Artificial intelligence in education: A systematic literature review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) in education (AIED) has evolved into a substantial body of literature with diverse perspectives. In this review paper, we seek insights into three critical questions: (1) What are the primary categories of AI applications explored in the education field? (2) What are the predominant research topics and their key findings? (3) What is the status of major research design elements, including guiding theories, methodologies, and research contexts? A bibliometric analysis of 2,223 research articles followed by a content analysis of selected 125 papers reveals a comprehensive conceptual structure of the existing literature. The extant AIED research spans a wide spectrum of applications, encompassing those for adaptive learning and personalized tutoring, intelligent assessment and management, profiling and prediction, and emerging products. Research topics delve into both the technical design of education systems and the examination of the adoption, impacts, and challenges associated with AIED. Furthermore, this review highlights the diverse range of theories applied in the AIED literature, the multidisciplinary nature of publication venues, and underexplored research areas. In sum, this research offers valuable insights for interested scholars to comprehend the current state of AIED research and identify future research opportunities in this dynamic field.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it