The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Mapping the Landscape of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Learning Analytics: A Systematic Literature Review
Open accessAbstract
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has opened new possibilities for designing learning analytics (LA) tools, gaining new insights about student learning processes and their environment, and supporting teachers in assessing and monitoring students. This systematic literature review maps the empirical research of 41 papers utilizing GenAI and LA and interprets the results through the lens of the LA/EDM process cycle. Currently, GenAI is mostly implemented to automate discourse coding, scoring, or classification tasks. Few papers used GenAI to generate data or to summarize text. Classroom integrations of GenAI and LA mostly explore facilitating human–GenAI collaboration, rather than implementing automated feedback generation or GenAI-powered learning analytics dashboards. Most papers use Generative Adversarial Network models to generate synthetic data, BERT models for classification or prediction tasks, BERT or GPT models for discourse coding, and GPT models for tool integration. Although most studies evaluate the GenAI output, we found examples of using GenAI without the output validation, especially when its output feeds into an LA pipeline aiming to, for example, develop a dashboard. This review offers a comprehensive overview of the field to aid LA researchers in the design of research studies and a contribution to establishing best practices to integrate GenAI and LA.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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 is currently being used in learning analytics to automate discourse coding, generate synthetic data for training, and develop sophisticated dashboards.
“As highlight in their systematic review, GenAI is currently being used to automate discourse coding, generate synthetic data for training, and develop sophisticated dashboards”
From The safety gap: restoring productive struggle through pedagogically aligned generative AI (2026) · cites this paper as Misiejuk et al., 2025
Evidence on the effectiveness of GenAI on actual learning is still lacking.
“However, they also note that evidence on the effectiveness of GenAI on actual learning is still lacking.”
From The safety gap: restoring productive struggle through pedagogically aligned generative AI (2026) · cites this paper as Misiejuk et al., 2025
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The safety gap: restoring productive struggle through pedagogically aligned generative AI
Wang, H., & Shan, W. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1757622 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Misiejuk, K., López-Pernas, S., Kaliisa, R., & Saqr, M.
- Affiliations
- FernUniversität in Hagen (DE)
- University of Oslo (NO)
- University of Eastern Finland (FI)
- Venue
- Journal of Learning Analytics
- Published
- 2025-03-20
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 12-31
- ISSN
- 1929-7750 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4408670199
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 26 · 2025: 4
- FWCI
- 27.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Learning Analytics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Keywords
- generative AI, learning analytics, educational data mining, automated grading, student assessment, human-AI collaboration, learning analytics dashboards, synthetic data generation, generative adversarial networks, BERT, GPT, output validation
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