The Evolution of Research on Digital Education
Open accessAbstract
How does AI&EdAIED today compare to 25 years ago? This paper addresses this evolution by identifying six trends. The trends are ongoing and will influence learning technologies going forward. First, the physicality of interactions and the physical space of the learner became genuine components of digital education. The frontier between the digital and the physical has faded out. Similarly, the opposition between individual and social views on cognition has been subsumed by integrated learning scenarios, which means that AIED pays more attention today to social interactions than it did at its outset. Another trend is the processing of learners’ behavioural particles, which do not carry very many semantics when considered individually, but are predictive of knowledge states when large data sets are processed with machine learning methods. The development of probabilistic models and the integration of crowdsourcing methods has produced another trend: the design of learning environments has become less deterministic than before. The notion of learning environment evolved from a rather closed box to an open ecosystem in which multiple components are distributed over multiple platforms and where multiple stakeholders interact. Among these stakeholders, it is important to notice that teachers play a more important role than before: they interact not only at the design phase (authoring) but also in the runtime phase (orchestration). These trends are not specific to AIED; they depict the evolution of learning technologies as a whole.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
These concerns echo critiques within constructivist and socio-emotional learning literature that caution against excessive automation.
“These concerns echo critiques within constructivist and socio-emotional learning literature that caution against excessive automation (Dillenbourg, 2016).”
From Teachers' Experiences with AI in K–12 Education: Opportunities and Challenges (2026) · cites this paper as Dillenbourg, 2016
Concerns related to creativity, emotional engagement, and socio-emotional development echo critiques within constructivist and socio-emotional learning frameworks, which warn that excessive reliance on technology may undermine relational depth and learner agency.
“Concerns related to creativity, emotional engagement, and socio-emotional development echo critiques within constructivist and socio-emotional learning frameworks, which warn that excessive reliance on technology may undermine relational depth and learner agency (Dillenbourg, 2016).”
From Teachers' Experiences with AI in K–12 Education: Opportunities and Challenges (2026) · cites this paper as Dillenbourg, 2016
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 72 · Cited by 136
- Authors
- Dillenbourg, P.
- Affiliations
- École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Dillenbourg, Pierre
- ORCID
- Dillenbourg, Pierre
- Venue
- International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-06
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 544-560
- ISSN
- 1560-4292 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2287976161
- Cited by
- 136
- References
- 72
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 5.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence in education, adaptive intelligent tutoring systems, social interaction in learning, probabilistic models, crowdsourcing, learning environment design, teacher role in learning, educational technology
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