+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Are We There Yet? - A Systematic Literature Review on Chatbots in Education


      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Chatbots are a promising technology with the potential to enhance workplaces and everyday life. In terms of scalability and accessibility, they also offer unique possibilities as communication and information tools for digital learning. In this paper, we present a systematic literature review investigating the areas of education where chatbots have already been applied, explore the pedagogical roles of chatbots, the use of chatbots for mentoring purposes, and their potential to personalize education. We conducted a preliminary analysis of 2,678 publications to perform this literature review, which allowed us to identify 74 relevant publications for chatbots’ application in education. Through this, we address five research questions that, together, allow us to explore the current state-of-the-art of this educational technology. We conclude our systematic review by pointing to three main research challenges: 1) Aligning chatbot evaluations with implementation objectives, 2) Exploring the potential of chatbots for mentoring students, and 3) Exploring and leveraging adaptation capabilities of chatbots. For all three challenges, we discuss opportunities for future research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references107

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

          Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The Power of Feedback

              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories


                Author and article information

                Front Artif Intell
                Front Artif Intell
                Front. Artif. Intell.
                Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                15 July 2021
                : 4
                : 654924
                [ 1 ]Information Center for Education, DIPF | Leibniz Institute for Research and Information in Education, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
                [ 2 ]Educational Science Faculty, Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, Netherlands
                [ 3 ]Computer Science Faculty, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
                Author notes

                Edited by: Marcus Specht, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands

                Reviewed by: Ujwal Gadiraju, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands

                Diana Rosario Perez Marin, Rey Juan Carlos University, Spain

                *Correspondence: Sebastian Wollny, wollny@ 123456dipf.de ; Jan Schneider, schneider.jan@ 123456dipf.de

                This article was submitted to AI for Human Learning and Behavior Change, a section of the journal Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence

                Copyright © 2021 Wollny, Schneider, Di Mitri, Weidlich, Rittberger and Drachsler.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                : 17 January 2021
                : 10 June 2021
                Artificial Intelligence
                Systematic Review

                chatbots,education,literature review,pedagogical roles,domains


                Comment on this article