The affordances of artificial intelligence-based tools for supporting 21st-century skills: A systematic review of empirical research in higher education
Open accessAbstract
Twenty-first-century skills should be integrated into higher education to prepare students for complex working-life challenges. Artificial intelligence (AI)-powered tools have the potential to optimise skill development among higher education students. Therefore, it is important to conceptualise relevant affordances of AI systems for 21st-century skills development in higher education. This study aimed to present an overview of journal articles published in the Web of Science database that specifically addressed the affordances of AI-based tools for 21st-century skills development. Four distinct categories of AI-based tools (intelligent tutoring systems, chatbots, AI-powered dashboards and automated grading systems) were identified as capable of promoting six main 21st-century skills (collaboration, communication, creativity, critical thinking, information and communication technology and problem-solving). The review revealed that the utilisation of AI-based tools might contribute to the simultaneous development of multiple 21st-century skills (e.g., collaboration and critical thinking). The results showed that adaptive feedback from AI plays a significant role as a facilitator in the development of 21st-century skills. Furthermore, the utilisation of diverse functional AI affordances (e.g., prediction and profiling) might contribute to the development of various skills. AI-based technologies appeared to target the 21st-century skills of problem-solving and its subskills the…
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?
GenAI offers real-time feedback, ideation support, and adaptive scaffolding.
“while GenAI (e.g., ChatGPT Copilot) offers realtime feedback, ideation support, and adaptive scaffolding [8,9]”
From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
Real-time, dialogic interaction can enable iterative questioning, clarification, and 'why/how' probing that can scaffold analysis and explanation.
“For instance, real-time, dialogic interaction can enable iterative questioning, clarification, and”
From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
GenAI's technical affordances can map onto specific core CT processes.
“GenAI's technical affordances can map onto specific core CT processes.”
From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
GenAI's ability to provide adaptive feedback and on-demand hints can support self-regulation by helping students plan next steps, monitor progress, and reflect on errors, especially when the interaction is designed to surface reasoning rather than optimize for speed.
“Also, GenAI's ability to provide adaptive feedback and on-demand hints can support self-regulation by helping students plan next steps, monitor progress, and reflect on errors, especially when the interaction is designed to surface reasoning rather than optimize for speed [8,9].”
From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
Celik et al. conducted a systematic review of AI-based tools for 21st-century skills in higher education, highlighting that while GenAI platforms can scaffold collaborative problem-solving and iterative reasoning, the majority of studies reported only on engagement and usability metrics rather than direct measures of CT.
“Celik et al. [8] conducted a systematic review of AI-based tools for 21st-century skills in higher education, highlighting that while GenAI platforms can scaffold collaborative problemsolving and iterative reasoning, the majority of studies reported only on engagement and usability metrics rather than direct measures of CT (e.g., analysis, evaluation, inference).”
From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
GenAI has the ability to reformulate student ideas and present them in different forms, allowing learners to refine their arguments and clarify understanding.
“A notable affordance is GenAI's ability to reformulate student ideas and present them in different forms, allowing learners to refine their arguments and clarify understanding [8,30].”
From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
GenAI systems, particularly large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, offer a variety of cognitive affordances that can be leveraged to enhance CT in higher education.
“GenAI systems, particularly large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, offer a variety of cognitive affordances that can be leveraged to enhance CT in higher education [8].”
From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
GenAI can enable students to clarify and link multiple ideas through recommendation and automated feedback, encouraging more critical engagement.
“Similarly, Celik et al. [8] emphasize how GenAI can enable students to clarify and link multiple ideas through recommendation and automated feedback, encouraging more critical engagement.”
From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
Cites
PRISMA-P Group, Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 · Cited by 26,223 · cited 2× · see citing works
“A systematic literature review was conducted to organise all eligible scientific reports that met predetermined relevant criteria to provide an overview of the topic of interest (Shamseer et al., 2015).”
BackgroundMethodZawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0 · Cited by 7,242 · cited 4× · see citing works
“This might have been because students and instructors in such fields are familiar with emerging technologies and can easily adopt AI systems to foster their skills (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialArtificial Intelligence in Education: A Review
Chen, L., Chen, P., & Lin, Z. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2988510 · Cited by 4,133 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Chatbots – a prevalent AI technology – could be used to answer student inquiries, facilitating them in gaining problem-solving skills (L. Chen et al., 2020).”
BackgroundVoogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012) · Journal of Curriculum Studies · doi:10.1080/00220272.2012.668938 · Cited by 1,561 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence in education: Addressing ethical challenges in K-12 settings
Akgun, S., & Greenhow, C. (2022) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-021-00096-7 · Cited by 1,473 · cited 2× · see citing works
“In order to answer RQ2, we coded the articles by focusing on four AI-based tools – chatbots, AI-based dashboards, automated grading systems and intelligent tutoring systems – which are reported as the most widely used (Akgun & Greenhow, 2022; Celik, 2023b).”
BackgroundMethodLuo, X., Tong, S., Fang, Z., & Qu, Z. (2019) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.2019.1192 · Cited by 1,027 · cited 2× · see citing works
“They serve as conversational agents that simulate human conversation by creating automated responses (Luo et al., 2019).”
BackgroundCelik, I. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107468 · Cited by 1,012 · see citing works
The promises and challenges of artificial intelligence for teachers: A systematic review of research
Celik, I., Dindar, M., Muukkonen, H., & Järvelä, S. (2022) · TechTrends · doi:10.1007/s11528-022-00715-y · Cited by 984 · see citing works
Self-citationvan Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & de Haan, J. (2020) · Sage Open · doi:10.1177/2158244019900176 · Cited by 927 · see citing works
Ouyang, F., Zheng, L., & Jiao, P. (2022) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-022-10925-9 · Cited by 831 · see citing works
Essel, H. B., Vlachopoulos, D., Tachie-Menson, A., Johnson, E. E., & Baah, P. K. (2022) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-022-00362-6 · Cited by 428 · see citing works
Chocarro, R., Cortiñas, M., & Marcos-Matás, G. (2023) · Educational Studies · doi:10.1080/03055698.2020.1850426 · Cited by 343 · see citing works
Academic and Administrative Role of Artificial Intelligence in Education
Ahmad, S. F., Alam, M. M., Rahmat, M. K., Mubarik, M. S., & Hyder, S. I. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su14031101 · Cited by 309 · see citing works
Mettler, T., & Wulf, J. (2019) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.12205 · Cited by 155 · see citing works
TASKIRAN, A., & GOKSEL, N. (2022) · Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education · doi:10.17718/tojde.1096260 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Wang, M., Sun, Z., Jia, M., Wang, Y., Wang, H., Zhu, X., Chen, L., & Ji, H. (2022) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-022-01797-7 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Balart, T., Díaz, B., & Shryock, K. (2026) · Algorithms · doi:10.3390/a19030179 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
- Authors
- Celik, I., Gedrimiene, E., Siklander, S., & Muukkonen, H.
- Affiliations
- University of Oulu (FI)
- Venue
- Australasian Journal of Educational Technology
- Published
- 2024-06-01
- ISSN
- 1449-3098 (ISSN-L)
- 1449-5554
- OpenAlex
- W4399253822
- Cited by
- 59
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 32 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 22.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- 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 › Information Systems › Digital literacy in education
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence in education, 21st century skills, AI affordances, higher education, intelligent tutoring systems, chatbots, automated grading, adaptive feedback, problem-solving skills, critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, communication skills, ICT skills, multimodal data, humanities and social sciences
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
