Cited by 923Artificial Intelligence in EducationIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningOnline Learning and Analytics

AI technologies for education: Recent research & future directions

Open access
Zhang, Ke, Aslan, Ayse Begum·2021·Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

From unique educational perspectives, this article reports a comprehensive review of selected empirical studies on artificial intelligence in education (AIEd) published in 1993–2020, as collected in the Web of Sciences database and selected AIEd-specialized journals. A total of 40 empirical studies met all selection criteria, and were fully reviewed using multiple methods, including selected bibliometrics, content analysis and categorical meta-trends analysis. This article reports the current state of AIEd research, highlights selected AIEd technologies and applications, reviews their proven and potential benefits for education, bridges the gaps between AI technological innovations and their educational applications, and generates practical examples and inspirations for both technological experts that create AIEd technologies and educators who spearhead AI innovations in education. It also provides rich discussions on practical implications and future research directions from multiple perspectives. The advancement of AIEd calls for critical initiatives to address AI ethics and privacy concerns, and requires interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaborations in large-scaled, longitudinal research and development efforts.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100025

Cites

83 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Current gaps in GenAI in education research include addressing ethical and privacy concerns, integrating GenAI with educational theories and practices, and exploring fairness, accountability, and transparency.

    “These studies suggest current gaps in GenAI in education research include addressing ethical and privacy concerns, integrating GenAI with educational theories and practices, and exploring fairness, accountability, and transparency [72–74].”

    From Generative AI in Higher Education: Balancing Innovation and Integrity (2025) · cites this paper as [74]

    Section 4.4 identifies ethics and privacy as unresolved issues in AI in education, and section 4.2 calls for integrating educational theory and practice into AI development. The paper addresses AI in education broadly, not specifically generative AI, and the cited passages do not identify fairness, accountability, and transparency as research gaps. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A separate stream of reviews surveys GenAI's administrative, technical, and outcome-focused uses in teaching.

    “A separate stream of reviews surveys GenAI's administrative, technical, and outcome-focused uses in teaching [35-38].”

    From A Systematic Review of Generative AI in K–12: Mapping Goals, Activities, Roles, and Outcomes via the 3P Model (2025) · cites this paper as [38]

    Section 4.2, Practical implications for AIEd (page not supplied), discusses AI applications for educators and administrators, including learning materials, assessment, feedback, and evaluation. But the review addresses AI in education broadly, not specifically generative AI, so it does not support the claim's GenAI qualification. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Existing faculty development initiatives frequently emphasise tool awareness rather than supporting ethical, reflective, and process-oriented engagement with AI.

    “Existing faculty development initiatives frequently emphasise tool awareness rather than supporting ethical, reflective, and process-oriented engagement with AI.”

    From Ethical engagement with artificial intelligence in faculty research education: evaluation of the New Knowledge Help (NKH) approach (2026) · cites this paper as [10]

    Sections 4.4 and 5 call for attention to AI ethics, and section 4.2 urges educator participation in AI development. Neither those passages nor searches for faculty development and professional development address what existing initiatives emphasise or how frequently they prioritise tool awareness over ethical, reflective, or process-oriented engagement. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Current faculty development programmes often introduce tools in isolation to emphasise general familiarity, rather than positioning AI as a general tool to be used across various phases of research.

    “Current programmes often introduce tools in isolation to emphasise general familiarity, rather than positioning AI as a general tool to be used across various phases of research from idea generation to research dissemination [5, 7, 10].”

    From Ethical engagement with artificial intelligence in faculty research education: evaluation of the New Knowledge Help (NKH) approach (2026) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Abstract and §4.2 discuss AI applications in teaching and learning, while §4.3 discusses directions for AIEd research. None addresses how faculty development programmes introduce AI tools or whether they cover the research process from idea generation to dissemination. Searches for faculty training, isolated tools, and research-workflow stages found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Machines are far from human intelligence and emotions and cannot undertake the role of teachers.

    “These outcomes highlight the fact that machines are far from human intelligence and emotions and cannot undertake the role of teachers (González-Calatayud et al., 2021;Zhang & Aslan, 2021).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Aiken, R. M., & Epstein, R. G. (2000). Ethical guidelines for AI in education: Starting a conversation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 163-176.
  2. Romero, C., & Ventura, S. (2013). In Data mining in education. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: Data mining and knowledge discovery (Vol. 3, pp. 12-27), 1.
  3. Roschelle, J., Lester, J., & Fusco, J. (Eds.). (2020). AI and the future of learning: Expert panel report [Report]. Digital Promise. https://circls.org/reports/ai-report.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, K., & Aslan, A. B.
Affiliations
  • Wayne State University (US)
  • Eastern Michigan University (US)
Corresponding author
Zhang, Ke
Venue
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021
Volume
2
Pages
100025
ISSN
2666-920X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3167554351
Cited by
923
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 195 · 2025: 299 · 2024: 285 · 2023: 107 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 7
FWCI
97.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
Keywords
artificial intelligence in education, AI ethics, privacy concerns, interdisciplinary collaboration, transdisciplinary research, 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