The Revolution Has Arrived: What the Current State of Large Language Models in Education Implies for the Future

Russell Beale

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 63 references

The Revolution Has Arrived: What the Current State of Large Language Models in Education Implies for the Future

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that LLM use will shift educational interaction from WIMP screens to conversational interfaces, making dialogue the default expectation.

desk verdict Useful review of LLMs in education, but the revolutionary interface claim rests on an unsupported extrapolation; still worth a referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02180 v1 pith:BNHJ57G3 submitted 2025-07-02 cs.HC cs.CY

Russell Beale This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.HCcs.CY

keywords largelanguagemodelseducationtechnologyconversationalinterfaceshuman-computerinteractionlearnerexpectationsintelligenttutoringsystemspersonalizedlearningWIMP

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Large language models reached classrooms in 2022, and in three years they have gone from novelty to a plausible default mode of interaction. This review paper argues that the most consequential effect will be on user expectations: learners who grow up conversing with AI will demand conversational, context-aware, personalized interfaces, and the familiar window-icon-menu-pointer (WIMP) style of educational software will have to change. The author supports this by surveying uses in tutoring, content generation, assessment, and collaborative learning, and by deriving design requirements from those uses: context awareness, personalization, generality, and trust through explainability. If the argument is right, ed-tech designers should plan now for a shift from screen-location-based navigation to natural-language dialogue as the expected baseline.

What carries the argument

The central object is the contrast between WIMP interaction and conversational interaction. In a WIMP system the user must locate items on the screen, scroll to reach content below the fold, click links, and switch into a search mode when the desired content is absent; the screen is referential, meaning location and layout carry information. In a conversational LLM interface, the screen becomes non-referential: the user refers to content by meaning in natural language at a single interaction point, and the system's context awareness carries the thread of conversation across turns. The paper's argument is that the lower cognitive cost and more natural discourse of this style, combined with personalisation and explainability, will make it the preferred and expected mode, and that this mechanism, not the specific content capabilities of LLMs, is what forces the redesign of educational technology.

What would settle it

A longitudinal study tracking a representative cohort of learners over several years that finds most users voluntarily returning to scroll-and-click interfaces for routine educational tasks, or stable survey data showing conversational interfaces preferred by only a minority, would settle against the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that LLMs will not simply be another educational tool; they will reset what learners and users expect from technology itself. In Section 6.1 the author states this directly: use will move from the WIMP interface (windows, icons, mouse, pointer) to conversational interfaces, so many existing approaches will have to be modified to satisfy user expectations and needs. The argument runs through a review showing LLMs already working as tutors, content generators, assessors, and collaborative partners, followed by a design analysis that identifies context awareness, personalisation, generality, and trust through explainability as the features that make conversational interaction superior. The author concludes that conversational interaction will become so ubiquitous it becomes the default way of interacting with computer systems, with direct consequences for educational technology design.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that today's early-adopter usage patterns of LLMs will generalize into a broad, permanent shift in user preferences, an extrapolation the paper itself flags as not yet visible and supports with no longitudinal or representative user study.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Educational software built around scrolling, clicking, and search will need conversational alternatives to remain acceptable to learners.
LLM-based tutors that keep conversational context will be able to support cumulative, scaffolded learning in a way that session-based systems cannot.
Personalized, context-aware AI assistance will become the expected norm, and systems that treat every user identically or forget the learner's history will be seen as broken.
Explainability becomes a trust requirement: learners will expect to ask why and receive an account of reasoning, not just an answer.
Ed-tech will shift from islanded apps to an ecosystem of modules centered on LLM interaction, with teachers orchestrating rather than merely delivering content.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the conversational default becomes established in education, the same expectation will likely spill over into other domains such as health, government, and work tools, because users rarely partition their expectations by domain; the paper gestures at this for education but does not develop it.
A testable extension is that task type may moderate the shift: users may prefer conversation for open-ended exploration but retain scroll-and-click for structured tasks like comparing many options, so designers may need to support both rather than replace WIMP outright.
The paper's own framing suggests a natural experiment: compare cohorts that first encounter computing through LLM-first devices with cohorts raised on WIMP, and measure whether the former show measurably lower tolerance for menu- and screen-location-based navigation.
The acknowledgment that the work was produced with generative AI as a collaborator implies that some claims about conversational utility may be self-confirming; independent observational studies of learner behavior are needed.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

X, here's my take. The paper is a narrative review and position piece, not a new empirical study. What it does well: it gives a balanced survey of LLM applications in education—tutoring, content generation, assessment, collaborative learning—and discusses teacher roles and sociotechnical challenges (bias, privacy, integrity, transparency). It engages with recent meta-analyses like Deng et al. and connects to older frameworks like Bloom's 2-sigma and Vygotsky's ZPD, which gives it a useful pedagogical grounding. The author is transparent about using generative AI to help write it, and about the limits of evidence.

The soft spot is exactly what the stress-test notes: the central claim in Section 6 that conversational interfaces will displace WIMP as the default relies on the assumption that early-adopter LLM usage will generalize into a durable, cross-domain preference. The paper itself concedes the shift is 'hardly apparent at present' and Section 7 calls for longitudinal studies. The cognitive-load argument cites only the author's 1991 framework, not empirical comparisons of conversational vs WIMP interaction for educational tasks. So the revolutionary thesis is plausible but unproven. That is fine for a position paper, as long as it's labeled as speculation—and honestly, it mostly is. The paper also has editing problems: duplicated references (Ansari appears as [5] and [6]; Wang as [53] and [54]; Shahzad as [48] and [49]), some missing years, and a few informal asides that feel out of place in a peer-reviewed article.

Overall: this is a competent, useful review, worth reading for anyone entering the ed-tech LLM space. The design implications section is thought-provoking but not evidence-based. It deserves a serious referee—a good editor would send it to review, perhaps with a request to either soften the revolutionary claim or support it with better evidence. I wouldn't cite it in the next year, but I'd bring it to a reading group.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reviews the current state of large language models (LLMs) in education, covering applications in intelligent tutoring, content generation, assessment, and collaborative learning, as well as sociotechnical challenges such as accuracy, bias, academic integrity, privacy, explainability, and teacher training. It then presents a forward-looking argument in Section 6 that conversational interaction with LLMs will become the default interface paradigm, displacing WIMP interfaces, and derives design implications for educational technology. The paper's central claim is a speculative prediction, and the paper itself acknowledges that the shift is 'hardly apparent at present' and calls for longitudinal studies in Section 7.

Significance. The review is timely and broad; it synthesizes a rapidly growing literature, including meta-analyses (Deng et al., 2024) and multiple surveys, and it identifies important design challenges. The paper's strongest contribution is a structured overview of applications and challenges, and it gives explicit credit to prior frameworks and studies. However, the revolutionary thesis of Section 6 is not supported by the evidence marshalled: the claim that conversational interfaces will become the default rests on early-adopter behavior and a 1991 conceptual framework, and the paper's own Section 7 calls for the very longitudinal studies that would be needed to test it. The significance of the paper is therefore conditional: it is a useful review and a plausible research agenda, but its central prediction is not established.

major comments (3)

[Section 6.1] The central prediction that 'uses will move from the WIMP interface and demand conversational interfaces' rests on unsupported extrapolation. The paper concedes in Section 6 that 'These shifts are hardly apparent at present' and in Section 7 that 'Long-term studies will also be needed to understand the shift in user expectations regarding design approaches.' The evidence cited—'rapid take-up' and 'user experiences'—is equally consistent with novelty effects, task-specific utility, or use of LLMs as a complement to WIMP systems rather than a replacement. The paper also states that 'few people have fully experienced ongoing interactions with LLMs,' which is in tension with the weight placed on take-up as evidence of durable preference. Because this is the load-bearing premise for the design implications in Sections 6.2-6.5, the claim needs either empirical support or an explicit reframing as a testable hypothesis.
[Section 6.1] The cognitive-load argument is not empirically grounded. The claim that conversational interaction is 'less cognitively demanding' and therefore preferred cites only a 1991 HCI framework [3]; no empirical comparison of conversational versus WIMP interaction for educational tasks is provided. The assertion 'it seems reasonable to assume that users will shift towards preferring this simple, less cognitively demanding approach' is an empirical prediction about user behavior, not a logical consequence of the framework. At minimum, the paper should cite studies of task performance, error rates, perceived workload, or preference, or explicitly mark the claim as a hypothesis for future research.
[Sections 6.2-6.5] The design implications (context awareness, personalisation, generality, trust through explainability) are all conditional on the unsupported Section 6.1 premise. For example, Section 6.3's recommendation that designers should assume users will not 'give up' personalised LLM interactions is a prediction about the durability of preferences, and Section 6.5 asserts that users 'will necessarily trust it less' when systems are opaque. If conversational interfaces do not become the default, these implications lose their foundation. The paper should restructure Section 6 either as explicitly conditional design guidance ('if conversational interfaces become the default, then...') or as a research agenda, rather than presenting these implications as consequences of an established shift.

minor comments (5)

[Introduction, Section 2.1] There are typographical errors: 'rdefining what the defalt approach' should be 'redefining what the default approach', and 'to to optimize the personalization' contains a duplicated 'to'.
[Sections 2.4, 4.1, 7] Several citations are incomplete with '(year?)' placeholders (e.g., [28], [36], [46], [61]); these must be completed before publication.
[References] The reference list contains duplicates: [5] and [6], [22] and [23], [48] and [49], and [53] and [54] are the same works; reference [1] lacks author and publication details; [14] has a garbled title ('arm of alexanders'); and [55] is incomplete.
[Section 7] First-person anecdotes ('I created a LLM...', 'I recently asked it...') are informal for a journal review; consider moving them to a clearly labeled personal observation or removing them.
[Abstract and throughout] The phrase 'Large language Models' in the abstract should be capitalized consistently as 'Large Language Models'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the paper is a review and forward-looking argument; its central claim relies on extrapolation from early adoption, not on definitional or fitted-input reduction.

full rationale

This paper contains no derivation chain in the mathematical or model-fitting sense: there are no equations, no fitted parameters later reported as predictions, and no uniqueness theorem invoked to force a choice. The central claim in §6.1 is that conversational LLM interaction will displace WIMP interfaces because it is less cognitively demanding, evidenced by 'rapid take-up' and 'user experiences.' That is an empirical extrapolation; even if unsupported (the paper itself says in §6 that the shifts are 'hardly apparent at present' and §7 calls for longitudinal studies), it is not circular because the conclusion is not identical to its premises. The only self-citation is [3] (Abowd & Beale, 1991), used as a general HCI framework for the cognitive cost of pointer-based interaction. That framework predates LLMs, does not assume the target conclusion, and is not the sole justification for the empirical trend; it is background support rather than a load-bearing self-citation. The acknowledgments note that design concepts are the author's own, but that is an authorship statement, not a logical circularity. The main weakness — unverified generalization from early adoption — is a correctness/evidence concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities are introduced. The forward-looking claim rests on two domain assumptions: continued LLM growth and the universal cognitive advantages of conversational interfaces. Both are asserted, not demonstrated.

assumptions (2)

domain assumption LLM adoption will continue to grow and user preferences will shift permanently toward conversational interfaces.
Section 6 builds its design prescriptions on the expectation that early adoption patterns will become the norm, though the author admits the shift is not yet apparent.
domain assumption Conversational interaction is inherently less cognitively demanding for all user groups.
Section 6.1 claims that the conversational style provides 'a very natural, low-barrier to entry and accessible interaction style' without presenting user studies supporting this for diverse populations.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Revolution Has Arrived: What the Current State of Large Language Models in Education Implies for the Future." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BNHJ57G3

@misc{pith2026250702180,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Revolution Has Arrived: What the Current State of Large Language Models in Education Implies for the Future},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BNHJ57G3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02180}
}

read the original abstract

Large language Models have only been widely available since 2022 and yet in less than three years have had a significant impact on approaches to education and educational technology. Here we review the domains in which they have been used, and discuss a variety of use cases, their successes and failures. We then progress to discussing how this is changing the dynamic for learners and educators, consider the main design challenges facing LLMs if they are to become truly helpful and effective as educational systems, and reflect on the learning paradigms they support. We make clear that the new interaction paradigms they bring are significant and argue that this approach will become so ubiquitous it will become the default way in which we interact with technologies, and revolutionise what people expect from computer systems in general. This leads us to present some specific and significant considerations for the design of educational technology in the future that are likely to be needed to ensure acceptance by the changing expectations of learners and users.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

[5]

N., Ahmad, S., and Bhutta, S

Ansari, A. N., Ahmad, S., and Bhutta, S. M. Mapping the global ev- idence around the use of chatgpt in higher education: A systematic scoping review. Education and Information Technologies 29 (2024), 11281–11321. Published October 2023. Scoping review on global adoption patterns, ben- efits, and challenges of ChatGPT in higher education

work page 2024
[6]

N., Ahmad, S., and Bhutta, S

Ansari, A. N., Ahmad, S., and Bhutta, S. M. Mapping the global ev- idence around the use of chatgpt in higher education: A systematic scoping review. Education and Information Technologies 29, 9 (2024), 11281–11321. Provides a global overview of ChatGPT’s adoption in higher education and identifies key research gaps and ethical considerations

work page 2024
[53]

S., and Wen, Q

W ang, S., Xu, T., Li, H., Zhang, C., Liang, J., Tang, J., Yu, P. S., and Wen, Q. Large language models for education: A survey and outlook,

work page
[54]

S., and Wen, Q

W ang, S., Xu, T., Li, H., Zhang, C., Liang, J., Tang, J., Yu, P. S., and Wen, Q. Large language models for education: A survey and outlook, 2024. 37

work page 2024
[48]

U., Ahmad, W., Ouahada, K., and Hamam, H

Shahzad, T., Mazhar, T., Tariq, M. U., Ahmad, W., Ouahada, K., and Hamam, H. A comprehensive review of large language models: Issues and solutions in learning environments. Discover Sustainability 6, 27 (2025). A broad review addressing technical and ethical issues of LLMs in education, with actionable recommendations for improving reliability and fairness

work page 2025
[49]

U., Ahmad, W., Ouahada, K., and Hamam, H

Shahzad, T., Mazhar, T., Tariq, M. U., Ahmad, W., Ouahada, K., and Hamam, H. A comprehensive review of large language models: Issues and solutions in learning environments. Discover Sustainability, 27 (2025). Reviews the integration of LLMs in learning, proposing a framework centered on personalization, ethical use, and adaptability

work page 2025
[3]

D., and Beale, R

Abowd, G. D., and Beale, R. Users, systems and interfaces: A unifying framework for interaction. In HCI (1991), vol. 91, pp. 73–87

work page 1991
[1]

Jacaranda launches first-in-kind Swahili Large Language Model - Jacaranda Health

work page

Show all 63 references

[2]

Russell Group principles on the use of generative AI tools in education. 2023

2023
[4]

Evaluating an automated analysis using machine learning and natural language processing approaches to classify computer science students’ reflective writing

Alrashidi, H., Almujally, N., Kadhum, M., Daniel Ullmann, T., and Joy, M. Evaluating an automated analysis using machine learning and natural language processing approaches to classify computer science students’ reflective writing. In Pervasive Computing and Social Networking:...

2022
[7]

Com- parative analysis of ChatGPT and Bard in answering pathology examina- tion questions requiring image interpretation

Apornvirat, S., Namboonlue, C., and Laohawetwanit, T. Com- parative analysis of ChatGPT and Bard in answering pathology examina- tion questions requiring image interpretation. American Journal of Clinical Pathology 162, 3 (Sept. 2024), 252–260

2024
[8]

Education in the Era of Gen- erative Artificial Intelligence (AI): Understanding the Potential Benefits of ChatGPT in Promoting Teaching and Learning, Jan

Baidoo-Anu, D., and Owusu Ansah, L. Education in the Era of Gen- erative Artificial Intelligence (AI): Understanding the Potential Benefits of ChatGPT in Promoting Teaching and Learning, Jan. 2023

2023
[9]

Fostering problem solving and critical thunking in mathematics through generative artificial intelli- gence

Barana, A., Marchisio, M., and Roman, F. Fostering problem solving and critical thunking in mathematics through generative artificial intelli- gence. In ”20th International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA 2023)” (11 2023)

2023
[10]

Mobile Design for the Developing World

Beale, R. Mobile Design for the Developing World. In Royal Academy of Engineering Research Forum - report on research award (London, UK, 2008). 33

2008
[11]

S., Joshi, M., and Chugh, R

Bhullar, P. S., Joshi, M., and Chugh, R. Chatgpt in higher education – a synthesis of the literature and a future research agenda. Education and Information Technologies 29 (2024), 21501–21522. Synthesizes early literature on ChatGPT in higher education and outlines key resear...

2024
[12]

Bloom, B. S. The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational researcher 13, 6 (1984), 4–16

1984
[13]

J., Sheng, H., Wei, J

Cai, W., Grossman, J., Lin, Z. J., Sheng, H., Wei, J. T.-Z., Williams, J. J., and Goel, S. Bandit algorithms to personalize ed- ucational chatbots. Machine Learning 110 , 9 (Sept. 2021), 2389–2418

2021
[14]

Campbell, A. J. ”the future of education: Aristotle for an arm of alexan- ders”, 2019. ”Recently, I ran into something called ‘Bloom’s 2-Sigma Prob- lem’. Benjamin Bloom, an educational psychologist, found that an average student could perform two standard deviations better th...

2019
[15]

Does chatgpt enhance student learning? a systematic review and meta-analysis of exper- imental studies

Deng, R., Jiang, M., Yu, X., Lu, Y., and Liu, S. Does chatgpt enhance student learning? a systematic review and meta-analysis of exper- imental studies. Computers & Education 203 (2024), 105224. Meta-analysis of 69 experiments evaluating ChatGPT’s impact on learning outcomes a...

2024
[16]

Exploring the opportunities and challenges of nlp models in higher education: is chat gpt a blessing or a curse? Frontiers in Education Volume 8 - 2023 (2023)

Fuchs, K. Exploring the opportunities and challenges of nlp models in higher education: is chat gpt a blessing or a curse? Frontiers in Education Volume 8 - 2023 (2023)

2023
[17]

D., and Stoyanovich, J

Fuligni, C., Figaredo, D. D., and Stoyanovich, J. ”would you want an ai tutor?” understanding stakeholder perceptions of llm-based chatbots in the classroom, 2025

2025
[18]

A systematic literature review to implement large language models in higher education: Issues and solutions

Guizani, S., Mazhar, T., Shahzad, T., Ahmad, W., Bibi, A., and Hamam, H. A systematic literature review to implement large language models in higher education: Issues and solutions. Discover Education 4 , 35 (2025). Highlights key challenges and solutions for LLM integration i...

2025
[19]

Artificial Intelligence in Edu- cation: Promises and Implications for Teaching and Learning

Holmes, W., Bialik, M., and F adel, C. Artificial Intelligence in Edu- cation: Promises and Implications for Teaching and Learning . Center for Curriculum Redesign, Boston, MA, 2019

2019
[20]

Developing a framework to re-design writing assignment assessment for the era of Large Language Models

Hsiao, Y.-P., , Nadia, K., , and Chiu, M.-S. Developing a framework to re-design writing assignment assessment for the era of Large Language Models. Learning: Research and Practice 9 , 2 (July 2023), 148–158. Pub- lisher: Routledge. 34

2023
[21]

Huang, M.-H., and Rust, R. T. Artificial intelligence in service. Journal of Service Research 21 , 2 (2018), 155–172

2018
[22]

Large language models in education: A focus on the complementary relationship between human teachers and chatgpt

Jeon, J., and Lee, S. Large language models in education: A focus on the complementary relationship between human teachers and chatgpt. Ed- ucation and Information Technologies 28 (2023), 15873–15892. Qualitative study of 11 teachers exploring how ChatGPT complements teaching roles

2023
[23]

Large language models in education: A focus on the complementary relationship between human teachers and chatgpt

Jeon, J., and Lee, S. Large language models in education: A focus on the complementary relationship between human teachers and chatgpt. Ed- ucation and Information Technologies 28 (2023), 15873–15892. Examines how teachers and ChatGPT can synergistically enhance learning, prov...

2023
[24]

Chatgpt for good? on opportunities and challenges of large language mod- els for education

Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., K ¨uchemann, S., Bannert, M., De- mentieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., G ¨unnemann, S., H ¨ullermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., Stadler, M., Well...

2023
[25]

J., and Kim, M

Kim, N. J., and Kim, M. K. Teacher’s Perceptions of Using an Artificial Intelligence-Based Educational Tool for Scientific Writing. Frontiers in Education 7 (Mar. 2022). Publisher: Frontiers

2022
[26]

Role of ai chatbots in education: A systematic literature review

Labadze, L., Grigolia, M., and Machaidze, L. Role of ai chatbots in education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Edu- cational Technology in Higher Education 20, 56 (2023). Reviews 67 studies on the use of chatbots in educational settings with a focus on...

2023
[27]

Artificial general intelligence (agi) for education

Latif, E., Mai, G., Nyaaba, M., Wu, X., Liu, N., Lu, G., Li, S., Liu, T., and Zhai, X. Artificial general intelligence (agi) for education. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12479 1 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[28]

Can chatgpt be a debate partner? developing chatgpt- based application “debo” for debate education, findings and limitations

Lee, U., Jeong, Y., Koh, J., Byun, G., Lee, Y., Hwang, Y., Kim, H., and Lim, C. Can chatgpt be a debate partner? developing chatgpt- based application “debo” for debate education, findings and limitations. Educational Technology & Society 27 , 2 (2024), pp. 321–346

2024
[29]

Ethical Impli- cations of ChatGPT in Higher Education: A Scoping Review

Li, M., Enkhtur, A., Cheng, F., and Yamamoto, B. Ethical Impli- cations of ChatGPT in Higher Education: A Scoping Review. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education 13 (May 2024), 55–68

2024
[30]

Liang, G., On, B.-W., Jeong, D., Kim, H.-C., and Choi, G. S. Automated Essay Scoring: A Siamese Bidirectional LSTM Neural Network Architecture. Symmetry 10 , 12 (Dec. 2018), 682. Number: 12 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute. 35

2018
[31]

& Cutumisu, M

Lu, C. & Cutumisu, M. ”integrating deep learning into an automated feedback generation system for automated essay scoring”. ”International Educational Data Mining Society” (2021)

2021
[32]

K., and Lopes, C

Ma, I., Martins, A. K., and Lopes, C. V. Integrating ai tutors in a programming course, 2024

2024
[33]

Is AI the better programming partner? Human-Human Pair Programming vs

Ma, Q., Wu, T., and Koedinger, K. Is AI the better programming partner? Human-Human Pair Programming vs. Human-AI pAIr Program- ming, June 2023. arXiv:2306.05153 [cs]

2023 arXiv
[34]

Marzuki, Widiati, U., Rusdin, D., Darwin, and and, I. I. The impact of ai writing tools on the content and organization of students’ writing: Efl teachers’ perspective. Cogent Education 10, 2 (2023), 2236469

2023
[35]

ai and the future of teaching and learning

”Miguel A. Cardona, Roberto J. Rodr ´ıguez, K. I. “ai and the future of teaching and learning”
[36]

Transforming History Education Into a More Immersive, Inter- active Process of Inquiry and Discovery

Mintz, S. Transforming History Education Into a More Immersive, Inter- active Process of Inquiry and Discovery
[37]

Multi-armed bandit algorithms for adaptive learning: A survey

Mui, J., Lin, O., and Dewan, M. Multi-armed bandit algorithms for adaptive learning: A survey. In ”Artificial Intelligence in Education, 22nd International Conference, AIED 2021” (06 2021), pp. 273–278

2021
[38]

Edtech 20:20 vision: the top 40 emerging companies for higher education in 2023, July 2023

newman, N.-n. Edtech 20:20 vision: the top 40 emerging companies for higher education in 2023, July 2023

2023
[39]

Onyalo, W. A. Ai Chatbot: Improve Efficiency in Handling Student Queries at the Department of Computing and Informatics, Nairobi Univer- sity. Thesis, university of nairobi, 2022. Accepted: 2022-11-02T07:07:09Z

2022
[40]

J., Anderson, C., Stone, C., and Oh, Y

Parker, M. J., Anderson, C., Stone, C., and Oh, Y. A Large Language Model Approach to Educational Survey Feedback Analysis. In- ternational Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (June 2024)

2024
[41]

Guest Post: The Benefits and Risks of ChatGPT for Educa- tion, Feb

Radeva, M. Guest Post: The Benefits and Risks of ChatGPT for Educa- tion, Feb. 2024

2024
[42]

A., Dimbisoa, W

Razafinirina, M. A., Dimbisoa, W. G., and Mahatody, T. Peda- gogical alignment of large language models (llm) for personalized learning: A survey, trends and challenges. Journal of Intelligent Learning Systems and Applications 16 , 4 (2024), –. Surveys methods for personalizin...

2024
[43]

ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education? Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching 6, 1 (Jan

Rudolph, J., Tan, S., and Tan, S. ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education? Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching 6, 1 (Jan. 2023), 342–363. Number: 1. 36

2023
[44]

Conversational ai as a facilitator improves participant engagement and problem-solving in online discussion: Sharing evidence from five cities in afghanistan

Sahab, S., Haqbeen, J., and Ito, T. Conversational ai as a facilitator improves participant engagement and problem-solving in online discussion: Sharing evidence from five cities in afghanistan. IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Information and Systems 107 , 4 (2024), 434–442

2024
[45]

Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Intelligent Assistant for Personalized and Adaptive Learning in Higher Education

Sajja, R., Sermet, Y., Cikmaz, M., Cwiertny, D., and Demir, I. Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Intelligent Assistant for Personalized and Adaptive Learning in Higher Education. Information 15 , 10 (Oct. 2024),

2024
[46]

”engaging in history class: Using ai chatbots as a teaching tool”

schoolai. ”engaging in history class: Using ai chatbots as a teaching tool”
[47]

S., Chi, J., Xin, Y., Shah, H., and Fonseca, D

Shah, M., Pankiewicz, M., Baker, R. S., Chi, J., Xin, Y., Shah, H., and Fonseca, D. Students’ Use of an LLM-Powered Virtual Teaching Assistant for Recommending Educational Applications of Games. In Seri- ous Games: 10th Joint International Conference, JCSG 2024, New York City,...

2024
[50]

AI and Education: Guidance for Policy-makers

UNESCO. AI and Education: Guidance for Policy-makers . UNESCO, Paris, 2021

2021
[51]

Policy guidance on ai for children

UNICEF. Policy guidance on ai for children. UNICEF Office of Global Insight and Policy, 2025

2025
[52]

Vygotsky, L. S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psycho- logical Processes. Harvard University Press, 1978

1978
[55]

”ChatGPT Is a Plague Upon Education”

Weissman”, J. ”ChatGPT Is a Plague Upon Education”
[56]

Woo, D., Guo, K., and Salas-Pilco, S. Z. Writing creative stories with AI: learning designs for secondary school students . Feb. 2023

2023
[57]

S.Multimodal large language models: A survey

Wu, J., Gan, W., Chen, Z., W an, S., and Yu, P. S.Multimodal large language models: A survey. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) (2023), IEEE, pp. 2247–2256

2023
[58]

Xu, H., Gan, W., Qi, Z., Wu, J., and Yu, P. S. Large language models for education: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13001 (2024). System- atic review covering technological advances, applications, and challenges of LLMs in education

2024 arXiv
[59]

ChatGPT for Next Generation Science Learning, Jan

Zhai, X. ChatGPT for Next Generation Science Learning, Jan. 2023

2023
[60]

& Aslan, A

Zhang, K. & Aslan, A. B.Ai technologies for education: Recent research & future directions. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 2 (2021)

2021
[61]

The impact of AI-enhanced natural language processing tools on writing proficiency: an analysis of language precision, content sum- marization, and creative writing facilitation

Zhao, D. The impact of AI-enhanced natural language processing tools on writing proficiency: an analysis of language precision, content sum- marization, and creative writing facilitation. Education and Information Technologies (Nov. 2024). 38

2024
[596]

Number: 10 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
[2024]

Reviews current LLM technologies, educational datasets, risks, and suggests future directions

To appear in ACM KDD 2024. Reviews current LLM technologies, educational datasets, risks, and suggests future directions

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [5]

N., Ahmad, S., and Bhutta, S

Ansari, A. N., Ahmad, S., and Bhutta, S. M. Mapping the global ev- idence around the use of chatgpt in higher education: A systematic scoping review. Education and Information Technologies 29 (2024), 11281–11321. Published October 2023. Scoping review on global adoption patterns, ben- efits, and challenges of ChatGPT in higher education

work page 2024

[2] [6]

N., Ahmad, S., and Bhutta, S

Ansari, A. N., Ahmad, S., and Bhutta, S. M. Mapping the global ev- idence around the use of chatgpt in higher education: A systematic scoping review. Education and Information Technologies 29, 9 (2024), 11281–11321. Provides a global overview of ChatGPT’s adoption in higher education and identifies key research gaps and ethical considerations

work page 2024

[3] [53]

S., and Wen, Q

W ang, S., Xu, T., Li, H., Zhang, C., Liang, J., Tang, J., Yu, P. S., and Wen, Q. Large language models for education: A survey and outlook,

work page

[4] [54]

S., and Wen, Q

W ang, S., Xu, T., Li, H., Zhang, C., Liang, J., Tang, J., Yu, P. S., and Wen, Q. Large language models for education: A survey and outlook, 2024. 37

work page 2024

[5] [48]

U., Ahmad, W., Ouahada, K., and Hamam, H

Shahzad, T., Mazhar, T., Tariq, M. U., Ahmad, W., Ouahada, K., and Hamam, H. A comprehensive review of large language models: Issues and solutions in learning environments. Discover Sustainability 6, 27 (2025). A broad review addressing technical and ethical issues of LLMs in education, with actionable recommendations for improving reliability and fairness

work page 2025

[6] [49]

U., Ahmad, W., Ouahada, K., and Hamam, H

Shahzad, T., Mazhar, T., Tariq, M. U., Ahmad, W., Ouahada, K., and Hamam, H. A comprehensive review of large language models: Issues and solutions in learning environments. Discover Sustainability, 27 (2025). Reviews the integration of LLMs in learning, proposing a framework centered on personalization, ethical use, and adaptability

work page 2025

[7] [3]

D., and Beale, R

Abowd, G. D., and Beale, R. Users, systems and interfaces: A unifying framework for interaction. In HCI (1991), vol. 91, pp. 73–87

work page 1991

[8] [1]

Jacaranda launches first-in-kind Swahili Large Language Model - Jacaranda Health

work page