: Opportunities, challenges, and future directions. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 43(2), 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12579
16. Caballes, D. G., Gapad, E., Valdez, M. R., & Quintos, C. (2022). Exploring between SHS strands and college courses mismatch: Bridging the gap through school policy on intensified career        guidance program (report).  Zenodo. https://zenodo.org/records/14992961/files/Exploring%20Between%20SHS%20St rands%20and%20College%20Courses%20Mismatch.pdf. Zenodo
17. Cardiño, H. C., Sario, E. B., & Sergio, R. P. (2022). Career interest and work values of online Filipino psychology graduates: basis for retention program. SSDR.
18. Chart.js Contributors. (2024). Chart.js: Simple yet flexible JavaScript charting for designers and developers [Computer software]. https://www.chartjs.org
19. CHED. (2022). Higher Education Career Pathways Report. Commission on Higher Education.
20. Chen, J., et al. (2020). Personalized learning with AI: Realizing the potential. Educational Research Review.
21. Chen, X., Li, J., Wang, Y., & Zhao, H. (2025). AI4Research: A comprehensive survey of artificial intelligence for scientific research. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.01903. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.01903
22. Commission on Higher Education. (2022). CHED tracer study and graduate employability report. CHED. https://ched.gov.ph
23. Dalli, R., Rossi, A., & Prencipe, A. (2023). The AI factory: How data pipelines create self-improving systems. Journal of Business Research, 154, 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.09.056
24. David, M., Santos, R., & Lopez, J. (2023). Career alignment and decision-making readiness among Filipino senior high school students. Philippine Journal of Education Studies, 28(2), 45–62.
25. Dennis, A., Wixom, B. H., & Roth, R. M. (2018). Systems analysis and design (7th ed.). Wiley.
26. Department of Education. (2016). Senior high school curriculum guide. Department of Education, Philippines.
27. Deterding, S., et al. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: defining" gamification". Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems.
28. Dingsøyr, T., Moe, N. B., & Rodríguez, P. (2020). Agile development at scale: The next frontier. IEEE Software, 37(2), 26–29.
29. Feng, M., et al. (2018). AI-powered chatbots: Opportunities and challenges for education. Journal of Educational Technology.
30. Fleming, N. D., & Mills, C. (1992). Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. To Improve the Academy, 11(1), 137–155.
31. Gonzales, P., & Velasco, D. (2021). Understanding SHS track-selection issues in Philippine public schools. Journal of Educational Measurement and Policy, 5(1), 33–49.
32. González-Calatayud, V., Prendes-Espinosa, M. P., & Roig-Vila, R. (2021). Artificial intelligence in education: A systematic review of student assessment. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020- 10362-4
33. Heffernan, N., & Heffernan, C. (2014). The impact of AI on personalized learning in education. Computers & Education.
34. Highsmith, J. (2002). Agile software development ecosystems. Addison-Wesley Professional.
35. Ho, L. K. W., Leung, S. A., Hou, Z. J., Li, X., & Xu, H. (2022). Career development learning and perceived employability: A longitudinal study among secondary school students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 132, 103673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103673
36. Ho, T. T. H., Le, V. H., Nguyen, D. T., Nguyen, C. T. P., & Nguyen, H. T. (2022). Effects of career development learning on students’ perceived employability: A longitudinal study. Higher Education, advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00933-6. (Available via PubMed Central.) PMC
37. Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Psychological Assessment Resources.
38. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
39. Hosseini, M., et al. (2024). Assessing the interactions between learning enjoyment, motivation, burnout, and grit in EFL students: a mixed-methods approach. BMC Psychology
40. Huang, R., & Hew, K. F. (2018). AI in education: Exploring the current state and future prospects. Educational Media International.
41. Iansiti, M., & Lakhani, K. R. (2020). Competing in the age of AI: Strategy and leadership when algorithms and networks run the world. Harvard Business Review Press.
42. International Organization for Standardization. (2011). ISO/IEC 25010:2011 systems and software engineering — Systems and software quality requirements and evaluation (SQuaRE) — System and software quality models. ISO.
43. Kakar, A. (2023). AI model refinement in iterative software development: A hybrid Agile approach. Journal of Systems Engineering, 18(4), 112–129.
44. Kılınç, A. (2024). Developing a comprehensive AI assessment framework for higher education. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 17(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.xxxx/xxxxx
45. Klymkowsky, M. W., & Cooper, M. M. (2024). Moving beyond right and wrong: AI-assisted analysis of student reasoning in STEM assessments. Journal of Chemical Education, 101(1), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00456
46. Knekta, E., Rowland, A. A., Corwin, L. A., et al. (2020). Measuring university students’ interest in biology: evaluation of an instrument targeting individual interest. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 23.
47. Korhonen, V. (2019). AI in education: A study of interactive learning tools. Journal of Educational Technology.
48. Kotaiah, B., Khalil, M. (2017). Approaches for development of software projects: agile methodology. International Journal 8(1), Page 237–242
49. Lavrakas, P. J. (2011). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Sage Publications. Lavrakas, P. J. (2011). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Sage Publications.
50. Lisá, E., & Sokolová, L. (2023). Motivation to succeed is not enough: motivated students need to know how to plan/organize their steps on their way to success. Frontiers in Psychology, 14.
51. Liu, Y., et al. (2020). AI applications in special education: Enhancing access and learning. Journal of Assistive Technology
52. London School of Economics. (2025, August 11). AI tools used by English councils ‘downplay women’s health issues’, study finds. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/aug/11/ai-tools-used-by-english-councils-downplay-womens-health-issues-study-finds
53. Lopez, A., & Chen, Y. (2021). Digital assessment for personalized learning pathways. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 1235–1251.
54. Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Pearson Education.
55. Maldonado-Hernández, A., Camacho, M., & Bustos-López, M. (2019). Artificial intelligence in higher education: A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(39), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
56. Manila, J., & Domingo, F. (2021). Track and strand mismatch in Philippine SHS education. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 9(3), 1–12.
57. Martínez-Fernández, S., Bogner, J., Franch, X., & Oivo, M. (2021). Software engineering for AI-based systems: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.01984. https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.01984
58. Montt, G. (2017). Field-of-study mismatch and overqualification: Labour market correlates and their wage penalty. IZA Journal of Labor Economics, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40172-016-0052-x. SpringerOpen
59. National Audit Office. (2025). The potential of AI in reducing teacher workload. UK Government. https://www.nao.org.uk
60. National Economic and Development Authority. (2020). Updated Philippine development plan 2017–2022. National Economic and Development Authority. https://www.neda.gov.ph
61. Nguyen, T., Dang, P., & Le, Q. (2020). AI-based academic recommendation models for secondary learners. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(7), 1412–1433.
62. Nitko, A. J., & Brookhart, S. M. (2014). Educational assessment of students (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
63. Ntoutsi, E., Fafalios, P., Gadiraju, U., Iosifidis, V., Nejdl, W., Vidal, M. E., ... & Staab, S. (2020). Bias in data-driven artificial intelligence systems—An introductory survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.09762. https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.09762
64. OECD / Jacobs Foundation. (2021). Dream jobs? Teenagers’ career aspirations and the future of work (PISA-based report). Jacobs Foundation / OECD summary & report. (See the report and country breakdowns.)
65. Perkins, R. A., Lister, M., & Lee, H. J. (2023). The AI Assessment Scale: A tool for guiding AI integration in higher education assessments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 33(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-023-00311-6.
66. Perna, L. W. (2006). Studying college access and choice: A proposed conceptual model. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 21, pp. 99–157). Springer.
67. Poimandres. (2024). Zustand: A small, fast, and scalable state-management solution [Computer software]. https://zustand-demo.pmnd.rs
68. Radanliev, P., De Roure, D., Nurse, J. R., Burnap, P., Anthi, E., Ani, U., & Santos, O. (2019). Artificial intelligence in cyber physical systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.04369. https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.04369
69. Rahman, M., & Abdullah, S. (2021). Machine learning techniques in personality-based career guidance systems. International Journal of Intelligent Computing, 15(3), 211–230.
70. Recharts Team. (2024). Recharts: A composable charting library built on React components [Computer software]. https://recharts.org
71. Remix Software. (2024). React Router: Declarative routing for React applications [Computer software]. https://reactrouter.com
72. Republic of the Philippines. (2012). Republic Act No. 10173: Data Privacy Act of 2012. Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines.
73. ReQtest (October 25, 2018). Requirements Analysis – Understanding the Process & Techniques. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3He9hhV
74. Rest, J. R., & Narvaez, D. (1994). Moral development in the professions. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
75. Reyes, A., & Cruz, L. (2022). Factors influencing SHS track selection among Filipino students. Philippine Social Science Review, 74(1), 88–102.
76. Ricci, F., Rokach, L., & Shapira, B. (2015). Recommender systems handbook (2nd ed.). Springer.
77. Rudakov, V., Figueiredo, H., Teixeira, P. N., & Roshchin, S. (2019). The impact of horizontal job–education mismatches on the earnings of recent university graduates in Russia (IZA Discussion Paper No. 12407). IZA. https://ftp.iza.org/dp12407.pdf.
78. Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2021). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (4th ed.). Pearson Education.
79. Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2020). The Scrum Guide: The definitive guide to Scrum. https://scrumguides.org
80. Serrano, J., & Fajardo, C. (2022). Integrating Agile and IPO in educational system development projects. International Journal of Computing and Instructional Design, 4(1), 57–70.
81. Shneiderman, B., Plaisant, C., Cohen, M., Jacobs, S., Elmqvist, N., & Diakopoulos, N. (2018). Designing the user interface (6th ed.). Pearson.
82. Shi, Y., & Qu, S. (2022). The effect of cognitive ability on academic achievement: The mediating role of self-discipline and the moderating role of planning. Frontiers in Psychology, 13.
83. Sidek, B., et al. (2023). Study on SHS strand-course mismatch among former STEM students in Laguna.
84. Sommerville, I. (2016). Software engineering (10th ed.). Pearson Education.
85. Super, D. E. (1990). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. In D. Brown & L. Brooks (Eds.), Career choice and development (2nd ed., pp. 197–261). Jossey-Bass.
86. Takeuchi, H., & Nonaka, I. (1986). The new new product development game. Harvard Business Review, 64(1), 137–146.
87. TechRadar. (2025, January 14). AI-powered tutor boosts grades by 15% in computer science courses. https://www.techradar.com/news
88. UNESCO. (2021). AI and the future of learning: Policy recommendations. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
89. University of Reading. (2024). AI and academic integrity: Testing the limits of assessment. University Press.
90. Wikipedia contributors. (2025, August 10). Automatic item generation. In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_item_generation
91. Wikipedia contributors. (2025, August 10). Computational psychometrics. In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_psychometrics
92. Wu, J., Qi, S., & Zhong, Y. (2022). Intrinsic motivation, need for cognition, grit, growth mindset and academic achievement in high school students: latent profiles and its predictive effects. arXiv.
93. Xu, L., Chen, H., & Yan, S. (2023). AI-powered career decision support systems: A systematic evaluation. Computers & Education: AI, 4, 100119.
94. Zhao, Y., Li, K., & Sun, J. (2022). Adaptive recommendation engines in student profiling. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 15(1), 56–68.