Positive Artificial Intelligence in Education (P AIED) : A Roadmap

International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-023-00357-y
ARTICLE
Positive Artificial Intelligence in Education (P‑AIED):

A Roadmap
Ig Ibert Bittencourt1,2 · Geiser Chalco1,3 · Jário Santos1,4 · Sheyla Fernandes5 ·

Jesana Silva1,5 · Naricla Batista1,5 · Claudio Hutz6 · Seiji Isotani2,4
Accepted: 6 June 2023

© International Artificial Intelligence in Education Society 2023
Abstract
The unprecedented global movement of school education to find technological and
intelligent solutions to keep the learning ecosystem working was not enough to
recover the impacts of Covid-19, not only due to learning-related challenges but also
due to the rise of negative emotions, such as frustration, anxiety, boredom, risk of
burnout and the so-called “Covid fatigue”. Although this is not a new problem, it
was deepened during the pandemic, and we need to face old and new challenges
in different ways. Despite focusing only on the learning system’s inefficiencies and
on the hegemony of solutions to tackle the learning gap, we also need to shed light
on the strengths and the positive aspects of the learning process to promote wellbe-
ing. As highlighted by John Self, an intelligent tutoring system would behave as if
it genuinely cared about the student’s success. This note from John Self sheds light
on the importance and reflection of what success means and for whom. This study
presents a roadmap for positive psychology and artificial intelligence in education.
It is intended to identify and understand how the intersection of Positive Psychol-
ogy and Artificial Intelligence in Education can support the promotion of learning
and wellbeing of students, teachers, and other educational stakeholders. As such, a
bibliometric analysis of positive psychology and artificial intelligence in education
was made as the so-called Positive Artificial Intelligence in Education (P-AIED).
The search string was performed in 2021, and the total number of studies gathered
was 10,777. After all the PRISMA steps, 256 studies were approved according to
the inclusion criteria. The main conclusions were the high number of institutions
and researchers with related publications indicate a new trend for the community of
AIED; the high number of collaboration from different countries indicates a possible
global movement toward P-AIED; Positive Emotion and Engagement were the main
Positive Psychology constructs identified in the studies; the lack of well-grounded
theories of Positive Psychology indicates an excellent research opportunity; Positive
Learning Analytics (P-LA), Positive Educational Data Mining (P-EDM) and Posi-
tive Intelligent Tutoring Systems (P-ITS) are three hot topics for P-AIED.
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Keywords Artificial Intelligence in Education · Positive Psychology · Learning ·

Wellbeing
Introduction
Artificial Intelligence in Education has decades of scientific contributions not only

in every step of a student’s thinking process but also in how to model complex
teacher and tutor pedagogical strategies as well as other dimensions of the humans
interacting in the system (such as dealing with emotions). However, as highlighted
by Ryan Baker, there is a disconnect between what Intelligent Tutoring Systems
could be and what they are (Baker, 2016; An intelligent tutoring system could sup-
port learning and promote students’ wellbeing. An intelligent tutoring system (ITS)
would behave as if it genuinely cared about the student’s success (Self, 1998). This
note from John Self sheds light on the importance and reflection of what success
means and for whom, and such a reflection is more than needed in times of pan-
demic and post-pandemic.
When John Self wrote one of his seminal papers about the defining characteristics
of Intelligent Tutoring Systems (Self, 1998), he claimed that ITSs’ philosophies and
technologies changed over time. However, the essential and distinctive nature of ITS
did not change: ITSs care! He argued that a student model enables a system to care
about a student, meaning the AIED ecosystem cares about what the student knows,
misunderstands, wants to do, etc. Although that claim was around thirty years ago,
and the AIED field changed and evolved considerably in the twenty-first century, it
still keeps its essence of systems that care about the student. Still, in a broader per-
spective, i.e., ITSs care not only about what the student knows and misunderstands
but also about what the student feels and how such interaction affects them. In the
revisited search for compassion and precision in the design and implementation of
intelligent learning systems, a broader understanding of caring can be observed,
and it was also deepened by Kay and McCalla (2003). Several studies related to the
broader sense of caring systems can also be identified in the research about emotions
(Feng et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021; Mandalapu & Gong, 2018), flow (Hallifax et al.,
2020; Semerci & Goularas, 2021; Tao et al., 2020b), engagement (Emerson et al.,
2020b; Upadhyay et al., 2021; Zhu et al., 2020), conversational agents (Peng et al.,
2020; Tegos et al., 2014; Zapata-Rivera & Forsyth, 2022), motivation (Challco
et al., 2020; Riaz et al., 2019; Sharma et al., 2020), self-regulation (Martens et al.,
2020; Yuan, 2021), conscientiousness (Ting et al., 2020), satisfaction (Hew et al.,
2020), Growth Mindset (Kizilcec & Goldfarb, 2019), interest (Walkington & Ber-
nacki, 2019), caring assessment (Zapata-Rivera, 2017; Zapata-Rivera et al., 2020),
meta-cognition (Du Boulay et al., 2010) and so on.
Indeed, such a broader understanding of the importance of focusing not only
on learning but also on wellbeing is not exclusive to the AIED community, but it
is present in debates and discussions from different communities (Reimers, 2020;
Schleicher, 2018) and organizations (such as UNESCO, UNICEF, OCDE, Grat-
tan Institute, World Bank, IDB) and several reports highlighted the importance of
this twofold view (Jensen et al., 2012). It is worth mentioning that this movement
13
was emphasized due to the negative impacts caused by the Covid-19 pandemic in
all areas, from education to health and the economy. It is unprecedented for the
global movement of school education to find educational technology solutions to
keep the learning ecosystem working and promote student success. Such a move-
ment has motivated a full-scale substitute for traditional instruction by looking at
the academic outcomes. Nevertheless, the pandemic also deepened problems related
to the lack of engagement and negative emotions, such as frustration, anxiety, bore-
dom, risk of burnout, and the so-called “Covid fatigue” (Bai et al., 2021). Therefore,
we need to face old and new challenges in different ways. Despite focusing only on
the learning system’s inefficiencies and on the hegemony of solutions to tackle the
learning gap, we also need to shed light on the strengths and the positive aspects of
the learning process to promote wellbeing. To date, there is vast information about
the real impact of Covid-19 on academic outcome and wellbeing (Amaechi et al.,
2021; Reimers, 2022; Reimers et al., 2022). Although solutions have been designed
to improve academic performance or promote wellbeing, few studies on Artificial
Intelligence in Education are observing how to improve academic performance and
promote wellbeing simultaneously.
The community interested in promoting wellbeing is called Positive Psychology
(Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), and there are several studies regarding Posi-
tive Education (Duckworth et al., 2007; Noble & Helen, 2015; Zhang et al., 2022).
Nevertheless, there is no systematization of the studies regarding Positive Educa-
tion (or Positive Psychology) and Artificial Intelligence in Education. To the best
of our knowledge, there are several secondary literature studies with two different
perspectives: i) positive psychology in different educational contexts, such as posi-
tive organizational scholarship (POS) (Donaldson et al., 2019), classroom (Seligman
et al., 2009), academic performance (Waters, 2012), higher education (Williams
et al., 2018), early childhood children (Benoit & Gabola, 2021), vulnerable students
(Brunzell et al., 2016), teachers and school managers (Schiavon et al., 2020), mind-
fulness (Albrecht et al., 2012) and positive education interventions (Waters & Loton,
2019) and ii) artificial intelligence in education reviews on specific constructs or
sub-fields, such as affective computing (Yadegaridehkordi et al., 2019), self-regu-
lated learning (Araka et al., 2020), flow theory (dos Santos et al., 2018a, b), enjoy-
ment, and others.
For this reason, the concept of Positive Artificial Intelligence in Education
(P-AIED) is proposed in this paper. From an epistemological viewpoint, P-AIED
is concerned with the application of AI to Education to promote both learning and
wellbeing, with twofold goals: firstly, research on how AI can be applied to develop
individual strengths and personal motivation to promote learning; secondly, research
on how positive education can be used on the design, development, innovation, and
transformation of intelligent systems to promote wellbeing in educational settings.
In this kind of study, it is investigated, for example, how theories like the flow-the-
ory-based design could improve knowledge acquisition and promote the wellbeing
of students at the same time (Jogo et al., 2022), Pereira et al., 2022). Although such
a conceptualization was not proposed, several studies consider using positive psy-
chology concepts or techniques in AIED and using Artificial Intelligence in Positive
Psychology.
13
This study proposes a roadmap for positive psychology and artificial intelligence
in education. It intends to identify and understand how the intersection of Posi-
tive Psychology and Artificial Intelligence in Education can promote the learning
and well-being of students, teachers, and other educational stakeholders. This arti-
cle is organized as follows: Section "Foundations of P-AIED" describes the theo-
retical foundations of Positive Artificial Intelligence in Education (P-AIED). Sec-
tion "Methods" presents the method used to identify the studies related to P-AIED.
Results and analysis are shown in Section "Results and Analysis". Section "Discus-
sion" presents a discussion and roadmap on P-AIED, revisiting the importance of
intelligent caring systems, describing the main findings of the literature on P-AIED,
and proposing research questions and future directions to the sub-field of P-AIED.
Finally, Section "Conclusions" presents the conclusions of the study.
Foundations of P‑AIED
This section aims to present the foundations of what has been called Positive Arti-
ficial Intelligence in Education. To do that, it is essential to bring the literature on
Positive Psychology and how it relates to education and artificial intelligence.
From a historical standpoint, psychology (or mainstream psychology) was driven
to alleviate the suffering of human beings, while the positive aspects were not taken
into account. For this reason, Martin Seligman and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi sug-
gested that psychology should not only focus on individuals’ weaknesses but also
look into their strengths and positive aspects of them Oades & Mossman, 2017).
Indeed, the founders of positive psychology recognized that traditional psychology
had become predominantly weakness-oriented: an approach that had succeeded in
alleviating many forms of human suffering but had failed at capturing the whole
human picture (Snyder et al., 2010). Therefore, positive psychology combines sci-
entific and practical approaches to i) build human strength and make people more
productive and ii) nurture genius, the generation of high human potential (Compton
& Hoffman, 2019; Seligman, 1998).
Although the proposal of Positive Psychology dates from the 1990s, the con-
cept of wellbeing has been an endless discussion for centuries, from philosophers
(Crisp, 2021) to psychologists (Snyder & Lopez, 2001). There are several perspec-
tives and constructs related to wellbeing (Oades & Mossman, 2017), on which sev-
eral theories have been developed throughout the years. Some of these theories are
being applied to the field of Computers and Education and Artificial Intelligence
in Education, such as Flow Theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 2001), which involves a
single-minded immersion in an appropriately challenging goal-based activity, and
Self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017), where our sense of autonomy, com-
petence, and relatedness determines the quality of motivation. Another critical the-
ory, but not very discussed in the Artificial Intelligence in Education community, is
the Strengths Theory (Park et al., 2004). According to the literature, the develop-
ment of character strengths promotes wellbeing and the perception of life satisfac-
tion (Harzer, 2016; Morgan & Simmons, 2021; Park et al., 2004). After a pervasive
work about positive traits and characteristics of individuals, a list of 24 character
13
Fig. 1 Venn Diagram with the

intersecting of fields to form
P-AIED
strengths was categorized into six virtues and summarized in a classification called
Values in Action (VIA) Classification of Strengths. Other well-known theories from
the Positive Psychology community are Broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson,
2004), Hope theory (Snyder, 2002), Growth Mindset (Dweck & Leggett, 1988), and
PERMA (an acronym for P = Positive Emotion; E = Engagement; R = Relationship;
M = Meaning; A = Achievement) (Seligman, 2018).
Although there are several studies about the benefits of positive education, there
is no systematization of how positive education or positive psychology could benefit
from the advances of Artificial Intelligence, as well as no systematization of how the
field of Artificial Intelligence in Education could benefit from Positive Psychology.
However, it is essential to cite the studies conducted by Diego Zapata-Rivera and
colleagues about the concept of Caring Assessment to support personalized learning
(Zapata-Rivera, 2017), which means assessments that consider aspects of the student
not taken into account with current standardized assessments. These aspects include
knowledge, skills, and other relevant cognitive, metacognitive, and social-emotional
characteristics (sometimes referred to as noncognitive attributes) and aspects of the
learning context to create assessment environments that offer appropriate conditions
for students to demonstrate what they know and can do (Sparks et al., 2022).
Therefore, there is a clear intersection of different student fields, such as Educa-
tion, Positive Psychology, and Artificial Intelligence. Figure 1 presents a Venn Dia-
gram to illustrate how the sub-field of Positive Artificial Intelligence in Education
intersects with different fields. In the figure, it is possible to see how the combina-
tion of Positive Education, Artificial Intelligence in Education, and Artificial Intel-
ligence Applied to Positive Psychology is the basis for defining what we called as
P-AIED.
It is worth mentioning that Positive Education and Artificial Intelligence are
paramount to developing P-AIED. From an epistemological viewpoint, P-AIED is
concerned with the application of AI to Education to promote both learning and
13
Fig. 2 The framework for the proposed ELA model
wellbeing, with twofold goals: firstly, research on how AI can be applied to develop
individual strengths and personal motivation to promote learning; secondly, research
on how positive education can be used on the design, development, innovation, and
transformation of intelligent systems to promote wellbeing in educational settings.
In this kind of study, it is investigated, for example, how theories like the flow-the-
ory-based design could improve knowledge acquisition and promote the wellbe-
ing of students at the same time (Jogo et al., 2022; Pereira et al., 2022). Therefore,
P-AIED can be divided into two perspectives, as follows:
• Positive Psychology Applied to Artificial Intelligence in Education (PP-AI):

PP-AI aims to understand how positive psychology was involved in the field of
Artificial Intelligence in Education. Here, the focus is on the AIED systems ben-
efiting from theories, models, and positive psychology interventions. In order
words, the focus here is on the construct of learning using positive psychology
foundation approaches. An example of PP-AI from the AIED community is the
study proposed by (Gao et al., 2019) that created a model to describe students’
learning ability and its relation with effort (ELA) from a generative perspective,
as described in Fig. 2.
• Artificial Intelligence applied in Positive Education (AI-PE): AI-PE aims to
understand how artificial intelligence has been used in a different context of
positive education, such as in diagnosing students’ or teachers’ character
strengths, predicting levels of happiness of educational stakeholders, support-
ing positive interventions in education, and so on. In other words, the focus is
13
Fig. 3 Flow Prediction of Learning Pulse project
on the constructs from positive psychology (such as interest, life satisfaction,

engagement, purpose, and hope) in the context of education. As an example,
Fig. 3 presents a machine learning model to predict the flow state of students
during learning activities. This study is intended to use flow to improve learn-
ing (Mitri et al., 2017).
Methods
The bibliometric survey was done by following the methods of Systematic Mapping,
which is a means of identifying, evaluating, and interpreting the available research
findings related to a research question, topic area, or phenomenon (Kitchenham &
Charters, 2007a). The primary purpose was to conduct a systematic mapping to
extract the bibliometric information that gathered evidence to base conclusions.
The guidelines and the protocol template proposed by Kitchenham and Charters
(2007a) were used to perform this bibliometric analysis. The systematic mapping
process includes several activities, which can be grouped into three main phases:
planning the systematic study, conducting, and reporting the results. It consists of
the following steps: i) identification of the need for the study; ii) formulation of a
focused research question; iii) a comprehensive, exhaustive search for primary
13
studies; iv) identification of the data needed to answer the research question; vi) data
extraction; vii) summary and synthesis of study results; viii) interpretation of the
results to determine their applicability; and ix) report-writing.
A software tool called Sumarize (NEES, 2022) was used to support the protocol
definition. It is used to provide support to researchers conducting systematic studies.
Sumarize extended the software tool Parsifal, which has been empirically evaluated,
and it was demonstrated that such a tool had positive results in the execution of sys-
tematic studies (Stefanovic et al., 2021).
Research Questions
This bibliometric survey aims to identify and understand how the intersection of
Positive Psychology and Artificial Intelligence in Education can support the promo-
tion of learning and the wellbeing of students, teachers, and other educational stake-
holders. Thus, the two high-level questions of this study are:
HLQ1: How has Artificial Intelligence been applied in Positive Education (AI-
PE)?
HLQ2: How has Positive Psychology impacted Artificial Intelligence in Educa-
tion (PP-AI)?
Based on the high-level questions, specific questions were raised according to

P-AIED aspects that we are interested in. The questions are related to scientific
output over time (RQ1), dissemination channels (RQ2), research areas and topics
(RQ3), scientific institutions and leaders (RQ4), research collaboration (RQ5), and
research impact (RQ6).
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
The aim of defining a criterion is to identify those primary papers which provide
direct evidence about the research questions and also to reduce the likelihood of bias
(Kitchenham & Charters, 2007a). Note that we consider primary papers the studies
which present some proposal to the area or present some empirical evaluation of its
contributions, whereas secondary papers are studies that only review a topic area,
e.g., surveys, systematic literature reviews, or systematic mappings.
Studies were eligible for inclusion in the review if they presented a peer-reviewed
primary study and that presented some contribution to P-AIED. Studies were
excluded if they were secondary, short papers, non-peer reviewed, duplicated, non-
English written, gray literature papers (e.g., books, theses, dissertations, and so on),
position papers, and if their focus was not using P-AIED.
Sources Selection and Search
The search strategy included only electronic databases and was validated by experts
on Positive Psychology and AIED. According to Chen’s recommendation (Chen
13
Fig. 4 Paper selection flowchart
et al., 2010a), the following electronic databases were automatically searched: ISI
Web of Science, Scopus, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, and Compendex. Due
to the context of Psychology, We also added the following digital libraries as recom-
mended by experts: ERIC and PsycInfo.
Figure 4 shows the systematic process and the number of papers identified at each
stage. In order to reach the goals and answer the research question, it was defined
the PRISMA (Acronym for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and
Meta-Analyses) checklist and the use of PICOC (Population, Intervention, Compari-
son, Outcome, and Context) to support the systematization of the work (Keele et al.,
2007). PICOC applies with an AND operator together with a set of OR operators for
each dimension in order to build the search string. In this case, the string considered
the dimensions of intervention (i.e. positive psychology), outcome (i.e. outcomes of
research), and context (i.e. positive psychology, educational technology, and AIED).
In Step 1 the studies were obtained from electronic databases using the following
search terms:
(1) “computers and education” OR “e-learning” “m-learning” OR “mobile learn-

ing” OR “tv learning” OR “web-based education” OR “adaptive educational”
OR “hypermedia systems” OR “adaptive educational systems” OR “adaptive
learning systems” OR “collaborative learning” OR “computer-supported col-
13
laborative learning” OR “educational environment” OR “educational system”

OR “learning environment” OR “learning management system” OR “massive
open online courses” OR “mobile learning” OR “t-learning” OR CSCL OR
MOOCS OR “intelligent educational system” OR “Intelligent tutoring system”
(2) “Artificial Intelligence” OR “Data Mining” OR “Learning Analytics” OR
“automated tutor” OR “deep learning” OR “expert system” OR “intelligent
agent” OR “intelligent support” OR “machine intelligence” OR “machine
learning” OR “natural language processing” OR “neural networK” OR “per-
sonal tutor” OR bayes*
(3) Engagement OR “optimal experience” OR “optimal learning experience” OR
autotelic OR flow
(4) “Positive Psychology” OR blessing OR flourish* OR forgiveness OR happi-
ness OR happy* OR mindfulness OR optimism OR “positive intervention” OR
“positive psychological intervention” OR “positive psychology intervention”
OR reframing OR reminiscence OR savoring OR strengths OR values OR
well-being OR wellbeing
(5) “Positive Emotion” OR admiration OR affection OR altruism OR amusement
OR awe OR cheerfulness OR confidence OR contentment OR eagerness OR
elevation OR enjoyment OR enthusiasm OR euphoria OR gratitude OR hope
OR inspiration OR interest OR joy OR kindness OR love OR pride OR relief
OR satisfaction OR serenity OR surprise
(6) achievement OR accomplishment
(7) meaning OR purpose
(8) “positive education” OR grit OR passion OR resilience
(9) relationships
(10) outcome OR effect* OR effic* OR evaluat*
These search terms for P-AIED were combined considering two main categories:
i) Positive Psychology: PERMA (an acronym for P = Positive Emotion; E = Engage-
ment; R = Relationship; M = Meaning; A = Achievement) construct (Seligman,
2018) is the most well-known construct so that it was taken into account as well as
Positive Education (Kern & Wehmeyer, 2021); ii) Computers and Education: dif-
ferent terms were considered based on previous systematic studies (Dermeval et al.,
2017; dos Santos et al., 2018b); iii) Artificial Intelligence: the main techniques used
nowadays in AIED society were considered; and iv) Outcome: to ensure the gath-
ered studies are primary studies. Therefore, the string was composed in the follow-
ing way:
AND (2) AND (3 OR 4 OR 5 OR 6 OR 7 OR 8 OR 9) AND (10)
The search string was performed in June 2021, and the total number of studies
gathered was 10,777. After that, duplicated studies were removed (i.e. 3676 stud-
ies removed) and we applied a natural language processing algorithm to the title,
keywords, and abstract to automatically reject not adequate studies. The automatic
filtering algorithm was calibrated with the search string by considering the seman-
tic relations, such as the automatic identification of other possible semantic terms
13
embedded in the searched studies. The automatic identification of the terms aimed
to reduce the noise of any incorrect removal of studies, ensuring a minimal thresh-
old for the automatic inclusion or exclusion of studies. Therefore, if the algorithm
finds at least one term (or synonym) for each part of the string combined with the
AND logical connector, then the study is included and goes to the next phase of
the I/E criteria. As a result of the automatic exclusion of studies, 3911 studies were
rejected. Finally, three authors of the paper performed a manual exclusion following
the criteria. The studies were split for the authors, and each one of them applied all
the inclusion and exclusion criteria based on title, abstract, and keywords. When one
of the authors was unsure about the inclusion or exclusion of the study, the paper
was submitted to a different author (none of the three) to give his opinion. Even if
both authors did not agree on the inclusion or exclusion, the paper was submitted
to another author for a final decision. In this process, a total of five authors were
involved in the manual exclusion of the studies, and a total of 2712 studies were
removed. In total, 478 studies were approved according to the inclusion and exclu-
sion criteria, and the data was extracted. Finally, a full-text screening of the papers
was conducted, and the removal of studies based on criteria 12, 13, 14, and 15. It is
worth mentioning that the participation of the five authors of the paper was applied
to steps 4 and 5. In total, 256 papers were selected in the final stage, as described in
Fig. 4. The next steps of the study were to run a bibliometric analysis to answer the
raised research questions.
Results and Analysis
A total of 256 studies met the inclusion criteria and their data were extracted. The
next subsections present the results according to each research question.
RQ1. Scientific Output Over Time
The reviewed papers were published between 2006 and 2021. From a temporal point
of view (Fig. 5), we can note an increasing number of papers throughout the years,
but in the last five years (after 2016), the number of studies has been higher than in
comparison with previous years. Then, as shown in the figure, the year 2019 has the
highest number of publications. It is also worth noting that there is a clear balance of
studies in most of the years, which means the research on Positive Education using
AI techniques and on AIED using Positive Psychology techniques is increasing.
Of the 256 publications chosen, 48.44% (n = 124) addressed AIED through Posi-
tive Psychology techniques (AI-PE), whereas 51.56% (n = 132) addressed Positive
Education using AI approaches (PP-IA). In Fig. 5, we can see a consistent increase
in the publication number over time. We can clearly observe an average growth rate
of publications that is more than double every five years. From the first five years
(2006–2010) in which the growth rates were 0.55% (AI-PE) and 0.77% (PP-AI), we
can appreciate growth rates to 2.47% (AI-PE) and 2.15% (PP-AI) in the second five-
year period (2011–2015). In the last five-year period (2016–2020, the growth rates
13
Fig. 5 Number of publications per year
of publications were 5.66% and 5.99%. It is clear there is an increase in the number
of papers. However, observing the growth rate does not mean it is more balanced
than the previous years. It means that although the number of papers about PE-AI
is higher than AI-PP, the absolute difference in the studies’ growth rate (0.23; 0.32;
0.33) remains almost the same. Therefore, these growth rates mean that AI-PE and
PP-IA research is always expanding. It is also worth noting that, with the excep-
tion of the first five years, there is a balance of studies in most years (2011, 2012,
2015, 2018, 2019), but, as shown in Fig. 5, the number of publications about PP-AI
(n = 29 articles, 11.33%) was more than twice than the number of publications about
AI-PE (n = 14 articles, 5.47%) in 2020—a fact that is most likely explained due to
the Covid-19 pandemic. Indeed, the diagnosis, treatments, and assessments of the
emotional well-being of students have been a fundamental subject during the Covid-
19 (Reimers, 2022).
In reference to the number of citations given to the publication about P-AIED, the
years 2021, 2017, and 2011 are the top 3 in the number of citations, as we showed in
Fig. 6. This figure also shows that there is not yet a predominance of a sub-field to
the detriment of the other. Despite the fact that there have been more publications in
recent years, the average citations per year and the average citations per article per
year indicate a great variation in both subfields (AI-PE and PP-AI). With an aver-
age of 88.3 citations per article and 7.35 citations per year over the first five years
(2006–2010), the articles published in the year 2010 stand out as the articles hav-
ing the highest citations per article about AIED using Positive Psychology (AI-PE).
From these studies, the study of Chen et al. (2010b) is currently the most cited (341
citations), in which the study pointed out the relationship between web-based learn-
ing technologies and student engagement.
In the second five-year period (2011–2015), the year 2011 stands out as the year
with the highest number of citations per article about Positive Education using AI
approaches (PP-IA), as shown in Fig. 6. This year’s articles have an average of 98
citations per article and 8.9 citations per year. The study of Rowe et al. (2011) is the
13
Fig. 6 Average of citations of articles per year
study that received the most citations with 174 citations, and it is about narrative-
centric learning environments and their effects on learning outcomes, in-game prob-
lem-solving, and engagement. Also, this year, we pointed out the study of D’Mello
and Graesser (2011) as one of the most relevant in the subfield, with 115 citations.
This study approaches the temporal dynamics of students’ non-basic cognitive-
affective states (such as confusion, frustration, boredom, engagement/flow, delight,
and surprise) during deep learning activities in an Intelligent Tutoring System (ITS).
Regarding the subarea of AIED using Positive Psychology approaches (AI-PE),
the studies published in 2012 stand out as the most relevant for the second five-year
period (2011–2015), as shown in Fig. 6, with an average of 70.8 citations per article
and 7.08 citations per year. Two articles published this year are the most relevant.
The former article is the study of DMello & Graesser (2012), with 190 citations,
in which the authors present details of implementation and assessments conducted
with the ITS known as AutoTutor—a conversation-based ITS that enhances student
learning and engagement by interacting with them in natural language through adap-
tive conversational dialogue. The latter article is the study of Alzoubi et al. (2012),
with 80 citations, in which the authors describe an affective state detector based on
physiological input data.
13
Fig. 7 Number of publications, percentages, and their respective types
RQ2. Dissemination Channels
Studies included in this review may be a journal, conference, workshop, or book

chapter publications. The majority of studies are conference papers (61.7%; 158
studies), followed by journal publications (37.5%; 96 studies) and book chapter pub-
lications (only 2 studies). This pattern is also present whether AIED uses Positive
Psychology or Positive Education using Artificial Intelligence.
Figure 7 shows the annual distribution of articles and conference papers about
AI-PE and PP-AI. We can clearly see that there is an increase in the number of pub-
lications in conferences for both subfields. In the case of journal publications, the
last two years (2019 and 2020) show an important difference between publications
about PP-AI and IA-PP. Due to Covid-19, journal publications about PP-AI were
extremely much greater than journal publications about AI-PE. During these years,
research about the emotional well-being of students was more relevant, and many
publication venues opened special calls to approach themes related to positive Edu-
cation in their journals.
Table 1 presents the distribution of selected studies over publication sources,
including the publication name, type, count (i.e., the number of selected stud-
ies from each source), and the percentage of selected studies. The selected
studies are distributed over 25 publication sources. The leading venues in this
study topic are the Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including sub-series
Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics),
followed by Computers and Education, ACM International Conference Pro-
ceeding Series, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education
(IJAIED), Computers in Human Behavior, and Advances in Intelligent Systems
and Computing.
13
Table 1 Distribution of studies over publication sources

Publication Source N %
LECTURE NOTES IN COMPUTER SCIENCE 44 17.19%

(INCLUDING SUBSERIES LECTURE NOTES IN ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE AND LECTURE NOTES IN BIOINFORMATICS)
COMPUTERS AND EDUCATION 8 3.13%
ACM INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE PROCEEDING SERIES 7 2.73%
ADVANCES IN INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS AND COMPUTING 6 2.34%
COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR 6 2.34%
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN EDUCATION 6 2.34%
BRITISH JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 5 1.95%
IEEE ACCESS 5 1.95%
ASEE ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND EXPOSITION CONFERENCE PROCEED- 3 1.17%
INGS
COMMUNICATIONS IN COMPUTER AND INFORMATION SCIENCE 3 1.17%
COMPUTERS IN EDUCATION JOURNAL 3 1.17%
EDM 2019—PROCEEDINGS OF THE 12TH INTERNATIONAL 3 1.17%
CONFERENCE ON EDUCATIONAL DATA MINING
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES 3 1.17%
INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 3 1.17%
IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMPUTATIONAL 2 0.78%
INTELLIGENCE AND COMPUTING RESEARCH ICCIC 2017
CEUR WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 2 0.78%
COMPUTER APPLICATIONS IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION 2 0.78%
CONFERENCE ON HUMAN FACTORS IN COMPUTING SYSTEMS—PROCEED- 2 0.78%
INGS
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY 2 0.78%
EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS 2 0.78%
FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY 2 0.78%
ICMI 2020—PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2020 2 0.78%
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MULTIMODAL INTERACTION
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AFFECTIVE COMPUTING 2 0.78%
IOP CONFERENCE SERIES: MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING 2 0.78%
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL COMPUTING RESEARCH 2 0.78%
PROCEDIA COMPUTER SCIENCE 2 0.78%
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 6TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE 2 0.78%
ON EDUCATIONAL DATA MINING EDM 2013
PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON E-LEARNING 2 0.78%
ICEL
USER MODELING AND USER-ADAPTED INTERACTION 2 0.78%
Other sources with 01 publication per source 121 47.27%
It is not surprising that the majority of papers on AI and ITS are published by
these communities, which are at the forefront of research in this area. This finding
may also suggest that the papers included in this review are of high quality, as they
13
Fig. 8 Co-occurrence analysis of the most

frequent keywords plus in P-AIED
are published in well-respected ITS research venues. However, many publications

about the topic are widespread (n = 121 articles, 47.27% of articles published in
one different source) in different venues from computers and education and artificial
intelligence research areas.
RQ3. Addressed Research Areas and Topics
This section aims to provide a starting point to understand the main concepts of Pos-
itive Psychology and AIED of the studies. For this analysis, we excluded terms and
synonyms that are part of educational contexts and research. These terms are stu-
dent, computer-aided instruction, computer-assisted instruction, e-learning, learning
systems, learning ecosystems, teaching systems, artificial intelligence, education,
education computing, teaching, learning environment, e-learning environment, vir-
tual-learning environment, online systems, article, internet, online-learning, learn-
ing, human experiment, research, computer-based learning environment, educational
environment, educational system, experimental conditions, empirical experiments,
case study, educational evaluation, and web-based.
In Figs. 8, 9 and 10 are presented the co-occurrence analysis of keywords plus.
The diameter of nodes is proportional to the frequency of each keyword, and the
thickness of the lines connecting keywords represents the strength of their rela-
tionship. Based on the analysis of the aims and scope of the main publication
venue to P-AIED, the International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education
13
Fig. 9 Co-occurrence analysis in positive psychology

using artificial intelligence (PP-AI)
Fig. 10 Co-occurrence analysis in artificial intelligence

using positive psychology (AI-PE)
13
Table 2 Clusters of co-occurrence analysis of keywords plus and topics from IJAIED
Keywords Plus Topics from IJAIED
Cluster 1 (red): data mining, educational data assessment and testing of learning outcomes, evalu-
mining, ation of AIED systems,
engagement, forecasting, information management, performance support systems, tools for the guided
academic performance, exploration of information resources
learning management system, semantics, multi-
modal learning, quality of learning
Cluster 2 (blue): intelligent tutoring system, bayesian and statistical methods,
human, emotion, cognitive models of problem-solving,
affective computing, intelligent intelligent tutoring systems, modeling metacogni-
vehicle highway systems, affect, tive
affective state, intelligent systems, skills, student modeling,
problem-solving, bayesian networks, and cognitive diagnosis, intelligent courseware
interactive learning environment, affect detection, for computer-based training, formal models of
computation theory, feedback, components
student modeling, algorithm, computer program- of AIED systems
ming, personality
Cluster 3 (green): student engagement, engineering motivation, human factors, and
education, interface design, natural language interfaces
learning analytics, behavioral for instructional systems,
research, surveys, virtual reality, computer-supported collaborative learning
collaborative learning, scaffolds, self-regulated
learning,
user interfaces, active learning,
computer-supported collaborative learning,
distance education, embodied
conversational agent, higher education
Cluster 4 (violet): massive open online course, computer-assisted language learning,
motivation, dialogue (argumentation, explanation, negotiation,
deep learning, curricula, machine etc.),
learning, learning algorithms, natural language interfaces for instructional sys-
big data, classification (of information), tems,
machine learning techniques, networked learning and teaching
student satisfaction, natural language systems, support for networked communication
processing systems, sentiment analysis,
social networking (online),
internet of things, support vector machines,
effective learning environment, learning process,
student motivation
Cluster 5 (orange): human factors and interface design,
human–computer interaction, electroencephalog- natural language interfaces for instructional systems
raphy,
emotion recognition, electrophysiology,
face recognition, speech recognition
Cluster 6 (brown): gamification, motivation, assessment, and testing
learning performance, of learning outcomes, evaluation of AIED systems
learning outcome, decision
making, engineering research
Cluster 7 (pink): neural networks, convolution
13
(IJAIED),1 there are 48 topics on which 19 (39.58%) has a relationship with the 07
clusters identified in the co-occurrence analysis with the 100 most used keywords-
plus detailed in Table 2.
Figure 8 reveals that the five largest clusters contain the following keywords:
data mining, intelligent tutoring system, student engagement, motivation, and
human–computer interaction. They correspond to the principal research areas and
topics addressed by the P-AIED or areas and topics in which we can address future
research. From the first cluster (red cluster), we can infer that data mining has been
utilized in learning management systems, being applied to the engagement, aca-
demic performance, and quality of learning, and with the goals of forecasting, infor-
mation management, and multimodal learning. Based on the second cluster (blue),
we can infer that intelligent tutoring systems have been addressed by the P-AIED
employing affective computing, feedback, affect detection and problem-solving. As
indicated by the third cluster (green), P-AIED uses learning analytics, collabora-
tive learning, virtual reality, scaffolds, active learning, and self-regulated learning to
promote student engagement. From the fourth cluster (violet), we can infer that the
P-AIED addresses motivation, student motivation, learning process, curricula, senti-
ment analysis, student satisfaction, and an effective learning environment through
the use of big data, deep learning, learning algorithms, machine learning techniques,
classification (of information), and that these topics are primarily covered in mas-
sive open online courses, effective learning environments, and natural language pro-
cessing systems. The fifth cluster (orange) indicates that face recognition, emotion
recognition, speech recognition, electroencephalography, and electrophysiology are
part of the human–computer interaction in P-AIED.
AI-PE (AIED using Positive Psychology techniques) and PP-AI (Positive Educa-
tion using Artificial Intelligence) both contain clusters of intelligent tutoring sys-
tems and data mining. These two clusters share the majority of the same terms for
both research subtopics (for details, see Table 6 of Appendix A). In the co-occur-
rence analysis of keywords plus from studies of AI-PE, we identified 07 clusters (as
shown in Fig. 9), four of them as relevant to infer the topics addressed by AI-PE. In
addition to the first two common clusters, the third cluster (green) can be interpreted
as that the AI-PE addresses or has focused on student engagement, its forecasting,
and the classification (of information) through machine learning (deep learning) and
big data in massive open online courses. The fourth cluster (violet) indicates that
the topic of motivation is addressed mainly in engineering education through virtual
reality, curricula, collaborative learning, virtual reality, computer games, survey,
gamification, learning analytics, and natural language processing systems.
In relation to the PP-AI, Fig. 10 reveals that the third cluster (green) focuses
on human emotions via machine learning, virtual reality, algorithm, and aug-
mented reality. The fourth cluster (orange) is focused on human–computer interac-
tion through behavioral research, computational model (of personality as the main
focus), and emotion recognition—particularly via face recognition.
We also performed a co-occurrence analysis of phrases found in the article’s title,
abstract, author’s keyword, and keyword-plus. This analysis aimed to identify the
1
https://www.springer.com/journal/40593/aims-and-scope
13
Fig. 11 Co-occurrence analysis in artificial intelligence using positive psychology (AI-PE)
primary research outcomes addressed by P-AIED and its subtopics. In order to con-
duct this research, we utilized the search terms (3–9) used in this bibliometric study
to select articles. When some of these keywords or their synonyms were discov-
ered in the author keywords, keyword-plus, title, and abstracts, they were turned into
these keywords (3–9). The findings of this co-occurrence analysis are depicted in
Fig. 11. As detailed in Table 7 of Appendix A, this result indicates that there are
three primary clusters. In the first cluster (red), engagement relates to a user, learn-
ing, and student engagement, engagement prediction, engagement detection, accom-
plishment, achievement, interest, values, achievement emotions, relationship, values,
purpose, and meaning. The second cluster (green) alludes to students’ satisfaction
and confidence, while the third cluster (blue) is the flow state, related to flow visu-
alization, flow theory, flow experience, surprise, and happiness.
Similar clusters to those identified in P-AIED can be observed in AI-PE and
PP-AI study outcomes (Fig. 11). As part of the second cluster (blue) in AI-PE, the
flow state is connected with student happiness, and the first cluster (red) remains
associated with student engagement. In the PP-AI, we detected the achievement
cluster (blue) related to interest and achievement feelings as a new cluster added to
the three clusters of engagement, flow state, and satisfaction.
Figures 12, 13 and 14 presented the thematic maps, detailed in the Tables 8, 9
and 10 of Appendix A. A thematic map was created by employing a two-dimension
matrix of centrality (relevance of a topic) and density (estimates of development)
of keywords-plus. In this sense, the upper-left quadrant as well-developed themes
occupy niche themes, the upper-right quadrant as motor themes indicate important
and well-developed themes, the lower-left quadrant shows emerging or declining
themes, and the lower-right quadrant points out the basic transversal themes.
Based on the thematic maps, it is possible to identify that Positive Emotion
(i.e. P from PERMA) is the most important and well-developed theme. This can
also be confirmed with the second cluster (pink) that emerged from Fig. 12 (for
details, see Table 8 of Appendix A) regarding P-AIED in which feature extraction
and algorithm are part of this theme. Other two important and well-developed
themes are human–computer interaction (third cluster—brown) and affective
computing (fourth cluster—gray), which are related to virtual reality and affect
13
Fig. 12 Thematic map showing relevance and development of topics in P-AIED
Fig. 13 Thematic map showing relevance and development of topics in artificial intelligence using posi-
tive psychology (IA-PP)
13
Fig. 14 Thematic map showing relevance and development of topics in positive psychology using artifi-
cial intelligence (PP-AI)
(affective state), respectively. We also identified machine learning (i.e., deep

learning, neuronal networks) as a motor theme (seventh cluster—blue) for the
classification (of information) to emotion recognition, user interfaces, and speech
recognition.
Three basic transversal themes regarding P-AIED are identified in the lower-right
quadrant of Fig. 12. These themes can be considered: educational data mining in
intelligent systems (such as intelligent tutoring systems and intelligent vehicle high-
way systems) (sixth cluster—green); student engagement in engineering education
and through behavioral research, such as scaffolds, self-regulated learning, and
CSCL (Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning) (fifth cluster—violet); and
EDM, such as data mining in motivation, curricula and MOOCs (eight cluster—red).
Regarding AI-PE, as shown in Fig. 13 (for details, see Table 9 of Appendix A),
we identified student modeling in interactive learning environments (third cluster—
gray) and affective computing and affective learning (third cluster—pink) as the two
most important and well-developed themes. Two motor themes (important but not
well-developed) are EDM of student engagement in intelligent systems (e.g., ITS)
(fifth cluster—violet) and machine learning (eighth cluster—red). This last theme
was also part of P-AIED. Two transversal themes were found in AI-PE, the former
one is engineering education through behavioral research for learning outcomes,
learning performance, and user interfaces (sixth cluster—orange), and the second
one is the EDM (eighth cluster—red), the same cluster identified in P-AIED. In the
lower-left quadrant of Fig. 13, there are emerging areas regarding AI-PE. These
13
Fig. 15 Most frequent affiliations of published authors
areas are digital games (second cluster—pale pink) and embodied conversational
agents with affect and for computer-science education (first cluster—cyan).
Figure 14 shows the identified themes regarding PP-AI (for details, see 10 of
Appendix A). EDM (in curricula and for student engagement), as in the P-AIED
and AI-ED, was identified as a transversal theme (seventh cluster—red). Intelligent
Tutoring Systems (in motivation and engineering education) is another transversal
theme (sixth cluster—green) of PP-AI. Affective computing (third cluster—gray) is
a well-developed and interesting theme present in P-AIED and AI-ED. Electroen-
cephalography and neural networks (fourth cluster—cyan) are also well-developed
and interesting themes for PP-AI. Positive emotion through behavioral research and
virtual reality (fifth cluster—blue) and the classification of information through
deep learning for forecasting (eighth cluster—violet) are both interesting themes.
Emerging areas of PP-AI are shown in the lower-left quadrant of Fig. 14. These two
areas are gamification (first cluster—brown) and human–computer interaction (sec-
ond cluster—pink).
RQ4: Scientific Institutions and Leaders
In response to research question 5 regarding the most involved scientific institutions,

333 institutions were identified with papers published on P-AIED. Figure 15 shows
that the 15 most relevant scientific institutions are from the United States, China,
the United Kingdom, and Iran. Additionally, the top 5 universities are also from the
13
Table 3 Twenty most prolific authors in P-AIED and their annual publications
13
Authors 2007 2009 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Art ToC
LESTER JC 1 (174) 2 (45) 2 (41) 3 (24) 1 (2) 3 (28) 12 314

DMELLO SK 1 (26) 1 (115) 2 (270) 2 (46) 1 (22) 7 479
BAKER RSJD 1 (0) 1 (18) 1 (2) 1 (9) 2 (10) 1 (1) 7 40
MOTT BW 1 (174) 1 (10) 1 (10) 1 (8) 1 (2) 5 204
AZEVEDO R 1 (11) 1 (7) 1 (108) 2 (25) 5 151
BOYER KE 1 (35) 1 (31) 2 (17) 1 (2) 5 85
WIEBE EN 1 (35) 1 (31) 2 (17) 1 (2) 5 85
GRAESSER AC 1 (115) 1 (190) 1 (2) 1 (5) 4 312
WIGGINS JB 1 (31) 2 (17) 1 (2) 4 50
LIANG Y 1 (0) 1 (1) 1 (5) 1 (4) 4 10
KIZILCEC RF 1 (336) 1 (5) 1 (32) 3 373
GASEVIC D 1 (110) 1 (2) 1 (14) 3 126
GRAFSGAARD JF 1 (35) 1 (31) 1 (9) 3 75
CAI Y 1 (6) 1 (9) 1 (20) 3 35
FRASSON C 1 (18) 1 (2) 1 (15) 3 35
FATAHI S 1 (3) 2 (20) 3 23
BARRON-ESTR ML 2 (7) 1 (9) 3 16
BOTICARIO JG 1 (0) 1 (11) 1 (4) 3 15
ISOTANI S 1 (3) 2 (9) 3 12
CHALLCO GC 1 (3) 2 (8) 3 11
N is the number of published papers; and the numbers in parentheses correspond to the Total of Citations(ToC)
Table 4 Twenty most prolific authors in PP-AI and their annual publications
Authors 2007 2009 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Art ToC
LESTER JC 1 (174) 2 (45) 1 (2) 3 (28) 7 249

DMELLO SK 1 (26) 1 (115) 1 (44) 1 (22) 4 207
AZEVEDO R 1 (7) 1 (108) 2 (25) 4 140
MOTT BW 1 (174) 1 (10) 1 (2) 3 186
FRASSON C 1 (18) 1 (2) 1 (15) 3 35
FATAHI S 1 (3) 2 (20) 3 23
LIANG Y 1 (1) 1 (5) 1 (4) 3 10
BAKER RSJD 1 (2) 1 (6) 1 (1) 3 9
KIZILCEC RF 1 (336) 1 (32) 2 368
GRAESSER AC 1 (115) 1 (5) 2 120

GASEVIC D 1 (110) 1 (2) 2 112
COCEA M 1 (33) 1 (61) 2 94
BOYER KE 1 (35) 1 (2) 2 37
JRAIDI I 1 (18) 1 (15) 2 33
DEWAN MAA 1 (11) 1 (7) 2 18
EMERSON A 2 (18) 2 18
CHAOUACHI M 1 (2) 1 (15) 2 17
BOTICARIO JG 1 (11) 1 (4) 2 15
CAI Y 1 (6) 1 (9) 2 15
DEB S 2 (0) 2 0
13
Table 5 Twenty most prolific authors in AI-PE and their annual publications
13
Authors 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2019 2020 N ToC
LESTER JC 2 (41) 3 (24) 5 65

BAKER RSJD 1 (0) 1 (18) 1 (9) 1 (4) 4 31
DMELLO SK 2 (270) 1 (2) 3 272
BOYER KE 1 (31) 2 (17) 3 48
WIEBE EN 1 (31) 2 (17) 3 48
WIGGINS JB 1 (31) 2 (17) 3 48
BARRON-ESTRADA ML 2 (7) 1 (9) 3 16
ZATARAIN-CABADA R 2 (7) 1 (9) 3 16
CHALLCO GC 1 (3) 2 (8) 3 11
GRAESSER AC 1 (190) 1 (2) 2 192
HWANG GJ 1 (56) 1 (23) 2 79
GRAFSGAARD JF 1 (31) 1 (9) 2 40
BOUCHET F 1 (11) 1 (19) 2 30
HEFFERNAN NT 1 (9) 1 (4) 2 13
ALOR-HERNANDEZ G 1 (2) 1 (9) 2 11
BITTENCOURT II 1 (3) 1 (5) 2 8
ISOTANI S 1 (3) 1 (5) 2 8
JACKSON GT 1 (1) 1 (4) 2 5
AMADO-SALVAT. HR 2 (4) 2 4
GOSWAMI M 2 (1) 2 1
United States, and North Carolina State University is far more productive than the
others, with 19 studies (7.42%).
Regarding the research leaders of P-AIED, Tables 3, 4 and 5 present the list of the
leaders. Each table indicates the researcher, the number of publications throughout
the years, the total number (N) of publications, the number of citations (in parenthe-
ses), and the Total of Citations (ToC). Regarding the field of P-AIED (described in
Table 3), James Lester, Sydney D’Mello, Ryan Baker, Bradford W. Mott, and Roger
Azevedo are the most prolific researcher. Three of these authors also published the
most cited articles. Studies of P-AIED vary from 2007 to 2021; however, most of
the publications are from 2011 until 2021. Additionally, it is also possible to observe
some prominent researchers with publications in the last 5 years, such as R. Kizil-
cec, Y. Liang, M. Barros-Estrada, and J. Boticario.
Regarding the studies about Positive Psychology using AIED (PP-AI), as shown
in Table 4, the studies vary from 2007 until 2021, and there are not clear leaders in
the field. However, in addition to the most prolific authors of P-AIED, James Lester,
Sydney D’Mello, and Roger Azevedo, we can highlight two prominent researchers:
R. Kizilcec, and A. Emerson by their publications in the last 5 years and their num-
ber of citations.
Regarding Artificial Intelligence applied to Positive Education (AI-PE), the stud-
ies are from 2010 until 2020, as shown in Table 5. James Lester, Ryan Baker, and
Sydney D’Mello are the most prolific authors of AI-PE, as well as they are also pro-
lific in P-AIED. In addition to these authors, considering only the last five years, the
most prominent researchers in the field are G. Hwang, K.E. Boyer, E.N. Weibe, J.B.
Wiggins, M. Barros-Estrada, and R. Zatarain-Cabada by the numbers of citations
that their publications received (greater than ten per year).
RQ5: Research Collaboration
As the minimum number of links required to form a cluster in scientific collabora-

tion networks, we have determined that two edges between pair nodes are required
to form a cluster. Each link represents co-authorship and, for us, having one co-
authorship between two researchers does not imply a collaboration. This situation
can be only a punctual person’s contribution, a kind of contribution which will not
continue. A true collaboration, in our opinion, occurs when two or more research-
ers have two or more co-authorships because there is a high likelihood that their
research collaboration will continue in the future and that they contribute to the
movement of P-AIED.
Regarding P-AIED, we identified 20 clusters (for details, see Table 11 of
Appendix A), and 12 clusters have three or more researchers, as shown in Fig. 16.
These clusters can be interpreted as the current consolidated research groups in
the field of P-AIED. In the figure, it is possible to observe that the main research
group is led by Lester J.C. Another well-established research group is led by
Boticario J.G., Santos O.C., and Uria-Rivas R. We would like to point out that
the cluster led by J. Lester is also identified on Positive Psychology using AIED
and on Artificial Intelligence using Positive Education as well. We identified 08
13
Fig. 16 Map of author collaborations
Fig. 17 Map of institution collaboration
clusters in the authors’ collaboration network about AIED using Positive Psy-
chology (AI-PE), of which 05 of them consist of three or more researchers. In ref-
erence to Positive Education using Artificial Intelligence (PP-AI), we also identi-
fied 08 clusters and four of them are composed of three or more researchers, as
shown in the figure. We can also clearly observe that P-AIED research collabora-
tion specializes in each subfield. For example, the group led by Lester is divided
into two groups to address AI-PE, both led by Lester J.C.
Regarding collaboration between institutions, Fig. 17 presents the institutional
collaboration network (for details, see Table 12 of Appendix A). It is interest-
ing to observe that there are several strong collaborations, but the majority of
them involve at least one US university. The universities leading collaborations
in the field are North Carolina State University, Carnegie Mellon University,
Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and the University of Notre Dame. As shown in
13
Fig. 18 Most cited works on P-AIED
Fig. 19 Map of co-citations
Fig. 17, we identify 08 clusters of institute collaborations with two or more pub-
lications about P-AIED. We also identified 06 clusters of institutions contributing
to the PP-AI research and 03 clusters of institutions with articles published about
AI-PE.
Finally, there are several multi-country collaborations on P-AIED, AI-PE, and
PP-AI between American Continent, Asia, and Europe; American Continent and
Europe; Europe, American Continent, and Africa; Europe and Africa; Asian and
Africa; and Europe and Asia.
RQ6: Research Impact
In response to the research question about impact, Fig. 18 presents the list of the
most cited studies. It is possible to observe that four studies have more than 100 cita-
tions, and they are published in journals. Indeed, only one of the most cited studies
is not a journal paper, which indicates how journal publications are more impactful
than book chapters and conference papers.
13
Regarding the map of co-citations, Fig. 19 presents such information. It is interesting

to observe that one of the fathers of Positive Psychology, M. Csikszentmihalyi, has a
study that identified P-AIED and Artificial Intelligence using Positive Education.
Discussion
In this section, we present and discuss the main findings of this study as well as a
roadmap with the emerging branches of P-AIED and the twofold perspective of pro-
moting learning and wellbeing. At the end of this section, we discuss the threats to
the validity of this review.
Summary of the Findings and Roadmap
By conducting this study, it was identified how Positive Artificial Intelligence in

Education is related to the fields of Education, Positive Psychology, and Artificial
Intelligence. After that, two perspectives were identified, which indicates the was
P-AIED can be tackled by the community, which supported the definition of the
two high-level questions of the bibliometric analysis: (1) How has artificial intelli-
gence been applied in Positive Education (AI-PE)? (2) How has positive psychology
impacted Artificial Intelligence in Education (PP-AI)?
In the first question, 48.44% of the studies addressed this perspective and a grow-
ing rate over the years. However, the number of citations varies throughout the years,
and the study Chen et al. (2010b) is currently the most cited one (341 citations), in
which the study pointed out the relationship between web-based learning technolo-
gies and student engagement. It was interesting to observe there are studies from the
Global South from more than ten countries. The studies about AI-PE identified sev-
eral important themes and constructs, such as the focus on student engagement, its
forecasting, and the classification (of information) through machine learning (deep
learning) and big data in massive open online courses, as well as motivation in engi-
neering education through virtual reality, curricula, collaborative learning, virtual
reality, computer games, survey, gamification, learning analytics, and natural lan-
guage processing systems. Finally, it was also identified student modeling in interac-
tive learning environments and affective computing and affective learning as the two
most important and well-developed themes. Two motor themes (important but not
well-developed) are EDM of student engagement in intelligent systems (e.g., ITS)
and machine learning. Two emerging areas regarding AI-PE are digital games and
embodied conversational agents with affect on computer-science education.
Regarding the second question, 51.56% of the studies addressed this perspective
and a growing rate over the years. Just as AI-PE, PP-AI indicates high variation in
the number of citations throughout the years, which the study Rowe et al. (2011) is
currently the most cited one (174 citations), and it is about narrative-centric learn-
ing environments and their effects on learning outcomes, in-game problem solving,
and engagement. Another study well-cited is (D’Mello & Graesser, 2011), and it is
about the temporal dynamics of students’ non-basic cognitive-affective states (such
13
Fig. 20 Roadmap indicating emerging branches of P-AIED as well as the twofold perspective of learning
and wellbeing
as confusion, frustration, boredom, engagement/flow, delight, and surprise) during

deep learning activities in an Intelligent Tutoring System (ITS). Several studies from
the Global South were also identified. The studies about PP-AI also revealed a pre-
dominant focus on human emotions via machine learning, virtual reality, algorithm,
and augmented reality, as well as human–computer interaction through behavioral
research, computational model (of personality as main focus), and emotion recogni-
tion—particularly, via face recognition. Finally, it was identified as transversal themes
of EDM and Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Well-developed themes were Electroen-
cephalography and neural networks, Positive emotion through behavioral research and
virtual reality, and the classification of information through deep learning for forecast-
ing. Emerging areas of PP-AI are gamification and human–computer interaction.
The main findings were the high number of institutions and researchers with related
publications indicates a new trend for the community of AIED. Additionally, although
there is a high variation of citations over the years, there is a high number of citations
from different countries, indicating a possible global movement towards P-AIED. It
is worth mentioning that several themes were identified for the sub-field of P-AIED.
such as flow state connected with student happiness, student engagement, achievement
related to interest and achievement feelings and engagement, flow state, and satisfac-
tion in general. Moreover, the lack of well-grounded theories of Positive Psychology
indicates a great research opportunity. It was also possible to identify that Positive
Emotion (i.e. P from PERMA) was the most important and well-developed theme.
Other important and well-developed themes are human–computer interaction and
affective computing, which are related to virtual reality and affect (affective state). We
also identified machine learning (i.e., deep learning, neuronal networks) as a motor
theme (seventh cluster—blue) for the classification (of information) to emotion recog-
nition, user interfaces, and speech recognition.
13
Finally, some branches of P-AIED can emerge, such as Positive Learning Ana-
lytics (P-LA), Positive Educational Data Mining (P-EDM), and Positive Intelligent
Tutoring Systems (P-ITS) are three hot topics for P-AIED. Based on the summary of
the findings, a roadmap is presented on Fig. 20 indicating how P-AIED can be con-
ceptualized and how it considers the twofold epistemological viewpoint by promot-
ing both learning and wellbeing.
Threats to Validity
This section describes concerns that must be improved in future replications of this
study and other aspects that must be considered to generalize the results of the bibli-
ometric analysis performed in this work. In order to organize this section, the threats
to validity were classified using the Internal, External, Construct, and Conclusion
categories (Wohlin et al., 2012).
The main constructs in this review are the two concepts, “Artificial Intelligence in
Education” and “Positive Psychology”. For the first concept, we used terms of well-
cited and well-known secondary and systematic studies published on IJAIED, such as
(Dermeval et al., 2017). For the second concept, we considered the construct PERMA
(Seligman, 2018), proposed by one of the fathers of Positive Psychology, Martin
Seligman, and terms from the branch of Positive Psychology (Kern & Wehmeyer,
2021), so-called Positive Education. Additionally, essential constructs for each part of
PERMA were also considered. For example, for the P = Positive Emotion, the list of
emotions proposed by Barbara Fredrickson (Fredrickson, 2004) was added. However,
the list of terms added was not exhaustive, and some terms used on the string returned
hundreds of thousands of papers, and we had to remove them.
As threats to the internal validity, some subjective decisions may have occurred
during paper selection since some primary studies did not provide a clear descrip-
tion or proper objectives and results, making the objective application of the inclu-
sion/exclusion criteria difficult. In order to minimize selection mistakes, the selec-
tion process was performed in an iterative way; the data extraction was realized
collaboratively by reviewers, and any conflicts were discussed and resolved by all
the authors. In this way, we tried to mitigate the threats due to personal bias on
study understanding. Moreover, the remaining authors are researchers with exper-
tise in Artificial Intelligence in Education and Positive Psychology. Finally, we had
no threat regarding data extraction because it was extracted based on the automatic
extraction of bibliometric information using a bibliometric tool.
External validity is concerned with establishing the generalizability of the results,
which is related to the degree to which the primary studies represent the review
topic. In order to mitigate external threats, the search process described in Sect. 3.3
was defined after several trial searches and validated with the consensus of authors.
We tested the coverage and representativeness of retrieved studies, including auto-
matic database search and references scan.
With regard to conclusion validity, it is possible that some excluded studies in
this review should have been included. To mitigate this threat, the selection process
and the inclusion and exclusion criteria were carefully designed and discussed by
13
the authors to minimize the risk of exclusion of relevant studies. Furthermore, in

the final round of study selection, reviewers conducted the selection process in par-
allel and independently and then harmonized their selection results to mitigate the
personal bias in study selection caused by individual reviewers. As mentioned in
Sect. 3, to the best of our knowledge, there is currently no systematic study regard-
ing AIED and Positive Psychology. Since there was no systematic study, we did not
define the time of the published studies included in this bibliometric analysis.
Conclusions
In this work, we claimed there is a global movement towards Positive Artificial Intel-
ligence in Education (P-AIED). We did that by conducting a bibliometric analysis to
investigate how the fields of Positive Psychology, Education, and Artificial Intelligence
are being combined to promote the learning and well-being of the students. Our goal
was to shed light on the importance of wellbeing and Positive Psychology in the context
of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Since there is no systematization of the stud-
ies regarding Positive Education (or Positive Psychology) and Artificial Intelligence in
Education, we conducted such a study as the starting point for P-AIED.
Additionally, we coined the concept of Positive Artificial Intelligence in Educa-
tion (P-AIED). From an epistemological viewpoint, P-AIED is concerned with the
application of AI to Education to promote both learning and wellbeing, with twofold
goals: firstly, research on how AI can be applied to develop individual strengths and
personal motivation to promote learning; secondly, research on how positive educa-
tion can be applied on the design, development, innovation, and transformation of
intelligence systems to promote wellbeing in educational settings.
Two hundred and fifty-six studies out of 10,777 papers were finally included. The
main conclusions were the high number of institutions and researchers with related
publications indicate a new trend for the community of AIED; the high number of
collaboration from different countries indicates a possible global movement toward
P-AIED; Positive Emotion and Engagement were the main Positive Psychology
constructs identified in the studies; the lack of well-grounded theories of Positive
Psychology indicates an excellent research opportunity; Positive Learning Analytics
(P-LA), Positive Educational Data Mining (P-EDM) and Positive Intelligent Tutor-
ing Systems (P-ITS) are three hot topics for P-AIED.
The results presented in this study can be useful to artificial intelligence in the
education community as well as the positive education community since it gath-
ers relevant information from the primary studies included in the review, forming
a recent body of knowledge regarding P-AIED. In future work, we intend to inves-
tigate further some of the possible emerging subfields of the AIED community. It
is worth mentioning this approach is not new in the AIED community, and it hap-
pened, for example, in the proposition of Educational Data Mining and Learning
Analytics. Some of the other work that can contribute to this research on P-AIED is
the creation of a special issue in the AIED Journal, co-located workshops in confer-
ences such as AIED, ITS, and ICALT, supervision of students to conceptualize the
field, and tutorials to disseminate the new subfield.
13
Appendix
Tables of Bibliometric Analysis Tables 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
13
Table 6 Clusters of co-occurrence analysis in the keywords-plus of AI-PE and PP-AI and their corresponding relationship with keywords-plus of P-AIED
Keywords Plus of P-AIED Keywords Plus of AI-PE Keywords Plus of PP-AI
Cluster 1 (red): data mining, educational data Cluster 1 (red): data mining, educational data Cluster 1 (red): data mining, motivation, engage-
mining, engagement, forecasting, information mining, engagement, behavioral research, human– ment, electroencephalography, forecasting, educa-
management, academic performance, learning computer interaction, learning management system, tional data mining, multi-modal learning, quality of
management system, semantics, multi-modal learn- information management, academic performance, learning, academic performance, electrophysiology,
ing, quality of learning ecosystems, semantics, autonomous learning, com- information management, machine learning tech-
puter supported collaborative learning niques, teaching and learning environments, biomedi-
cal signal processing
Cluster 2 (blue): intelligent tutoring system, human, Cluster 2 (blue): intelligent tutoring system, intel- Cluster 2 (blue): intelligent tutoring system, student
emotion, affective computing, intelligent vehicle ligent vehicle highway systems, affective computing, engagement, deep learning, engineering education,
highway systems, affect, affective state, intelligent bayesian networks, intelligent systems, interactive neural networks, scaffolds, affective computing, affec-
systems, problem solving, bayesian networks, learning environment, problem solving, student tive state, classification (of information), self-regulated
interactive learning environment, affect detection, modeling, affect, affect detection, computation learning, affect, big data, convolution, problem
computation theory, feedback, student modeling, theory, scaffolds, self-regulated learning, affec- solving, active learning, feedback, long short-term
algorithm, computer programming, personality tive student modelling, computer programming, memory
computer science education, distributed parameter
networks
Cluster 4 (violet): massive open online course, Cluster 3 (green): massive open online course, Cluster 2 (blue): intelligent tutoring system, student
motivation, deep learning, curricula, machine learn- student engagement, deep learning, learning engagement, deep learning, engineering educa-
ing, learning algorithms, big data, classification (of algorithms, machine learning, big data, classification, neural networks, scaffolds, affective comput-
information), machine learning techniques, student tion (of information), human, machine learning ing, affective state, classification (of information),
satisfaction, natural language processing systems, techniques, discussion forum, distance education, self-regulated learning, affect, big data, convolution,
sentiment analysis, social networking (online), forecasting problem-solving, active learning, feedback, long short-
internet of things, support vector machines, effective term memory; and Cluster 4 (violet): curricula, learn-
learning environment, learning process, student ing analytics, massive open online course, surveys,
motivation sentiment analysis, student satisfaction, collaborative
learning
Table 6 (continued)
Keywords Plus of P-AIED Keywords Plus of AI-PE Keywords Plus of PP-AI
Cluster 4 (violet): massive open online course, Cluster 4 (violet): motivation, engineering educa- Cluster 4 (violet): curricula, learning analytics, mas-
motivation, deep learning, curricula, machine learn- tion, curricula, gamification, collaborative learning, sive open online course, surveys, sentiment analysis,
ing, learning algorithms, big data, classification (of learning analytics, surveys, virtual reality, learning student satisfaction, collaborative learning
information), machine learning techniques, student outcome, learning performance, natural language
satisfaction, natural language processing systems, processing systems, computer games, engineering
sentiment analysis, social networking (online), research
internet of things, support vector machines, effective
learning environment, learning process, student
motivation
Cluster 5 (orange): human computer interaction, Cluster 1 (red): data mining, educational data mining, Cluster 5 (orange): human computer interaction,
electroencephalography, emotion recognition, engagement, behavioral research, human com- behavioral research, emotion recognition, face recog-
electrophysiology,face recognition, speech recogni- puter interaction, learning management system, nition, personality, computational model, desirability
tion information management, academic performance,
ecosystems, semantics, autonomous learning,
computer supported collaborative learning; Cluster

5 (orange): electroencephalography, electrophysiol-
ogy; and Cluster 7 (pink): emotion recognition,
speech recognition
bold text: terms present in P-AIED, AI-PE and PP-AI; italic text: terms present in two fields
13
Table 7 Co-occurrence analysis of research outcomes (based on search string)

P-AIED Cluster PageRank AI-PE Cluster PageRank
engagement 1 0.2951 engagement 1 0.3181

interest 1 0.0712 interest 1 0.1084
student engagement 1 0.1038 achievement 1 0.0761
achievement 1 0.0621 student engagement 1 0.1219
purpose 1 0.0238 relationships 1 0.0396
relationships 1 0.0163 purpose 1 0.0314
values 1 0.0138 satisfaction 2 0.1893
meaning 1 0.0113 flow 2 0.0351
engagement detection 1 0.0138 student satisfaction 2 0.0452
learning engagement 1 0.0113 confidence 2 0.0351
user engagement 1 0.0138 PP-AI Cluster PageRank
accomplishment 1 0.0159 engagement 1 0.3207
achievement emotions 1 0.0113 student engagement 1 0.1142
engagement prediction 1 0.0113 purpose 1 0.0337
engagement recognition 1 0.0113 values 1 0.0240
satisfaction 2 0.0832 confidence 1 0.0240
confidence 2 0.0257 engagement detection 1 0.0240
student satisfaction 2 0.0209 engagement prediction 1 0.0191
flow 3 0.0888 user engagement 1 0.0191
surprise 3 0.0353 interest 2 0.0642
happiness 3 0.0226 achievement 2 0.0844
flow experience 3 0.0125 achievement emotions 2 0.0196
flow theory 3 0.0125 flow 3 0.0769
flow visualization 3 0.0125 surprise 3 0.0527
happiness 3 0.0362
satisfaction 4 0.0607
student satisfaction 4 0.0266
13
Table 8 Clusters of thematic map in P-AIED

Cluster Call on Density Cent Rank
(orange) boredom (3) 5 1

(pink) emotion (11), feature extraction (3), 7 13
algorithm (2), adult (2),
female (2), male (2), undergraduate student (2), autism (2),
classification (2), classification algorithm (2)
(brown) human–computer interaction (15), virtual 6 14
reality (12), computation theory (5), behavioral
patterns (3), personality (3),
computational model (3), desirability (3),
interactive computer graphics
(3), learning style (3), social sciences (3)
(gray) affective computing (13), 8 17
electroencephalography (10), affect (7),
affective state (7), electrophysiology (6),
feedback (5), academic achievements (3), brain-computer
interface (3), computer games (3), interface states (3)
(violet) student engagement (25), 4 24
engineering education (21),
behavioral research (14), scaffolds (11),
self-regulated learning (9),
computer-supported collaborative learning (4),
multi-agent systems (4), higher education (3),
educational agents (3), learning objectives (3)
(green) intelligent tutoring system 3 29
(38), educational data mining (14),
intelligent vehicle highway systems (9), intelligent
systems (8), problem-solving (7), academic performance (6),
bayesian networks (6), interactive learning
environment (6), affect detection (5),
student modeling (5)
(blue) deep learning (21), machine learning (14), human (12), 2 44
classification (of information) (10), neural networks
(9), emotion recognition (7), machine learning techniques (7),
user interfaces (7), internet of things (5), speech recognition (5)
(red) data mining (43), motivation (24), curricula (20), massive 1 62
open online course (16), learning analytics (16),
engagement (15), surveys (14), learning algorithms (13),
gamification (12), collaborative learning (9)
13
Table 9 Clusters of the thematic map in AI-PE

(cyan) embodied conversational agent (3), affect (3), computer science 9 5

education (2), self-efficacy (2), tutorial dialogue (2)
(pale pink) digital games 2 10 1
(gray) bayesian networks (5), interactive learning environment 8 15
(5), student modeling (4), scaffolds (3), self-regulated
learning (3), affective student modelling (2),
classroom settings (2), distributed
parameter networks (2), game theory (2), high school students (2)
(pink) affective computing (6), 7 16
electroencephalography (4),
affective learning (4), computation theory (3), electrophysiology
(3), semantics (3), affective state (2),
boredom (2), brain (2), computer programming (2)
(violet) intelligent tutoring system (22), 4 21
student engagement (10),
educational data mining (10), intelligent
vehicle highway systems (7), intelligent systems (5), academic performance
(3),
active learning (3), affect detection (3),
computer vision (2), data-driven (2)
(orange) engineering education (11), 5 20
behavioral research (6),
learning outcome (5), learning performance (5),
user interfaces (5), distance education (3), emotion recognition (3),
engineering research (3), academic
achievements (2), analysis and evaluation (2)
(brow) deep learning (9), machine learning (7), natural 6 20
language processing systems (5), classification (of information)
(4), machine learning techniques (4), human (3),
computer games (3), discussion forum (3),
positive correlations (3), reinforcement learning (3)
(red) data mining (24), motivation (13), massive open 1 35
online course (11), curricula (9), gamification
(9), engagement (8), learning algorithms (8), learning
analytics (8), surveys (8), collaborative learning (7)
13
Table 10 Clusters of the thematic map in PP-AI

(brown) gamification (3), game elements (2), learning 5 6

outcome (2), modal analysis (2), multimodal analysis
(2), technology enhanced learning (2)
(pink) human–computer interaction (10), emotion 7 7
recognition (4), convolution neural network (2),
emotional state (2), facial expression data (2), recognition
systems (2), speech recognition (2)
(gray) affective computing (7), massive open online course (5), 8 10
electrophysiology 3 physiological models (3), biomedical
signal processing (2), brain-computer interface
(2), computer programming (2), data acquisition (2),
interfaces (computer) (2), machine learning approaches (2)
(cyan) human (9), neural networks (8), electroencephalography 9 26
(6), face recognition (3), database systems (3),
feature extraction (3), psychology (3),
algorithm (2), adult (2), female (2)
(blue) emotion (10), behavioral research (8), virtual 2 17
reality (5), affect (4), personality (3),
problem-solving (3), computational model (3), desirability (3),
feedback (3), learning style (3)
(green) intelligent tutoring system (16), motivation (11), 3 22
engineering education (10), scaffolds (8), engagement
(7), affective state (5), student motivation (3), wireless sensor
(2), algebra (2), computer supported
collaborative learning (2)
(red) data mining (19), student engagement (15), 1 40
curricula (11), learning analytics (8), machine learning (7),
self-regulated learning (6), surveys (6), big data
(4), educational data mining (4),
sentiment analysis (4)
(violet) deep learning (12), classification (of information) 4 24
(6), forecasting (6), learning algorithms (5),
convolution (4), decision making (4), internet
of things (4), multi-modal learning (4), support
vector machines (4), intelligent systems (3)
13
Table 11 Authors’ collaboration network
P-AIED Cluster PageRank P-AIED Cluster PageRank

Azevedo R 1 0.0091 Chaouachi M 8 0.0106
Boyer K.E 1 0.0216 Frasson C 8 0.0200
Emerson A 1 0.0041 Jraidi I 8 0.0106
Grafsgaard J.F 1 0.0121 Magdalene De.A.A.D 9 0.0137
Harley J.M 1 0.0059 Ramasubramanian P 9 0.0137
Lester J.C 1 0.0416 Hussain M 10 0.0137
Min W 1 0.0123 Zhang W 10 0.0137
Mott B.W 1 0.0168 Zhu W 10 0.0137
Rowe J 1 0.0041 Arroyo I 11 0.0137
Sabourin J.L 1 0.0060 Burleson W 11 0.0137
Sawyer R 1 0.0041 Muldner K 11 0.0137
Wiebe E.N 1 0.0216 Woolf B 11 0.0137
Wiggins J.B 1 0.0188 Brown L.N 12 0.0137
Baker R.S.J.D 2 0.0263 Howard A.M 12 0.0137
Heffernan N.T 2 0.0095 Cocea M 13 0.0137
Ocumpaugh J 2 0.0095 Weibelzahl S 13 0.0137
Paquette L 2 0.0095 Deb S 14 0.0137
Dmello S.K 3 0.0200 Kumari P 14 0.0137
Graesser A.C 3 0.0123 Dewan M.A.A 15 0.0137
Lehman B 3 0.0089 Lin F 15 0.0137
Alor-Hernandez G 4 0.0103 Murshed M 15 0.0137
Barron-Estrada M.L 4 0.0171 Wen D 15 0.0137
Rios-Felix J.M 4 0.0103 Goswami M 16 0.0137
Zatarain-Cabada R 4 0.0171 Mian S 16 0.0137
Arevalillo-Herráez M 5 0.0131 Mostow J 16 0.0137
Boticario J.G 5 0.0147 Jackson G.T 17 0.0137
Cabestrero R 5 0.0131 Mcnamara D.S 17 0.0137
Ferri F.J 5 0.0131 Kevitt P.M 18 0.0137
Quirós P 5 0.0131 Lunney T 18 0.0137
Salmeron-Majadas S 5 0.0131 Muñoz K 18 0.0137
Santos O.C 5 0.0147 Neri L 18 0.0137
Uria-Rivas R 5 0.0147 Noguez J 18 0.0137
Bittencourt I.I 6 0.0137 Lan A.S 19 0.0137
Challco G.C 6 0.0137 Yang T.Y 19 0.0137
Isotani S 6 0.0137 Reich J 20 0.0137
Fatahi S 7 0.0137 Yeomans M 20 0.0137
Moradi H 7 0.0137
AI-PE Cluster PageRank PP-AI Cluster PageRank
Boyer K.E 1 0.0420 Lester J.C 1 0.1151
Grafsgaard J.F 1 0.0318 Azevedo R 1 0.0210
Lester J.C 1 0.0520 Mott B.W 1 0.0286
Mott B.W 1 0.0124 Boyer K.E 1 0.0366
Baker R.S.J.D 2 0.0370 Emerson A 1 0.0210
13
Table 11 (continued)
Heffernan N.T 2 0.0370 Min W 1 0.0210
Alor-Hernandez G 3 0.0280 Wiebe E.N 1 0.0366
Barron-Estrada M.L 3 0.0461 Baker R.S.J.D 2 0.0400
Bittencourt I.I 4 0.0370 Ocumpaugh J 2 0.0400
Challco G.C 4 0.0370 Fatahi S 3 0.0400
Isotani S 4 0.0370 Moradi H 3 0.0400
Dmello S.K 5 0.0370 Frasson C 4 0.0584
Graesser A.C 5 0.0370 Chaouachi M 4 0.0308
Goswami M 6 0.0370 Jraidi I 4 0.0308
Mian S 6 0.0370 Boticario Jg 5 0.0400
Mostow J 6 0.0370 Santos O.C 5 0.0400
Jackson G.T 7 0.0370 Uria-Rivas R 5 0.0400
Mcnamara Ds 7 0.0370 Cocea M 6 0.0400
Kevitt P.M 8 0.0370 Weibelzahl S 6 0.0400
Lunney T 8 0.0370 Deb S 7 0.0400
Muñoz K 8 0.0370 Kumari P 7 0.0400
Neri L 8 0.0370 Dewan M.A.A 8 0.0400
Noguez J 8 0.0370 Lin F 8 0.0400
Murshed M 8 0.0400
Wen D 8 0.0400
13
Table 12 Institutions’ collaboration network
P-AIED Cluster PageRank AI-PE Cluster PageRank
13
North Carolina State University 1 0.0914 North Carolina State University 1 0.0833
University of Florida 1 0.0404 University of Florida 1 0.0833
Mcgill University 1 0.0293 Carnegie Mellon University 2 0.0833
University of Central Florida 1 0.0293 Delhi Technological University 2 0.0833
Carnegie Mellon University 2 0.0476 Federal University of Alagoas 3 0.0833
Delhi Technological University 2 0.0476 University of SÃ£o Paulo 3 0.0833
University of Memphis 3 0.0476 University of Memphis 4 0.0833
University of Notre Dame 3 0.0476 University of Notre Dame 4 0.0833
University of Tehran 4 0.0695 Worcester Polytechnic Institute 5 0.0833
Intelligent Systems Research Institute 4 0.0426 University of Pennsylvania 5 0.0833
Dalhousie University 4 0.0308 School of Engineering and Architecture 6 0.0833
Columbia University 5 0.0367 University of Ulster 6 0.0833
University of Pennsylvania 5 0.0367 PP-AI Cluster PageRank
Worcester Polytechnic Institute 5 0.0695 North Carolina State University 1 0.1622
Federal University of Alagoas 6 0.0476 University of Central Florida 1 0.0856
University of SÃ£o Paulo 6 0.0476 Mcgill University 1 0.0856
Shadan Women’s College of Engineering and 7 0.0476 University of Tehran 2 0.1622
Technology
Bharathiar University 7 0.0476 Dalhousie University 2 0.0856
Dr.G.U.Pope College of Engineering 7 0.0476 Intelligent Systems Research Institute 2 0.0856
School of Engineering And Architecture 8 0.0476 Bharathiar University 3 0.1111
University of Ulster 8 0.0476 Dr.G.U.Pope College of Engineering 3 0.1111
Shadan Women’s College of Engineering And 3 0.1111
Technology
Declarations
Funding and/or Conflicts of Interests/Competing Interests The authors have no conflict of interest, and
this work has been supported by the Brazilian institutions: Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientí-
fico e Tecnológico (CNPq) and Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES).
References
*Systematic Mapping References
Albrecht, N. J., Albrecht, P. M., Cohen, M. (2012). Mindfully teaching in the classroom : a literature
review. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(12), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.
2012v37n12.2
*Alzoubi, O., D’Mello, S., Calvo, R. (2012). Detecting naturalistic expressions of nonbasic affect using
physiological signals. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 3(3), 298–310.https://doi.org/10.
1109/T-AFFC.2012.4
Amaechi, U., Banerji, A., Wang, M. (2021). An Educational Calamity: Learning and Teaching During
the Covid-19 Pandemic. Independently Published, URL https://books.google.com/books?id=Jn9bz
gEACAAJ
*Andallaza, T., Rodrigo, M. (2013). Development of an affect-sensitive agent for aplusix. Lecture Notes
in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes
in Bioinformatics), 7926 LNAI, 575–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39112-5_62
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Harvard University Press.
Araka, E., Maina, E., Gitonga, R., Oboko, R. (2020). Research trends in measurement and intervention
tools for self-regulated learning for e-learning environments—systematic review (2008–2018).
RPTEL, 15(6).
*Ashoori, M., Miao, C., Cai, Y. (2007). Socializing pedagogical agents for personalization in virtual
learning environments. Silicon Valley, CA, pp 346–349. https://doi.org/10.1109/WIIATW.2007.
4427604
Bai, W., Cai, H., Liu, S., Chen, X., Sha, S., Cheung, T., Lin, J., Cui, X., Ng, C., YT, X. (2021). Anxiety
and depressive symptoms in college students during the late stage of the covid-19 outbreak: a net-
work approach. Translational Psychiatry, 11, 638.
*Balducci, F., Grana, C. (2017). Affective classification of gaming activities coming from rpg gaming
sessions. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intel-
ligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 10345 LNCS, 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-319-65849-0_11
*Balmaceda, J., Schiaffino, S., Andrés Díaz-Pace, J. (2014). Using constraint satisfaction to aid group
formation in cscl. Inteligencia Artificial, 17(53 SPEC. ISS.), 35–45.
Benoit, V., Gabola, P. (2021). Effects of positive psychology interventions on the well-being of young
children: Systematic literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Pub-
lic Health, 18(22), 12,065. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182212065
*Bian, C., Zhang, Y., Wang, D., Liang, Y., Wu, B., Lu, W. (2018). An academic emotion database
and the baseline evaluation. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., pp 378–383.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCSE.2018.8468792
Brunzell, T., Stokes, H., Waters, L. (2016). Trauma-informed positive education: Using positive psychol-
ogy to strengthen vulnerable students. Contemporary School Psychology, 20.
*Cabada, R., Estrada, M., Bustillos, R. (2018). Mining of educational opinions with deep learning. Jour-
nal of Universal Computer Science, 24(11), 1604–1626.
*Challco, G., Bittencourt, I., Isotani, S. (2020). Can ontologies support the gamification of scripted col-
laborative learning sessions? Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture
Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 12163 LNAI, 79–91.https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52237-7_7
13
Chen, L., Babar, M. A., Zhang, H. (2010a). Towards an evidence-based understanding of electronic data
sources. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in
Software Engineering, British Computer Society, Swinton, UK, EASE’10, pp 135–138.
*Chen, P. S., Lambert, A., Guidry, K. (2010b). Engaging online learners: The impact of web-based
learning technology on college student engagement. Computers and Education, 54(4), 1222–
1232.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.008
*Chen, C. M., Wang, J. Y., Yu, C. M. (2017a). Assessing the attention levels of students by using a novel
attention aware system based on brainwave signals. British Journal of Educational Technology,
48(2), 348–369.https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12359
*Choi, E., Sienkiewicz, T., Coleman, C., Wojcik, K. (2017). Investigating an intervention system to
increase user engagements on an educational social q & a. Association for Computing Machinery,
Inc, pp 561–566. https://doi.org/10.1145/3078072.3084325
Compton, W., Hoffman, E. (2019). Positive Psychology: The Science of Happiness and Flourishing.
SAGE Publications, URL https://books.google.com/books?id=5hN7DwAAQBAJ
Crisp R. (2021). Well-being. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 Edition), Edward
N. Zalta (ed.), URL https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/well-being/
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2001). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Book-of-th-Month-Club,
URL https://books.google.com/books?id=I6kQAQAAIAAJ
*Dawood, A., Turner, S., Perepa, P. (2018). Affective computational model to extract natural affective
states of students with asperger syndrome (as) in computer-based learning environment. IEEE
Access, 6, 67,026–67,034. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2879619
Dermeval, D., Paiva, R., Bittencourt, I. I., Vassileva, J., & Borges, D. (2017). Authoring tools for design-
ing intelligent tutoring systems: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of
Artificial Intelligence in Education, 28(3), 336–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-017-0157-9
Ding, W., Liang, P., Tang, A., & van Vliet, H. (2014). Knowledge-based approaches in software docu-
mentation: A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 56(6), 545–567.
*D’Mello, S., Person, N., Lehman, B. (2009). Antecedent-consequent relationships and cyclical patterns
between affective states and problem solving outcomes. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and
Applications, 200(1), 57–64.https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-60750-028-5-57
*DMello, S., Graesser, A. (2012). Autotutor and affective autotutor: Learning by talking with cognitively
and emotionally intelligent computers that talk back. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent
Systems, 2(4). https://doi.org/10.1145/2395123.2395128
*Dol, S., Singh, V., Sahu, N., Shalinie, M. (2018). Designing fdp for "active learning-think-pair-share
and peer instructions" using online learning management system moodle. Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers Inc., pp 190–193. https://doi.org/10.1109/T4E.2018.00049
Donaldson, S. I., Lee, J. Y., & Donaldson, S. I. (2019). Evaluating positive psychology interventions at
work: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Applied Positive Psychol-
ogy, 4, 113–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41042-019-00021-8
dos Santos, W. O., Bittencourt, I. I., Dermeval, D., Isotani, S., Marques, L. B., Silveira, I. F. (2018a)
Flow theory to promote learning in educational systems: Is it really relevant? Revista Brasileira de
Informática na Educação – RBIE, 26(2), 29–59. https://doi.org/10.5753/RBIE.2018.26.02.29
dos Santos, W. O., Bittencourt, I. I., Isotani, S., Dermeval, D., Marques, L. B., Silveira, I. F. (2018b)
Flow theory to promote learning in educational systems: Is it really relevant? Revista Brasileira de
Informática na Educação, 26(02), 29. https://doi.org/10.5753/rbie.2018.26.02.29
Du Boulay, B., Avramides, K., Luckin, R., Martnez-Mirón, E., Méndez, G. R., & Carr, A. (2010).
Towards systems that care: A conceptual framework based on motivation, metacognition and
affect. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 20(3), 197–229.
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion
for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087–1101. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087
*Dumdumaya, C. (2018). Modeling student persistence in a learning-by-teaching environment. Associa-
tion for Computing Machinery, Inc, pp 349–352. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209219.3213596
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psy-
chological Review, 95(2), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.95.2.256
*Emerson, A., Cloude, E., Azevedo, R., Lester. J. (2020a). Multimodal learning analytics for game-based
learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(5), 1505–1526.https://doi.org/10.1111/
bjet.12992
13
*Emerson, A., Henderson, N., Rowe, J., Min, W., Lee, S., Minogue, J., Lester, J. (2020b). Early predic-
tion of visitor engagement in science museums with multimodal learning analytics. Association for
Computing Machinery, Inc, pp 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1145/3382507.3418890
Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engi-
neering Education, 78(7), 674–681.
*Feng, X., Wei, Y., Pan, X., Qiu, L., Ma, Y. (2020). Academic emotion classification and recognition
method for large-scale online learning environmentâ€”based on a-cnn and lstm-att deep learn-
ing pipeline method. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(6).
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17061941
Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden–and–build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical Transac-
tions of the Royal Society of London Series b: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1367–1377. https://
doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1512
Gallagher, M. W., Lopez, S. J., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). The hierarchical structure of well-being. Journal
of Personality, 77(4), 1025–1050. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00573.x
*Gao, L., Zhao, Z., Qi, L., Liang, Y., Du, J. (2019). Modeling the effort and learning ability of students in
moocs. IEEE Access, 7, 128,035–128,042. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2937985
*Halawa, M., Shehab, M., Hamed, E. (2015). Predicting student personality based on a data-driven
model from student behavior on lms and social networks. Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers Inc., pp 294–299. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDIPC.2015.7323044
*Hallifax, S., Lavoué, E., Serna, A. (2020). To tailor or not to tailor gamification? an analysis of the
impact of tailored game elements on learners’ behaviours and motivation. Lecture Notes in Com-
puter Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in
Bioinformatics), 12163 LNAI, 216–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52237-7_18
*Harsley, R., Fossati, D., Di Eugenio, B., Green, N. (2017), Interactions of individual and pair program-
mers with an intelligent tutoring system for computer science. Association for Computing Machin-
ery, pp 285–290. https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017786
Harzer, C. (2016). The eudaimonics of human strengths: The relations between character strengths and
well-being. In Handbook of Eudaimonic Well-Being. Springer International Publishing, pp 307–
322. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42445-3_20
Hernandes, E. M., Zamboni, A., Fabbri, S., Thommazo, A. D. (2012). Using gqm and tam to evaluate
start - a tool that supports systematic review. CLEI Electronic Journal, 15(1).
*Hew, K., Hu, X., Qiao, C., Tang, Y. (2020). What predicts student satisfaction with moocs: A gradient
boosting trees supervised machine learning and sentiment analysis approach. Computers and Edu-
cation, 145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103724
*Jang, J., Park, J., Yi, M. (2015). Gamification of online learning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science
(including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics),
9112, 646–649.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19773-9_82
Jensen, B., Hunter, A., Sonnemann, J., Burns, T., Molyneux, K., Silcox, B. (2012). Catching Up: Learn-
ing from the Best School Systems in East Asia. Summary Report. Grattan Institute report, Grattan
Institute. URL https://books.google.com/books?id=nGDNnQEACAAJ
Jithendran, A., Pranav Karthik, P., Santhosh, S., & Naren, J. (2020). Emotion recognition on e-learn-
ing community to improve the learning outcomes using machine learning concepts: A pilot study.
Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, 141, 521–530. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-
8406-6_50
Jogo, D. A., Chalco, G., Bittencourt, I. I., Reis, M., Laíza, R., Isotani, S. (2022). Investigating how gami-
fied syllabic literacy impacts learning, flow and inappropriate behaviors: A single-subject study
design. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 33.
Kay, J., & McCalla, G. I. (2003). The careful double vision of self. International Journal of Artificial
Intelligence in Education, 13(1), 11–18.
Keele, S., et al. (2007) Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.
Tech. rep., Technical report, ver. 2.3 ebse technical report. Ebse.
Kern, M. L., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2021). The Palgrave Handbook of Positive Education. Springer Inter-
national Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64537-3
*Kirsal Ever, Y., Dimililer, K. (2018). The effectiveness of a new classification system in higher edu-
cation as a new e-learning tool. Quality and Quantity, 52, 573–582.https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11135-017-0636-y
Kitchenham, B., Charters, S. (2007a). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software
engineering. Tech. Rep. EBSE 2007a–001, Keele University and Durham University Joint Report.
13
*Kizilcec, R., Goldfarb, D. (2019). Growth mindset predicts student achievement and behavior in mobile
learning. Association for Computing Machinery, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1145/3330430.3333632
*Lins Rodrigues, R., Luis Cavalcanti Ramos, J., Carlos Sedraz Silva, J., Sandro Gomes, A. (2016). Dis-
covery engagement patterns moocs through cluster analysis. IEEE Latin America Transactions,
14(9), 4129–4135.https://doi.org/10.1109/TLA.2016.7785943
*Liu, B., Xing, W., Zeng, Y., Wu, Y. (2021). Quantifying the influence of achievement emotions for
student learning in moocs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(3), 429–452.https://
doi.org/10.1177/0735633120967318
Mahdavi-Hezavehi, S., Galster, M., Avgeriou, P. (2013). Variability in quality attributes of service-
based software systems: A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology,
55(2), 320–343. special Section: Component-Based Software Engineering (CBSE), 2011.
*Mandalapu, V., Gong, J. (2018). Towards better affect detectors: Detecting changes rather than
states. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intel-
ligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 10948 LNAI, 199–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-93846-2_36
*Martens, T., Niemann, M., Dick, U. (2020). Sensor measures of affective leaning. Frontiers in Psy-
chology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00379
*Mian, S., Goswami, M., Mostow, J. (2019). What’s most broken? design and evaluation of a tool
to guide improvement of an intelligent tutor. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including
subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 11625
LNAI, 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23204-7_24
*Morales, M., De La Roca, M., Barchino, R., Hernandez, R., Amado-Salvatierra, H. (2019). Applying
a digital learning ecosystem to increase the effectiveness of a massive open online course. Insti-
tute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., pp 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1109/LWMOO
CS47620.2019.8939636
Morgan, B., Simmons, L. (2021). A ‘PERMA’ response to the pandemic: An online positive educa-
tion programme to promote wellbeing in university students. Frontiers in Education, 6. https://
doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.642632
*Nam, S., Frishkoff, G., Collins-Thompson, K. (2018). Predicting students’ disengaged behaviors in
an online meaning-generation task. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 11(3), 362–
375.https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2017.2720738
NEES. (2022). Sumarize - perform systematic literature reviews and meta-analyzes. URL https://
sumarize.evidencias.nees.com.br/
*Nkambou, R. (2006). Managing student emotions in intelligent tutoring systems. Melbourne Beach,
FL, vol 2006, pp 389–394.
Noble, T., Helen, M. (2015). Prosper: A new framework for positive education. Psychology of Well-
Being, (2), 105,450. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13612-015-0030-2
*Nygren, E., Blignaut, A., Leendertz, V., Sutinen, E. (2019). Quantitizing affective data as project
evaluation on the use of a mathematics mobile game and intelligent tutoring system. Informat-
ics in Education, 18(2), 375–402.https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2019.18
Oades, L. G., Mossman, L. (2017). The science of wellbeing and positive psychology. In Wellbeing,
Recovery and Mental Health. Cambridge University Press, pp 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/
9781316339275.003
*Paquette, L., Baker, R., Sao Pedro, M., Gobert, J., Rossi, L., Nakama, A., Kauffman-Rogoff, Z.
(2014). Sensor-free affect detection for a simulation-based science inquiry learning environ-
ment. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial
Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 8474 LNCS, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-07221-0_1
Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Strengths of character and well-being. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(5), 603–619.
*Pastushenko, O., Oliveira, W., Isotani, S., Hruška, T. (2020). A methodology for multimodal learning
analytics and flow experience identification within gamified assignments. Association for Com-
puting Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3383060
*Ray, A., Chakrabarti, A. (2012). Design and implementation of affective e-learning strategy based
on facial emotion recognition. Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing, 132 AISC, 613–622.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27443-5_71
Reimers, F. M. (2020). Audacious Education Purposes. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-030-41882-3
13
Reimers, F. M. (2022). Primary and Secondary Education During Covid-19. Springer International Pub-
lishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81500-4
Reimers, F. M., Amaechi, U., Banerji, A., Wang, M. (2022). Education in crisis. transforming schools for
a post-covid-19 renaissance. In Education to Build Back Better. Springer International Publishing,
pp 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93951-9_1
*Retnanto, A., Fadlelmula, M., Alyafei, N., Sheharyar, A. (2019). Active student engagement in learning -
using virtual reality technology to develop professional skills for petroleum engineering education.
Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), vol 2019-September. https://doi.org/10.2118/195922-ms
*Rongtao, D., Xinhao, J., Linting, Z., Wei, R. (2008). Study of the learning model based on improved id3
algorithm. Adelaide, pp 391–395. https://doi.org/10.1109/WKDD.2008.68
*Rowe. J., Shores, L., Mott, B., Lester, J. (2011). Integrating learning, problem solving, and engagement
in narrative-centered learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Edu-
cation, 21(1-2), 115–133.https://doi.org/10.3233/JAI-2011-019
Ryan, R., Deci, E. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Devel-
opment, and Wellness. Guilford Publications, URL https://books.google.com/books?id=GF0OD
QAAQBAJ
*Sanz-Martínez, L., Martínez-Monés, A., Bote-Lorenzo, M., Muñoz-Cristóbal, J., Dimitriadis, Y. (2017).
Automatic group formation in a mooc based on students’ activity criteria. Lecture Notes in Com-
puter Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in
Bioinformatics), 10474 LNCS, 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66610-5_14
*Sawyer, R., Rowe, J., Lester, J. (2017). Balancing learning and engagement in game-based learning
environments with multi-objective reinforcement learning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science
10331 LNAI, 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61425-0_27
Schiavon, C. C., Teixeira, L. P., Gonçalves Gurgel, L., Magalhaes, C. R., Reppold, C. T. (2020). Posi-
tive education: Innovation in educational interventions based on positive psychology. School and
Developmental Psychology, 36.
Schleicher, A. (2018). World Class. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264300002-en
*Schoor, C., Bannert, M. (2012). Exploring regulatory processes during a computer-supported collabora-
tive learning task using process mining. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1321–1331.https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.02.016
*Scotti, S., Mauri, M., Barbieri, R., Jawad, B., Cerutti, S., Mainardi, L., Brown, E., Villamira, M. (2006).
Automatic quantitative evaluation of emotions in e-learning applications. New York, NY, pp
1359–1362. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEMBS.2006.260601
Seligman, M. (2018). PERMA and the building blocks of well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychol-
ogy, 13(4), 333–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2018.1437466
Seligman, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychol-
ogist, 55(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5
Seligman, M. E. P. (1998). Building human strength: Psychologys forgotten mission.https://doi.org/10.
1037/e529932010-003
Seligman, M. E. P., Ernst, R. M., Gillham, J., Reivich, K., & Linkins, M. (2009). Positive education:
Positive psychology and classroom interventions. Oxford Review of Education, 35(3), 293–311.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980902934563
*Semerci, Y., Goularas, D. (2021). Evaluation of students’ flow state in an e-learning environment
through activity and performance using deep learning techniques. Journal of Educational Comput-
ing Research, 59(5), 960–987.https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120979836
*Sharma, K., Giannakos, M., Dillenbourg, P. (2020). Eye-tracking and artificial intelligence to
enhance motivation and learning. Smart Learning Environments, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/
s40561-020-00122-x
Shute, V. J., Psotka, J. (1994). Intelligent tutoring systems: Past, present, and future. Tech. rep., DTIC
Document.
Sleeman, D., & Brown, J. S. (1982). Intelligent tutoring systems. Academic Press.
Snyder, C., Lopez, S. (2001). Handbook of Positive Psychology. Oxford University Press, URL https://
books.google.com/books?id=2Cr5rP8jOnsC
Snyder, C., Lopez, S., Pedrotti, J. (2010). Positive Psychology: The Scientific and Practical Explora-
tions of Human Strengths. SAGE Publications, URL https://books.google.com/books?id=T3aW7
gWMgpQC
13
Snyder, C. R. (2002). TARGET ARTICLE: Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry,
13(4), 249–275. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1304_01
Sottilare, R., Graesser, A., Hu, X., Holden, H. (2013). Design Recommendations for Intelligent Tutoring
Systems. Army Research Laboratory.
Sottilare, R., Graesser, A., Hu, X., Brawner, K. (2015). Design Recommendations for Intelligent Tutoring
Systems: Authoring Tools and Expert Modeling Techniques. Robert Sottilare.
Sparks, J. R., Lehman, B., Zapata-Rivera, D. (2022). ‘caring’ assessments: An approach to support per-
sonalized learning. URL https://news.ets.org/stories/caring-assessments-an-approach-to-support-
personalized-learnin
Stefanovic, D., Havzi, S., Nikolic, D., Dakic, D., Lolic, T. (2021). Analysis of the tools to support sys-
tematic literature review in software engineering. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and
Engineering, 1163(1), 012,013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/1163/1/012013
*Sultana, J., Sultana, N., Yadav, K., Alfayez, F. (2018). Prediction of sentiment analysis on educational
data based on deep learning approach. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc..
https://doi.org/10.1109/NCG.2018.8593108
*Sun, J. Y., Yu, S. J., Chao, C. H. (2019). Effects of intelligent feedback on online learners’ engagement
and cognitive load: the case of research ethics education. Educational Psychology, 39(10), 1293–
1310.https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1527291
*Tao, Y., Coltey, E., Wang, T., Alonso, M., Shyu, M. L., Chen, S. C., Alhaffar, H., Elias, A., Bogo-
sian, B., Vassigh, S. (2020b). Confidence estimation using machine learning in immersive learning
environments. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., pp 247–252. https://doi.org/10.
1109/MIPR49039.2020.00058
*Tegos, S., Demetriadis, S., Karakostas, A. (2014). Leveraging conversational agents and concept maps
to scaffold students’ productive talk. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., pp 176–
183. https://doi.org/10.1109/INCoS.2014.66
*Teo, H. (2014). Social motif analytics: Network building blocks for assessing participation in an online
engineering community. American Society for Engineering Education.
*Ting, L. Y., Teng, S. Y., Chuang, K. T., Lim, E. P. (2020). Learning personal conscientiousness
from footprints in e-learning systems. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., vol
2020-November, pp 1292–1297. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDM50108.2020.00166
*Upadhyay, H., Kamat, Y., Phansekar, S., Hole, V. (2021). User engagement recognition using transfer
learning and multi-task classification. Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications
Technologies, 57, 411–420.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9509-7_34
*Valdez, M., Merelo, J. J., Aguila, A., Soto, A. (2019). Mining of keystroke and mouse dynamics to
increase the engagement of students with programming assignments. Studies in Computational
Intelligence, 829, 41–61.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16469-0_3
*Walkington, C., Bernacki, M. (2019). Personalizing algebra to students’ individual interests in an intelli-
gent tutoring system: Moderators of impact. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Edu-
cation, 29(1), 58–88.https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-018-0168-1
*Wang, Y., Kotha, A., Hong, P. H., Qiu, M. (2020). Automated student engagement monitoring and
evaluation during learning in the wild. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., pp
270–275. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCloud-EdgeCom49738.2020.00054
Waters, L. (2012). A review of school-based positive psychology interventions. The Educational and
Developmental Psychologist, 28(2), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1375/aedp.28.2.75
Waters, L., Loton, D. (2019). Search: A meta-framework and review of the field of positive education.
International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology, 4.
*Wen, M., Yang, D., Rosé, C. (2014). Linguistic reflections of student engagement in massive open online
courses. The AAAI Press, pp 525–534.
*Whitehill, J., Serpell, Z., Foster, A., Lin, Y. C., Pearson, B., Bartlett, M., Movellan, J. (2011). Towards
an optimal affect-sensitive instructional system of cognitive skills (pp 20–25). IEEE Computer
Society. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPRW.2011.5981778
Williams, N., Horrell, L., Edmiston, D., Brady, M. (2018). The impact of positive psychology on higher
education. The William & Mary Educational Review, 5(1).
Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M. C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A. (2012). Experimentation in
software engineering. Springer Science and Business Media.
13
World Development Report 2018: Learning to Realize Educations Promise. (2017). World Bank. https://
doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1096-1
*Woolf, B., Dragon, T., Arroyo, I., Cooper, D., Burleson, W., Muldner, K. (2009). Recognizing and
responding to student affect. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture
Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 5612 LNCS(PART 3), 713–
722. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02580-8_78
Yadegaridehkordi, E., Noor, N. F. B. M., Ayub, M. N. B., Affal, H. B., Hussin, N. B. (2019). Affective
computing in education: A systematic review and future research. Computers & Education, 142,
103,649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103649, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0360131519302027
*Yan, J., Li, L., Yin, J., Nie, Y. (2018). A comparison of flipped and traditional classroom learning: A
case study in mechanical engineering. International Journal of Engineering Education, 34(6),
1876–1887.
*Yuan, Y. (2021). Vocational students’ academic self-efficacy improvement based on generative pad
teaching mode. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 1283, 593–600.https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-030-62746-1_87
Zapata-Rivera, D. (2017). Toward caring assessment systems. In: Adjunct Publication of the 25th Confer-
ence on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, pp 97–100.
Zapata-Rivera, D., Forsyth, C. M. (2022). Learner modeling in conversation-based assessment. In: Adap-
tive Instructional Systems, Springer International Publishing, pp 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-031-05887-5_6
Zapata-Rivera, D., Lehman, B., Sparks, J. R. (2020). Learner modeling in the context of caring assess-
ments. In: Adaptive Instructional Systems, Springer International Publishing, pp 422–431. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50788-6_31
*Zhang, X., Meng, Y., Ordóñez de Pablos, P., Sun, Y. (2019). Learning analytics in collaborative learn-
ing supported by slack: From the perspective of engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 92,
625–633.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.012
Zhang, T., Park, D., Ungar, L. H., Tsukayama, E., Luo, L., & Duckworth, A. L. (2022). The develop-
ment of grit and growth mindset in chinese children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
221(105), 450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2022.105450
*Zhu, B., Lan, X., Guo, X., Barner, K., Boncelet, C. (2020). Multi-rate attention based gru model for
engagement prediction. Association for Computing Machinery, Inc, pp 841–848. https://doi.org/10.
1145/3382507.3417965
*Zou, W., Hu, X., Pan, Z., Li, C., Cai, Y., Liu, M. (2021). Exploring the relationship between social pres-
ence and learners’ prestige in mooc discussion forums using automated content analysis and social
network analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106582
Further Reading
*Abdi, S., Khosravi, H., Sadiq, S., Gasevic, D. (2020). Complementing educational recommender sys-
tems with open learner models. Association for Computing Machinery, 360–365. https://doi.org/
10.1145/3375462.3375520
Achimugu, P., Selamat, A., Ibrahim, R., & Mahrin, M. N. (2014). A systematic literature review of soft-
ware requirements prioritization research. Information and Software Technology, 56(6), 568–585.
Adler, A. (2016). Teaching well-being increases academic performance: Evidence from Bhutan, Mexico,
and Peru. PhD dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania.
*Aji, C., Javed Khan, M., Tameru, A. (2020). Innovative learning strategies to engage students cogni-
tively. American Society for Engineering Education, 2020-June.
*Al-Shabandar, R., Hussain, A., Liatsis, P., Keight, R. (2018). Analyzing learners behavior in moocs:
An examination of performance and motivation using a data-driven approach. IEEE Access, 6:73,
669–73,685. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2876755
*Al-Tameemi, G., Xue, J. (2019). Towards an intelligent system to improve student engagement and
retention. Elsevier B.V., vol 151, pp 1120–1127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.04.159
*Al-Tarabily, M., Abdel-Kader, R., Abdel Azeem, G., Marie, M. (2018). Optimizing dynamic multi-
agent performance in e-learning environment. IEEE Access, 6, 35,631–35,645. https://doi.org/
10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2847334
13
Aleven, V., Mclaren, B. M., Sewall, J., & Koedinger, K. R. (2009). A new paradigm for intelligent
tutoring systems: Example-tracing tutors. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in
Education, 19(2), 105–154.
*Antonaci, A., Klemke, R., Stracke, C., Specht, M. (2017). Towards implementing gamification in
moocs. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial
Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 10653 LNCS, 115–125. https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-319-71940-5_11
*Antoniou, P., Arfaras, G., Pandria, N., Athanasiou, A., Ntakakis, G., Babatsikos, E., Nigdelis, V.,
Bamidis, P. (2020). Biosensor real-time affective analytics in virtual and mixed reality medi-
cal education serious games: Cohort study. JMIR Serious Games, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.2196/
17823
*Arroyo, I., Wixon, N., Allessio, D., Woolf, B., Muldner, K., Burleson, W. (2017). Collaboration
improves student interest in online tutoring. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including
*Ashwin, T., Guddeti, R. (2019). Unobtrusive behavioral analysis of students in classroom envi-
ronment using non-verbal cues. IEEE Access, 7, 150,693–150,709. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ACCESS.2019.2947519
*Aslan, S., Alyuz, N., Tanriover, C., Mete, S., Okur, E., D’Mello, S., Esme, A. (2019). Investigat-
ing the impact of a real-time, multimodal student engagement analytics technology in authentic
classrooms. Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300534
Baker, R. S. (2016). Stupid tutoring systems, intelligent humans. International Journal of Artificial
Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 600–614.
*Beal, C., Qu, L., Lee, H. (2006). Classifying learner engagement through integration of multiple data
sources. Boston, MA, vol 1, pp 151–157.
Beck, J., Stern, M., & Haugsjaa, E. (1996). Applications of ai in education. Crossroads, 3(1), 11–15.
*Bendou, A., Abrache, M. A., Cherkaoui, C. (2018). Contribution of pedagogical agents to motivate
learners in online learning environments: The case of the paole agent. Lecture Notes in Net-
works and Systems, 37, 344–356.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74500-8_32
*Bhattacharya, S., Chowdhury, S., Roy, S. (2017). Enhancing quality of learning experience through
intelligent agent in e-learning. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowlege-
Based Systems, 25(1), 31–52.https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218488517500027
Bian, H. X. (2016). Application of virtual reality in music teaching system. International Journal
of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 11(11), 21–25. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v11i11.6247
*Binh, H., Trung, N., Nguyen, H. A., Duy, B. (2019). Detecting student engagement in classrooms for
intelligent tutoring systems. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., pp 145–149.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSEC47112.2019.8974739
*Boff, E., Reategui, E. (2012). Mining social-affective data to recommend student tutors. Lecture
Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and
Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 7637 LNAI, 672–681. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-
34654-5_68
*Bosch, N., D’Mello, S., Mills, C. (2013). What emotions do novices experience during their first
computer programming learning session? Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including sub-
series Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 7926 LNAI,
11–20.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39112-5_2
*Boticario, J., Santos, O., Cabestrero, R., Quirós, P., Salmerón-Majadas, S., Uria-Rivas, R., Saneiro,
M., Arevalillo-Herráez, M., Ferri, F. (2017). Big-aff: Exploring low cost and low intrusive infra-
structures for affective computing in secondary schools. Association for Computing Machinery,
Inc, pp 287–292. https://doi.org/10.1145/3099023.3099084
*Bouchet, F., Harley, J., Azevedo, R. (2013). Impact of different pedagogical agents’ adaptive self-
regulated prompting strategies on learning with metatutor. Lecture Notes in Computer Science
(including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformat-
ics), 7926 LNAI, 815–819. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39112-5_120
*Brown, L., Howard, A. (2014a). Assessment of engagement for intelligent educational agents: A
pilot study with middle school students. Computers in Education Journal, 5(4), 96–106.
*Brown, L., Howard, A. (2014b). A real- time model to assess student engagement during interaction
with intelligent educational agents. American Society for Engineering Education.
13
*Burga, R., Leblanc, J., Rezania, D. (2017). Analysing the effects of teaching approach on engagement,
satisfaction and future time perspective among students in a course on csr. International Journal of
Management Education, 15(2), 306–317.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2017.02.003
*Cabestrero, R., Quirós, P., Santos, O., Salmeron-Majadas, S., Uria-Rivas, R., Boticario, J., Arnau, D.,
Arevalillo-Herráez, M., Ferri, F. (2018). Some insights into the impact of affective information
when delivering feedback to students. Behaviour and Information Technology, 37(12), 1252–
1263.https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018.1499803
*Camacho, V., Guia, E., Olivares, T., Julia Flores, M., Orozco-Barbosa, L. (2020). Data capture and mul-
timodal learning analytics focused on engagement with a new wearable iot approach. IEEE Trans-
actions on Learning Technologies, 13(4), 704–717.https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2020.2999787
Carney, S. (2022). Reimagining our futures together: a new social contract for education. Comparative
Education, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2022.2102326
*Cassano, F., Piccinno, A., Roselli, T., Rossano, V. (2019). Gamification and learning analytics to
improve engagement in university courses. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing , 04,
156–163.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98872-6_19
*Castillo, L. (2016). A virtual laboratory for multiagent systems: Joining efficacy, learning analytics and
student satisfaction. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.. https://doi.org/10.1109/
SIIE.2016.7751820
*Challco, G., Mizoguchi, R., Bittencourt, I., Isotani, S. (2015). Steps towards the gamification of col-
laborative learning scenarios supported by ontologies. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (includ-
ing subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 9112,
554–557.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19773-9_60
*Chaouachi, M., Jraidi, I., Frasson, C, (2015). Mentor: A physiologically controlled tutoring system. Lec-
ture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and
Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 9146, 56–67.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20267-9_5
*Chen, Z. H. (2012). We care about you: Incorporating pet characteristics with educational agents
through reciprocal caring approach. Computers and Education, 59(4), 1081–1088. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.015
*Chen, G. S., Lee, M. F. (2012). Detecting emotion model in e-learning system. Xian, Shaanxi, vol 5, pp
1686–1691.https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMLC.2012.6359628
*Chen, H., Dai, Y., Feng, Y., Jiang, B., Xiao, J., You, B. (2017b). Construction of affective education in
mobile learning: The study based on learner’s interest and emotion recognition. Computer Science
and Information Systems, 14(3), 685–702.https://doi.org/10.2298/CSIS170110023C
*Chen, G., Lang, D., Ferreira, R., Gasevic, D. (2019a). Predictors of student satisfaction: A large-scale
study of human-human online tutorial dialogues. International Educational Data Mining Society,
pp 19–28.
*Chen, M. R., Hwang, G. J., Chang, Y. Y. (2019b). A reflective thinking-promoting approach to enhanc-
ing graduate students’ flipped learning engagement, participation behaviors, reflective thinking and
project learning outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2288–2307.https://
doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12823
*Cocea, M., Weibelzahl, S. (2007). Cross-system validation of engagement prediction from log
files. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intel-
ligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 4753 LNCS, 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-540-75195-3_2
*Cocea, M., Weibelzahl, S. (2009). Log file analysis for disengagement detection in e-learning environ-
ments. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 19(4), 341–385.https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11257-009-9065-5
*Conradie, P. (2013). Applying system theory to develop a mobile learning pedagogical framework. Aca-
demic Conferences Limited, pp 82–90.
*Crown, S., Fuentes, A., Jones, R., Nambiar, R., Crown, D. (2011). Anne g. neering: Interactive chatbot
to engage and motivate engineering students. Computers in Education Journal, 21(2), 24–34.
*Daghestani, L., Ibrahim, L., Al-Towirgi, R., Salman, H. (2020) Adapting gamified learning systems
using educational data mining techniques. Computer Applications in Engineering Education
28(3):568–589https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22227
*Debnath, B., Deb, S., Kumari, P. (2020). Mobile supported interaction modeling to find engagement
of acolyte in live classroom. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 1192 CCIS,
74–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3666-3_7
13
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M. (2006). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: an introduction. Journal of Hap-
piness Studies, 9(1), 1–11.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9018-1
*DeFalco, J., Baker, R. (2013). Detection and transition analysis of engagement and affect in a simula-
tion-based combat medic training environment. CEUR-WS, vol 1009, pp 88–94.
*Dempsey, K., Jackson, G., Brunelle, J., Rowe, M., McNamara, D. (2010). Miboard: A digital game from
a physical world. Daytona Beach, FL, pp 498–503.
Dermeval, D., Vilela, J., Bittencourt, II, Castro, J., Isotani, S., Brito, P., Silva, A. (2015). Applications of
ontologies in requirements engineering: a systematic review of the literature. Requirements Engi-
neering, 1–33.
*De Silva, P., Madurapperuma, A., Marasinghe, A., Osano, M. (2006). Integrating animated pedagogi-
cal agent as motivational supporter into interactive system. IEEE Computer Society, vol 2006, pp
34–41.https://doi.org/10.1109/CRV.2006.43
*Dewan, M., Lin, F., Wen, D., Murshed, M., Uddin, Z. (2018). A deep learning approach to detecting
engagement of online learners. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., pp 1895–
1902. https://doi.org/10.1109/SmartWorld.2018.00318
*D’Mello, S., Graesser, A. (2011). The half-life of cognitive-affective states during complex learning.
Cognition and Emotion, 25(7), 1299–1308.https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.613668
*Duffy, M., Azevedo, R. (2015). Motivation matters: Interactions between achievement goals and agent
scaffolding for self-regulated learning within an intelligent tutoring system. Computers in Human
Behavior, 52, 338–348.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.041
du Boulay, B. (2016). Recent meta-reviews and meta–analyses of aied systems. International Journal of
Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 536–537.
Dyba, T., Dingsøyr, T. (2008). Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review.
Information and Software Technology, 50(9-10), 833 – 859.
Easterbrook, S., Singer, J., Storey, M. A., Damian, D. (2008). Selecting empirical methods for software
engineering research. In: Shull, F., Singer, J., Sjøberg, D. (Eds.) Guide to Advanced Empirical
Software Engineering. Springer. pp 285–311.
*Elia, G., Solazzo, G., Lorenzo, G., Passiante, G. (2019). Assessing learners’ satisfaction in collaborative
online courses through a big data approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 589–599.https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.033
*Elizabeth Owen, V., Roy, M. H., Thai, K., Burnett, V., Jacobs, D., Keylor, E., Baker, R. (2019). Detect-
ing wheel-spinning and productive persistence in educational games. International Educational
Data Mining Society, pp 378–383.
*Farrell, B., Jennings, B., Ward, N., Marks, P., Kennie, N., Dolovich, L., Jorgenson, D., Jones, C., Gub-
bels, A. (2013). Evaluation of a pilot e-learning primary health care skills training program for
pharmacists. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 5(6), 580–592.https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cptl.2013.07.005
*Farzaneh, A., Kim, Y., Zhou, M., Qi, X. (2019). Developing a deep learning-based affect recognition
system for young children. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes
in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 11626 LNAI, 73–78. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-030-23207-8_14
*Fatahi, S., Moradi, H., Zonoz, A. (2015). A computational model to determine desirability of events
based on personality for performance motivational orientation learners. Lecture Notes in Computer
Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinfor-
matics), 9192, 227–237.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20609-7_22
*Fatahi, S. (2016). A computational model of emotion and personality in e-learning environments.
CEUR-WS, vol 1618.
Fatahi, S., & Moradi, H. (2016). A fuzzy cognitive map model to calculate a user’s desirability based on
personality in e-learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 272–281. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.041
*Feidakis, M., Kasnesis, P., Giatraki, E., Giannousis, C., Patrikakis, C., Monachelis, P. (2019). Building
pedagogical conversational agents, affectively correct. SciTePress, vol 1, pp 100–107.https://doi.
org/10.5220/0007771001000107
*Fu, S., Gu, H., Yang, B. (2020). The affordances of ai-enabled automatic scoring applications on learn-
ers’ continuous learning intention: An empirical study in china. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 51(5), 1674–1692.https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12995
13
Gale, C. R., Booth, T., Mõttus, R., Kuh, D., & Deary, I. J. (2013). Neuroticism and extraversion in youth
predict mental wellbeing and life satisfaction 40 years later. Journal of Research in Personality,
47(6), 687–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.06.005
*García, Iruela M., Fonseca, M., Hijón Neira, R., Chambel, T. (2019). Analysis of gamification elements.
a case study in a computer science course. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries
Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 11626 LNAI, 89–93.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23207-8_17
Garg, A. X., Hackam, D., & Tonelli, M. (2008). Systematic review and meta-analysis: When one study is
just not enough. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 3(1), 253–260.
*Ghali, R., Chaouachi, M., Derbali, L., Frasson, C. (2014). Motivational strategies to support engage-
ment of learners in serious games. SciTePress, vol 1, pp 518–525.https://doi.org/10.5220/00048
23305180525
*Ghergulescu, I., Muntean, C. (2016). Totcompute: A novel eeg-based timeontask threshold computation
mechanism for engagement modelling and monitoring. International Journal of Artificial Intelli-
gence in Education, 26(3), 821–854.https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-016-0111-2
*Gkontzis, A., Karachristos, C., Panagiotakopoulos, C., Stavropoulos, E., Verykios, V. (2017). Sentiment
analysis to track emotion and polarity in student fora. Association for Computing Machinery, vol
Part F132523. https://doi.org/10.1145/3139367.3139389
*Gong, L., Liu, Y. (2019). Design and application of intervention model based on learning analytics
under blended learning environment. Association for Computing Machinery, vol Part F148391, pp
225–229.https://doi.org/10.1145/3323771.3323825
*Goswami, M., Mian, S., Mostow, J. (2019). What’s most broken? a tool to assist data-driven iterative
improvement of an intelligent tutoring system. AAAI Press, pp 9941–9942.
*Govaerts, S., Verbert, K., Duval, E. (2011). Evaluating the student activity meter: Two case studies.
Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and
Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 7048 LNCS, 188–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25813-
8_20
*Grafsgaard, J., Boyer, K., Wiebe, E., Lester, J. (2012). Analyzing posture and affect in task-oriented
tutoring. Marco Island, FL, pp 438–443.
*Grafsgaard, J., Wiggins, J., Boyer, K., Wiebe, E., Lester, J. (2013). Embodied affect in tutorial dialogue:
Student gesture and posture. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture
Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 7926 LNAI, 1–10. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-642-39112-5_1
*Grawemeyer, B., Mavrikis, M., Holmes, W., Gutiérrez-Santos, S., Wiedmann, M., Rummel, N.
(2017). Affective learning: improving engagement and enhancing learning with affect-aware
feedback. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 27(1), 119–158.https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11257-017-9188-z
*Griol, D., Molina, J., Callejas, Z. (2014). An approach to develop intelligent learning environments by
means of immersive virtual worlds. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments, 6(2),
237–255.https://doi.org/10.3233/AIS-140255
*Harley, J., Azevedo, R. (2014). Toward a feature-driven understanding of students’ emotions during
interactions with agent-based learning environments: A selective review. International Journal of
Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 6(3), 17–34.https://doi.org/10.4018/ijgcms.20140
70102
*Hassouneh, A., Mutawa, A., Murugappan, M. (2020). Development of a real-time emotion recognition
system using facial expressions and eeg based on machine learning and deep neural network meth-
ods. Informatics in Medicine Unlocked, 20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imu.2020.100372
*Hatziapostolou, T., Gellci, J., Dranidis, D., Ntika, M. (2016). Quantifying and evaluating student partici-
pation and engagement in an academic facebook group. Communications in Computer and Infor-
mation Science, 583, 486–503.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29585-5_28
*Hayati, H., Khalidi Idrissi, M., Bennani, S. (2020). Automatic classification for cognitive engagement in
online discussion forums: Text mining and machine learning approach. Lecture Notes in Computer
matics), 12164 LNAI, 114–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52240-7_21
*Hlioui, F., Aloui, N., Gargouri, F. (2020). Understanding learner engagement in a virtual learn-
ing environment. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 941, 709–719.https://d oi.
org/1 0.1 007/9 78-3-0 30-1 6660-1_6 9
13
*Howard, S., Ma, J., Yang, J. (2016). Student rules: Exploring patterns of students’ computer-efficacy and
engagement with digital technologies in learning. Computers and Education, 101, 29–42.https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.008
*Howard, E., Meehan, M., Parnell, A. (2019). Quantifying participation in, and the effectiveness of,
remediating assessment in a university mathematics module. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, 44(1), 97–110.https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1476670
*Huang, T., Mei, Y., Zhang, H., Liu, S., Yang, H. (2019). Fine-grained engagement recognition in online
learning environment. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., pp 338–341. https://
doi.org/10.1109/ICEIEC.2019.8784559
Huppert, F. A., & So, T. T. C. (2011). Flourishing across europe: Application of a new conceptual frame-
work for defining well-being. Social Indicators Research, 110(3), 837–861. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11205-011-9966-7
*Hussain, A., Abbasi, A., Afzulpurkar, N. (2012). Detecting & interpreting self-manipulating hand move-
ments for student’s affect prediction. Human-centric Computing and Information Sciences, 2(1),
1–18.https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-1962-2-14
*Hussain, M., Zhu, W., Zhang, W., Abidi, S. (2018). Student engagement predictions in an e-learning
system and their impact on student course assessment scores. Computational Intelligence and Neu-
roscience, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6347186
*Hussain, M., Zhu, W., Zhang, W., Ni, J., Khan, Z., Hussain, S. (2019). Identifying beneficial sessions
in an e-learning system using machine learning techniques. Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers Inc., pp 123–128. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBDAA.2018.8629697
*Huynh, D., Zuo, L., Iida, H. (2016). Analyzing gamification of “duolingo” with focus on its course
structure. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intel-
ligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 10056 LNCS, 268–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-319-50182-6_24
*Ismail, A. (2011). Developing & evaluating collaborative medical physics module for the first year med-
ical students at college of medicine & medical sciences, arabian gulf university kingdom of bah-
rain. Arab Gulf Journal of Scientific Research, 29(1-2), 30–50.
*Jalal, A., Mahmood, M. (2019). Students’ behavior mining in e-learning environment using cognitive
processes with information technologies. Education and Information Technologies, 24(5), 2797–
2821.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09892-5
*James, I., Ramasubramanian, P., Angeline, D. (2018). Improved learning with emotional intelligence
and analysis using neural networks. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.. https://
doi.org/10.1109/ICCIC.2017.8524206
*Jeong, H. Y., Choi, C. R., Song, Y. J. (2012). Personalized learning course planner with e-learning dss
using user profile. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(3), 2567–2577.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eswa.2011.08.109
*John, D., Man, C., Yusuf, K. (2020). Challenge-based assessments in a gamified learning environment:
A case study on linguistics students. Journal of Critical Reviews, 7(16), 710–716.https://doi.org/
10.31838/jcr.07.16.83
*Joksimović, S., Gašević, D., Kovanović, V., Riecke, B., Hatala, M. (2015). Social presence in online dis-
cussions as a process predictor of academic performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
31(6), 638–654.https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12107
*Jraidi, I., Frasson, C. (2013). Student’s uncertainty modeling through a multimodal sensor-based
approach. Educational Technology and Society, 16(1), 219–230.
*Kashive, N., Powale, L., Kashive, K. (2021). Understanding user perception toward artificial intel-
ligence (ai) enabled e-learning. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology,
38(1), 1–19.https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-05-2020-0090
*Kaur, A. (2018). Attention network for engagement prediction in the wild. Association for Computing
Machinery, Inc, pp 516–519. https://doi.org/10.1145/3242969.3264972
*Kaur, A., Mustafa, A., Mehta, L., Dhall, A. (2019a). Prediction and localization of student engagement
in the wild. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.. https://doi.org/10.1109/DICTA.
2018.8615851
*Kaur, P., Malhotra, J., Arora, M. (2019b). Role of perseverance and persistence for retaining and
stimulating mooc learners. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 1075, 249–
259.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0108-1_24
Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(2), 121. https://doi.org/10.
2307/2787065
13
Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of
two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 1007–1022. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0022-3514.82.6.1007
*Khalil, M., Ebner, M., Admiraal, W. (2017). How can gamification improve mooc student engagement?
Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited, pp 819–828.
Kitchenham, B., Charters, S. (2007b) Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software
engineering.
*Kizilcec, R., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Maldonado, J. (2017). Self-regulated learning strategies predict
learner behavior and goal attainment in massive open online courses. Computers and Education,
04:18–33.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.001
*Kizilcec, R., Reich, J., Yeomans, M., Dann, C., Brunskill, E., Lopez, G., Turkay, S., Williams, J., Ting-
ley, D. (2020). Scaling up behavioral science interventions in online education. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(26), 14,900–14,905. https://
doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1921417117
Koedinger, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive
tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 239–264.
Koedinger, K. R., Corbett, A. T., & Perfetti, C. (2012). The knowledge-learning-instruction framework:
Bridging the science-practice chasm to enhance robust student learning. Cognitive Science, 36(5),
757–798. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01245.x
Kong, S., & Song, Y. (2015). An experience of personalized learning hub initiative embedding byod for
reflective engagement in higher education. Computers and Education, 88, 227–240. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compedu.2015.06.003
*Kotsakis, R., Dimoulas, C., Kalliris, G., Veglis, A. (2014). Emotional descriptors and quality of experi-
ence (qoe) metrics in evaluating mediated learning. IEEE Computer Society, pp 232–237. https://
doi.org/10.1109/IISA.2014.6878744
*Krishna. R., Lee, D., Li, F. F., Bernstein, M. (2018). Engagement learning: Expanding visual knowledge
by engaging online participants. Association for Computing Machinery, Inc, pp 87–89. https://doi.
org/10.1145/3266037.3266110
Kulik, J. A., & Fletcher, J. (2016). Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems: A meta-analytic review.
Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 42–78.
*Kumari, P., Deb, S., De, K. (2020). Statistical proving of enhanced interaction and augmentative dis-
course for byod supported classroom. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.. https://
doi.org/10.1109/ICCCNT49239.2020.9225517
*Labarthe, H., Bouchet, F., Bachelet, R., Yacef, K. (2016). Does a peer recommender foster students’
engagement in moocs? International Educational Data Mining Society, pp 418–423.
*Lai, H., Wang, M., Wang, H. (2009). Apply ati to support adaptive e-learning. Academic Conferences
Limited, vol 2009-January, pp 268–277.
*Lam, R. (2014). Designing collaborative learning activities for two outcomes: Deep structural knowl-
edge and idea generation. Proceedings of International Conference of the Learning Sciences, ICLS
3(January):1667–1668.
*Lan, A., Brinton, C., Yang, T. Y., Chiang, M. (2017). Behavior-based latent variable model for learner
engagement. International Educational Data Mining Society, pp 64–71.
LAPES. (2014). Start - state of the art through systematic review tool. Available in http://lapes.dc.ufscar.
br/tools/start_tool, accessed on October, 2013.
*Lefebvre, O., Luo, J. (2020). An authentic learning approach to engage solid waste engineering stu-
dents. Elsevier B.V., vol 172, pp 748–759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.05.107
*Li, X., Zhao, Q., Liu, L., Peng, H., Qi, Y., Mao, C., Fang, Z., Liu, Q., Hu, B. (2010). Improve affective
learning with eeg approach. Computing and Informatics, 29(4), 557–570.
*Li, H., Cheng, Q., Yu, Q., Graesser, A. (2015). The role of peer agent’s learning competency in tri-
alogue-based reading intelligent systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including sub-
series Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 9112, 694–
697.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19773-9_94
*Li, S., Yu, C., Hu, J., Zhong, Y. (2017). Exploring the effect of behavioral engagement on learning
achievement in online learning environment: Learning analytics of non-degree online learning
data. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., pp 246–250. https://doi.org/10.1109/
EITT.2016.56
*Li, C. (2019). Gamification of an asynchronous html5-related competency-based guided learning sys-
tem. Institute of Physics Publishing, vol 658. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/658/1/012004
13
*Li, Z., Zhan, Z. (2020). Integrated infrared imaging techniques and multi-model information via convo-
lution neural network for learning engagement evaluation. Infrared Physics and Technology, 109.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infrared.2020.103430
*Liang, Y. (2017). Social friendship-aware courses arrangement on moocs. Lecture Notes in Computer
matics), 10179 LNCS, 417–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55705-2_34
*Liao, J., Liang, Y., Pan, J. (2021). Deep facial spatiotemporal network for engagement predic-
tion in online learning. Applied Intelligence, 51(10), 6609–6621.https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10489-020-02139-8
Long, Y., Aleven, V. (2014). Gamification of joint student/system control over problem selection in a
linear equation tutor. In: International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Springer, pp
378–387.
*Lu, O., Huang, J., Huang, A., Yang, S. (2017). Applying learning analytics for improving students
engagement and learning outcomes in an moocs enabled collaborative programming course. Inter-
active Learning Environments, 25(2), 220–234.https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2016.1278391
Ma, W., Adesope, O. O., Nesbit, J. C., Liu, Q. (2014). Intelligent tutoring systems and learning outcomes:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 901–918.
*MacRitchie, J., Breaden, M., Milne, A., McIntyre, S. (2020). Cognitive, motor and social factors of
music instrument training programs for older adults’ improved wellbeing. Frontiers in Psychology,
10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02868
*Magdalene Delighta Angeline, D., Ramasubramanian, P., James, L. (2018). Predicting academic perfor-
mance in teaching learning scheme using data mining practice. Institute of Electrical and Electron-
ics Engineers Inc.. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCIC.2017.8524585
*Madathil, K., Frady, K., Hartley, R., Bertrand, J., Alfred, M., Gramopadhye, A. (2017). An empirical
study investigating the effectiveness of integrating virtual reality-based case studies into an online
asynchronous learning environment. Computers in Education Journal, 8(3).
*Martínez-Abad, F., Gamazo, A., Rodríguez-Conde, M. (2018). Big data in education: Detection of ict
factors associated with school effectiveness with data mining techniques. Association for Comput-
ing Machinery, pp 145–150. https://doi.org/10.1145/3284179.3284206
*Martins, R., Berge, E., Milrad, M., Masiello, I. (2019). Visual learning analytics of multidimensional
student behavior in self-regulated learning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including sub-
series Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 11722 LNCS,
737–741. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29736-7_78
*Matsuda, N., Yarzebinski, E., Keiser, V., Raizada, R., Stylianides, G., Koedinger, K. (2013). Studying
the effect of a competitive game show in a learning by teaching environment. International Journal
of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 23(1-4), 1–21.https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-013-0009-1
*McLaren, B., Deleeuw, K., Mayer, R. (2011). Polite web-based intelligent tutors: Can they improve
learning in classrooms? Computers and Education, 56(3), 574–584.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2010.09.019
*Megahed, M., Mohammed, A. (2020). Modeling adaptive e-learning environment using facial expres-
sions and fuzzy logic. Expert Systems with Applications, 157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.
113460
*Membrillo-Hernández, J., Muñoz-Soto, R., Rodríguez-Sánchez, A., Díaz-Quiñonez, J., Villegas, P.,
Castillo-Reyna, J., Ramírez-Medrano, A. (2019). Student engagement outside the classroom: Anal-
ysis of a challenge-based learning strategy in biotechnology engineering. IEEE Computer Society,
vol April-2019, pp 617–621. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2019.8725246
Mitri, D. D., Scheffel, M., Drachsler, H., Börner, D., Ternier, S., Specht, M. (2017). Learning pulse. In
Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference. ACM.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3027385.3027447
*Modafferi, S., Boniface, M., Crowle, S., Star, K., Middleton, L. (2016). Creating opportunities to learn
social skills at school using digital games. Dechema e.V., vol 2016-January, pp 461–469
*Moon, J., Ke, F., Sokolikj, Z. (2020). Automatic assessment of cognitive and emotional states in virtual
reality-based flexibility training for four adolescents with autism. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 51(5), 1766–1784.https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13005
*Moridis, C., Economides, A. (2012). Affective learning: Empathetic agents with emotional facial and
tone of voice expressions. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 3(3):260–272.https://doi.
org/10.1109/T-AFFC.2012.6
13
*Morrison, A., Rozak, S., Gold, A., Kay, J. (2020). Quantifying student engagement in learning about
climate change using galvanic hand sensors in a controlled educational setting. Climatic Change,
159(1), 17–36.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02576-6
*Mulqueeny, K., Mingle, L., Kostyuk, V., Baker, R., Ocumpaugh, J. (2015). Improving engagement in
an e-learning environment. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes
in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 9112, 730–733.https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-319-19773-9_103
*Muñoz, K., Kevitt, P., Lunney, T., Noguez, J., Neri, L. (2010). Playphysics: An emotional games learn-
ing environment for teaching physics. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lec-
ture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 6291 LNAI, 400–411.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15280-1_37
*Muñoz, K., Kevitt, P., Lunney, T., Noguez, J., Neri, L. (2011). An emotional student model for game-
play adaptation. Entertainment Computing, 2(2), 133–141.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2010.
12.006
*Muñoz-Merino, P., Ruipérez-Valiente, J., Delgado Kloos, C., Auger, M., Briz, S., de Castro, V., Santalla,
S. (2017). Flipping the classroom to improve learning with moocs technology. Computer Applica-
tions in Engineering Education, 25(1), 15–25.https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.21774
*Munshi, A., Mishra, S., Zhang, N., Paquette, L., Ocumpaugh, J., Baker, R., Biswas, G. (2020). Mod-
eling the relationships between basic and achievement emotions in computer-based learning envi-
ronments. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial
Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 12163 LNAI, 411–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-030-52237-7_33
Murray, T. (1999). Authoring intelligent tutoring systems: An analysis of the state of the art. Interna-
tional Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IJAIED), 10, 98–129.
Murray, T. (2003). An overview of intelligent tutoring system authoring tools: Updated analysis of the
state of the art. In Authoring tools for advanced technology learning environments. Springer, pp
491–544.
*Murrell, S., Wang, F., Aldrich, E., Xu, X. (2020). Meteorologyar: A mobile ar app to increase student engage-
ment and promote active learning in a large lecture class. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engi-
neers Inc., pp 849–850. https://doi.org/10.1109/VRW50115.2020.00275
*Murshed, M., Dewan, M., Lin, F., Wen, D. (2019). Engagement detection in e-learning environments
using convolutional neural networks. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., pp
80–86. https://doi.org/10.1109/DASC/PiCom/CBDCom/CyberSciTech.2019.00028
*Mustafa, H., Badran, S., Al-Hamadi, A., Al-Somani, T. (2011). On mathematical modeling of coop-
erative e-learning performance during face to face tutoring sessions (ant colony system approach).
Amman, pp 338–346. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2011.5773158
*Naik, V., Kamat, V. (2019). Analyzing engagement in an on-line session. Lecture Notes in Computer
matics), 11626 LNAI, 359–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23207-8_66
*Naghizadeh, M., Moradi, H. (2015). A model for motivation assessment in intelligent tutoring systems.
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.. https://doi.org/10.1109/IKT.2015.7288774
*Neves, J., Ferraz, F., Dias, A., Capita, A., Ávidos, L., Maia, N., Machado, J., Alves, V., Ribeiro, J.,
Vicente, H. (2019). Assessing individuals learning’s impairments from a social entropic per-
spective. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial
Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 11431 LNAI, 62–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-030-14799-0_6
*Nizam Ismail, S., Hamid, S., Chiroma, H. (2019). The utilization of learning analytics to develop stu-
dent engagement model in learning management system. Institute of Physics Publishing, vol 1339.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1339/1/012096
*O’Brien, M., Walsh, J., Costin, Y. (2020). Intentional content: Usage and engagement in a f-l-i-p class-
room environment. Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited, vol 2020-Octo-
ber, pp 388–396. https://doi.org/10.34190/EEL.20.078
*Ogan, A., Aleven, V., Kim, J., Jones, C. (2010). Developing interpersonal relationships with virtual
agents through social instructional dialog. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries
Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 6356 LNAI, 236–249.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15892-6_25
*Oliva Córdova, L., Amado-Salvatierra, H., Villalba Condori, K. (2019). An experience making
use of learning analytics techniques in discussion forums to improve the interaction in learning
13
ecosystems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial
978-3-030-21814-0_6
*Papamitsiou, Z., Economides, A. (2014). The effect of personality traits on students’ performance dur-
ing computer-based testing: A study of the big five inventory with temporal learning analytics.
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., pp 378–382. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.
2014.113
*Papoušek, J., Pelánek, R. (2015). Impact of adaptive educational system behaviour on student moti-
vation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intel-
ligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 9112, 348–357.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
19773-9_35
*Park, Y. M., Lee, G. M., Yang, H. S. (2019). Deep feature based efficient regularised ensemble for
engagement recognition. Electronics Letters, 55(24), 1281–1283.https://doi.org/10.1049/el.2019.
2783
*Pascual, R., Hammar Andersson, P. (2015). A flow based approach to authentic learning in social ori-
ented teaching. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI).
Peng, S., Ohira, S., & Nagao, K. (2020). Reading students’ multiple mental states in conversation from
facial and heart rate cues. SciTePress, 1, 68–76.
Pereira, A. M. F., Fernandes, S. C. S., Bittencourt, I. I., Félix, A. (2022). Flow theory and learning in the
brazilian context: a systematic literature review. Educ Pesqui 48.
*Pérez, P., Ortega, F., García, J., De Diego, I. (2019). Combining machine learning and symbolic rep-
resentation of time series for classification of behavioural patterns. Association for Computing
Machinery, pp 93–97. https://doi.org/10.1145/3312714.3312726
Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S., Mattsson, M. (2008). Systematic mapping studies in software engi-
neering. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in
Software Engineering, EASE’08. British Computer Society pp 68–77.
*Pezzullo, L., Wiggins, J., Frankosky, M., Min, W., Boyer, K., Mott, B., Wiebe, E., Lester, J. (2017).
“thanks alisha, keep in touch”: Gender effects and engagement with virtual learning companions.
Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence
and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 10331 LNAI, 299–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
61425-0_25
*Pham, P., Wang, J. (2018). Predicting learners’ emotions in mobile mooc learning via a multimodal
intelligent tutor. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial
978-3-319-91464-0_15
*Poorna, S., Anjana, S., Varma, P., Sajeev, A., Arya, K., Renjith, S., Nair, G. (2019). Facial emotion rec-
ognition using dwt based similarity and difference features. Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers Inc., pp 524–527. https://doi.org/10.1109/I-SMAC.2018.8653742
*Quesnel, D., Di Paola, S., Riecke, B. (2017). Deep learning for classification of peak emotions within
virtual reality systems. International Ambient Media Association (iAMEA), vol 2017, pp 6–11.
*Rambe, P. (2012). Constructive disruptions for effective collaborative learning: Navigating the affor-
dances of social media for meaningful engagement. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 10(1),
132–146.
Reivich, K., Shatté, A. (2003). The Resilience Factor: 7 Keys to Finding Your Inner Strength and Over-
coming Life’s Hurdles. Broadway Books. URL https://books.google.com/books?id=NyKUA
WBdr4AC
*Rienties, B., Lewis, T., McFarlane, R., Nguyen, Q., Toetenel, L. (2018). Analytics in online and offline
language learning environments: the role of learning design to understand student online engage-
ment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(3), 273–293.https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.
2017.1401548
*Riaz, S., Mushtaq, A., Kaur, M. (2019) Intelligent tutoring for informed feedback in interactive learning
environments. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICA-
SET.2019.8714555
*Robinson, C., Yeomans, M., Reich, J., Hulleman, C., Gehlbach, H. (2016). Forecasting student achieve-
ment in moocs with natural language processing. Association for Computing Machinery, vol
25–29-April-2016, pp 383–387. https://doi.org/10.1145/2883851.2883932
13
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic
and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166. https://doi.org/10.
1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141
*Sabourin, J., Mott, B., Lester, J. (2012). Early prediction of student self-regulation strategies by combin-
ing multiple models. www.educationaldatamining.org
*Sabourin, J., Mott, B., Lester, J. (2013). Utilizing dynamic bayes nets to improve early prediction mod-
els of self-regulated learning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture
Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 7899 LNCS, 228–241. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38844-6_19
*Sahid, D., Efendi, R., Putra, E. (2020). Rough set and machine learning approach for identifying flow
experience in e-learning. Institute of Physics Publishing, vol 732. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-
899X/732/1/012047
*Samuel Peter James, I., Ramasubramanian, P., Magdalene Delighta Angeline, D. (2018). Student
learning context analysis by emotional intelligence with data mining tools. International Jour-
nal of Intelligent Engineering and Systems, 11(2), 173–183.https://doi.org/10.22266/IJIES2018.
0430.19
*Samuelsen, J., Khalil, M. (2020). Study effort and student success: A mooc case study. Advances in
Intelligent Systems and Computing, 916, 215–226.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11932-4_
22
*San Pedro, M., Baker, R., Heffernan, N. (2017). An integrated look at middle school engagement and
learning in digital environments as precursors to college attendance. Technology, Knowledge
and Learning, 22(3), 243–270.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9318-z
Self, J. A. (1990) Theoretical foundations of intelligent tutoring systems. Journal of Artificial Intel-
ligence in Education, 3–14.
Self, J. A. (1998). The defining characteristics of intelligent tutoring systems research: Itss care, pre-
cisely. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IJAIED), 10, 350–364.
*Snow, E., Jackson, G., Varner, L., McNamara, D. (2013). Investigating the effects of off-task person-
alization on in-system performance and attitudes within a game-based environment. Interna-
tional Educational Data Mining Society
*Srivastava, A., Yammiyavar, P. (2019). Automating engineering educational practical electronics
laboratories for designing engaging learning experiences. IFIP Advances in Information and
Communication Technology, 544, 85–102.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05297-3_6
Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Cooper, H. (2013). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring
systems on k–12 students’ mathematical learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4),
970.
Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Cooper, H. (2014). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring
systems (its) on college students’ academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106,
331–347.
*Su, Y. N., Hsu, C. C., Chen, H. C., Huang, K. K., Huang, Y. M. (2014). Developing a sensor-based
learning concentration detection system. Engineering Computations (Swansea, Wales), 31(2),
216–230.https://doi.org/10.1108/EC-01-2013-0010
*Sun, C., Xia, F., Wang, Y., Liu, Y., Qian, W., Zhou, A. (2018).A deep learning model for automatic
evaluation of academic engagement. Association for Computing Machinery, Inc. https://doi.org/
10.1145/3231644.3231689
*Sung, H. Y., Hwang, G. J., Lin, C. J., Hong, T. W. (2017). Experiencing the analects of confucius:
An experiential game-based learning approach to promoting students’ motivation and concep-
tion of learning. Computers and Education, 110, 143–153.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.
2017.03.014
*Tamil Selvi, P., Vyshnavi, P., Jagadish, R., Srikumar, S., Veni, S. (2017). Emotion recognition from
videos using facial expressions. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 517, 565–
576.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3174-8_47
*Tao, X., Liu, S., Chen, X. (2020a). Dual flow framework on bimodality emotion recognition based on
facial expression and eye movement. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., pp
127–133. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAIE50891.2020.00037
*Taub, M., Sawyer, R., Lester, J., Azevedo, R. (2020). The impact of contextualized emotions on self-
regulated learning and scientific reasoning during learning with a game-based learning environ-
ment. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 30(1), 97–120.https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40593-019-00191-1
13
*Tenório, K., Chalco Challco, G., Dermeval, D., Lemos, B., Nascimento, P., Santos, R., Pedro da
Silva, A. (2020). Helping teachers assist their students in gamified adaptive educational sys-
tems: Towards a gamification analytics tool. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including
*Tian, F., Gao, P., Li, L., Zhang, W., Liang, H., Qian, Y., Zhao, R. (2014). Recognizing and regulating
e-learners’ emotions based on interactive chinese texts in e-learning systems. Knowledge-Based
Systems, 55, 148–164.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2013.10.019
*Ting, C. Y., Cheah, W. N., Ho, C. (2013). Student engagement modeling using bayesian networks.
Manchester, pp 2939–2944. https://doi.org/10.1109/SMC.2013.501
*Tlili, A., Denden, M., Essalmi, F., Jemni, M., Chang, M., Kinshuk, Chen, N. S. (2019). Automatic
modeling learner’s personality using learning analytics approach in an intelligent moodle learn-
ing platform. Interactive Learning Environmentshttps://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.16360
84
*Uria-rivas, R., Rodriguez-sanchez, M., Santos, O., Vaquero, J., Boticario, J. (2019). Impact of physi-
ological signals acquisition in the emotional support provided in learning scenarios. Sensors
(Switzerland), 19(20). https://doi.org/10.3390/s19204520
Vanlehn, K. (2006). The behavior of tutoring systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence
in Education, 16(3), 227–265.
VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other
tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197–221.
*Vega. B., Feng, S., Lehman, B., Graesser, A., D’Mello, S. (2013). Reading into the text: Investigating
the influence of text complexity on cognitive engagement. International Educational Data Mining
Society
*Villanueva, I., Campbell, B., Raikes, A., Jones, S., Putney, L. (2018). A multimodal exploration of engi-
neering students’ emotions and electrodermal activity in design activities. Journal of Engineering
Education, 107(3), 414–441.https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20225
*Wang, W., Li, R. (2014). Emotion recognition model based on rbf neural network in e-learning.
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 277, 567–576.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-
54924-3_54
*Wiggins, J., Grafsgaard, J., Boyer, K., Wiebe, E., Lester, J. (2017). Do you think you can? the influ-
ence of student self-efficacy on the effectiveness of tutorial dialogue for computer science. Inter-
national Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 27(1), 130–153.https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40593-015-0091-7
*Wiggins, J., Kulkarni, M., Min, W., Mott, B., Boyer, K., Wiebe, E., Lester, J. (2018). Affect-based early
prediction of player mental demand and engagement for educational games. AAAI Press, pp
243–249.
*Willans, F., Fonolahi, A., Buadromo, R., Bryce, T., Prasad, R., Kumari, S. (2019). Fostering and evalu-
ating learner engagement with academic literacy support: Making the most of moodle. Journal of
University Teaching and Learning Practice, 16(4).
Woolf, B. P. (2010). Building intelligent interactive tutors: Student-centered strategies for revolutionizing
e-learning. Morgan Kaufmann
*Worsley, M., Blikstein, P. (2014). Deciphering the practices and affordances of different reasoning strat-
egies through multimodal learning analytics. Association for Computing Machinery, pp 21–27.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2666633.2666637
*Wu, Y., Yang, X., Li, Y., Li, H., Yang, W. (2018). Brainwave analysis in virtual reality based emotional
regulation training. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., pp 691–696. https://doi.
org/10.1109/CSCI46756.2018.00139
*Wulan, S., Supangkat, S. (2018). Semi-supervised learning self-training for indonesian motivational
messages classification. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., vol 2018-January, pp
1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTSS.2017.8288888
*Yan, W., Welsh, S., Dowell, N., Choi, H., Holman, C., Brooks, C. (2019). Exploring learner engage-
ment patterns in teach-outs. Association for Computing Machinery, pp 180–184. https://doi.org/10.
1145/3303772.3303836
*Yang, Q., Zheng, S., Huang, J., Li, J. (2008). A design to promote group learning in e-learning by naive
bayesian. IEEE Computer Society, vol 2, pp 379–382.https://doi.org/10.1109/iscid.2008.154
*Yang, T. Y., Baker, R., Studer, C., Heffernan, N., Lan, A. (2019). Active learning for student affect
detection. International Educational Data Mining Society, pp 208–217.
13
*Yousuf, B., Conlan, O. (2018). Supporting student engagement through explorable visual narratives.
IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 11(3), 307–320.https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2017.
2722416
*Yuan, B., Wang, M., Kushniruk, A., Peng, J. (2017). Deep learning towards expertise development in a
visualization-based learning environment. Educational Technology and Society, 20(4), 233–246.
*Zatarain-Cabada, R., Barrón-Estrada, M., González-Hernández, F., Oramas-Bustillos, R., Alor-Hernán-
dez, G., Reyes-García, C. (2017a). Building a corpus and a local binary pattern recognizer for
learning-centered emotions. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes
in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 10062 LNAI, 524–535. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-62428-0_43
*Zatarain-Cabada, R., Barrón-Estrada, M., Ríos-Félix, J. (2017b). Affective learning system for algo-
rithmic logic applying gamification. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lec-
ture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 10062 LNAI, 536–547.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62428-0_44
*Zatarain Cabada, R., Barrón Estrada, M., Ríos Félix, J., Alor Hernández, G. (2020). A virtual environ-
ment for learning computer coding using gamification and emotion recognition. Interactive Learn-
ing Environments, 28(8), 1048–1063.https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1558256
*Zhang, L. (2013). Contextual and active learning-based affect-sensing from virtual drama improvisa-
tion. ACM Transactions on Speech and Language Processing, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.1145/24077
36.2407738
*Zhou, Y., Xu, T., Cai, Y., Wu, X., Dong, B. (2017). Monitoring cognitive workload in online videos
learning through an eeg-based brain-computer interface. Lecture Notes in Computer Science
10295 LNCS, 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58509-3_7
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
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.
Authors and Affiliations
Ig Ibert Bittencourt1,2 · Geiser Chalco1,3 · Jário Santos1,4 · Sheyla Fernandes5 ·

Jesana Silva1,5 · Naricla Batista1,5 · Claudio Hutz6 · Seiji Isotani2,4
* Ig Ibert Bittencourt
ig.ibert@ic.ufal.br
1
Center of Excellence for Social Technologies, Computing Institute, Federal University
of Alagoas, Maceió, Brazil
2
Harvard Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
3
Department of Engineering and Technology (DETEC), Federal Rural University
of the Semi-Arid Region (UFERSA), Mossoró, Brazil
4
Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of São Paulo (ICMC-USP),
Sao Paulo, Brazil
5
Psychology Institute, Federal University of Alagoas, Maceió, Brazil
6
Federal University of Rio Grande Do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
13

Positive Artificial Intelligence in Education (P AIED) : A Roadmap

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Positive Artificial Intelligence in Education (P AIED) : A Roadmap

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Positive Artificial Intelligence in Education (P AIED) : A Roadmap

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education

Positive Artificial Intelligence in Education (P‑AIED):

Ig Ibert Bittencourt1,2 · Geiser Chalco1,3 · Jário Santos1,4 · Sheyla Fernandes5 ·

Accepted: 6 June 2023

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

Keywords Artificial Intelligence in Education · Positive Psychology · Learning ·

Artificial Intelligence in Education has decades of scientific contributions not only

Fig. 1 Venn Diagram with the

Fig. 2 The framework for the proposed ELA model

• Positive Psychology Applied to Artificial Intelligence in Education (PP-AI):

Fig. 3 Flow Prediction of Learning Pulse project

on the constructs from positive psychology (such as interest, life satisfaction,

Based on the high-level questions, specific questions were raised according to

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Sources Selection and Search

Fig. 4 Paper selection flowchart

(1) “computers and education” OR “e-learning” “m-learning” OR “mobile learn-

laborative learning” OR “educational environment” OR “educational system”

AND (2) AND (3 OR 4 OR 5 OR 6 OR 7 OR 8 OR 9) AND (10)

Results and Analysis

RQ1. Scientific Output Over Time

Fig. 5 Number of publications per year

Fig. 6 Average of citations of articles per year

Fig. 7 Number of publications, percentages, and their respective types

RQ2. Dissemination Channels

Studies included in this review may be a journal, conference, workshop, or book

Table 1 Distribution of studies over publication sources

LECTURE NOTES IN COMPUTER SCIENCE 44 17.19%

Fig. 8 Co-occurrence analysis of the most

are published in well-respected ITS research venues. However, many publications

RQ3. Addressed Research Areas and Topics

Fig. 9 Co-occurrence analysis in positive psychology

Fig. 10 Co-occurrence analysis in artificial intelligence

Fig. 11 Co-occurrence analysis in artificial intelligence using positive psychology (AI-PE)

Fig. 12 Thematic map showing relevance and development of topics in P-AIED

(affective state), respectively. We also identified machine learning (i.e., deep

Fig. 15 Most frequent affiliations of published authors

RQ4: Scientific Institutions and Leaders

In response to research question 5 regarding the most involved scientific institutions,

LESTER JC 1 (174) 2 (45) 2 (41) 3 (24) 1 (2) 3 (28) 12 314

LESTER JC 1 (174) 2 (45) 1 (2) 3 (28) 7 249

GRAESSER AC 1 (115) 1 (5) 2 120

LESTER JC 2 (41) 3 (24) 5 65

RQ5: Research Collaboration

As the minimum number of links required to form a cluster in scientific collabora-

Fig. 16 Map of author collaborations

Fig. 17 Map of institution collaboration

Fig. 18 Most cited works on P-AIED

Fig. 19 Map of co-citations

RQ6: Research Impact

Regarding the map of co-citations, Fig. 19 presents such information. It is interesting

Summary of the Findings and Roadmap

By conducting this study, it was identified how Positive Artificial Intelligence in

as confusion, frustration, boredom, engagement/flow, delight, and surprise) during

the authors to minimize the risk of exclusion of relevant studies. Furthermore, in

Tables of Bibliometric Analysis Tables 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

computer supported collaborative learning; Cluster

Table 7 Co-occurrence analysis of research outcomes (based on search string)

engagement 1 0.2951 engagement 1 0.3181