Artificial intelligence-based robots in education: A systematic review of selected SSCI publications
Open accessAbstract
With the rapid development of artificial intelligence, the application of AI robots (Artificial Intelligence-based robots) for instruction has become an attractive research topic. Numerous studies have shown that AI robots may provide new opportunities for learning designs in school settings or professional training. However, there is no review examining the role and research foci of AI-Robots in Education (AIRE) research. This study therefore explored the research trends of AIRE by conducting a systematic review of SSCI (Social Sciences Citation Index) journal articles published in the Web of Science (WoS). The study analyzed the participants, duration of the studies, learning environments, application domains, data analysis, evaluations of learners' performance, learning strategies, roles of AI-robots, and research issues. The research findings are concluded as follows: (1) The countries of Canada, Chile, and South Korea invested in AIRE research early, and focused on students' learning performance and learning behavior. (2) Most AIRE research focuses on research targets under the age of 13 and completed experiments within 4 weeks in a physical environment. Most AIRE research has been applied in the disciplines of Language and Science, and problem-solving related strategies and mixed strategies are the most commonly used strategies. (3) AI-robots are often applied and regarded as tutees or tutors. Regardless of what the AI-robot's role is, learning performance is the most widely focused variable in AIRE research. Furthermore, attitudes, opinions of learners or learning perceptions and learning behavior are other frequently discussed themes. To sum up, this study makes several recommendations for AIRE research for educators, researchers, and policy makers in higher education settings as a reference based on the results.
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?
The existing body of research predominantly focuses on adult learners in higher education, leaving a significant gap in understanding AI's impact on younger learners in K-12 settings, particularly in the EFL context.
“However, the existing body of research predominantly focuses on adult learners in higher education, leaving a significant gap in understanding AI's impact on younger learners in K-12 settings, particularly in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context.”
From AI-Integrated Scaffolding to Enhance Agency and Creativity in K-12 English Language Learners: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [13]
Cites
Chan, K. S., & Zary, N. (2019) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/13930 · Cited by 765 · see citing works
A Systematic Review of Studies on Educational Robotics
Anwar, S., Bascou, N. A., Menekse, M., & Kardgar, A. (2019) · Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER) · doi:10.7771/2157-9288.1223 · Cited by 419 · see citing works
Liu, C., Hou, J., Tu, Y.-F., Wang, Y., & Hwang, G.-J. (2023) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2021.2012812 · Cited by 231 · see citing works
Self-citationChevalier, M., Giang, C., Piatti, A., & Mondada, F. (2020) · International Journal of STEM Education · doi:10.1186/s40594-020-00238-z · Cited by 223 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Samala, A. D., Rawas, S., Wang, T., Reed, J. M., Kim, J., Howard, N.-J., & Ertz, M. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12936-0 · Cited by 229 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence in Personalised Learning: A Bibliometric Analysis
Li, K. C., & Wong, B. T.-M. (2023) · Interactive Technology and Smart Education · doi:10.1108/itse-01-2023-0007 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
A Comprehensive Systematic Review of AI-Driven Approaches to Self-Directed Learning
Younas, M., Abdel Salam El-Dakhs, D., & Jiang, Y. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3546319 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
When the Robotic Maths Tutor is Wrong - Can Children Identify Mistakes Generated by ChatGPT?
Helal, M., Holthaus, P., Wood, L., Velmurugan, V., Lakatos, G., Moros, S., & Amirabdollahian, F. (2024) · 2024 5th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Control (AIRC) · doi:10.1109/airc61399.2024.10672220 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“AI-powered robots’ role in education and the learning impact has been evaluated in a systematic review [23].”
Background
- Authors
- Chu, S.-T., Hwang, G.-J., & Tu, Y.-F.
- Affiliations
- National Taiwan University of Science and Technology (TW)
- Fu Jen Catholic University (TW)
- Corresponding author
- Tu, Yun-Fang
- Venue
- Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022
- Volume
- 3
- Pages
- 100091
- ISSN
- 2666-920X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4286511253
- Cited by
- 88
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 18
- FWCI
- 2.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (MOST-108-2511-H-011-005-MY3, MOST-109-2511-H-011-002-MY3)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Keywords
- educational robotics, research trends, learning performance, learning strategies, problem-solving strategies, AI tutors, student attitudes, learning behavior, research foci
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