phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | artificial intelligence in mathematics education— “The goal of this review is to add to the conversation by offering a complete overview of AI in mathematics teaching and learning for students at all levels of education. A” | |
| claim-type | existence— “The findings of the SLR indicate that AI approach used in mathematics education for the samples studied were through robotics, systems, tools, teachable agent, autonomous agent, and a comprehensive approach.” | |
| method — evidence | — “A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted using established and robust guidelines.” | |
| mechanism | the high maintenance cost of AI equipment restricts who can run such studies, which is why the reviewed research clusters in developed countries and is absent from Southeast Asia— “Meanwhile, AI is also difficult to apply comprehensively due to relatively high maintenance costs. Therefore, it is believed that this was why many studies were only conducted in developed countries such as the United States, China, and Australia while zero studies in Southeast Asia, especially in Malaysia.” | mechanisms[0] |
| builds-on | Ouyang and Jiao (2021) conceptual framework of AI-directed / AI-supported / AI-empowered learning— “Therefore, in the current work, we follow the idea of Ouyang and Jiao (2021) as conceptual framework namely AI-directed (learner-as-recipient), AI-supported (learner-as-collaborator), and AI-empowered 9 learner-as-leader).” | claim_relations[0] |
| builds-on | Moher et al. (2009) PRISMA flow diagram— “Figure 2 displays the PRISMA flow chart in this study adapted and modified from Moher et al. (2009).” | claim_relations[1] |
| replicates | Zhong and Xia (2020) systematic review of robotics in mathematics learning— “The result was in line with Zhong and Xia (2020) who conducted a systematic review that stated that there is a potential for future research and the rapid development of evidence-based research on teaching and learning mathematical content knowledge through robotics.” | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | AI - THREE CHARACTERISATIONS AND NO RULING: the review reports that there are diverse concepts of AI in the literature and that defining it is a problem, then quotes a confluence of technologies, computers that do cognitive functions, and a process that produces human intelligence through machines - three sources, one review, and no statement of which the review is using— “To date, there are diverse concept of AI in the current literature. The problem in defining AI, known as machine intelligence (Poole et al., 1998), is to define artificiality’s parameters, or the manners in which computers differ from human intelligence” | senses[0] |
| sense | AI, OPERATIONALLY - A LIST OF EIGHT SEARCH STRINGS: what the review actually counts is papers matching artificial intelligence, AI, robotics, machine learning, neural networks, fuzzy logic, natural language processing or expert systems, so a table of search synonyms is doing the work that none of the three definitions does— “Synonyms and alternatives terms for main search terms Artificial intelligence AI Robotics Machine learning Neural networks Fuzzy logic Natural language processing Expert systems” | senses[1] |
| sense | machine intelligence - THE ALTERNATIVE NAME, GIVEN IN PASSING: the review introduces the problem of defining AI as the problem of defining artificiality's parameters, and names the field 'machine intelligence' in the same clause, attributing it to Poole et al. 1998— “The problem in defining AI, known as machine intelligence (Poole et al., 1998), is to define artificiality’s parameters, or the manners in which computers differ from human intelligence” | senses[2] |
| control | A PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARD ON A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW: every one of the 845 articles read through title, abstract, methodology, results and discussion against the stated selection criteria, rather than screened on title and abstract alone — held — rules out articles that match the search terms but not the research question - a review screened on titles inherits whatever the titles happen to say, and the synthesis then describes the search rather than the literature— “to ensure that all 845 articles fit the study’s selection criteria and objectives, each article’s title, abstract, methodology, results, and discussion were thoroughly reviewed” | controls[0] |
| edge | intelligent tutoring system —is-a→ computer program— “An intelligent tutoring system (Hasanein & Abu-Naser, 2018) is a computer program designed to simulate the behavior and guidance of a human teacher” | concept_edges[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| for which use | limitation — any count reported in this review: the authors state there are diverse concepts of AI in the literature and describe defining AI as a problem, without settling on one definition for the review— “To date, there are diverse concept of AI in the current literature. The problem in defining AI, known as machine intelligence (Poole et al., 1998), is to define artificiality’s parameters, or the manners in which computers differ from human intelligence” | limitations[4] |
| for which use | limitation — the scope of what this review counts as AI: the search treated artificial intelligence, AI, robotics, machine learning, neural networks, fuzzy logic, natural language processing and expert systems as synonyms and alternative terms for one main search term— “Synonyms and alternatives terms for main search terms Artificial intelligence AI Robotics Machine learning Neural networks Fuzzy logic Natural language processing Expert systems” | limitations[5] |
| for which use | limitation — the PRISMA flow reported here: 864 results from the databases plus 20 from other sources are stated to give a total of 885, and the printed numbers do not sum— “864 results were identified using search strategies, while additional papers (n=20) were identified from other sources. As a result, a total of 885 journal articles had been classified at this stage” | limitations[6] |
| for which use | limitation — any claim about how much AI research exists in mathematics education: only English-language journal articles published between 2017 and 2021 were considered— “we were only concentrating on English-language journal articles made it less likely that complex or uncertain translations would be required. Then, we looked at articles published within the previous five years (between 2017 and 2021)” | limitations[7] |
| replication | untested | |
| evidence status note | phenomenon — This quote ends with the stray word 'A', the first word of the next sentence. It is not trimmed, because the quote without it occurs more than once in the paper's text and could not be tied to one place. The claim is carried by the sentence before 'A'. | |
| limitation | Only a small number of eligible articles exist, so broad conclusions cannot be drawn— “The first limitation is that only a limited number of articles are available for research.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | AI is rarely investigated in mathematics education, limiting the results obtained— “Because AI is a topic that is rarely investigated in mathematics education, the results gained are limited, making it difficult to draw broad conclusions from the findings.” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | De-duplication across search engines reduced the number of relevant studies acquired— “As previously stated, AI topics have a limited number of studies; therefore, eliminating duplicate articles amongst search engines decreases the acquisition of relevant research studies.” | limitations[2] |
| limitation | Only journal articles were included; proceedings and books were excluded— “Since the studies included in the analysis focused exclusively on journal articles, future research should consider using conference proceedings and books to enhance the findings and analysis.” | limitations[3] |
| limitation | The review's central term is stated to have no agreed definition, and the review adopts none.— “To date, there are diverse concept of AI in the current literature. The problem in defining AI, known as machine intelligence (Poole et al., 1998), is to define artificiality’s parameters, or the manners in which computers differ from human intelligence” | limitations[4] |
| limitation | The population is defined by a list of search synonyms rather than by a concept.— “Synonyms and alternatives terms for main search terms Artificial intelligence AI Robotics Machine learning Neural networks Fuzzy logic Natural language processing… | limitations[5] |
| limitation | The three article counts printed for the search stage are inconsistent with each other. | limitations[6] |
| limitation | The corpus is restricted by language and by a five-year window. | limitations[7] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Robotics was the most common AI approach in the 20 reviewed mathematics-education studies, accounting for 45% (n=9) of them. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | The USA contributed the most reviewed studies (n=3). Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | Quantitative designs were the most used methodology among the reviewed studies, at 40% (n=8). Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | 2021 was the peak publication year for AI-in-mathematics-education articles in the review window, with 30% of the corpus. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | Effectiveness of AI was the most studied theme, in 60% (n=12) of the reviewed papers. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | 834 articles were rejected for not fully explaining AI in mathematics education or not clearly reporting findings. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[5] |
| quantity | 45%, n=9 — share of reviewed studies using a robotics approach to AI Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 40%, n=8 — share of reviewed studies using quantitative methods Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | 60%, n=12 — share of reviewed studies whose theme was effectiveness of AI Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | 30% — share of the reviewed corpus published in 2021, the peak year Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[3] |
| quantity | 864 — records retrieved by the database searches, plus 20 from other sources Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[4] |
| quantity | 834 — articles rejected at the eligibility stage Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[5] |
| quantity | 20 — articles retained for the final synthesis Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[6] |
| definition | artificial intelligence (AI) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | systematic literature review (SLR) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | PRISMA Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| definition | intelligent tutoring system Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| definition | research methodology Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[4] |
| concept | artificial intelligence Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[0] |
| concept | machine intelligence Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[1] |
| concept | expert systems Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[2] |
| concept | intelligent tutoring system Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[3] |
| concept | computer program Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[4] |
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.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824