Date
Publisher
arXiv
Artificial intelligence (AI) has been applied across educational contexts to support learning. One approach to such support is "human-AI collaboration" (also termed "hybrid intelligence"), where human(s) and AI components interact to promote human learning. However, as in human-to-human computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL), unstructured interaction does not necessarily produce an effective learning experience. This paper reports a systematic literature review of empirical studies (N=62) on human-AI collaboration and hybrid intelligence for learning support. The review characterizes collaboration processes, their structures, and contexts of application. It also extracts emerging design knowledge and research gaps. Researchers and technology designers can use these findings as a starting point for structuring more effective AI-enhanced technologies for collaboration, in educational practice and future research.
Study at a glance
- Question: How are human-AI collaboration processes and structures designed and empirically studied to support student learning?
- Setting and data: 62 empirical studies retrieved from Web of Science and Scopus through April 2025, predominantly conducted in higher education settings.
- Method: Systematic literature review following PRISMA guidelines with qualitative reflexive thematic analysis
Why it matters
Unstructured human collaboration does not necessarily produce effective learning. As generative AI expands, human-AI collaboration risks similar failures, including overreliance and metacognitive laziness, unless guided by purposeful interaction structures and evidence-based designs.
Key findings
- Most studies relied on basic interaction setups, primarily where AI creates or answers while humans refine (46 papers) or humans create while AI assesses (18 papers).
- Nearly 39 percent of reviewed studies (24 of 62) used freeform, unstructured interactions, while structured studies mostly relied on social directions like teacher instructions.
- Only 13 of the 62 studies evaluated actual learning gains, with most research focusing instead on learning processes, user experience, or artifact quality.
Summary drafted with AI from the full paper and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.
What is the application?
Who is the user?
Who age?
Study design
