Artificial Intelligence in Education: A Review

Chen, Chen, Lin · IEEE Access · 2020 · education · 10.1109/access.2020.2988510 · record Chen2020-artificial-intelligence-in-education-a-revie
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (pdftext); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. Method is 'review' rather than 'systematic-review': the paper describes journal-level H-index screening and an eliminative process down to ~30 articles, but frames itself as a qualitative/thematic literature review, not a protocol-driven systematic review. The only self-stated limitation is the scope restriction quoted above; the paper offers no discussion of selection bias, search reproducibility or the reliability of its thematic coding, so the limitations array is short by the paper's own silence. No 'contradicts' or 'replicates' relations exist: prior work is cited approvingly or in agreement throughout. 2026-08-14 and 2026-08-25 schema-0.3 passes: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node.

This record’s own method is review, and the tags below follow from that. A review’s findings, quantities and statistics are things stated IN this paper, and some of them report results obtained elsewhere. No tag on this page names a different author. Measured across every review in this corpus, 81% of a review’s tags carry no citation at all — most of them are the review speaking. The corpus does not adjudicate the rest: read an unmarked tag as a claim this paper makes, not necessarily one it made first.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
machine learning 14 fields · artificial intelligence 4 fields

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 5 concept tags on this paper, all 5 are grounded in a quoted sentence.

artificial intelligence field of study theoretical framework H-Index cognitive problems Machine learning infers each learner's capabilities and needs, which lets the system deliver personalised content, and that personalisation is what raises uptake and retention (i.e. improves learning). Automating administrative paperwork frees instructor time, which is then redirected to core instructional work, raising teaching quality. machine learning review

Legend

relation to other work	`claim_relations`	how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies
claim type	`claim_type`	the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null
concept edge	`concept_edges`	an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it
concept	`concepts`	an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it
content tag	`content_tags`	a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper
control	`controls`	an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation
limitation	`limitations`	what the paper says its evidence cannot support
mechanism	`mechanisms`	how the reported effect is said to come about
method	`method`	how the paper produced its evidence
phenomenon	`phenomenon`	the effect or regularity under study
sense	`senses`	a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.2988510. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 1 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 2 · concepts 5 · content_tags 11 · controls 2 · limitations 4 · mechanisms 2 · method 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 3

Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 2 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.

facet	tag	field	conf.	whose words
claim_type	existence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_type`		the paper's words
phenomenon	artificial intelligence in education Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`phenomenon`		the paper's words
method	review Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: review	`method`		the paper's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Machine learning infers each learner's capabilities and needs, which lets the system deliver personalised content, and that personalisation is what raises uptake and retention (i.e. improves learning).	`mechanisms[0]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Automating administrative paperwork frees instructor time, which is then redirected to core instructional work, raising teaching quality.	`mechanisms[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The review's scope was deliberately restricted to three areas of education taken from a prior framework. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the three areas the review covers and nothing else: THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY WAS LIMITED TO THE APPLICATION AND EFFECTS OF AI IN ADMINISTRATION, INSTRUCTION, AND LEARNING	`limitations[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	One cited source is reported as defining the review's central term as two different kinds of thing. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any use of this review's account of AI: it reports a two-faceted definition in which AI is both a field of study in computer science and a theoretical framework guiding the development of computer systems	`limitations[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	Differences between the collected definitions are described as near similar rather than reconciled. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any claim that this review works from a single definition of AI: the definitions gathered from other scholars are said to bring to the fore near similar elements or characteristics	`limitations[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	The corpus is bounded by a journal bibliometric threshold. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any claim about the state of the literature drawn from this review: articles were selected by matching search keywords and by	`limitations[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
controls	a stated search strategy - key words and search strings run across EBSCOhost, ProQuest and Web of Science rather than one database Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a review whose findings are a property of which database was searched - three sources with a recorded query is what lets someone else get the same set · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.85	the tagger's words
controls	pre-stated inclusion and exclusion criteria applied to 250 articles published after 2009 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: articles chosen after their content was known - the criteria and the date window are fixed before the screening rather than after it · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[1]`	0.85	the tagger's words
concepts	artificial intelligence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: artificial intelligence	`concepts[0]`		the paper's words
concepts	field of study Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: field of study	`concepts[1]`		the paper's words
concepts	theoretical framework Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: theoretical framework	`concepts[2]`		the paper's words
concepts	H-Index Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: H-Index	`concepts[3]`		the paper's words
concepts	cognitive problems Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cognitive problems	`concepts[4]`		the paper's words
senses	AI - A FIELD AND A THEORY AT ONCE, ON ONE SOURCE'S ACCOUNT: reported as a study area in computer science aimed at solving cognitive problems, and also as a theoretical framework guiding the development and use of computer systems; a field of study and a theoretical framework are not the same kind of entity, and the review reports both without choosing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	the definitions of AI - CALLED NEAR SIMILAR: the review gathers characterisations from several authors and describes them as bringing to the fore near similar elements, which is a judgement that differences do not matter rather than a demonstration that there are none Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	the H-Index - A PROXY FOR REPUTABILITY, WITH THE INFERENCE WRITTEN DOWN: the review states that the higher the H-Index the more reputable the journal and its authors, and then uses a threshold of 20 as an inclusion rule, so the corpus is bounded by a bibliometric number standing in for quality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → Chassignol et al. (2018), 'Artificial intelligence trends in education: A narrative overview' Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[0]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	artificial intelligence —is-a→ field of study Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.8 also in: artificial intelligence · field of study	`concept_edges[0]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	artificial intelligence —is-a→ theoretical framework Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.8 also in: artificial intelligence · theoretical framework	`concept_edges[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The review concludes that AI has been widely adopted across education institutions in several distinct technological forms. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	AI improved the efficiency of administrative tasks that would otherwise take instructors much time. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The main learning benefit identified was customisation and personalisation of curriculum and content to individual learners' needs and abilities. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	One reviewed study highlighted an adverse effect of AI: degraded academic integrity and cheating through AI-enabled paper-mill services. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	artificial intelligence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: artificial intelligence	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	H-Index Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: H-Index	`content_tags.definitions[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	machine learning Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: machine learning	`content_tags.definitions[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	70% — share of the AI-and-education papers found in Web of Science and Google Scholar that were published in the 2015-2019 window Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	250 — number of articles initially retrieved that met the keyword and journal H-Index criteria Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	thirty — final number of articles retained for analysis after the second screening round Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	more than forty — number of documents (journal articles, professional publications, reports) selected after the eliminative process Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[3]`		the tagger's words

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

none — every tag was located in the text

What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.