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

2026

Полный текст Открытый доступ: Gold Метаданные (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.20897/ejsteme/19221
Достоверность данных 70 средняя
Как считается эта оценка

Складывается из проверяемых признаков самой записи: есть ли у статьи DOI, сколько независимых источников подтвердили её данные, заполнены ли обязательные поля и насколько свежо последнее подтверждение. Снижают оценку расхождения между источниками и отсутствие идентификатора. Значение от 80 означает, что запись опубликована без дополнительной проверки; от 60 до 79 — что она опубликована с пониженной достоверностью и ручная проверка желательна. Запись, выверенную редактором вручную, пересчёт не опускает ниже 90. Это оценка наших данных о статье, а не оценка самой статьи.

Аннотация

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.