Review Article

Generative artificial intelligence in education: Mapping research trends and future directions

Larisa Y. Lutskovskaia 1 , Oksana Chigisheva 2 , Vagiz G. Gimaliev 3 , Sergei P. Zhdanov 4 * , Valeria L. Zakharova 5 , Lyudmila M. Smirnova 6
More Detail
1 Foreign Languages Department, People’s Friendship University of Russia – RUDN University named after Patrice Lumumba, Moscow, RUSSIA2 “Foreign Languages” Department, Moscow Polytechnic University, Moscow, RUSSIA3 Department of Foreign Languages №2, I. N. Ulianov Chuvash State University, Cheboksary, RUSSIA4 Department of Criminal Law, Procedure and Criminology, National Research University “Higher School of Economics” (HSE University), Moscow, RUSSIA5 Department of Medical and Social Assessment, Emergency, and Ambulatory Practice, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, RUSSIA6 Department of Dermatovenereology, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, RUSSIA* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 18(4), October 2026, ep701, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/19639
Published: 19 October 2026
OPEN ACCESS   49 Views   24 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) recently appeared as an issue of its time which has been changing the educational landscape at a considerable rate and opening new pathways and challenges for educators and learners. Therefore, in terms of GenAI for education this bibliometric analysis will characterize the change and development by mapping trends and patterns, examining prevalent subject areas in academia interest. Following the established criteria, we ran a systematic search on Scopus database with the identification and analysis of 121 peer-reviewed documents (journal articles, review articles and conference papers; selection reported with reference to the PRISMA 2020 guideline) published between January 2023 and March 2025 related to GenAI applied in education. The thematic labels attached to the algorithmically generated VOSviewer clusters were assigned by the researchers, and interpretations of regional patterns are presented as tentative. The article features papers discussing ways to use GenAI in learner-centered teaching, curriculum development and assessment. The findings reveal a rapid increase in research output between 2023 (23 articles) and 2024 (67 articles), followed by 31 articles in the first quarter of 2025, and substantial international collaboration (34% of the articles). Moreover, the thematic analysis shows that pedagogical integration and instructional design (55.4% of the articles), assessment and academic integrity (44.6%) and ethical and societal implications (39.7%) are the most prominent themes, with a shift from ethical and assessment concerns in 2023 towards pedagogical integration and learning outcomes in 2024-2025. Research affiliated with the United States, the United Kingdom, China and Germany dominates the corpus, whereas research from Latin America and Africa appears under-represented. The review proposes future directions of research and spells out an array of issues that have until now gone unexamined by helping the reader enter the intellectual landscape of GenAI in education. The bibliometric evidence indicates growing scholarly attention to the potential of GenAI in education; this study did not appraise the quality of the evidence on learning outcomes. Nonetheless, designers are being asked to collectively conduct further research to address any potential negative effects of the technology, and create useful design frameworks, to implement this technology into the education system worldwide, without compromising on justice and morality.
Keywords: artificial intelligence, education, bibliometric review, Scopus

CITATION (APA)

Lutskovskaia, L. Y., Chigisheva, O., Gimaliev, V. G., Zhdanov, S. P., Zakharova, V. L., & Smirnova, L. M. (2026). Generative artificial intelligence in education: Mapping research trends and future directions. Contemporary Educational Technology, 18(4), ep701. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/19639

REFERENCES

  1. Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959-975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
  2. Baas, J., Schotten, M., Plume, A., Côté, G., & Karimi, R. (2020). Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 377-386. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00019
  3. Baidoo-Anu, D., & Ansah, L. O. (2023). Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. Journal of AI, 7(1), 52-62. https://doi.org/10.61969/jai.1337500
  4. Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bogg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., Brynjolfsson, E., Buch, S., Card, D., Castellon, R., Chartterji, N., Chen, A., Creel, K., Davis, J. Q., Demszky, D., ... Liang, P. (2021). On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2108.07258
  5. Burnham, J. F. (2006). Scopus database: A review. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3, Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-5581-3-1
  6. Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Students’ voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, Article 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8
  7. Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317
  8. Chen, X., Xie, H., Zou, D., & Hwang, G. J. (2020). Application and theory gaps during the rise of artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 1, Article 100002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100002
  9. Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382-1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525
  10. Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (1994). Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 4(4), 253-278. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01099821
  11. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
  12. Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Albashrawi, M. A., Al-Busaidi, A. S., Balakrishnan, J., Barlette, Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., ... Wright, R. (2023). “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, Article 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
  13. Franceschet, M. (2010). The role of conference publications in CS. Communications of the ACM, 53(12), 129-132. https://doi.org/10.1145/1859204.1859234
  14. Grassini, S. (2023). Shaping the future of education: Exploring the potential and consequences of AI and ChatGPT in educational settings. Education Sciences, 13(7), Article 692. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070692
  15. Holmes, W., & Tuomi, I. (2023). State of the art and practice in AI in education. European Journal of Education, 57(4), 542-570. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12533
  16. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2023). Artificial intelligence in education: Promise and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign. https://doi.org/10.58863/20.500.12424/4276068
  17. Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., ... Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, Article 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
  18. Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-16). https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727
  19. Manouselis, N., Drachsler, H., Verbert, K., & Santos, O. C. (2011). Workshop on recommender systems for technology enhanced learning. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1145/1864708.1864797
  20. Mayer, R. E. (2021). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  21. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  22. Rudolph, J., Tan, S., & Tan, S. (2023). ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education? Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 342-363. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9
  23. Sullivan, M., Kelly, A., & McLaughlan, P. (2023). ChatGPT in higher education: Considerations for academic integrity and student learning. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 31-40. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.17
  24. Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M. A., Bozkurt, A., Hickey, D. T., Huang, R., & Agyemang, B. (2023). What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments, 10, Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x
  25. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
  26. Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., & Noyons, E. C. M. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 629-635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.07.002
  27. Warschauer, M., Tseng, W., Yim, S., Webster, T., Jacob, S., Du, Q., & Tate, T. (2023). What makes writing good? Rethinking writing assessment in the age of artificial intelligence. Journal of Writing Research, 15(1), 49-77.
  28. Woolf, B. P. (2010). Building intelligent interactive tutors: Student-centered strategies for revolutionizing e-learning. Morgan Kaufmann.
  29. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
  30. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629