Pedagogical Agents in Mathematics Education (1999–2025): A Bibliometric Analysis of a Field Shifting Toward Large Language Models
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61255/jupiter.v4i4.1200Keywords:
Bibliometric Analysis, Large Language Models, Mathematics Education, Pedagogical Agents, Teachable AgentsAbstract
Purpose: This study maps the scientific landscape of pedagogical agents in mathematics education (1999–2025) to characterize its developmental trajectory, key actors and intellectual foundations, and thematic structure, and to locate mathematics learning within the broader pedagogical-agents paradigm. Methods: A corpus of 133 Scopus-indexed documents was analyzed with Biblioshiny and VOSviewer, combining performance analysis (production, citation impact, sources, authors, affiliations, countries) and science mapping (keyword co-occurrence at a minimum threshold of three, thematic mapping, and overlay visualization). Findings: The field shows an annual growth rate of 11.25%, far above the global-science baseline of 4%. Knowledge production concentrates in three institutional clusters (Lund University, Carnegie Mellon, UMass Amherst), with international co-authorship at 19.55%, below the cross-disciplinary average. Pedagogical agents anchor the field, with an intellectual base in cognitive principles of learning-by-teaching, while Large Language Models emerged as a converging keyword after 2022. Author-keyword co-occurrence resolved eight clusters dominated by general instructional-technology and AI motor themes, with mathematics learning fragmented across three clusters in a marginal, basic-theme position an application context rather than an epistemic core. Research Implications: Findings highlight open positioning opportunities for new entrants, guide developers integrating LLMs into established pedagogical-agent architectures, and signal to policymakers the need for broader institutional participation. Originality: This is the first bibliometric mapping specifically targeting the pedagogical-agents and mathematics-education intersection, documenting continuity in the paradigm shift from classical to LLM-based agents. As the corpus is drawn from a single database, it should be read as a Scopus-bounded, English-leaning view rather than an exhaustive census.
Abstract views: 16
, 
PDF downloads: 16
Downloads
References
Aksnes, D. W., Langfeldt, L., & Wouters, P. (2019). Citations, citation indicators, and research quality: An overview of basic concepts and theories. SAGE Open, 9(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019829575
Aksnes, D. W., & Sivertsen, G. (2023). Global trends in international research collaboration, 1980–2021. Journal of Data and Information Science, 8(2), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2023-0015
Aman, V., & Botte, A. (2017). A bibliometric view on the internationalization of European educational research. European Educational Research Journal, 16(6), 843–868. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904117729903
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: an R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959-975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
Arroyo, I., Woolf, B. P., Royer, J. M., & Tai, M. (2009). Affective gendered learning companions. In Artificial intelligence in education (pp. 41-48). IOS Press.
Arroyo, I., Woolf, B. P., Cooper, D. G., Burleson, W., & Muldner, K. (2011). The impact of animated pedagogical agents on girls' and boys' emotions, attitudes, behaviors and learning. In 2011 IEEE 11th international conference on Advanced learning technologies (pp. 506-510). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2011.157
Arroyo, I., Burleson, W., Tai, M., Muldner, K., & Woolf, B. P. (2013). Gender differences in the use and benefit of advanced learning technologies for mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 957–969. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032748
Arroyo, I., Woolf, B. P., Burleson, W., Muldner, K., Rai, D., & Tai, M. (2014). A multimedia adaptive tutoring system for mathematics that addresses cognition, metacognition and affect. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24(4), 387–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-014-0023-y
Bargh, J. A., & Schul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(5), 593–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.72.5.593
Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(2), 95–115. https://doi.org/10.3233/IRG-2005-15(2)02
Biswas, G., Leelawong, K., Schwartz, D., & Vye, N. (2005). Learning by teaching: A new agent paradigm for educational software. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 19(3–4), 363–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/08839510590910200
Bornmann, L., & Mutz, R. (2015). Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(11), 2215–2222. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23329
Bringula, R. P., Fosgate Jr, I. C. O., Garcia, N. P. R., & Yorobe, J. L. M. (2018). Effects of pedagogical agents on students’ mathematics performance: A comparison between two versions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(5), 701-722. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117722494
Büyükkıdık, S. (2022). A bibliometric analysis: a tutorial for the bibliometrix package in R using IRT literature. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 13(3), 164-193. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.1069307
Castro-Alonso, J. C., Wong, R. M., Adesope, O. O., & Paas, F. (2021). Effectiveness of multimedia pedagogical agents predicted by diverse theories: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 33(3), 989–1015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09587-1
Chase, C. C., Chin, D. B., Oppezzo, M. A., & Schwartz, D. L. (2009). Teachable agents and the protégé effect: Increasing the effort towards learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 334–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9180-4
Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the fuzzy sets theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.002
Daulay, L. A., Nasution, A. K. P., Asnawi, A., Zahari, C. L., & Wardani, H. (2025). Bibliometric study on research trends in artificial intelligence and mathematics education. Alifmatika: Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran Matematika, 7(1), 124-147. https://doi.org/10.35316/alifmatika.2025.v7i1.124-147
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
Graesser, A. C., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Wiemer-Hastings, P., & Kreuz, R. (1999). AutoTutor: A simulation of a human tutor. Cognitive Systems Research, 1(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-0417(99)00005-4
Gulz, A., Haake, M., & Silvervarg, A. (2011). Extending a teachable agent with a social conversation module: Effects on student experiences and learning. In Proceedings of International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 106-114). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21869-9_16
Johnson, W. L., & Rickel, J. (1997). Steve: An animated pedagogical agent for procedural training in virtual environments. ACM SIGART Bulletin, 8(1–4), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/272874.272877
Johnson, W. L., Rickel, J. W., & Lester, J. C. (2000). Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 47–78.
Johnson, W. L., & Lester, J. C. (2016). Face-to-face interaction with pedagogical agents, twenty years later. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0065-9
Johnson, W. L., & Lester, J. C. (2018). Pedagogical agents: back to the future. AI Magazine, 39(2), 33-44. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v39i2.2793
Kim, Y., & Wei, Q. (2011). The impact of learner attributes and learner choice in an agent-based environment. Computers & Education, 56(2), 505-514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.016
Koedinger, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 239-264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9049-0
Krämer, N. C., Karacora, B., Lucas, G., Dehghani, M., Rüther, G., & Gratch, J. (2016). Closing the gender gap in STEM with friendly male instructors? On the effects of rapport behavior and gender of a virtual agent in an instructional interaction. Computers & Education, 99, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.04.002
Kuhail, M. A., Alturki, N., Alramlawi, S., & Alhejori, K. (2023). Interacting with educational chatbots: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 973-1018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11177-3
Lester, J. C., Converse, S. A., Kahler, S. E., Barlow, S. T., Stone, B. A., & Bhogal, R. S. (1997). The persona effect: Affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 359–366). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/258549.258797
Li, M. (2025). Integrating artificial intelligence in primary mathematics education: Investigating internal and external influences on teacher adoption. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 23(5), 1283-1308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-024-10515-w
Liu, L., Yan, S., Deng, X., & Yu, Z. (2024). Bibliometric analyses of the impact of pedagogical agents on learning. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 16(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJMBL.346976
Lyu, B., Li, C., Li, H., Oh, H., Song, Y., Zhu, W., & Xing, W. (2025a). Exploring the role of teachable AI agents’ personality traits in shaping student interaction and learning in mathematics education. In Proceedings of the 15th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (pp. 887-894). https://doi.org/10.1145/3706468.3706532
Lyu, B., Li, C., Li, H., Oh, H., Song, Y., Zhu, W., & Xing, W. (2025b). The role of teachable agents’ personality traits on student-AI interactions and math learning. Computers & Education, 234, Article 105314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105314
Maass, K., & Engeln, K. (2019). Professional development on connections to the world of work in mathematics and science education. ZDM, 51(6), 967–978. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01047-7
Martha, A. S. D., & Santoso, H. B. (2019). The design and impact of the pedagogical agent: A systematic literature review. Journal of Educators Online, 16(1), Article n1. https://doi.org/10.9743/jeo.2019.16.1.8
Matsuda, N., Yarzebinski, E., Keiser, V., Raizada, R., Cohen, W. W., Stylianides, G. J., & Koedinger, K. R. (2013). Cognitive anatomy of tutor learning: Lessons learned with SimStudent. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1152–1163. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031955
Matsuda, N., Yarzebinski, E., Keiser, V., Raizada, R., Stylianides, G. J., Cohen, W. W., & Koedinger, K. R. (2011). Learning by teaching SimStudent: An initial classroom baseline study comparing with Cognitive Tutor. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 213-221). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21869-9_29
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
National Science Board. (2019). Publications output: U.S. trends and international comparisons (Science and Engineering Indicators 2020, NSB-2020-6). National Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20206/
Nguyen, D. T., & Pham, Q. V. (2025). The evolving landscape of AI integration in mathematics education: A systematic review of trends (2015-2025). Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(10), Article em2714. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/17078
Pardos, Z. A., & Bhandari, S. (2024). ChatGPT-generated help produces learning gains equivalent to human tutor-authored help on mathematics skills. PLOS ONE, 19(5), e0304013. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304013
Pareto, L. (2014). A teachable agent game engaging primary school children to learn arithmetic concepts and reasoning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24(3), 251-283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-014-0018-8
Pareto, L., Arvemo, T., Dahl, Y., Haake, M., & Gulz, A. (2011). A teachable-agent arithmetic game’s effects on mathematics understanding, attitude and self-efficacy. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 247-255). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21869-9_33
Pareto, L., Haake, M., Lindström, P., Sjödén, B., & Gulz, A. (2012). A teachable-agent-based game affording collaboration and competition: Evaluating math comprehension and motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(5), 723–751. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9246-5
Samuel, T., Chen, H. L., & Yohannes, A. (2025). Robot‐assisted mathematics education: A systematic literature review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 41(4), Article e70095. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.70095
Schlimbach, R., Rinn, H., Markgraf, D., & Robra-Bissantz, S. (2022). A literature review on pedagogical conversational agent adaptation. In Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (Vol. 1, pp. 1-14). Association for Information Systems. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361228223_A_Literature_Review_on_Pedagogical_Conversational_Agent_Adaptation
Schroeder, N. L., Adesope, O. O., & Gilbert, R. B. (2013). How effective are pedagogical agents for learning? A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.49.1.a
Sezgin, A., Orbay, K., & Orbay, M. (2022). Educational research review from diverse perspectives: A bibliometric analysis of Web of Science (2011–2020). SAGE Open, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221141628
Sjödén, B., Tärning, B., Pareto, L., & Gulz, A. (2011). Transferring teaching to testing–an unexplored aspect of teachable agents. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 337-344). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21869-9_44
Subroto, P. W., Malik, M., Raditya, A., & Saputra, N. N. (2024). A bibliometric analysis on artificial intelligence in mathematics education. Journal of Research and Advances in Mathematics Education, 9(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.23917/jramathedu.v9i1.2429
Tao, Y., Zhang, G., Zhang, D., Wang, F., Zhou, Y., & Xu, T. (2022). Exploring persona characteristics in learning: A review study of pedagogical agents. Procedia computer science, 201, 87-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.03.014
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., Lewin, S., Godfrey, C. M., Macdonald, M. T., Langlois, E. V., Soares-Weiser, K., Moriarty, J., Clifford, T., Tunçalp, Ö., & Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
Wei, C. W., Hung, I., Lee, L., & Chen, N. S. (2011). A joyful classroom learning system with robot learning companion for children to learn mathematics multiplication. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 10(2), 11-23.
Woolf, B. P., Arroyo, I., Muldner, K., Burleson, W., Cooper, D. G., Dolan, R., & Christopherson, R. M. (2010). The effect of motivational learning companions on low achieving students and students with disabilities. In International conference on intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 327-337). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13388-6_37
Wulandari, T., Hasanah, R. U., & Fadillah, D. T. (2024). Kemampuan pembuktian matematis mahasiswa: Systematic literature review. Journal of Multidisciplinary Inquiry in Science, Technology and Educational Research, 1(3), 350-359.
Yan, L., Sha, L., Zhao, L., Li, Y., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Chen, G., Li, X., Jin, Y., & Gašević, D. (2024). Practical and ethical challenges of large language models in education: A systematic scoping review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(1), 90–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13370
Yıldız, S. G., & Körpeoğlu, S. G. (2025). Trends and insights of AI in mathematics education: A bibliometric analysis. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 20(3), Article em0837. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/16401
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Fadhil Zil Ikram, Kusnandi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
