CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 13Artificial Intelligence in EducationTeaching and Learning ProgrammingIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Artificial Intelligence for Computer Science Education in Higher Education: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research Published in 2003–2023

Zhu, Meina, Zhang, Ke·2025·Technology, Knowledge and Learning
DOI 10.1007/s10758-025-09859-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10758-025-09859-1

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • GenAI-empowered assessment systems dynamically adapt to individual learners by diagnosing misconceptions and suggesting personalized learning pathways.

    “GenAI-empowered assessment systems dynamically adapt to individual learners by utilizing sophisticated algorithms, diagnosing misconceptions, and suggesting personalized learning pathways (Heil et al., 2025 ; Zhu & Zhang, 2025 ).”

    From Socratic Mind: Impact of a Novel GenAI-Powered Formative Assessment Tool on Student Learning and Higher-Order Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as Zhu & Zhang, 2025

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 52

  1. *Abu-Naser, S. S. (2009). Evaluating the effectiveness of the CPP-tutor, an intelligent tutoring system for students learning to program in C++. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 5(1), 109–114.
  2. Alkhatlan, A., & Kalita, J. (2018). Intelligent tutoring systems: A comprehensive historical survey with recent developments. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1812.09628 · DOI
  3. Azevedo, R., & Wiedbusch, M. (2023). Theories of metacognition and pedagogy applied in AIED systems. In B. du Boulay, A. Mitrovic, & K. Yacef (Eds.), Handbook of artificial intelligence in education (pp. 45–67). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800375413.00013 · DOI
  4. *Binh, H. T., Trung, N. Q., & Duy, B. T. (2021). Responsive student model in an intelligent tutoring system and its evaluation. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 4969–4991. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10485-4 · DOI
  5. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. David McKay.
  6. *Chen, L. H. (2011). Enhancement of student learning performance using personalized diagnosis and remedial learning system. Computers & Education, 56(1), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.015 · DOI
  7. Chen, X., Xie, H., Zou, D., & Hwang, G. J. (2020). Application and theory gaps during the rise of artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 1, 100002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100002 · DOI · Paper page
  8. *Chrysafiadi, K., Virvou, M., Tsihrintzis, G. A., & Hatzilygeroudis, I. (2023). Evaluating the user’s experience, adaptivity and learning outcomes of a fuzzy-based intelligent tutoring system for computer programming for academic students in Greece. Education and Information Technologies, 28(6), 6453–6483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11444-3 · DOI
  9. Crow, T., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Wuensche, B. (2018). Intelligent tutoring systems for programming education: A systematic review. In Proceedings of the 20th Australasian computing education conference (pp. 53–62). https://doi.org/10.1145/3160489.3160492 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Cumpston, M. S., McKenzie, J. E., Thomas, J., & Brennan, S. E. (2021). The use of ‘PICO for synthesis’ and methods for synthesis without meta-analysis: Protocol for a survey of current practice in systematic reviews of health interventions. F1000Research, 9, 678. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.24469.2 · DOI
  11. Feng, S., & Law, N. (2021). Mapping artificial intelligence in education research: A network-based keyword analysis. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 31, 277–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00244-4 · DOI
  12. *Figueiredo, J., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2020). Intelligent tutoring systems approach to introductory programming courses. In Eighth international conference on technological ecosystems for enhancing multiculturality (pp. 34–39). https://doi.org/10.1145/3434780.3436614 · DOI
  13. Forehand, M. (2005). Bloom’s taxonomy: Original and revised. Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Technology, 8, 41–44.
  14. Francisco, R. E., & de Oliveira Silva, F. (2022). Intelligent Tutoring system for computer science education and the use of artificial intelligence: A literature review. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on computer supported education (CSEDU 2022) (pp. 338–345). http://repositorio.grial.eu/handle/grial/2566 · DOI
  15. Gao, F., Luo, T., & Zhang, K. (2012). Tweeting for learning: A critical analysis of research on microblogging in education published in 2008–2011. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), 783–801. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01357.x · DOI
  16. *Gonzalez, L. A., Neyem, A., Contreras-McKay, I., & Molina, D. (2022). Improving learning experiences in software engineering capstone courses using artificial intelligence virtual assistants. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 30(5), 1370–1389. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22526 · DOI
  17. Hawlitschek, A., Berndt, S., & Schulz, S. (2023). Empirical research on pair programming in higher education: A literature review. Computer Science Education, 33(3), 400–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2022.2039504 · DOI
  18. *Hooshyar, D., Ahmad, R. B., Yousefi, M., Fathi, M., Horng, S. J., & Lim, H. (2018). SITS: A solution-based intelligent tutoring system for students’ acquisition of problem-solving skills in computer programming. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55(3), 325–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2016.1189346 · DOI
  19. *Hooshyar, D., Ahmad, R. B., Yousefi, M., Yusop, F. D., & Horng, S. J. (2015). A flowchart-based intelligent tutoring system for improving problem-solving skills of novice programmers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(4), 345–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12099 · DOI
  20. Hung, J. L., & Zhang, K. (2008). Revealing online learning behaviors and activity patterns and making predictions with data mining techniques in online teaching. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. http://jolt.merlot.org/vol4no4/hung_1208.pdf
  21. Hung, J. L., & Zhang, K. (2012). Examining mobile learning trends 2003–2008: A categorical meta-trend analysis using text mining techniques. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 24, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-011-9044-9 · DOI
  22. Hunt, V. D., Layton, D., & Prince, S. (2015). Why diversity matters. McKinsey & Company.
  23. Indriasari, T. D., Denny, P., Lottridge, D., & Luxton-Reilly, A. (2023). Gamification improves the quality of student peer code review. Computer Science Education, 33(3), 458–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2022.2124094 · DOI
  24. *Jeremic, Z., Jovanovic, J., & Gasevic, D. (2009). Evaluating an intelligent tutoring system for design patterns: The DEPTHS experience. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 111–130.
  25. Kabudi, T., Pappas, I., & Olsen, D. H. (2021). AI-enabled adaptive learning systems: A systematic mapping of the literature. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100017 · DOI · Paper page
  26. *Kerimbayev, N., Jotsov, V., Umirzakova, Z., Bolyskhanova, M., & Tkach, G. (2022). The use of chat-bot capabilities As a type of modeling in intelligent learning. In 2022 IEEE 11th international conference on intelligent systems (IS) (pp. 1–8). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IS57118.2022.10019627 · DOI
  27. Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106, 166–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.006 · DOI
  28. *Lane, H. C., & VanLehn, K. (2003). Coached program planning: Dialogue-based support for novice program design. In Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 148–152). https://doi.org/10.1145/611892.611955 · DOI
  29. *Lane, H. C., & VanLehn, K. (2005). Teaching the tacit knowledge of programming to novices with natural language tutoring. Computer Science Education, 15(3), 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993400500224286 · DOI
  30. *Latham, A., Crockett, K., & McLean, D. (2014). An adaptation algorithm for an intelligent natural language tutoring system. Computers & Education, 71, 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.014 · DOI · Paper page
  31. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2018). Conducting educational design research. Routledge. · DOI
  32. *Mohammed, P., & Mohan, P. (2011). The design and implementation of an enculturated web-based intelligent tutoring system for computer science education. In 2011 IEEE 11th international conference on advanced learning technologies (pp. 501–505). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2011.156 · DOI
  33. Nesbit, J. C., Adesope, O. O., Liu, Q., & Ma, W. (2014). How effective are intelligent tutoring systems in computer science education? In 2014 IEEE 14th international conference on advanced learning technologies (pp. 99–103). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2014.38 · DOI
  34. Nesbit, J. C., Liu, L., Liu, Q., & Adesope, O. O. (2015). Work in progress: Intelligent tutoring systems in computer science and software engineering education. Association for Engineering Education-Engineering Library Division Papers. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.25090 · DOI
  35. Okubo, Y. (1997). Bibliometric indicators and analysis of research systems: Methods and examples. OECD Science.
  36. Ouhbi, S., & Pombo, N. (2020). Software engineering education: challenges and perspectives. In 2020 IEEE global engineering education conference (EDUCON) (pp. 202–209). ISSN: 2165–9567. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON45650.2020.9125353 · DOI
  37. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., & Chou, R. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International Journal of Surgery, 88, 105906. · DOI · Paper page
  38. Qureshi, B. (2023). Exploring the use of chatgpt as a tool for learning and assessment in undergraduate computer science curriculum: Opportunities and challenges. arXiv preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.11214. · arXiv
  39. *Rivers, K., & Koedinger, K. R. (2017). Data-driven hint generation in vast solution spaces: A self-improving Python programming tutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 27, 37–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0070-z · DOI
  40. *Robe, P., & Kuttal, S. K. (2022). Designing pairbuddy—a conversational agent for pair programming. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 29(4), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3498326 · DOI
  41. Romero, C., Ventura, S., Pechenizkiy, M., & Baker, R. S. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of educational data mining. CRC Press.
  42. Schiavenato, M., & Chu, F. (2021). PICO: What it is and what it is not. Nurse Education in Practice, 56, 103194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103194 · DOI
  43. Silva, D. B., Aguiar, R. d. L., Dvconlo, D. S., & Silla, C. N. (2019). Recent studies about teaching algorithms (CS1) and data structures (CS2) for computer science students. In 2019 IEEE frontiers in education conference (FIE), (pp. 1–8). IEEE. · DOI
  44. Tang, K. Y., Chang, C. Y., & Hwang, G. J. (2023). Trends in artificial intelligence-supported e-learning: A systematic review and co-citation network analysis (1998–2019). Interactive Learning Environments, 31(4), 2134–2152. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1875001 · DOI
  45. Thelwall, M. (2008). Bibliometrics to webometrics. Journal of Information Science, 34(4), 605–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551507087238 · DOI
  46. *Verdú, E., Regueras, L. M., Gal, E., de Castro, J. P., Verdú, M. J., & Kohen-Vacs, D. (2017). Integration of an intelligent tutoring system in a course of computer network design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65, 653–677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9503-0 · DOI
  47. *Yilmaz, R., & Yilmaz, F. G. K. (2023a). The effect of generative artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool use on students’ computational thinking skills, programming self-efficacy and motivation. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100147 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Zhang, K., & Aslan, A. B. (2020). Preparing industry-ready engineers with virtual reality: Recent research and future directions. International Journal of Smart Technology and Learning, 2(2–3), 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSMARTTL.2020.112130 · DOI
  49. Zhang, K., & Aslan, A. B. (2021). AI technologies for education: Recent research & future directions. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100025 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Zhang, K., & Aslan, A. B. (2022). Design frameworks for mobile health technology: A state-of-the-art review of research from 2015–2021. International Journal of Health Systems and Translational Medicine (IJHSTM), 2(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJHSTM.302653 · DOI
  51. Zhu, M., Xu, L., & Ericson, B. (under review). A systematic review of research on large language models for computer programming education.
  52. Zrudlo, I. (2023). Why the learning styles myth appeals and how to persuade believers otherwise. Teaching and Teacher Education, 132, 104266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104266 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Zhu, M., & Zhang, K.
Affiliations
  • Wayne State University (US)
  • Kennesaw State University (US)
Corresponding author
Zhu, Meina
ORCID
Venue
Technology, Knowledge and Learning
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-05-20
Volume
30
Issue
4
Pages
2417-2441
ISSN
  • 2211-1662 (ISSN-L)
  • 2211-1670
DOI
10.1007/s10758-025-09859-1
OpenAlex
W4410540339
Cited by
13
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 2
FWCI
1.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
Technology Knowledge and Learning (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Keywords
artificial intelligence in education, computer science education, higher education, diversity, equity, and inclusion, future research directions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review