SINTA

2.5

Impact

Google Scholar

10

h-index

Indonesian Journal of Education Research (IJoER)

Open Access Journal

Generative AI-Supported Problem-Solving in Higher Education: Research Trends, Knowledge Structure, and Educational Implications

Suci Ramadhani
West Sulawesi University ROR
Indonesia
Nurlina Nurlina ORCID
West Sulawesi University ROR
Indonesia
nurlina@unsulbar.ac.id
Sutrisno Sutrisno
West Sulawesi University
Indonesia
Irsan Irsan
State University of Gorontalo ROR
Indonesia
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study aims to map the research trends, intellectual structure, and emerging themes related to generative artificial intelligence (GenAI)-supported problem-solving in higher education. The study also identifies dominant contributors, thematic developments, collaboration patterns, and future research directions within this rapidly growing field.

    Methodology: This study employed a bibliometric analysis approach using 458 Scopus-indexed articles published between 2021 and 2026. Performance analysis and science mapping techniques were conducted using VOSviewer and Biblioshiny from the Bibliometrix package in RStudio. The analyses included co-occurrence, co-authorship, citation, overlay visualization, and thematic mapping to explore the knowledge structure of the field.

    Main Findings: The findings revealed a rapid increase in publications after 2023 following the emergence of ChatGPT and large language models (LLMs). China and the United States dominated publication productivity and citation impact. Keyword and thematic analyses identified problem-solving, students, and teaching as the main driving themes, while ChatGPT, AI literacy, metacognition, and human-AI collaboration emerged as rapidly developing research topics in higher education.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This study provides one of the first comprehensive bibliometric mappings specifically focused on the intersection of GenAI and problem-solving in higher education. Unlike previous studies that broadly examined AI in education, it reveals the intellectual structure, thematic evolution, collaboration patterns, and emerging research directions in this field. The findings provide valuable insights for lecturers, educational evaluators, and curriculum developers in identifying emerging competencies, assessment priorities, and pedagogical strategies related to problem-solving and AI-enhanced learning in higher education.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    S. Ramadhani, N. Nurlina, S. Sutrisno, and I. Irsan, “Generative AI-Supported Problem-Solving in Higher Education: Research Trends, Knowledge Structure, and Educational Implications”, Ind. Jou. Edu. Rsc, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 365–380, Jun. 2026, doi: 10.37251/ijoer.v7i3.3187.

    More Citation Formats

  • 46
    Abstract views
    16
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. R. He, E. Lanham, and G. Wood-Bradley, “A Systematic Review of Current Methods Used to Develop Professional Skills in Information Communication Technology Students in Higher Education BT - Proceedings of the Future Technologies Conference (FTC) 2024, Volume 4,” in Proceedings of the Future Technologies Conference (FTC) 2024, K. Arai, Ed., Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024, pp. 417–436. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-73128-0_26.
    2. M. A. Adeoye, E. F. Prastikawati, and Y. O. Abimbowo, “Empowering Learning: Pedagogical Strategies for Advancing 21st Century Skills and Quality Education,” J. Nonform. Educ., vol. 10, no. 1 SE-Articles, pp. 10–21, doi: 10.15294/jone.v10i1.1451.
    3. O. Zawacki-Richter, V. I. Marín, M. Bond, and F. Gouverneur, “Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators?,” Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., vol. 16, no. 1, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0.
    4. D. Deepshikha, “A systematic review on the future of educational assessment: AI-driven grading and personalised feedback in higher education,” Artif. Intell. Educ., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 75–115, Nov. 2025, doi: 10.1108/AIIE-03-2025-0036.
    5. C.-C. Lin, A. Y. Q. Huang, and O. H. T. Lu, “Artificial intelligence in intelligent tutoring systems toward sustainable education: a systematic review,” Smart Learn. Environ., vol. 10, no. 1, p. 41, 2023, doi: 10.1186/s40561-023-00260-y.
    6. G. J. Hwang, H. Xie, B. W. Wah, and D. Gašević, “Vision, challenges, roles and research issues of Artificial Intelligence in Education,” Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell., vol. 1, pp. 1–5, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100001.
    7. S. A. D. Popenici and S. Kerr, “Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on teaching and learning in higher education,” Res. Pract. Technol. Enhanc. Learn., vol. 12, no. 1, p. 22, 2017, doi: 10.1186/s41039-017-0062-8.
    8. J. Funke, A. Fischer, and D. V Holt, “Competencies for Complexity: Problem Solving in the Twenty-First Century BT - Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills: Research and Applications,” E. Care, P. Griffin, and M. Wilson, Eds., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp. 41–53. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-65368-6_3.
    9. N. J. Kim, B. R. Belland, and A. E. Walker, “Effectiveness of Computer-Based Scaffolding in the Context of Problem-Based Learning for Stem Education: Bayesian Meta-analysis,” Educ. Psychol. Rev., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 397–429, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s10648-017-9419-1.
    10. H. Ceballos, T. van den Bogaart, S. van Ginkel, J. Spandaw, and P. Drijvers, “How collaborative problem solving promotes higher-order thinking skills: A systematic review of design features and processes,” Think. Ski. Creat., vol. 59, p. 102001, 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2025.102001.
    11. E. Care and H. Kim, “Assessment of Twenty-First Century Skills: The Issue of Authenticity,” in Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills, E. Care, P. Griffin, and M. Wilson, Eds., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp. 21–39. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-65368-6_2.
    12. R. Luckin and M. Cukurova, “Designing educational technologies in the age of AI: A learning sciences-driven approach,” Br. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 2824–2838, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.1111/bjet.12861.
    13. H. Halabieh et al., “The Future of Higher Education: Identifying Current Educational Problems and Proposed Solutions,” 2022. doi: 10.3390/educsci12120888.
    14. B. M. Pratschke, Generative AI and education: Digital pedagogies, teaching innovation and learning design. Springer, 2024.
    15. L. T. Ramos and E. Casas, “Applications, Trends, and Perspectives of Large Language Models in Education: A Literature Review,” TechRxiv, vol. 2025, no. 1126, May 2026, doi: 10.36227/techrxiv.176413429.91587404/v1.
    16. E. Kasneci et al., “ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education,” Learn. Individ. Differ., vol. 103, p. 102274, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274.
    17. Z. Liang, K. Yang, L. Sha, D. Gašević, L. Yan, and G. Chen, “A systematic review of generative AI in education: Empirical insights from a human–AI interaction perspective,” Br. J. Educ. Technol., vol. n/a, no. n/a, Mar. 2026, doi: 10.1111/bjet.70055.
    18. X. Chen, H. Xie, D. Zou, and G.-J. Hwang, “Application and theory gaps during the rise of Artificial Intelligence in Education,” Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell., vol. 1, p. 100002, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100002.
    19. L. Yan et al., “Practical and ethical challenges of large language models in education: A systematic scoping review,” Br. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 90–112, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1111/bjet.13370.
    20. Y. Zhang, T. Zhou, H. Qiao, and T. Li, “Ethical Issues in AI-Generated Texts: A Systematic Review and Analysis,” Int. J. Human–Computer Interact., vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 2586–2613, Feb. 2026, doi: 10.1080/10447318.2025.2530071.
    21. T. J. Kennedy and C. W. Sundberg, “21st Century Skills BT - Science Education in Theory and Practice: An Introductory Guide to Learning Theory,” B. Akpan and T. J. Kennedy, Eds., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020, pp. 479–496. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-43620-9_32.
    22. J. Dempere, K. Modugu, A. Hesham, and L. K. Ramasamy, “The impact of ChatGPT on higher education,” 2023, Frontiers Media SA. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1206936.
    23. C. K. Y. Chan and W. Hu, “Students’ voices on generative AI: perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education,” Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., vol. 20, no. 1, p. 43, 2023, doi: 10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8.
    24. M. ÖZER, “Potential Benefits and Risks of Artificial Intelligence in Education,” Bartın Univ. J. Fac. Educ., vol. 13, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.14686/buefad.1416087.
    25. A. Göçen and R. Asan, Generative Artificial Intelligence: Risks and Benefits for Educational Institutions. 2023. doi: 10.31219/osf.io/mvcb5.
    26. L. Parker, A. J. Loper, C. W. Carter, J. Hayes, and A. Karakas, “Longitudinal insights into AI in education: Usage, ethics, and policy development in higher education,” Comput. Educ. Open, vol. 10, p. 100329, 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.caeo.2025.100329.
    27. L. Azevedo, D. J. Mallinson, J. Wang, P. Robles, and E. Best, “AI Policies, Equity, and Morality and the Implications for Faculty in Higher Education,” Public Integr., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 186–201, Mar. 2026, doi: 10.1080/10999922.2024.2414957.
    28. T. Farrelly and N. Baker, “Generative Artificial Intelligence: Implications and Considerations for Higher Education Practice,” 2023. doi: 10.3390/educsci13111109.
    29. V. Maphosa and M. Maphosa, “Artificial intelligence in higher education: a bibliometric analysis and topic modeling approach,” Appl. Artif. Intell., vol. 37, no. 1, p. 2261730, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1080/08839514.2023.2261730.
    30. Y. Jing, C. Wang, Y. Chen, H. Wang, T. Yu, and R. Shadiev, “Bibliometric mapping techniques in educational technology research: A systematic literature review,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 9283–9311, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10639-023-12178-6.
    31. A. F. Mena Guacas, P.-C. Mellado-Moreno, J.-T. Calderón-Cisneros, and N. Pelicano Piris, “Mapping artificial-intelligence-driven innovation in higher education: A bibliometric review,” Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open, vol. 13, p. 102561, 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2026.102561.
    32. H. Crompton and D. Burke, “Artificial intelligence in higher education: the state of the field,” Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., vol. 20, no. 1, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8.
    33. G. Marzi, M. Balzano, A. Caputo, and M. M. Pellegrini, “Guidelines for Bibliometric-Systematic Literature Reviews: 10 steps to combine analysis, synthesis and theory development,” Int. J. Manag. Rev., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 81–103, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12381.
    34. R. Kumar, “Bibliometric Analysis: Comprehensive Insights into Tools, Techniques, Applications, and Solutions for Research Excellence,” Spectr. Eng. Manag. Sci., vol. 3, no. 1 SE-Articles, pp. 45–62, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.31181/sems31202535k.
    35. N. Donthu, S. Kumar, D. Mukherjee, N. Pandey, and W. M. Lim, “How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 133, pp. 285–296, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070.
    36. P. Mongeon and A. Paul-Hus, “The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis,” Scientometrics, vol. 106, no. 1, pp. 213–228, 2016, doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5.
    37. R. Pranckutė, “Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World,” 2021. doi: 10.3390/publications9010012.
    38. M. Kuźma and A. Mościcka, “Metadata evaluation criteria in respect to archival maps description: A systematic literature review,” Electron. Libr., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 1–27, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1108/EL-07-2019-0161.
    39. M. J. Cobo, A. G. López-Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma, and F. Herrera, “Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools,” J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 1382–1402, Jul. 2011, doi: 10.1002/asi.21525.
    40. I. Passas, “Bibliometric Analysis: The Main Steps,” 2024. doi: 10.3390/encyclopedia4020065.
    41. H. Arruda, E. R. Silva, M. Lessa, D. J. Proença, and R. Bartholo, “VOSviewer and Bibliometrix.,” J. Med. Libr. Assoc., vol. 110, no. 3, pp. 392–395, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.5195/jmla.2022.1434.
    42. T. H. Trinh, Y. Wu, Q. V Le, H. He, and T. Luong, “Solving olympiad geometry without human demonstrations,” Nature, vol. 625, no. 7995, pp. 476–482, 2024, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06747-5.
    43. H.-Y. Lee, P.-H. Chen, W.-S. Wang, Y.-M. Huang, and T.-T. Wu, “Empowering ChatGPT with guidance mechanism in blended learning: effect of self-regulated learning, higher-order thinking skills, and knowledge construction,” Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., vol. 21, no. 1, p. 16, 2024, doi: 10.1186/s41239-024-00447-4.
    44. M. Urban et al., “ChatGPT improves creative problem-solving performance in university students: An experimental study,” Comput. Educ., vol. 215, p. 105031, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105031.
    45. C.-Y. Chang, G.-J. Hwang, and M.-L. Gau, “Promoting students’ learning achievement and self‐efficacy: A mobile chatbot approach for nursing training,” Br. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 53, pp. 171–188, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1111/bjet.13158.
    46. H. Lin and Q. Chen, “Artificial intelligence (AI) -integrated educational applications and college students’ creativity and academic emotions: students and teachers’ perceptions and attitudes,” BMC Psychol., vol. 12, no. 1, p. 487, 2024, doi: 10.1186/s40359-024-01979-0.
    47. M.-L. Tsai, C. W. Ong, and C.-L. Chen, “Exploring the use of large language models (LLMs) in chemical engineering education: Building core course problem models with Chat-GPT,” Educ. Chem. Eng., vol. 44, pp. 71–95, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ece.2023.05.001.
    48. T. M. Clark, “Investigating the Use of an Artificial Intelligence Chatbot with General Chemistry Exam Questions,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 100, no. 5, pp. 1905–1916, May 2023, doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00027.
    49. M. A. Ayanwale, O. P. Adelana, R. R. Molefi, O. Adeeko, and A. M. Ishola, “Examining artificial intelligence literacy among pre-service teachers for future classrooms,” Comput. Educ. Open, vol. 6, p. 100179, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100179.
    50. R. Bucea-Manea-Țoniş et al., “Artificial Intelligence Potential in Higher Education Institutions Enhanced Learning Environment in Romania and Serbia,” 2022. doi: 10.3390/su14105842.
    51. A. Tlili et al., “What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education,” Smart Learn. Environ., vol. 10, no. 1, 2023, doi: 10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x.
    52. C. K. Lo, “What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature,” 2023. doi: 10.3390/educsci13040410.
    53. W. Holmes, B. Maya, and C. Fadel, Artificial Intelligence In Education Promises and Implications for Teaching, vol. 14, no. 4. 2019, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2729.1998.1440251.x
    54. D. T. K. Ng, J. K. L. Leung, J. Su, R. C. W. Ng, and S. K. W. Chu, “Teachers’ AI digital competencies and twenty-first century skills in the post-pandemic world,” Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 137–161, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s11423-023-10203-6.
    55. F. Ouyang, W. Xu, and M. Cukurova, “An artificial intelligence-driven learning analytics method to examine the collaborative problem-solving process from the complex adaptive systems perspective,” Int. J. Comput. Collab. Learn., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 39–66, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s11412-023-09387-z.
    56. H. Hamid, K. Zulkifli, F. Naimat, N. L. Che Yaacob, and K. W. Ng, “Exploratory study on student perception on the use of chat AI in process-driven problem-based learning,” Curr. Pharm. Teach. Learn., vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 1017–1025, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2023.10.001.
    57. T. Wang, S. Li, S. Li, J. Zhang, and J. Gao, “Students’ use patterns of generative artificial intelligence during problem-solving in an intelligent learning system: Achievement goal orientation matters,” Br. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 1163–1188, Jul. 2026, doi: 10.1111/bjet.70059.
    58. H. Wang et al., “Augmentation or limitation? Generative AI’s influence on college students’ creative problem-solving,” Think. Ski. Creat., vol. 60, p. 102116, 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2025.102116.
    59. X. Zhou, D. Teng, and H. Al-Samarraie, “The Mediating Role of Generative AI Self-Regulation on Students’ Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving,” 2024. doi: 10.3390/educsci14121302.
    60. R. Kadel, Z. Zou, S. Shailendra, U. R. Saxena, A. Sharma, and I. M. Tahidul, “Educator–GenAI Partnership Model for Assessment Design to Foster Higher-Order Thinking,” 2026. doi: 10.3390/educsci16050672.
    61. A. K. Kofinas, C. H.-H. Tsay, and D. Pike, “The impact of generative AI on academic integrity of authentic assessments within a higher education context,” Br. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 2522–2549, Nov. 2025, doi: 10.1111/bjet.13585.