Mapping Three and a Half Decades of AI and Education Literature: Trends, Gaps, and Future Directions
Scholarly dissemination Share this article
LinkedIn WhatsApp Facebook X Email
Sustainability Alignment

Sustainable Development Goals

This article contributes to the following United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

SDG 4:
PDF (English)
XML (English)

关键词

人工智能 审阅 教育 技术 伦理 评估

How to Cite

de Saint Laurent, C., Glaveanu, V., Literat, I., & Ness, I. (2026). Mapping Three and a Half Decades of AI and Education Literature: Trends, Gaps, and Future Directions. Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning, 4(2), 145–171. https://doi.org/10.58536/j-hytel.224
Article at a Glance

Publication Snapshot

Published 2026-07-25
Pages 145-171
References 41
Access
Now Welcoming Submissions
Call for Papers

Upcoming Issue

Volume4
Number3
October 2026
Submission Scope

J-HyTEL welcomes original and rigorous scholarship advancing education, media technology, and computer science applications.

Submit Manuscript Author Guidelines

Rolling submissions are accepted throughout the year.

摘要

教育领域中关于人工智能(AI)的研究正以前所未有的速度扩展,但其发展仍呈现出碎片化、受炒作驱动以及在学科和地区间分布不均的特点。 本文呈现了迄今为止最全面的梳理之一,分析了通过Web of Science检索到的16,564篇出版物(1990–2025年),并采用结合计算主题建模、AI辅助筛选和人工验证的混合方法,将其精简为4,626篇核心研究成果。 为补充这一宏观层面的梳理,我们对每个主要研究主题中被引用次数最多的论文进行了定性综述,深入阐释了这些有影响力的研究成果如何塑造了关于AI在教育中的应用、参与度、个性化、聊天机器人、评估、风险、监测、综述以及AI教学等议题的讨论。 研究结果显示,自2020年以来该领域呈现指数级增长,在新冠疫情期间及ChatGPT发布后出现显著激增,但同时也存在持续的碎片化现象、评估研究数量的减少以及态度调查的饱和。 尽管个性化、AI教学和用户参与度等极具前景的研究领域具有长期重要性,但其关注度却有所下降;与此同时,风险与伦理问题仍未得到充分探讨,且与技术研究的关联度较低。引文模式进一步揭示了系统性失衡:教育类论文被过度引用,而工程类研究成果则未得到应有的认可。 我们最后提出若干建议:加强跨学科合作、关注被忽视的领域、纳入历史视角,并应对系统性挑战,以期培育一个更具累积性、综合性和批判性的研究领域。

PDF (English)
XML (English)
https://doi.org/10.58536/j-hytel.224
PDF (English)
XML (English)
Abstract Views166
File Downloads70
Researcher tools Save & Cite

RIS is compatible with Zotero, Mendeley, and EndNote. Immediate opening depends on the visitor's browser and reference-manager settings.

Research Transparency

Declarations reported in the published article

View Full PDF
Author Contributions

Constance de Saint Laurent: Conceptualization; Methodology; Investigation; Data Collection; Data Curation; Writing – Original Draft Preparation. Vlad Glaveanu: Theoretical Framework Development; Writing – Review & Editing. Ioana Literat: Theoretical Framework Development; Writing – Review & Editing. Ingunn Ness: Theoretical Framework Development; Writing – Review & Editing. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Detected CRediT roles
Conceptualization Data curation Investigation Methodology Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing
View statement in PDF · PDF page 22
Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Natalie Robinson for her help formatting the final version of the paper.

View statement in PDF · PDF page 22
Ethics Approval

This study was conducted in accordance with ethical standards.

View statement in PDF · PDF page 22
Informed Consent

The study did not involve collecting empirical data from human participants.

View statement in PDF · PDF page 22
Funding

The authors declare that this research did not receive specific funding from any public, commercial, or not-for-profit agencies.

View statement in PDF · PDF page 22
Data Availability

The data supporting this study’s findings are not publicly available. Summary data are included in the manuscript, and more detailed information can be requested from the corresponding author under strict confidentiality agreements.

View statement in PDF · PDF page 22
Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests related to the content of this article.

View statement in PDF · PDF page 22
Generative AI Disclosure

During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used AI (ChatGPT 4.0) to assist as part of the methodology of summarizing data, as explained in the manuscript. Whenever AI was used, the authors carefully reviewed and edited the content to ensure accuracy and integrity, and they take full responsibility for the published work.

View statement in PDF · PDF page 22

Statements are reproduced from the final published PDF using exact section headings. The PDF remains the authoritative version. Absence of a panel does not establish that the declaration is absent from the PDF.

参考

41 References

[1] V. Caputi and A. Garrido, “Student-oriented planning of e-learning contents for Moodle,” Journal of Network and Computer Applications, vol. 53, pp. 115–127, 2015, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2015.04.001

[2] H. S. Nwana, “Intelligent tutoring systems: An overview,” Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 251–277, 1990, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00168958

[3] H. Yu, C. Miao, C. Leung, and T. J. White, “Towards AI-powered personalization in MOOC learning,” npj Science of Learning, vol. 2, no. 1, Art. no. 15, 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-017-0016-3

[4] B. Cope, M. Kalantzis, and D. Searsmith, “Artificial intelligence for education: Knowledge and its assessment in AI-enabled learning ecologies,” Educational Philosophy and Theory, vol. 53, no. 12, pp. 1229–1245, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1728732

[5] T. K. Chiu, Q. Xia, X. Zhou, C. S. Chai, and M. Cheng, “Systematic literature review on opportunities, challenges, and future research recommendations of artificial intelligence in education,” Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 4, Art. no. 100118, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100118

[6] S. J. Lee and K. Kwon, “A systematic review of AI education in K-12 classrooms from 2018 to 2023: Topics, strategies, and learning outcomes,” Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 6, Art. no. 100211, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100211

[7] F. Martin, M. Zhuang, and D. Schaefer, “Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence in K-12 education (2017–2022),” Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 6, Art. no. 100195, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100195

[8] A. Tlili et al., “What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education,” Smart Learning Environments, vol. 10, no. 1, Art. no. 15, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x

[9] F. J. Hinojo-Lucena, I. Aznar-Díaz, M. P. Cáceres-Reche, and J. M. Romero-Rodríguez, “Artificial intelligence in higher education: A bibliometric study on its impact in the scientific literature,” Education Sciences, vol. 9, no. 1, Art. no. 51, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9010051

[10] O. Zawacki-Richter, V. I. Marín, M. Bond, and F. Gouverneur, “Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education—where are the educators?” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 16, no. 1, Art. no. 39, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0

[11] A. Bozkurt, A. Karadeniz, D. Baneres, A. E. Guerrero-Roldán, and M. E. Rodríguez, “Artificial intelligence and reflections from educational landscape: A review of AI studies in half a century,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 2, Art. no. 800, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020800

[12] S. Guo, Y. Zheng, and X. Zhai, “Artificial intelligence in education research during 2013–2023: A review based on bibliometric analysis,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 29, no. 13, pp. 16387–16409, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12491-8

[13] A. Gillespie, V. P. Glăveanu, and C. de Saint Laurent, Pragmatism and Methodology: Doing Research That Matters with Mixed Methods. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009031066

[14] C. Perrotta and N. Selwyn, “Deep learning goes to school: Toward a relational understanding of AI in education,” Learning, Media and Technology, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 251–269, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1686017

[15] M. C. Wijanto, I. Widiastuti, and H. S. Yong, “Topic modeling for scientific articles: Exploring optimal hyperparameter tuning in BERT,” International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 912–919, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.18517/ijaseit.14.3.19347

[16] G. Piao, “Scholarly text classification with sentence BERT and entity embeddings,” in Trends and Applications in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2021, pp. 79–87, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75015-2_8

[17] S. Selva Birunda and R. Kanniga Devi, “A review on word embedding techniques for text classification,” in Innovative Data Communication Technologies and Application, Singapore: Springer, 2021, pp. 267–281, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9651-3_23

[18] R. Chocarro, M. Cortiñas, and G. Marcos-Matás, “Teachers’ attitudes towards chatbots in education: A technology acceptance model approach considering the effect of social language, bot proactiveness, and users’ characteristics,” Educational Studies, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 295–313, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1850426

[19] J. E. Raffaghelli, M. E. Rodríguez, A. E. Guerrero-Roldán, and D. Bañeres, “Applying the UTAUT model to explain the students’ acceptance of an early warning system in higher education,” Computers & Education, vol. 182, Art. no. 104468, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104468

[20] M. Farrokhnia, S. K. Banihashem, O. Noroozi, and A. Wals, “A SWOT analysis of ChatGPT: Implications for educational practice and research,” Innovations in Education and Teaching International, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 460–474, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2195846

[21] J. Garzón, E. Patiño, and C. Marulanda, “Systematic review of artificial intelligence in education: Trends, benefits, and challenges,” Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, vol. 9, no. 8, Art. no. 84, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/mti9080084

[22] M. Lan and X. Zhou, “A qualitative systematic review on AI empowered self-regulated learning in higher education,” npj Science of Learning, vol. 10, no. 1, Art. no. 21, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00319-0

[23] M. Mohammadi, E. Tajik, R. Martinez-Maldonado, S. Sadiq, and W. Tomaszewski, “Artificial intelligence in multimodal learning analytics: A systematic literature review,” Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 8, Art. no. 100426, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100426

[24] A. Gouseti, F. James, L. Fallin, and K. Burden, “The ethics of using AI in K-12 education: A systematic literature review,” Technology, Pedagogy and Education, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 161–182, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2024.2428601

[25] J. García-López and L. Trujillo-Liñán, “Ethical and regulatory challenges of generative AI in education: A systematic review,” Frontiers in Education, vol. 10, Art. no. 1565938, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1565938

[26] C. Y. Chang, G. J. Hwang, and M. L. Gau, “Promoting students’ learning achievement and self-efficacy: A mobile chatbot approach for nursing training,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 171–188, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13158

[27] J. Jeon and S. Lee, “Large language models in education: A focus on the complementary relationship between human teachers and ChatGPT,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 15873–15892, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11834-1

[28] S. Fergus, M. Botha, and M. Ostovar, “Evaluating academic answers generated using ChatGPT,” Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 100, no. 4, pp. 1672–1675, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00087

[29] C. Kooli, “Chatbots in education and research: A critical examination of ethical implications and solutions,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 7, Art. no. 5614, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075614

[30] D. Yan, “Impact of ChatGPT on learners in a L2 writing practicum: An exploratory investigation,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 28, no. 11, pp. 13943–13967, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11742-4

[31] J. Bernard, T. W. Chang, E. Popescu, and S. Graf, “Learning style identifier: Improving the precision of learning style identification through computational intelligence algorithms,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 75, pp. 94–108, 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.01.021

[32] K. Sharma, Z. Papamitsiou, and M. Giannakos, “Building pipelines for educational data using AI and multimodal analytics: A ‘grey-box’ approach,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 3004–3031, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12854

[33] B. Berendt, A. Littlejohn, and M. Blakemore, “AI in education: Learner choice and fundamental rights,” Learning, Media and Technology, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 312–324, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1786399

[34] E. Dixon-Román, T. P. Nichols, and A. Nyame-Mensah, “The racializing forces of/in AI educational technologies,” Learning, Media and Technology, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 236–250, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1667825

[35] D. Schiff, “Out of the laboratory and into the classroom: The future of artificial intelligence in education,” AI & Society, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 331–348, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01033-8

[36] D. Hooshyar et al., “Towards responsible AI for education: Hybrid human-AI to confront the elephant in the room,” Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 9, Art. no. 100524, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100524

[37] C. S. Chai, X. Wang, and C. Xu, “An extended theory of planned behavior for the modelling of Chinese secondary school students’ intention to learn artificial intelligence,” Mathematics, vol. 8, no. 11, Art. no. 2089, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/math8112089

[38] P. Song and X. Wang, “A bibliometric analysis of worldwide educational artificial intelligence research development in recent twenty years,” Asia Pacific Education Review, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 473–486, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-020-09640-2

[39] Q. Xia, T. K. Chiu, M. Lee, I. T. Sanusi, Y. Dai, and C. S. Chai, “A self-determination theory (SDT) design approach for inclusive and diverse artificial intelligence (AI) education,” Computers & Education, vol. 189, Art. no. 104582, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104582

[40] V. Liu, E. Latif, and X. Zhai, “Advancing education through tutoring systems: A systematic literature review,” arXiv:2503.09748, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.09748. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.09748

[41] M. Georgieva and J. Stuart, “Ethics is the edge: The future of AI in higher education,” EDUCAUSE Review, Jun. 24, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2025/6/ethics-is-the-edge-the-future-of-ai-in-higher-education

Copyright and License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2026 Constance de Saint Laurent, Vlad Glaveanu, Ioana Literat, Ingunn Ness

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
本页面为便于访问而自动翻译。如译文与英文版本存在含义差异,以 J-HyTEL 英文官方版本为准。English