A systematic review of artificial intelligence applications in education: Emerging trends and challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The academic world is becoming increasingly interested in the applications of Artificial Intelligence technology in education. A systematic review examines AI applications in education, focusing on their effectiveness, challenges, and implications. A comprehensive analysis of studies published between 2011 and 2024 encompassed 45 research articles from major databases, such as PubMed Central, IEEE Xplore, Elsevier, Springer, MDPI, ACM, and PMC. The findings highlight the predominant use of generative AI tools like ChatGPT (30%), followed by other advanced technologies, such as GPT-4, machine learning, and virtual reality. Research across global regions, particularly in Canada (18%), the United States (12%), and China (8%), highlights the multifaceted applications of AI in enhancing personalized learning, fostering critical thinking, and supporting professional education. Tools such as ChatGPT have demonstrated strong performance in theoretical knowledge delivery and medical education, while augmented and virtual reality excels in practical skill development. Despite these advances, challenges such as data privacy concerns, algorithmic bias, and the need for specialized educator training remain critical. • Show Artificial Intelligence (AI) integration in education supports personalized learning, boosting engagement and teaching effectiveness. • Demonstrate ChatGPT is the most studied AI tool, featuring in 36% of the reviewed educational studies. • Exhibit AI technologies face challenges in accuracy, ethical concerns, and data privacy in education. • Reveal Canada and China lead by contributing 16% and 12% of AI in education studies. • Conclude advanced AI tools like GPT-4 demonstrate promising results in medical and technical education.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".