Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Unpacking Epistemic Insights of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Science Education: A Systematic Review

  • SI: Epistemic Insight & Artificial Intelligence
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is a growing application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in K-12 science classrooms. In K-12 education, students harness AI technologies to acquire scientific knowledge, ranging from automated personalized virtual scientific inquiry to generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, Sora, and Google Bard. These AI technologies inherit various strengths and limitations in facilitating students’ engagement in scientific activities. There is a lack of framework to develop K-12 students’ epistemic considerations of the interaction between the disciplines of AI and science when they engage in producing, revising, and critiquing scientific knowledge using AI technologies. To accomplish this, we conducted a systematic review for studies that implemented AI technologies in science education. Employing the family resemblance approach as our analytical framework, we examined epistemic insights into relationships between science and AI documented in the literature. Our analysis centered on five distinct categories: aims and values, methods, practices, knowledge, and social–institutional aspects. Notably, we found that only three studies mentioned epistemic insights concerning the interplay between scientific knowledge and AI knowledge. Building upon these findings, we propose a unifying framework that can guide future empirical studies, focusing on three key elements: (a) AI’s application in science and (b) the similarities and (c) differences in epistemological approaches between science and AI. We then conclude our study by proposing a development trajectory for K-12 students’ learning of AI-science epistemic insights.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Antonenko, P., & Abramowitz, B. (2023). In-service teachers’ (mis)conceptions of artificial intelligence in K-12 science education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 55(1), 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2022.2119450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aslam, T. M., & Hoyle, D. C. (2022). Translating the machine: Skills that human clinicians must develop in the era of artificial intelligence. Ophthalmology and Therapy, 11(1), 69–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Atman Uslu, N., Yavuz, G. Ö., & KoçakUsluel, Y. (2022). A systematic review study on educational robotics and robots. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2023890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayodele, T. O. (2010). Types of machine learning algorithms. New Advances in Machine Learning, 3, 19–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barak, M., Ginzburg, T., & Erduran, S. (2022). Nature of engineering. Science & Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00402-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billingsley, B. (2017). Teaching and learning about epistemic insight. School science review.

  • Bergmann, A., & Zabel, J. (2018). “They implant this chip and control everyone.”‘Misuse of science’as a central frame in students’ discourse on neuroscientific research. . Challenges in Biology Education Research, 170.

  • Billingsley, B., & Fraser, S. (2018). Towards an understanding of epistemic insight: The nature of science in real world contexts and a multidisciplinary arena [Editorial]. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1107–1113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9776-x

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Billingsley, B., & Hardman, M. (2017). Epistemic insight and the power and limitations of science in multidisciplinary arenas. School Science Review, 99(367), 99–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billingsley, B., Taber, K., Riga, F., & Newdick, H. (2012). Secondary school students’ epistemic insight into the relationships between science and religion—A preliminary enquiry. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1715–1732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9317-y

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Billingsley, B., Nassaji, M., Fraser, S., & Lawson, F. (2018). A framework for teaching epistemic insight in schools. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1115–1131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9788-6

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Billingsley, B., Heyes, J. M., Lesworth, T., & Sarzi, M. (2023a). Can a robot be a scientist? Developing students’ epistemic insight through a lesson exploring the role of human creativity in astronomy. Physics Education, 58(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ac9d19

  • Billingsley, B., Zeidler, D., & Grzes, M. (2023b). Call for Papers: Science & Education Special Issue: The Future of Knowledge: Conversations about Artificial Intelligence and Epistemic Insight. Science and Education.

  • Biswas, S. S. (2023). Potential use of chat gpt in global warming. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 51(6), 1126–1127.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain (pp. 201–207). New York: McKay.

  • Brandon, R. N. (1994). Theory and experiment in evolutionary biology. Synthese, 59–73.

  • Cambridge Dictionary (Ed.) (2023). Cambridge University.

  • Chan, H. Y., Cheung, K. K. C., & Erduran, S. (2023). Science communication in the media and human mobility during the COVID-19 pandemic: a time series and content analysis. Public Health, 218, 106–113.

  • Chappell, K., Hetherington, L., Keene, H. R., Wren, H., Alexopoulos, A., Ben-Horin, O., . . . Bogner, F. X. (2019). Dialogue and materiality/embodiment in science| arts creative pedagogy: Their role and manifestation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 296–322.

  • Cheon, S., Methiyothin, T., & Ahn, I. (2023). Analysis of COVID-19 vaccine adverse event using language model and unsupervised machine learning. PLoS ONE, 18(2), e0282119.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, K. K. C., & Tai, K. W. (2023). The use of intercoder reliability in qualitative interview data analysis in science education. Research in Science & Technological Education, 41(3), 1155–1175.

  • Cheung, K. K. C., Chan, H. Y., & Erduran, S. (2023). Communicating science in the COVID-19 news in the UK during Omicron waves: exploring representations of nature of science with epistemic network analysis. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1–14.

  • Chin, D. B., Dohmen, I. M., & Schwartz, D. L. (2013). Young children can learn scientific reasoning with teachable agents. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 6(3), 248–257. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2013.24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research: Pearson Education, Inc.

  • Dai, Y., Lin, Z., Liu, A., Dai, D., & Wang, W. (2024). Effect of an analogy-based approach of artificial intelligence pedagogy in upper primary schools. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(8), 159–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demir, K., & Güraksin, G. E. (2021). Determining middle school students’ perceptions of the concept of artificial intelligence: A metaphor analysis. Participatory Educational Research, 9(2), 297–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deveci Topal, A., Dilek Eren, C., & Kolburan Geçer, A. (2021). Chatbot application in a 5th grade science course. Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 6241–6265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10627-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Druga, S., Vu, S. T., Likhith, E., & Qiu, T. (2019). Inclusive AI literacy for kids around the world. Paper presented at the Proceedings of FabLearn 2019.

  • Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing nature of science for science education. Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories (pp. 1–18). Springer, Netherlands.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Kaya, E. (2018). Drawing nature of science in pre-service science teacher education: Epistemic insight through visual representations. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1133–1149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9773-0

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S & Cheung, K. K. C. (2024). A family resemblance approach to nature of STEAM. London Review of Education.

  • Fernández, J. D., & Vico, F. (2013). AI methods in algorithmic composition: A comprehensive survey. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 48, 513–582.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrer, X., van Nuenen, T., Such, J. M., Coté, M., & Criado, N. (2021). Bias and discrimination in AI: A cross-disciplinary perspective. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 40(2), 72–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fixico, D. (2013). The American Indian mind in a linear world: American Indian studies and traditional knowledge. Routledge.

  • Goel, A., & Joyner, D. (2015). Impact of a creativity support tool on student learning about scientific discovery processes. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Computational Creativity.

  • Gong, X. Y., Wei, D. R., Gong, X., Xiong, Y., Wang, T., & Mou, F. Z. (2020). Analysis on TCM clinical characteristics and syndromes of 80 patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia. Chin J Inf Tradit Chin Med, 27, 1–6. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85090357026&partnerID=40&md5=32878738076f422d1d4f320f85046eda

  • Gonzalez, A. J., Hollister, J. R., DeMara, R. F., Leigh, J., Lanman, B., Lee, S.-Y., . . . Wong, J. (2017). AI in informal science education: Bringing turing back to life to perform the turing test. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 27, 353–384.

  • Guo, L., & Wang, J. (2020, 2020//). A framework for the design of plant science education system for China’s botanical gardens with artificial intelligence. Paper presented at the HCI International 2020 – Late Breaking Posters, Cham.

  • Guraya, S. Y., London, N., & Guraya, S. S. (2014). Ethics in medical research. Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure, 2(3), 121–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagendorff, T., Bossert, L. N., Tse, Y. F., & Singer, P. (2022). Speciesist bias in AI: How AI applications perpetuate discrimination and unfair outcomes against animals. AI and Ethics, 1–18.

  • Han, X., Hu, F., Xiong, G., Liu, X., Gong, X., Niu, X., . . . Wang, X. (2018, 30 Nov.-2 Dec. 2018). Design of AI + curriculum for primary and secondary schools in Qingdao. Paper presented at the 2018 Chinese Automation Congress (CAC).

  • Haque, M. U., Dharmadasa, I., Sworna, Z. T., Rajapakse, R. N., & Ahmad, H. (2022). “I think this is the most disruptive technology”: Exploring sentiments of ChatGPT early adopters using Twitter data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.05856.

  • Higgins, D., & Heilman, M. (2014). Managing what we can measure: Quantifying the susceptibility of automated scoring systems to gaming behavior. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 33(3), 36–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofeditz, L., Clausen, S., Rieß, A., Mirbabaie, M., & Stieglitz, S. (2022). Applying XAI to an AI-based system for candidate management to mitigate bias and discrimination in hiring. Electronic Markets, 1–27.

  • Hong, K. s., Kim, H. J., & Lee, C. (2007, 6–8 Dec. 2007). Automated grocery ordering systems for smart home. Paper presented at the Future Generation Communication and Networking (FGCN 2007).

  • How, M.-L., & Hung, W. L. D. (2019). Educing AI-thinking in science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM) education. Education Sciences, 9(3). doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9030184

  • Huang, X., & Qiao, C. (2022). Enhancing computational thinking skills through artificial intelligence education at a STEAM high school. Science & Education, 1–21.

  • Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20, 591–607.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Javadi, S. A., Norval, C., Cloete, R., & Singh, J. (2021). Monitoring AI services for misuse. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society.

  • Kandlhofer, M., Steinbauer, G., Hirschmugl-Gaisch, S., & Huber, P. (2016, 12–15 Oct. 2016). Artificial intelligence and computer science in education: From kindergarten to university. Paper presented at the 2016 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE).

  • Kaya, E., & Erduran, S. (2016). From FRA to RFN, or how the family resemblance approach can be transformed for science curriculum analysis on nature of science. Science & Education, 25, 1115–1133.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., & Licona, P. (2018). Epistemic practices and science education. History, philosophy and science teaching: New perspectives, 139–165.

  • Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395–418.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, W. J. (2022). AI-integrated science teaching through facilitating epistemic discourse in the classroom. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 8(1), 9–42. https://doi.org/10.1163/23641177-bja10041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, K., Kwon, K., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Bae, H., & Glazewski, K. (2023). Exploring middle school students’ common naive conceptions of Artificial Intelligence concepts, and the evolution of these ideas. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11600-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Klemenčič, E., Flogie, A., & Repnik, R. (2022). Science education in Slovenia. In R. Huang, B. Xin, A. Tlili, F. Yang, X. Zhang, L. Zhu, & M. Jemni (Eds.), Science education in countries along the Belt & Road: Future insights and new requirements (pp. 471–485). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.

  • Knox, J. (2020). Artificial intelligence and education in China. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3), 298–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1754236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L., & Hersh, R. (1977). Moral development: A review of the Theory. Theory in to Practice, 16 (2), 53–59. Go to original source.

  • Konnemann, C., Höger, C., Asshoff, R., Hammann, M., & Rieß, W. (2018). A role for epistemic insight in attitude and belief change? Lessons from a cross-curricular course on evolution and creation. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1187–1204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9783-y

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Korkmaz, Ö., & Xuemei, B. (2019). Adapting computational thinking scale (CTS) for Chinese high school students and their thinking scale skills level. Participatory Educational Research, 6(1), 10–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 411–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulkarni, M. (2019). Digital accessibility: Challenges and opportunities. IIMB Management Review, 31(1), 91–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laabidi, M., Jemni, M., Ayed, L. J. B., Brahim, H. B., & Jemaa, A. B. (2014). Learning technologies for people with disabilities. Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences, 26(1), 29–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (2006). Research on nature of science: Reflections on the past, anticipations of the future. Paper presented at the Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching.

  • Lee, G. G., Choi, M., An, T., Mun, S., & Hong, H. G. (2023). Development of the hands-free AI speaker system supporting hands-on science laboratory class: A rapid prototyping. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 18(1), 115–136. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v18i01.34843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, J.-C., Hwang, G.-J., Chen, M.-R. A., & Darmawansah, D. (2021). Roles and research foci of artificial intelligence in language education: An integrated bibliographic analysis and systematic review approach. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1958348

  • Lund, B. D., & Wang, T. (2023). Chatting about ChatGPT: How may AI and GPT impact academia and libraries?. Library Hi Tech News. Library Hi Tech News.

  • Mason, L. (2016). Psychological perspectives on measuring epistemic cognition. Handbook of epistemic cognition, 375.

  • Mertala, P., Fagerlund, J., & Calderon, O. (2022). Finnish 5th and 6th grade students’ pre-instructional conceptions of artificial intelligence (AI) and their implications for AI literacy education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100095

  • Mistry, J., & Berardi, A. (2016). Bridging indigenous and scientific knowledge. Science, 352(6291), 1274–1275.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., PRISMA Group*, T. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Myneni, L. S., Narayanan, N. H., & Rebello, S. (2013). An interactive and intelligent learning system for physics education. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 6(3), 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2013.26

  • National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas: National Academies Press.

  • Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021). Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041

  • Ng, D. T. K., Luo, W., Chan, H. M. Y., & Chu, S. K. W. (2022). Using digital story writing as a pedagogy to develop AI literacy among primary students. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100054

  • Obi, R., Nwachukwu, M. U., Okeke, D. C., & Jiburum, U. (2021). Indigenous flood control and management knowledge and flood disaster risk reduction in Nigeria’s coastal communities: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 55, 102079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177–196.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Ouyang, F., Zheng, L., & Jiao, P. (2022). Artificial intelligence in online higher education: A systematic review of empirical research from 2011 to 2020. Education and Information Technologies, 27(6), 7893–7925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10925-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozbay, F. A., & Alatas, B. (2020). Fake news detection within online social media using supervised artificial intelligence algorithms. Physica a: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 540, 123174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, W., Wu, J.-Y., & Erduran, S. (2020). The nature of STEM disciplines in the science education standards documents from the USA, Korea and Taiwan: Focusing on disciplinary aims, values and practices. Science & Education, 29, 899–927.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Park, J., Teo, T. W., Teo, A., Chang, J., Huang, J. S., & Koo, S. (2023). Integrating artificial intelligence into science lessons: Teachers’ experiences and views. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkel, J. M., & Van Noorden, R. (2020). tl; dr: This AI sums up research papers in a sentence. Nature.

  • Puttick, S., & Cullinane, A. (2021). Towards the nature of geography for geography education: An exploratory account, learning from work on the nature of science. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 46(3), 343–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2021.1903844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qin, F., Li, K., & Yan, J. (2020). Understanding user trust in artificial intelligence-based educational systems: Evidence from China. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(5), 1693–1710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robitzski, D. (May 31, 2019). New AI generates horrifyingly plausible fake News, FUTURISM. Retrieved from https://futurism.com/ai-generates-fake-news.

  • Shipman, H. L., Brickhouse, N. W., Dagher, Z., & Letts, W. J. (2002). Changes in student views of religion and science in a college astronomy course. Science Education, 86(4), 526–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10029

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Su, J., & Yang, W. (2022). Artificial intelligence in early childhood education: A scoping review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 100049.

  • Su, J., Zhong, Y., & Ng, D. T. K. (2022). A meta-review of literature on educational approaches for teaching AI at the K-12 levels in the Asia-Pacific region. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100065

  • Sun, H. (2023). Regulating algorithmic disinformation. Columbia Journal of Law & the Art., 367, 46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sung, S. H., Li, C., Chen, G., Huang, X., Xie, C., Massicotte, J., & Shen, J. (2021). How does augmented observation facilitate multimodal representational thinking? Applying deep learning to decode complex student construct. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30, 210–226.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Tahiru, F. (2021). AI in education: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cases on Information Technology, 23(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, K. S. (2022). Material inquiry and transformation as prerequisite processes of scientific argumentation: Toward a social-material theory of argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(6), 969–1009.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Taşan, S. (2023). Estimation of groundwater quality using an integration of water quality index, artificial intelligence methods and GIS: Case study, Central Mediterranean Region of Turkey. Applied Water Science, 13(1), 15.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Thorp, H. H. (2023). ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science, 379(6630), 313.

    Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tong, E. K., England, L., & Glantz, S. A. (2005). Changing conclusions on secondhand smoke in a sudden infant death syndrome review funded by the tobacco industry. Pediatrics, 115(3), e356–e366.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van der Waa, J., Nieuwburg, E., Cremers, A., & Neerincx, M. (2021). Evaluating XAI: A comparison of rule-based and example-based explanations. Artificial Intelligence, 291, 103404.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Vazhayil, A., Shetty, R., Bhavani, R. R., & Akshay, N. (2019, 9–11 Dec. 2019). Focusing on teacher education to introduce AI in schools: Perspectives and illustrative findings. Paper presented at the 2019 IEEE Tenth International Conference on Technology for Education (T4E).

  • Verner, I. M., Cuperman, D., Gamer, S., & Polishuk, A. (2020). Exploring affordances of robot manipulators in an introductory engineering course. International Journal of Engineering Education, 36(5), 1691–1707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahde, M., & Virgolin, M. (2022). DAISY: An implementation of five core principles for transparent and accountable conversational AI. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 1–18.

  • Watters, J. D., & Supalo, C. (2021). An artificial intelligence tool for accessible science education. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities, 24(1), 10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1989). Causal models as intelligent learning environments for science and engineering education. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 3(2–3), 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/08839518908949923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations. Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, W., & Ouyang, F. (2022). The application of AI technologies in STEM education: A systematic review from 2011 to 2021. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00377-5

  • Yannier, N., Hudson, S. E., & Koedinger, K. R. (2020). Active learning is about more than hands-on: A mixed-reality AI system to support STEM education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 30, 74–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, K. H., Beam, A. L., & Kohane, I. S. (2018). Artificial intelligence in healthcare. Nature Biomedical Engineering, 2(10), 719–731.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0

  • Zhai, X. (2021a). Advancing automatic guidance in virtual science inquiry: From ease of use to personalization. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(1), 255–258.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Zhai, X. (2021b). Practices and theories: How can machine learning assist in innovative assessment practices in science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(2), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09901-8

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhai, X., He, P., & Krajcik, J. (2022). Applying machine learning to automatically assess scientific models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(10), 1765–1794. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21773

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhai, X., Chu, X., Chai, C. S., Jong, M. S. Y., Istenic, A., Spector, M., . . . Cai, N. (2021). A review of artificial intelligence (AI) in education from 2010 to 2020. Complexity, 2021, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8812542

  • Zhang, C., Zhou, Z., Wu, J., Hu, Y., Shao, Y., Liu, J., . . . Yao, C. (2021). Bio sketchbook: An ai-assisted sketching partner for children's biodiversity observational learning. Paper presented at the Interaction Design and Children.

  • Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the five reviewers for their feedbacks. Their feedbacks help us improve this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education, University of Oxford, 15 Norham Gardens, Oxford, OX2 6PY, UK

    Kason Ka Ching Cheung

  2. Institute of Education, Tinghua University, Beijing, China

    Yun Long

  3. Institute of Education, University College London, 20 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AL, UK

    Qian Liu

  4. School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QY, UK

    Ho-Yin Chan

Authors
  1. Kason Ka Ching Cheung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yun Long
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Qian Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ho-Yin Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yun Long.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

This project does not involve human participants, hence ethical statements are not applicable.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cheung, K.K.C., Long, Y., Liu, Q. et al. Unpacking Epistemic Insights of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Science Education: A Systematic Review. Sci & Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-024-00511-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-024-00511-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation