3.3. Sources
In total, the 201 documents that comprise the document collection examined in this study were published in 142 different sources, including journals, conference and proceedings, as well as edited book collections. Among the sources, the book series
Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries
Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and
Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) had the most published documents (
n = 13) relevant to the topic. Moreover, three sources, namely,
Education and Information Technologies,
Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, and
Springer Series on Cultural Computing, published four articles relevant to the topic. From the remaining sources, 13 sources published three relevant documents and 12 sources published two documents. A representation of the top four sources based on the number of relevant documents published that have published at least four documents is depicted in
Table 3.
Furthermore, the sources were also sorted based on their h-index and total citations received on the topic. The related outcomes are presented in
Table 4 which depicts the h-index, g-index, m-index, total citations (TC), number of published documents (NP), and the publication start date (PY_start) of the sources. Based on the outcomes,
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence (h-index = 3 and TC = 425),
Frontiers in Psychology (h-index = 3 and TC = 62), and
Springer Series on Cultural Computing (h-index = 3 and TC = 19) were the sources with the highest h-index (3). However, sources such as
International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (h-index = 2 and TC = 258) and
Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries
Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and
Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (h-index = 2 and TC = 140) have also published impactful documents. The specific values that can be described as low, when compared to other bibliometric analysis studies that explore different topics, can be justified when we consider the average document age. Hence, given the fact that the topic is still in its infancy, the related outcomes are expected to change. However, the findings contribute by presenting the existing distribution of the documents among the various sources.
Furthermore, Bradford’s law was used to better comprehend the sources’ impact and quality [
76]. Specifically, three clusters were defined, namely, Cluster 1, Cluster 2, and Cluster 3, with Cluster 1 having the most impactful sources. Cluster 1 consists of 19 sources (13.4%) in which 68 documents (33.83%) were published, Cluster 2 comprises 57 sources (40.1%) in which 67 documents (33.33%) were published, and Cluster 3 has 66 sources (46.5%) in which 66 documents (32.84%) were published.
Table 5 presents the top sources of Cluster 1 based on Bradford’s law. Particularly, it presents the source name (Source), its rank (Rank), the number of documents published (Freq.), the cumulative frequency of published documents (CumFreq.), and the cluster (Cluster). Based on the outcomes, the top sources were
Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries
Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and
Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (rank = 1 and freq. = 13),
Education and Information Technologies (rank = 2 and freq. = 4),
Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering (rank = 3 and freq. = 4),
Springer Series on Cultural Computing (rank = 4 and freq. = 4),
ACM International Conference Proceeding Series (ICPS) (rank = 5 and freq. = 3),
Applied Sciences (Switzerland) (rank = 6 and freq. = 3),
Cognitive Technologies (rank = 7 and freq. = 3),
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence (rank = 8 and freq. = 3),
Education Sciences (rank = 9 and freq. = 3), and
Electronics (Switzerland) (rank = 10 and freq. = 3).
3.5. Affiliations
For a better understanding of the affiliations that have contributed the most in the creation and publication of documents relevant to the topic, the author affiliations were examined. Specifically, the affiliations of all authors involved in a document were taken into account. Hence, the total number of documents published by the authors of a specific country might be lower than the summation of the contribution from different affiliations of the same country. Hence, to examine the countries that have contributed the most, a separate analysis was carried out.
Among the different affiliations contained within the document collection, the top 10 affiliations, based on the number of contributions to documents, had contributed to at least four documents. Specifically, authors from McGill University, Canada (n = 11) and University of Essex, United Kingdom (n = 7) have contributed to the most documents. Three affiliations, namely Texas A&M University, United States, University of Córdoba, Spain, and the University of Sydney, Australia, had authors who contributed to six documents. Two affiliations, namely AGH University of Science and Technology, Poland and Sungkyunkwan University, South Korea, had authors who contributed to five documents. Three affiliations, namely Delft University of Technology, Netherlands, National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan, and University of West Attica, Greece, had authors who contributed to four documents.
3.6. Countries
To examine the countries that have contributed the most to the creation of the document collection, the corresponding author’s or the first author’s country was taken into account. Specifically, the corresponding author’s country was used and only if there was no corresponding author clearly defined, the first author’s country was used. As a result, a total of 40 countries were identified.
In
Table 7, the top 10 countries that have contributed the most documents on the topic are presented. Each of the remaining countries contributed three or fewer documents. Specifically,
Table 7 presents the name of the country (Country), the number of documents (Documents), the intra-country collaboration (SCP), the inter-country collaboration (MCP), the frequency (Freq.), and the inter-country collaboration ratio (MCP_Ration). China (
n = 61), the United States (
n = 28), India (
n = 13), and the United Kingdom (
n = 8) were the countries that contributed the most documents. Additionally, China had the most intra-country (
n = 57) and inter-country (
n = 4) collaborations among all 40 countries.
Furthermore,
Table 8 presents the countries that received the most citations based on the availability of the cited references information provided by the two databases used. China received the most citations (
n = 954), followed by the United States (
n = 527) and Canada (
n = 453). Additionally, Canada has the highest number of average citations per document (64.7). Finally, the document contributed by authors in New Zealand [
75] received a total of 200 references based on the information of the two databases which highlight its impact and significance.
Given that only 15.9% of the documents were single-authored, that the documents had on average 3.65 co-authors, and that the international co-authorship rate was 10.45%, it was deemed important to explore the collaboration among the different countries. As can be seen in
Figure 3, in total, five clusters emerged. These clusters highlight the countries whose authors are actively involved in joint efforts to further advance this field of study and also present the countries that have been involved in more international collaborations. Of the countries presented, China, followed by the United States, had the most collaborations with other countries, having both direct and indirect connections.
3.7. Document Analysis
To further explore the related documents, the total number of citations they have received was considered. Additionally, using the keywords specified within the documents, the thematic evolution of the topic, the thematic map of the topic, and the main trends of the topic were explored. Specifically,
Table 9 presents the documents that have received the most citations within the document collection.
The keywords reported by the two databases are categorized into keywords plus and author’s keywords. Specifically, keywords plus refer to the keywords used to classify the documents within the databases while author’s keywords refer to the keywords specified by the authors within the documents. Both types of keywords can adequately represent the document knowledge structure [
86]. Hence, both types of keywords are used in this study.
The top 10 most frequently used keywords plus were “artificial intelligence”, “virtual reality”, “augmented reality”, “education”, “metaverse”, “extended reality”, “deep learning”, “human-computer interaction”, “chatbots”, “immersive learning”, and “intelligent tutoring systems”. The top 10 most common author’s keywords were “artificial intelligence”, “virtual reality”, “students”, “e-learning”, “augmented reality”, “engineering education”, “learning systems”, “teaching”, “computer-aided instruction”, and “education”. The frequency of the related keywords is presented in
Figure 4 and
Figure 5 for the keywords plus and author’s keywords respectively. According to the keywords, the ability of these technologies to provide immersive learning environments that tend to students’ needs is highlighted. Moreover, their ability to personalize the educational process through the provision of intelligent tutoring systems, chatbots, and agents as well as interactive learning systems is evident. The importance of focusing on human-computer interaction and on providing effective computer-aided instruction emerged. Finally, their potentials to support both teachers and students is also presented through the identification of relevant keywords.
Besides the use of the Bibliometrix tool, VOSviewer was also used to explore the keyword co-occurrence network. The two networks are presented in
Figure 6 and
Figure 7 respectively. For the networks generated via Bibliometrix (
Figure 6), keywords plus were used, while for the network created via VOSviewer (
Figure 7), author’s keywords and keywords plus were used jointly. In the network created through Bibliometrix, a total of three clusters arose. The keywords of each cluster are as follows: (i) Green cluster: “virtual reality”, “artificial intelligence”, “students”, “e-learning”, “augmented reality”, “engineering education”, “learning systems”, “teaching”, “computer-aided instruction”, “natural language processing”, “education computing”, “metaverse”, “intelligent tutoring systems”, “mixed reality”, “learning”, “deep learning”, “extended reality”, “curricula”, “human-computer interaction”, “learning experiences”, “chatbots”, “immersive learning”, “immersive”, “technology”, “behavioral research”, “speech recognition”, “teachers”, “artificial intelligence in education”, “data handling”, “language learning”, “virtual assistants”, “college students”, “current”, “learning environments”; (ii) Red cluster: “education”, “machine learning”, “medical education”, “clinical competence”, “medical”, “simulation training”, “nursing education”, “procedures”, “surgical training”; and (iii) Blue cluster: “virtual environments”, “adversarial machine learning”, “contrastive learning”, “federated learning”, “high education”.
Moreover, the network generated through VOSviewer resulted in the creation of four clusters. The relevant to each cluster keywords are as follows: Cluster (1): “artificial intelligence”, “artificial intelligence in education”, “behavioral research”, “curricula”, “data handling”, “deep learning”, “e-learning”, “engineering education”, “language learning”, “metaverse”, “natural language processing”, “speech recognition”, “teachers”, “teaching”, “virtual reality”; Cluster (2): “augmented reality”, “computer-aided instruction”, “education computing”, “immersive”, “intelligent tutoring systems”, “interactive learning environment”, “learning experiences”, “learning systems”, “mixed reality”, “students”; Cluster (3): “adversarial machine learning”, “contrastive learning”, “federated learning”, “higher education”, “human-computer interaction”, “immersive learning”, “learning environments”, “virtual assistants”, “virtual environments”; and Cluster (4): “chatbots”, “education”, “extended reality”, “learning”, “machine learning”, “medical education”, “simulation”, “technology”, “visualization”. The applicability and multidimensional role of combining artificial intelligence with augmented reality and virtual reality technologies in educational settings is evident from the keywords and clusters.
Furthermore, through the use of VOSviewer, the total link strength among the keywords and their connections were explored. The related keywords were further processed and both keywords plus and author’s keywords were used. Nonetheless, to avoid any bias, if a keyword existed in both keyword sets, it counted only once.
Table 10 presents the top 10 keywords based on their total link strength. Artificial intelligence (occurrence = 111 and total link strength = 458), virtual reality (occurrence = 100 and total link strength = 444), and students (occurrence = 64 and total link strength = 361) were the keywords with the highest total link strength. Augmented reality also had a relatively high total link strength; however, it was less than that of the virtual reality keyword. This fact highlights the closer relation between artificial intelligence and virtual reality and that the research into the field of virtual reality has been more extensively examined.
Using Bibliometrix, the evolution of the topic throughout the years was also examined. Given the 10-year time period examined in this study (2015–2024), a total of three distinct time periods were set, as can be seen in (
Figure 8). To examine the thematic evolution, the document keywords were used. Hence, each time period was associated with a set of keywords. Specifically, the following themes emerged over the years: (i) 2015–2018 period: virtual reality, computer-aided instruction; (ii) 2019–2021 period: artificial intelligence, extended reality, deep learning, education, learning efficiency, learning systems; and (iii) 2022–2024 period: artificial intelligence, metaverse, education, virtual environments, and tutoring systems. Based on the outcomes, the close relationship between extended reality technologies and artificial intelligence becomes evident. However, the field of virtual reality is more widely being examined in combination with artificial intelligence than with that of augmented reality. Additionally, the initial focus on general computer-aided instruction has shifted to exploring how the combination of artificial intelligence and extended reality technologies can constitute effective learning systems that can improve learning efficiency and support the educational process through the use of advanced technologies and approaches, such as deep learning techniques. In recent years, more emphasis has been placed on the metaverse and on creating effective virtual environments as well as personalized tutoring systems that can enrich the educational process.
The trend topics that emerged over the period of 2015–2024 were also explored. The related outcomes are presented in
Figure 9 for the keywords plus and in
Figure 10 for the author’s keywords. Based on the author’s keywords, the emphasis on intelligent tutoring systems is evident. Additionally, the focus on augmented reality and virtual reality started to appear more intensely in 2021 while on the metaverse in 2023. Creating immersive learning and personalized learning environments using extended reality and artificial intelligence technologies to support teaching and learning has been the main focus in the last years. According to the outcomes of the keywords plus analysis, the initial emphasis was placed in the field of medical and healthcare education. Gradually, the focus shifted to other fields and subjects as well. The interest in using new technologies and approaches to support teaching and learning by offering, intelligent tutoring systems, computer-aided instructions, and interactive learning systems was evident. Recently, emphasis has been put on different machine learning and deep learning techniques to provide personalized and immersive learning experiences in virtual environments while also capitalizing on virtual assistants and virtual avatars.
Keywords were also used to cluster the documents through the use of the clustering by coupling method using keywords plus as the coupling measurement and documents as the analysis unit. The related outcomes are presented in
Figure 11, based on which six clusters arose. The first cluster (brown) was related to the keywords “artificial intelligence”, “virtual reality”, “education”, “e-learning”, and “clinical competence” while the second cluster (green) was related to the keywords “virtual reality”, “artificial intelligence”, “e-learning”, “students”, and “natural language processing”. Both clusters highlight the close relation between artificial intelligence and virtual reality in educational settings. The third cluster (red) was associated with the keywords “artificial intelligence”, “augmented reality”, “mixed reality”, “engineering education”, and “learning systems”, revealing the focus on combining augmented reality with artificial intelligence to create learning systems that promote learning in mixed reality environments, particularly in STEM-related fields. The fourth cluster (orange) was associated with the keywords “students”, “augmented reality”, “e-learning”, “virtual reality”, and “computer-aided instruction” while the fifth cluster (purple) was related to the keywords “adversarial machine learning”, “contrastive learning”, “federated learning”, “students”, and “virtual environments”. These clusters present the use of new techniques and approaches to enrich learning in virtual environments and to provide students with personalized computer-aided instruction. The sixth cluster (blue) was related to the keywords “augmented reality”, “intelligent tutoring systems”, “students”, “computer-aided instruction”, and “education computing” which highlights the emphasis on using intelligent tutoring systems within augmented reality environments to provide students with personalized computer-aided instruction.
Furthermore, using Bibliometrix, the thematic map of the topic, focusing on identifying the motor, basic, niche, and emerging or declining themes, was created. In total, 11 themes emerged. Motor themes (three clusters) were related to (i), “medical”, “procedures”, “surgical training”, and “simulation”; (ii) “intelligent tutoring systems”, “interactive learning environment”, “user interfaces”, and “virtual reality training”; and (iii) “nursing”, “nursing education”, and “nursing students”. Basic themes (four clusters) were associated with (i) “teaching”, “metaverse”, “curricula”, and “behavioral research”; (ii) “students”, “e-learning”, “augmented reality”, and “engineering education”; (iii) “education”, “machine learning”, and “medical education”; and (iv) “virtual reality”, “artificial intelligence”, “learning”, and “extended reality”. Niche themes (two clusters) were related to (i) “instructional design”, “intelligent robots”, and “intelligent systems” and (ii) “artificial intelligence algorithms”, “development prospects”, and “efficiency”. Emerging or declining themes (two clusters) were associated with (i) “adaptive learning”, “design considerations”, “innovation”, and “learning technologies” and (ii) “college students”, “motivation”, and “sustainable development”.
Figure 12 depicts the related information.
In addition to the results of Bibliometrix and VOSviewer, which focused on keywords, topic modeling was also used through LDA. Specifically, LDA is used on discrete datasets to represent each item as a combination of topics from a finite set and constitutes a probabilistic Bayesian model with a three-level hierarchical structure [
71]. The results of the topic modeling analysis are based on the bi-grams contained within the title and abstract of the documents and are presented in
Table 11. The main keywords associated with the topic (e.g., artificial intelligence, augmented reality, virtual reality, extended reality, and mixed reality) are not reported to present more representative outcomes. In total, three topics arose from the topic modeling analysis. These topics were related to the wide applicability of artificial intelligence, augmented reality, and virtual reality in education. Specifically, the first topic is related to their role in higher education, to the focus on students’ learning and improving their learning outcomes, as well as the design and adoption of appropriate teaching practices and methods. The second topic is related to the use of intelligent tutoring systems and virtual assistants and avatars within learning environments to promote and increase learning outcomes. The third topic is related to the wide range of educational subjects into which these technologies can be effectively integrated and to the emphasis on interactive and immersive learning experiences and environments. These outcomes are in line with those identified by the two tools used and provide additional details for each topic.