Pedagogical Influence of AI-Chatbots on Learning Outcomes: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, significant developments have occurred in AI-based chatbots that have been effectively deployed in the educational field. However, given the novelty of this technology, descriptive analyses remain scarce. Although many review studies have focused on the effectiveness of chatbots, they generally present broad results, and only a few have addressed the impact of this technology on learning outcomes. The present study examines the educational implications of AI chatbots on various learning outcomes through a post hoc analysis conducted in accordance with PRISMA principles. It aims to aggregate and analyze findings from studies that examined the use of chatbots and their impact on specific learning outcomes. A total of 26 studies were selected from a pool of 6,721 published between 2021 and 2024 and indexed in the Scopus and Web of Science databases. Data analysis was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Education. The results revealed that AI-chatbot technology has a positive influence on several learning outcomes, including academic achievement, motivation, self-assessment, engagement in learning, self-efficacy, and language learning, among others. The studies also detailed the methodologies and tools employed in these investigations. The study also offers insights into how intelligent chatbots can be leveraged to enhance various learning outcomes.
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 | 0.017 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".