Artificial intelligence in mathematics education: A PRISMA-based systematic literature review (2021-2025)

2026

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.20897/ejsteme/19221
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

This systematic literature review examines research on artificial intelligence (AI) in mathematics education published between January 1, 2021, and August 1, 2025. Searches of Scopus and Google Scholar identified 922 records; after deduplication, screening, and full-text eligibility assessment, 42 peer-reviewed journal articles and conference proceedings were included. The review used descriptive quantitative summaries and a deductive-inductive thematic synthesis. Two independent reviewers conducted screening (Cohen's kappa = 0.88), and methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The included literature indicates increasing attention to generative AI, personalised support, feedback, teacher practice, academic integrity, and equity. Evidence for educational benefits varies substantially across study designs and contexts, and technical capability should not be equated with demonstrated classroom effectiveness. Geographic patterns in the selected sample are described without attributing them to regulatory, economic, or infrastructural causes that were not directly tested. Because the 2025 search covered only January through August 2025, publication counts are treated as partial-year data and are not directly comparable to complete prior years. Key limitations include reliance on two databases, English- and Russian-language restrictions, reproducibility constraints in Google Scholar, methodological heterogeneity, and limited long-term evidence. Overall, AI shows potential to support mathematics teaching and learning, but stronger longitudinal and comparative evidence is needed to establish effectiveness, equity, and sustainable implementation.