1

Education 5.0: Requirements, Enabling

Technologies, and Future Directions
Shabir Ahmad1* , Sabina Umirzakova1 , Ghulam Mujtaba2, Muhammad Sadiq Amin3 , and Taegkeun Whangbo1

Abstract
We are currently in a post-pandemic era in which life has shifted to a digital world. This has affected many aspects of
life, including education and learning. Education 5.0 refers to the fifth industrial revolution in education by leveraging digital
technologies to eliminate barriers to learning, enhance learning methods, and promote overall well-being. The concept of Education
5.0 represents a new paradigm in the field of education, one that is focused on creating a learner-centric environment that
leverages the latest technologies and teaching methods. This paper explores the key requirements of Education 5.0 and the
arXiv:2307.15846v1 [[Link]] 29 Jul 2023

enabling technologies that make it possible, including artificial intelligence, blockchain, and virtual and augmented reality. We
analyze the potential impact of these technologies on the future of education, including their ability to improve personalization,
increase engagement, and provide greater access to education. Additionally, we examine the challenges and ethical considerations
associated with Education 5.0 and propose strategies for addressing these issues. Finally, we offer insights into future directions
for the development of Education 5.0, including the need for ongoing research, collaboration, and innovation in the field. Overall,
this paper provides a comprehensive overview of Education 5.0, its requirements, enabling technologies, and future directions,
and highlights the potential of this new paradigm to transform education and improve learning outcomes for students.

Index Terms
Education 5.0, personalized learning, adaptive learning, blended learning.

I. I NTRODUCTION
ducation is a basic human right, and delivering knowledge effectively has been a success metric for ages. Education systems
E have undergone extensive revamp over the past decade with the rise of the Internet of Things (IoT) and information
communication technology (ICT). The integration of sensors and the processing of data through artificial intelligence (AI)
technologies paved the way for the next-generation education systems [1]. Education is linked to the industrial revolution, and
the fourth industrial revolution has witnessed tremendous work towards the realization of Education 4.0 to enhance the learning
experience through the use of ICT and IoT technology [2], [3]. However, despite its many improvements over the conventional
education systems, the demand for personalized tutoring and education and game-based learning envisioned a fifth revolution
in Education.
Education 5.0 [4] is a futuristic term that aims to integrate advanced ICT technologies into the education system to enhance
the learning experience and remove barriers to educating an individual. Thus, one of the fundamental goals of the Education
5.0 is to promote personalized learning, collaboration, and well-being through the use of digital tools such as AI, virtual reality
(VR), and the IoT. Additionally, Education 5.0 focuses on developing 21st-century skills such as critical thinking, creativity,
and problem-solving, rather than just rote learning and adds immersive experience in the classrooms using augmented reality
and mixed reality applications [5]. The ultimate goal of Education 5.0 is to create a more efficient, effective, and equitable
education system that can adapt to the changing needs of society in the fifth industrial revolution.

A. Market statistics and existing surveys

According to a report by [6], the global education technology market is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate
of 17% between 2021 and 2025. The report cites the growing demand for personalized learning and the increasing availability
of digital content as driving factors behind this growth. Furthermore, a report by [7] predicts that the global e-learning market
will reach $374.3 billion by 2026, with a compound annual growth rate of 14.6% from 2021 to 2026. This growth is attributed to
the increased adoption of mobile and digital learning, the rising need for skill-based education, and the growing use of artificial
intelligence in education. The concept of Education 5.0 is relatively new, so there is limited academic literature specifically
focused on this approach to education. However, several articles discuss related topics, such as personalized learning, digital
technology, and the use of data in education. For example, a study by Means, Toyama, Murphy, and Baki (2013) [8] found
S. Ahmed is with Department of Computer Engineering, Gachon University, Gyonggi-do, Seongnam-si, Sujeong-gu, 113-120 Email: shabir@[Link]
S. Umirzakova is with Department of Computer Engineering, Gachon University, Gyonggi-do, Seongnam-si, Sujeong-gu, 113-120 Email:
sabina@[Link]
G. Mujtaba is with West Virginia University, Morgantown, USA 26505 Email: gmujtabakorai@[Link]
M.S Amin is with Department of AI Software Engineering, Gachon University, Gyonggi-do, Seongnam-si, Sujeong-gu, 113-120 Email: engr-
sadiqamin@[Link]
T. Whangbo is Department of Computer Engineering, Gachon University, Gyonggi-do, Seongnam-si, Sujeong-gu, 113-120 with Email: whangbo-
taegkeun@[Link]
 2

Fig. 1. Evolution of Education over the past years. The goal of the latest form of education has always been to use the state-of-the-art technology to aid in
the learning process and improve students’ engagement

Fig. 2. Evolution of Education over the past years. The goal of the latest form of education has always been to use state-of-the-art technology to aid in the
learning process and improve students’ engagement

that technology can support personalized learning by providing students with access to various resources and opportunities for
feedback. Another study by [9] examined the use of data analytics in education and how it can be used to support personalized
learning and improve student outcomes. A search on popular databases such as Google Scholar and Scopus using the keywords
"Education 5.0" returns relatively only 9 records, indicating that this is a relatively new and emerging field. However, a search
for related topics such as "personalized learning" and "digital education" returns a significantly large number of articles, as
shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Therefore, though the idea of Education 5.0 centers around personalized education and
collaborative learning has been around for the last decade, the notion of Education 5.0 as the next wave of Education is still
a gap in the current state-of-the-art.
There have been several surveys and tutorials published that address various aspects of education, including personalized
 3

AND

Keyword = *Education Keyword = Keyword = Keyword =

5.0* *VR* *XR* *Metaverse*

Keyword = *AI* AND Keyword = *Education*

Databases

Keywords
Keyword =
OR AND Keyword = *Education ** Scopus WebofScience
*Gamification*

RG GoogleScholar
Keyword = *IoT* AND Keyword = *Education **

Keyword = AND Keyword = *Education ** Education Goals

*Blockchain*

Databases
Collaboration Flexibility
Keyword = *Big Data AND Keyword = *Education ** Security
Analytics* Decision Making
Personalized
Keyword = *5G* AND Keyword = *Education ** Adaptive Learning
Learning

Fig. 3. Evolution of Education over the past years. The goal of the latest form of education has always been to use the state-of-the-art technology to aid in
the learning process and improve students’ engagement

TABLE I
E DUCATION ATTRIBUTES A DDRESSED BY S ELECTED S URVEYS AND T UTORIALS

Study Contribution Personalized Digital Data Collaborative Mobile Gamification

Learning Technology Analytics Learning Learning

Means et al. Technology has the potential to sup- ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗

(2013) [8] port personalized learning
Quadir and Chen Data analytics can be used to support ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗
(2022) [9] personalized learning and improve stu-
dent outcomes
Green et al. (2020) Online learning management systems ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗
[10] can be remodeled to use them more
effectively
Nisha et al. (2022) Recommender systems can be used to ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗
[11] support personalized learning
Li et al. (2021) Mobile learning can support person- ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗
[12] alized learning in a blended learning
environment
Major et al. (2021) Digital technology can improve access ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗
[13] to education and support personalized
learning
Greaney (2021) Data analytics can be used to identify ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗
[14] areas where personalized learning can
be improved
Chen et al. (2020) Collaborative learning can support per- ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗
[15] sonalized learning
Ofosu et al. (2020) Shift towards gamification in educa- ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓
[16] tion
Georgios et al. Augmented reality and gamification to ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓
(2022) [17] enable various learning techniques

learning, digital technology, and data analytics. Table I highlights some of the studies which emphasize the need for one or
some of the fundamental components in Education 5.0.

B. Motivation and Scope

Education 5.0 covers a wide spectrum of attributes, such as using ICT and data analytics to make a more informed educational
system. This survey proposes a two-dimensional framework for which the x-axis has different educational goals, such as
 4

• Limited use of technology in the

classroom • Technology as a core for education
• Active learning and limited collaborative • AI-based learning
learning • Limited support for personalized learning
• Engaging learning activities • Immersive experience for student
• Blended learning • Distant learning through Internet of things
• Encourage creativity through technology

Education 1.0 Education 2.0 Education 3.0 Education 4.0 Education 5.0

• Rote Learning • Full integration of technology • Focus on personalized

• Classroom Teaching • Stronger emphasis of active and learning
• One-size-fits-all collaborative learning • Collaborative learning
• Lack of technology • Flipped classroom approach • Adaptive Learning
• Passive learning • Student-centred learning • Technology at its core
• Proactive learning • Analytical learning
• Privacy of students and
teachers
• Low latency applications

Fig. 4. Evolution of Education over the past years. The goal of the latest form of education has always been to use the state-of-the-art technology to aid in
the learning process and improve students’ engagement

personalized learning, collaborative learning and decision-making, while on the y-axis are the technologies needed to pursue
a particular goal, such as Big data analysis, IoT, and VR, to name a few. Thus, the scope of this survey is to review the
literature on the above two-dimensional pairs and highlight their impact on overall education. Since these attributes are widely
dispersed and inaccessible, this survey will make a foundation platform to propose the roadmap for realizing Education 5.0
by combining all these attributes and technologies.

C. Survey organization
The rest of this survey is organized as follows; Section 2 provides Background and foundation and discusses the evolution
of Education over the years. Section 3 highlights some of the requirements. Section 4 summarizes the enabling technologies.
Section 5 portrays the current state-of-the-art and future roadmap, section 6 identifies some crucial challenges, and section 7
concludes the paper.

II. BACKGROUND AND F OUNDATION

In this section, we outline the background of the use of contemporary technologies to aid in elevating the quality of education
is discussed to serve as a foundation for upcoming sections. The core foundation concepts are elucidated with the gradual
evolution of Education from 1.0 to 5.0 in the subsequent sections. The evolution of Education 5.0 results from the advancements
in technology and the changing needs of the workforce and society. It can be broken down into several stages, each building on
the previous one and incorporating new technologies and approaches. The evolution of Education 5.0 was a long and lengthy
process that incrementally added new approaches to support and assess the learning process and methodology. The schematic
representation of this evolution is shown in figure 4.

A. Education 1.0
Education 1.0, also known as traditional classroom teaching, is characterized by the teacher being the primary source of
information and students being expected to memorize and repeat information. The primary focus of Education 1.0 was on rote
learning, which is the memorization of information without understanding the underlying concepts [18], [19].
In Education 1.0, teaching methods were typically based on lecture-style instruction, and there was little use of technology
in the classroom [20], [21]. Students were expected to take notes, memorize information, and complete assignments and exams
that were designed to test their ability to recall the information. The emphasis was on the teacher as the authority figure, and
the students were expected to be passive learners [18], [19].
 5

This type of education was often seen as a one-size-fits-all approach, and it did not take into account individual differences
in learning styles and abilities [22], [23]. The lack of technology also limited the resources and materials that were available
to teachers and students [20], [21].
Several shortcomings in Education 1.0 led to the development of Education 2.0. Some of these include:
Rote learning: The primary focus of Education 1.0 was on rote learning, which is the memorization of information without
understanding the underlying concepts [18], [19]. This approach did not foster critical thinking or problem-solving skills, and
it did not take into account individual differences in learning styles and abilities [22], [23].
Lack of technology: Education 1.0 had little use of technology in the classroom [20], [21], which limited the resources
and materials that were available to teachers and students. This made it difficult for teachers to create interactive and engaging
learning experiences, and it limited the opportunities for students to learn through new and innovative methods [20], [21].
One-size-fits-all approach: The traditional classroom teaching in Education 1.0 was a one-size-fits-all approach [22], [23],
which did not take into account the individual needs of students. This made it difficult for teachers to provide personalized
instruction and support to students with different learning styles and abilities [22], [23].
Passive learning: The emphasis in Education 1.0 was on the teacher as the authority figure, and the students were expected
to be passive learners [18], [19]. This approach did not encourage students to take an active role in their own learning, and it
did not foster creativity or independent thinking [18], [19].
These shortcomings in Education 1.0 led to the development of Education 2.0, which introduced technology in the classroom
and shifted the focus from rote learning to more active and collaborative learning [24]. Education 2.0 also introduced the concept
of using technology to enhance the learning experience and make education more accessible to all [20].

B. Education 2.0
Education 2.0 represents an evolution in the field of education, building upon the shortcomings of Education 1.0. Education
2.0 introduced technology in the classroom, and it shifted the focus from rote learning to more active and collaborative learning.
One of the key features of Education 2.0 is the use of technology to create more interactive and engaging learning experiences.
For example, the use of computers and the internet allowed for the use of digital resources and materials, such as videos,
animations, and interactive simulations, which can be used to supplement traditional teaching methods and make learning more
engaging and interactive [25], [26].
Additionally, Education 2.0 introduced the concept of using technology to make education more accessible to all. With
the internet and online resources, students can access a wealth of information and educational materials, regardless of their
location or socio-economic background [27]. This has helped to remove barriers to education and make education more
equitable. Education 2.0 also started to address the shortcomings of Education 1.0 in terms of a one-size-fits-all approach, by
incorporating blended learning, and distance learning, which allowed students to learn at their own pace, in their own time and
place [28], [29]. Furthermore, it started to provide opportunities for students to take an active role in their own learning and
it fostered creativity and independent thinking, by encouraging the use of technology for collaborative and interactive learning
[30].
However, despite its many advantages, it still had some shortcomings that led to the development of Education 3.0. One of
the main shortcomings of Education 2.0 was that it mainly used technology as a supplement to traditional teaching methods,
and it was not fully integrated into the one-size-fits-all approach of Education 1.0, and it still had a focus on the teacher as
the primary source of information and students were still expected to be passive learners [31]. Furthermore, it did not fully
take advantage of the potential for collaborative and teamwork learning [32]. Education 3.0 addresses these shortcomings
by fully integrating technology into the teaching and learning process and emphasizing active and collaborative learning,
personalization, and student-centered learning [33], [34]. It also introduced the concept of the “flipped classroom,” which
allows for more personalized and student-centered learning [35].

C. Education 3.0
Education 3.0 represents an evolution in the field of education, building upon the advancements of Education 2.0 and
addressing its shortcomings. Education 3.0 fully integrates technology into the teaching and learning process and strongly
emphasizes active and collaborative learning. One of the key features of Education 3.0 is the use of the “flipped classroom”
approach, where students watch lectures and complete homework assignments at home and then use class time for discussion
and interactive activities. This approach allows for more personalized and student-centered learning, allowing students to work
at their own pace and on their own level. It also fosters critical thinking, creativity and problem-solving skills, which are
important for the 21st century. [36]
Education 3.0 also strongly emphasizes collaboration and teamwork, encouraging students to take an active role in their
learning. This allows students to learn from one another and to develop important 21st-century skills such as communication,
collaboration, and critical thinking. [37] Additionally, Education 3.0 uses data and analytics to track student progress and
identify learning gaps, which allows teachers to tailor instruction to meet the needs of individual students and make data-
driven decisions to improve student outcomes. [38]
 6

Despite its many benefits over earlier Education paradigms, it still had some shortcomings that led to the development of
Education 4.0. These shortcomings include the limited use of technology, which is primarily used for the delivery of content,
limited opportunities for personalization and student-centered learning, lack of focus on well-being, stress, and mental health
support for students and teachers, and limited opportunities for collaboration and teamwork. Education 4.0 addresses these
shortcomings by fully integrating technology to support student-centered learning, collaboration, and personalization, placing a
strong emphasis on well-being, stress, and mental health support for students and teachers, and utilizing advanced technologies
such as Artificial Intelligence, Virtual and Augmented Reality, IoT, Cloud Computing, Big Data and Analytics, Blockchain
and 5G networks to enhance the teaching and learning process. [39] [40] [41] [42].

D. Education 4.0
This stage built on the concept of Education 3.0 and focused on using technology to enhance the learning experience.
Education 4.0 is a holistic education approach incorporating the latest technologies to enhance the learning experience. It is
built on the principles of personalized, student-centered, and adaptive learning and is designed to develop 21st-century skills
such as digital literacy, collaboration, communication, and critical thinking. Recent research and technological breakthroughs
have enabled the integration of AI and machine learning (ML) in education. AI and ML can be used to personalize the learning
experience by analyzing student data and adapting the content and pace of instruction to match the student’s individual needs
and abilities [43]–[47].
Virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) are also being increasingly used in education to provide immersive and interactive
learning experiences. VR/AR can be used to simulate real-world scenarios, allowing students to learn through hands-on
experiences in a safe and controlled environment [48]–[52]. The IoT is also playing a significant role in Education 4.0,
by enabling the integration of smart devices and sensors in the classroom. This allows for real-time monitoring and tracking of
student engagement and progress and enables teachers to provide more targeted and personalized instruction [17], [53]–[56],
[56].
In addition, the use of gamification in education is also on the rise, with games and interactive simulations being used to
make learning more engaging and enjoyable. Gamification can also be used to teach complex and abstract concepts and to
develop problem-solving and critical thinking skills. Consequently, it has significantly more positive changes and integration of
technologies compared to another version, yet it faces some notable shortcomings, which led the researchers to start thinking
about Education 5.0. For instance, One of the main shortcomings of Education 4.0 is the lack of accessibility, as it relies
heavily on technology and the internet, which can create barriers for students who do not have access to these resources.
Inequalities can also be exacerbated as the integration of technology and the internet in Education 4.0 can also exacerbate
existing educational inequalities, with students from disadvantaged backgrounds being disadvantaged. Another shortcoming is
limited human interaction, as the use of technology in Education 4.0 can lead to a decrease in human interaction, which is
essential for developing social and emotional skills. Over-reliance on technology is also one of the shortcomings, as over-
reliance on technology can create a situation where students become dependent on technology to learn and lack the necessary
skills to learn independently. Education 5.0 aims to address these shortcomings by creating a more inclusive and equitable
education system that utilizes technology to enhance human interaction and promote independent learning. It will likely focus
on more personalized and adaptive learning, with technology being used to enhance the human experience rather than replace
it. Additionally, it will incorporate the latest advancements in technology, such as the use of big data, blockchain, and quantum
computing, and it will focus on developing an interdisciplinary approach to learning, integrating different fields of study and
fostering more collaboration between students and teachers.

E. Summary and Insights

In summary, the current stage, Education 5.0, represents a new level of technology integration in education. It builds on the
concepts of the previous stages and incorporates advanced technologies such as Artificial Intelligence, Virtual and Augmented
Reality, IoT, Cloud Computing, Big Data and Analytics, Blockchain and 5G networks to create a more efficient, effective, and
equitable education system. Education 5.0 aims to promote personalized learning, collaboration, and well-being and to develop
21st-century skills such as critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving by utilizing modern ICT and related technologies
such as blockchain, IoT, AI, ML and AR/VR-based Metaverse. The evolution discussed in this chapter led to some of the
crucial requirements for an Education 5.0 system, which is exhibited in the subsequent section.

III. R EQUIREMENTS
In order to realize the vision of Education 5.0, the core set of requirements is highlighted based on the current state of the
art, as shown below.
 7

A. Personalized Learning
Education 5.0 focuses on providing personalized learning experiences that adapt to the needs and abilities of individual
students. This can be achieved using artificial intelligence and machine learning to create personalized learning plans and
adjust instruction in real time based on student progress. Personalized Learning is an important aspect of Education 5.0, which
aims to tailor the learning experience to each student’s individual needs and abilities. Evaluation metrics used to measure the
effectiveness of personalized learning may include student engagement, motivation, and achievement, as well as the ability of
the instruction to adapt to the student’s individual needs and abilities [11], [57], [58]. Another important metric for evaluating
personalized learning is the use of student data, such as formative and summative assessments, to inform instruction and track
progress [59]–[61].

B. Collaboration and Connectedness

Education 5.0 promotes collaboration and connectedness among students, teachers, and other stakeholders. This can be
achieved through the use of technology such as virtual and augmented reality and the IoT, which allow for immersive and
interactive learning experiences. Evaluation metrics for collaboration and connectedness in Education 5.0 can include measures
of student engagement and participation in group work and collaborative projects, as well as assessments of the quality and
effectiveness of these collaborations. Additionally, communication and teamwork skills, such as conflict resolution and problem-
solving abilities, can be used to evaluate collaboration and connectedness. The use of technology, such as social media and
online collaboration tools, can also be evaluated for its effectiveness in promoting connectedness and collaboration among
students and teachers [62]–[64].

C. Development of 21st-century skills

Education 5.0 focuses on developing 21st-century skills such as critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving rather than
just rote learning. This can be achieved through the use of technology such as game-based learning, project-based learning, and
other active learning methods. Evaluation metrics for developing 21st-century skills in Education 5.0 could include assessments
of students’ abilities in digital literacy, collaboration, communication, and critical thinking. These metrics include standardized
tests, performance-based assessments, self-reflection, and peer evaluations. Additionally, observation of student engagement
and participation in collaborative and technology-rich learning activities can also be used as an evaluation metric. Furthermore,
incorporating project-based learning, problem-based learning, and other forms of experiential learning can also provide an
opportunity to evaluate the development of 21st-century skills in students. [65]

D. Flexibility and Accessibility

Education 5.0 aims to make education more flexible and accessible by removing barriers to education, such as geographic
and financial constraints. This can be achieved through the use of technology such as cloud computing [66], which allows
students to access digital resources and materials from anywhere and at any time. Flexibility and accessibility are two important
characteristics of Education 5.0, which refers to the integration of technology in education to enhance the learning experience
[4].
Flexibility in education refers to the ability to adapt to different learning styles and needs [4]. A common metric used
to evaluate the flexibility of an educational program is the Learner Satisfaction Index (LSI) [67], which measures student
satisfaction with the program’s flexibility. The LSI can be measured through surveys or interviews with students [68], and it
can be used to identify areas of improvement in the program [69].
Accessibility in education refers to the ability to provide education to all students, regardless of their physical, mental, or
financial abilities. A commonly used metric to evaluate the accessibility of an educational program is the Universal Design for
Learning (UDL) framework [70], which measures the extent to which a program is designed to be accessible to all students.
The UDL framework includes three main components: representation, action and expression, and engagement [71]. These
components can be evaluated through the use of surveys [72], interviews [73], or observations [74].

E. Data-Driven Decision Making

Education 5.0 relies on data-driven decision-making. Evaluating the success of Data-Driven Decision Making (DDDM)
in Education 5.0 involves using a variety of metrics to assess student outcomes, learning analytics, technology adoption,
user satisfaction, and return on investment. Student outcome metrics such as grades, test scores, graduation rates, and post-
graduation success provide insight into student achievement [75]. Learning analytics involves collecting and analyzing data
about student learning, including engagement, interaction, and assessment data [76]. Technology adoption metrics evaluate the
extent to which teachers and students are using educational technology [77]. User satisfaction metrics measure the satisfaction
of students, teachers, and administrators with the DDDM process [78]. Return on investment metrics assess the financial benefits
of DDDM, such as cost savings and increased revenue [79]. [80], using big data and analytics [81] to track student progress
and identify learning gaps, and to tailor instruction to meet individual needs [58].
 8

F. Security and Privacy

Education 5.0 requires secure and private handling of student data, using blockchain technology to ensure data privacy and
integrity. Ensuring the security and privacy of data in Education 5.0 is critical to successfully implementing this new educational
model. The security of the data stored and transmitted in the educational system must be protected from unauthorized access,
theft, and cyber attacks. The privacy of student data must be protected, including personal information such as name, address,
and social security number, as well as academic data such as grades and test scores [82].
Several metrics can be used to evaluate the security and privacy of the Education 5.0 system. These include data breach
incidents, security and privacy audits, and user perceptions of data security and privacy [83]. Data breach incidents can be
evaluated by tracking the number of unauthorized accesses, data theft incidents, and cyber attacks on the system [84]. Third-
party security experts can perform security and privacy audits to evaluate the strength of the system’s security and privacy
measures [85]. User perceptions of data security and privacy can be evaluated through surveys or interviews with students,
teachers, and administrators to determine their level of trust and confidence in the security and privacy of the system [86].

G. High-speed networks
High-speed networks are an essential aspect of Education 5.0, as they facilitate real-time delivery of digital resources
and materials to students and teachers. The use of high-speed networks in education enables seamless communication and
collaboration between students, teachers, and educational institutions. Moreover, high-speed networks ensure that students can
access educational materials remotely. To evaluate the performance of high-speed networks in education, several metrics can
be used, such as network reliability, network capacity, and network latency.
[87] and [88] have studied the impact of high-speed networks on the delivery of education services and found that high-speed
networks have a significant positive impact on the quality of education.

H. Well-being
Education 5.0 strongly emphasizes student well-being, including physical, mental, and emotional health. This requires using
technologies such as the IoT, which can monitor students’ engagement and progress and provide teachers with real-time
feedback on student performance. a variety of measures can be used to assess various aspects of well-being, such as mental
and emotional health, physical health, and academic performance [89]. Some common metrics include student satisfaction
surveys [90], academic performance indicators (e.g., grades, test scores) [91], attendance and engagement metrics [92], mental
health and wellness assessments [93], and physical health indicators (e.g. fitness test results, sport participation rates) [94].
However, it’s important to note that the specific metrics used may vary depending on the context and the individual goals of
the educational institution [95].

I. Adaptability
Education 5.0 is designed to be adaptable to the changing needs of the workforce and society. This requires the use of
technologies such as cloud computing and blockchain, which allow for sharing of resources and materials and the secure storage
of student data. Assessing the adaptability of Education 5.0 requires evaluating several key metrics. Flexibility, scalability, and
interoperability are three important factors to consider. Flexibility refers to the education system’s ability to adjust to changing
needs and circumstances, such as workforce demand shifts or student population changes. Scalability refers to the capacity of
the education system to expand or contract to meet changing needs and demands, such as growth in student enrollment or new
educational programs. Interoperability refers to the ability of different education systems, institutions, and platforms to work
together seamlessly and share data, resources, and materials. Another important aspect of adaptability is user-centeredness.
This refers to the degree to which the education system is designed to meet the needs and preferences of students, educators,
and other stakeholders. This can be evaluated through user satisfaction, engagement, and ease of use metrics.
In addition, data privacy and security are a critical components of adaptability in Education 5.0. As more data is generated and
shared through educational systems, it is important to ensure that sensitive information is protected and not misused. Evaluation
metrics for data privacy and security can include measures of data security, data privacy, and regulatory compliance. Finally,
continuously improving and evolving is an important part of adaptability in Education 5.0. This can be evaluated through
metrics such as the frequency and speed of updates, the effectiveness of new features and functions, and the degree to which
the education system can incorporate feedback from users and stakeholders.

J. Accessibility
Education 5.0 aims to remove barriers to education and make education more accessible to all. This requires using
technologies such as 5G networks and cloud computing, which can support the high-bandwidth requirements of many new
educational technologies and make education more flexible and accessible. Assessing the accessibility of Education 5.0 is critical
in evaluating its success. Accessibility refers to the degree to which educational resources and opportunities are available to
 9

individuals regardless of their location or socio-economic status. To evaluate the accessibility of Education 5.0 initiatives, it is
important to consider a number of metrics. One metric to consider is the availability of educational resources, such as online
courses, textbooks, and instructional materials. This includes not only the quantity of resources available but also their quality
and relevance to the needs of students. A study by [96] found that the availability and quality of educational resources is a
critical factors in the adoption and effectiveness of technology-enhanced learning.
Another important metric is the availability and quality of internet connectivity, which is critical for accessing online
resources and participating in virtual learning environments. Physical accessibility, including the availability of transportation
and accessible facilities, must also be considered. The demographic representation among individuals with access to educational
resources, including gender, race, and socio-economic status, must also be examined. Finally, the cost of educational resources,
including tuition and related expenses, can also be a barrier to access.

K. Gamification and Game-based Learning

Game-based learning is a crucial requirement for Education 5.0 because it can engage students in a way that traditional
classroom teaching may not. Game-based learning can help increase motivation, engagement, and learning outcomes. Evaluating
the effectiveness of gamification in education is important to determine its impact on student learning outcomes. Several metrics
can be used to assess the effectiveness of game-based learning. One important metric is student engagement, which refers to
students’ motivation, interest, and involvement in learning activities. A study by Papastergiou found that game-based learning
can increase student engagement and motivation in computer science education [97]. Another study by [98] showed that game-
based learning can improve student engagement and motivation in science education, leading to higher academic achievement.
Another important metric is learning outcomes, which refers to the knowledge and skills that students acquire through game-
based learning activities. A study by Cheng et al. found that game-based learning can improve learning outcomes in science
education [99]. Another study by Deng et al. found that game-based learning was effective in teaching complex concepts in
math education [100].
Student feedback is also an important metric, as it provides insight into the students’ perception of game-based learning
activities and their effectiveness. A study by Hartt et al. found that student feedback was positive for game-based learning
activities, indicating that students valued the interactive and engaging nature of these activities [101].
Finally, the design and implementation of game-based learning activities must be considered, as they can impact the
effectiveness of these activities. A study by Ramli et al. found that well-designed game-based learning activities can improve
student engagement and learning outcomes [102].

L. Summary and Insights

The above requirements must be met to make an Education 5.0 system. We envision top five parameters for each requirement
which can be used for the assessment of whether a particular requirement is met or not. Table II summarizes the requirements
and the top 5 parameters for evaluation. In conclusion, these metrics provide valuable information for evaluating the effectiveness
of gamification or game-based learning in Education 5.0. By considering these metrics, educators, and researchers can better
understand the impact of game-based learning on student motivation, engagement, and learning outcomes.

TABLE II
OVERVIEW OF VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS OF E DUCATION 5.0 AND THEIR TOP FIVE EVALUATION METRICS .

Label M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
R1 Personalized Learning Engagement Motivation instructors’ adaptation student data analysis
ability
R2 participation in groups communication teamwork assessment use of collaboration tools
R3 Digital literacy critical thinking self-reflection problem-based learning student engagement
R4 LSI-based surveys LSI-based interviews UDL-based representation UDL-based action and ex- UDL-based engagement
pression
R5 graduation rate student satisfaction student engagement student achievement technology adoption
R6 data breach incidents cyber attacks student perception level of trust security and privacy audits
R7 network reliability network capacity latency jitter ability of online streaming
R8 student satisfaction academic performance in- attendance engagement mental health
dicators
R9 user-centeredness data privacy security continuous improvement evolution
R10 Availability of resources internet connectivity physical accessibility cost demographic representa-
tion
R11 student engagement learning outcomes student feedback students motivation involvement rate
R1: Personalized learning, R2: Collaboration and connectedness, R3: Development of 21st -century skills, R4: Flexibility and accessibility, R5: Data-driven
decision making, R6: Security and privacy, R7: high-speed networks, R8: Well-being, R9: Adaptibility, R10: Accessibility, R11: Gamification and
Game-based learning.
 10

IV. E NABLING T ECHNOLOGIES

In this section, we will elucidate the enabling technologies that will act as a building blocks for Eduction 5.0. We envision
that the enabling technologies for Education 5.0 include but are not limited to Artificial Intelligence (AI),Virtual and Augmented
Reality (VR and AR), Internet of Things (IoT), Big Data and Analytics, Blockchain and 5G Networks. While AI-powered tools
can personalize learning experiences, provide real-time feedback, and assist teachers in assessing students’ progress, VR and
AR can provide immersive and interactive learning experiences, allowing students to explore new environments and subjects
in a more engaging way.
Additionally, IoT can be used to connect various devices and sensors to the internet, allowing for real-time monitoring and
analysis of student engagement and progress wheras Cloud computing enables access to digital resources and materials from
anywhere and at any time, making education more flexible and accessible. Moreover, Big data and analytics can be used to
track and analyze student progress, identify learning gaps, and tailor instruction to meet individual needs whereas Blockchain
can be used to secure and share student data, and ensure data privacy and integrity. Finally, 5G Networks can support the
high-bandwidth requirements of many new educational technologies, such as virtual reality, and help to provide a seamless
learning experience. In the following subsections, we will outline the progress being made in these core enabling technologies
towards the realization of the vision of Education 5.0. The overall 2-way representation of Education 5.0 end its enabling
technologies are portrayed in Fig 5.

S S Collaboration
Education and
Gamificiation S L L L G Game S L L L G Connectednes
Application s
S S
S Virtual Students L Learning process G Learning Goal

Analytics based Data-driven

Bigdata and Decision
on Sensors data
Analytics making
and Transactions

Blockchain Security and

Blockchain
Transactions Privacy

AI and Adaptibility/
Machine Data Acquisition
Decision-
Learning making

Internet of Virtual Schooling Flexibility

Things and
Sensors Accessibility

Accessibility
and
VR and AR Immersive Personalized
VR Device
Education AR Device Learning

Technology Processes Goal

Fig. 5. Two-way stack of Education 5.0. The left side depicts the technologies while the right side represents the goals to achieve. For instance, the use of
AI and machine learning assess adaptive learning and decision-making. The central part exhibits the processes which form the overall learning methodology.
 11

A. Artificial Intelligence
Computers, machines, and other artifacts now exhibit human-like intelligence that is defined by cognitive capacities, learning,
adaptability, and decision-making capabilities thanks to the field of research known as artificial intelligence (AI) and the
inventions and developments that have followed. According to the study, AI has been widely adopted and employed in education
in a variety of ways, especially by educational institutions [103]. Computers and computer-related technologies were the first
forms of AI, which later evolved into web-based and online intelligent education systems, embedded computer systems, and
other technologies [104]. The use of humanoid robots and online chat-bots to carry out the tasks and obligations of instructors
alone or in conjunction with teachers is an excellent example. These platforms have helped teachers improve the quality of
their instructional activities and carry out other administrative tasks, such as reviewing and grading students’ assignments,
more quickly and effectively [105]. The systems make use of machine learning and flexibility, and the curriculum and content
have been customized to meet the needs of the students. This has encouraged uptake and retention, which has enhanced the
learning experience for students as a whole [106]. All researchers in the field of artificial intelligence in education (AIED) are
virtually undoubtedly driven by moral considerations, such as enhancing students’ possibilities for lifelong learning [107].
The fact that adaptive AIED systems frequently collect a lot of data, which can then be computed to dynamically improve
the pedagogy and domain models, is one of their advantages. This method not only tests and improves our comprehension
of the processes of teaching and learning, but also provides new information on how to offer support that is more effective,
individualized, and contextualized [108]. We concentrate on two groups of AIED software programs: intelligent support for
collaborative learning and personal tutors for every learner. These programs have been built to directly help learning.
1) Personalized Learning based on AI: The tendency toward lifelong learning and self-directed learning has been pushed
by the pandemic, intelligent tutors have developed into a crucial tool for fostering both individual learning and teacher-student
interaction [109]. Intelligent tutor applications use AI to create a personalized learning path for each student depending on their
accomplishments and needs and to help students understand a specific topic or lesson [110]. AI examines learning patterns to
assist students in learning more effectively and acquiring the necessary skills. Intelligent or personalized studies are focused
on tackling the largest barriers to education [111]. The individualized learning experience, which is accessible anywhere and
at any time, has become the norm. The core tenet of personalized learning is the automation of the teaching process and
the function of the human tutor [112]. A tutor is a private educator who offers one-on-one instruction; this kind of teaching
has been found to be more successful than the conventional approach of one teacher per classroom [11]. Unfortunately, not
everyone is able to afford a private tutor, but an intelligent AI-based tutor is less expensive and affordable. A personalized
study program powered by Intelligent AI not only fills in knowledge gaps for learners but also gives parents the tools they
need to better assist their kids’ learning. Intelligent AI-based personalized study also helps the optimization of learning ways
and decision tree progress [113]. Current AIED, in contrast, don’t have pre-determined learning paths, which means optimizing
instructional methods in accordance with the performance of each student [114].
To better meet each student’s unique learning needs, AIED replicates personal human tutoring, offers focused real-time
feedback, and creates tailored learning ways. AIED adjust to each learner and encourage them to focus on their own challenge
areas as users gain more knowledge since they are more aware of what additional support each learner needs to progress.
AIED is able to make the learning process personalized, engaging, inclusive, and flexible leading to improved study results.
2) Collaborative Learning based on AI: Collaborative learning based on AI refers to the use of artificial intelligence and
machine learning techniques to enhance the process of learning in a collaborative setting [115]. This approach leverages
technology to support communication, collaboration, and knowledge sharing between individuals and groups, with the goal of
improving the learning experience and outcomes [103]. This can include AI-powered tools such as natural language processing,
recommendation systems, and adaptive learning algorithms that can support students in their learning process by providing
personalized feedback and guidance [116]. AI techniques can make educational settings accessible to all students, including
those who have hearing or vision impairments [117] or speak various languages [118], on a worldwide available. In this
approach, AI-powered tools and algorithms are used to facilitate communication, collaboration, and knowledge sharing between
students and teachers [119]. This can include features such as personalization, real-time feedback, and adaptive learning, which
can help students learn more effectively and efficiently. Additionally, AI-based education collaborative learning can also support
educators in their teaching, by providing insights into student performance and facilitating data-driven decision-making. The
goal of this approach is to improve the overall learning experience and outcomes for students.

B. Internet of Things
Education 5.0 is the next evolution in education, which aims to leverage modern technologies to achieve the goal of lifelong
learning. One of the key technologies that plays a pivotal role in Education 5.0 is the Internet of Things (IoT) [53]; [120].
IoT-enabled devices such as wearables, sensors, and smart devices can be used to collect real-time data on student learning
and behavior, providing a deeper understanding of individual student needs and abilities [121]; [120].
IoT devices can also be used to facilitate personalized learning, an approach that leverages technology to individualize
instruction, by providing adaptive learning systems that adjust the pace and content of instruction based on student performance
[53]; [120]. Personalized feedback can also be provided to students through IoT devices, such as wearables that track movements
 12

Fig. 6. Illustration of Personalized Learning based on AI.

and provide feedback on posture and movement patterns [120]; [121]. Smart content, which adapts to the individual needs
and abilities of each student, can also be created using IoT devices, such as connected textbooks with interactive elements and
multimedia resources.
IoT devices can also be used to facilitate collaborative learning, an approach that emphasizes group work and the sharing
of knowledge and skills among students, by enabling students to connect and collaborate with each other and with educational
resources from anywhere, creating a more dynamic, interactive, and engaging learning environment for students.
Furthermore, IoT devices can be used to create smart classrooms that facilitate collaboration among students and teachers.
This can enhance their collaborative skills and improve their learning outcomes.
Overall, the use of IoT devices in education can facilitate the implementation of personalized and collaborative learning,
resulting in a more effective and efficient learning experience for students.
1) Personalized Learning: Personalized learning, an approach that leverages technology to individualize instruction, has
gained significant attention in recent years [122]; [123]. IoT devices, such as wearables and sensors, have emerged as powerful
tools for implementing personalized learning in the classroom [112]; [11]. By collecting real-time data on student learning and
behavior, IoT devices can provide a deeper understanding of individual student needs and abilities [11]; [124]. Furthermore,
adaptive learning systems can be implemented using IoT technology, allowing for adjustments in pace and content of instruction
based on student performance. Personalized feedback can also be provided to students through IoT devices, such as wearables
that track movements and provide feedback on posture and movement patterns. Smart content, which adapts to the individual
needs and abilities of each student, can also be created using IoT devices, such as connected textbooks with interactive elements
and multimedia resources [123]. Lastly, IoT devices can be used to monitor student engagement and behavior in real time,
providing teachers with valuable insights to improve their instruction. Overall, the use of IoT devices in education can facilitate
the implementation of personalized learning, resulting in a more effective and efficient learning experience for students [124];
[123].
2) Collaborative Learning: Collaborative learning, an approach that emphasizes group work and the sharing of knowledge
and skills among students, has been shown to be an effective way to improve student learning outcomes [125]; [126]; [127].
The use of Internet of Things (IoT) devices in education can facilitate collaborative learning by enabling students to connect
with each other and with educational resources from anywhere [127]; [128].
One of the key aspects of collaborative learning using IoT is the ability to facilitate remote and distributed collaboration
 13

among students, regardless of their location [128]; [129]. IoT-enabled devices such as smartphones, tablets, and laptops can
be used to share documents, communicate and collaborate on projects in real-time [129]. Additionally, virtual and augmented
reality (VR/AR) can be used to create immersive virtual and augmented reality experiences that enable students to collaborate
and interact with each other in a shared digital space [127]; [129].
Furthermore, IoT-enabled devices can be used to create smart classrooms that facilitate collaboration among students and
teachers. For example, smartboards can be used to display and share information, and students can use connected tablets to
participate in interactive activities and quizzes.
3) Remote Learning: Remote learning, also known as distance learning or e-learning, refers to the ability to access educa-
tional content and resources from a remote location, typically through the use of technology such as computers, smartphones,
or tablets. With the advent of the Internet of Things (IoT), remote learning has become an increasingly important aspect of
Education 5.0.
IoT technology can facilitate remote learning by enabling students to access educational content and resources from anywhere,
at any time, using a variety of devices such as smartphones, tablets, and laptops [130], [131]. This allows students to learn at
their own pace, and to access educational resources that may not be available in their immediate environment.
IoT-enabled devices such as wearables and sensors can also be used to collect real-time data on student learning and
behavior, providing a deeper understanding of individual student needs and abilities [131]. This information can be used to
create personalized learning experiences that are tailored to the unique needs and abilities of each student.
Furthermore, IoT technology can be used to facilitate remote collaboration among students and teachers, regardless of their
location. For example, students can use IoT-enabled devices to share documents, communicate, and collaborate on projects in
real-time, while teachers can use IoT-enabled devices to monitor student engagement and provide feedback on student progress.
Virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) can also be used in remote learning to create immersive virtual and augmented
reality experiences that enable students to collaborate and interact with each other in a shared digital space [130], [52]. This
can enhance their collaborative skills and improve their learning outcomes.
Overall, the use of IoT technology in remote learning can facilitate the implementation of personalized and collaborative
learning, resulting in a more effective and efficient learning experience for students.

C. AR, VR, MR, XR, and Metaverse

Augmented Reality (AR) [17], [132], Virtual Reality (VR) [52], [105], [130], Mixed Reality (MR) [133], [134], and Extended
Reality (XR) [133], [135] are different forms of technology used to create immersive experiences. AR enhances the real world
by overlaying digital information on the physical environment. This allows users to see the real world while looking at
virtual objects, creating a hybrid environment. On the other hand, VR creates fully simulated environments, allowing users to
experience and interact with computer-generated worlds as if they were real. MR is a combination of AR and VR, allowing
virtual objects to interact with the physical environment. Meanwhile, Metaverse [133], [134] is a virtual shared space created
by the fusion of the physical and virtual worlds, where users can interact with each other and interact with digital objects in a
seemingly real environment. XR is an umbrella term that encompasses AR, VR, MR, and other related technologies used to
create immersive experiences.
Education 5.0 is a revolutionary approach to education, leveraging the latest technology to provide students with a personalized
and adaptive learning experience. The usage of AR, VR, MR, and XR is transforming the way students learn, making education
more interactive and engaging. The use of these technologies is explained the in the following.
Augmented Reality (AR) technology allows users to layer virtual objects onto their physical environment, making learning
more interactive and visually engaging. With Education 5.0, teachers can use AR to provide students with interactive learning
materials such as animations, videos, and 3D models. This technology helps bring textbooks to life and makes learning more
engaging. For example, students can use AR to view virtual images of the human body and study anatomy by examining
different parts in detail.
Virtual Reality (VR) technology creates fully simulated environments that allow users to experience and realistically interact
with computer-generated worlds. Education 5.0 lets users use VR to simulate real-world scenarios and deliver hands-on learning
experiences without being physically there. This technology provides students with a more immersive and interactive learning
experience and helps make teaching more engaging and effective. For example, students can use VR to experience historical
events, participate in virtual field trips, and practice skills in simulated environments.
Mixed Reality (MR) technology combines the real and virtual worlds, allowing virtual objects to interact with the physical
environment. With Education 5.0, MR can be used to deliver blended learning experiences, allowing students to enhance
physical textbooks with digital information and animations. This technology can help make learning more interactive and
engaging, and can also provide students with more information and resources than can be accessed in traditional textbooks.
For example, students can use MR to explore virtual models of historic sites and landmarks and manipulate virtual objects in
real-time.
Extended Reality (XR) technology is an umbrella term that encompasses AR, VR, MR, and other related technologies used
to create immersive experiences. Education 5.0 can use XR to deliver seamless, integrated learning experiences that bridge the
 14

real and virtual worlds. This technology will help create a new age of education that is personalized, adaptive, and focused on
student success.
Finally, Metaverse is a virtual shared space created by the fusion of the physical and virtual worlds, where users can
interact with each other and interact with digital objects in a seemingly real environment. In Education 5.0, teachers can use
the Metaverse to provide students with a virtual learning environment where they can participate in virtual classes, interact
with classmates and teachers, and participate in virtual excursions. Not only can this technology help make education more
accessible, allowing students to participate in classes anytime and anywhere, but it can also provide students with a more
immersive and interactive learning experience.
In conclusion, the use of AR, VR, MR, XR, and Metaverse technologies in Education 5.0 has the potential to revolutionize
the way students learn, making education more accessible, engaging, and effective. These technologies provide students with
personalized and adaptive learning experiences, making teaching more interactive, immersive, and effective.

D. Blockchain
Blockchain technology has been identified as a key enabler of Education 5.0 due to its potential to transform the way
educational data is managed and used [136]. The decentralized and secure nature of blockchain allows for a secure and
tamper-proof way of storing and sharing educational data, such as student records, credentials, and educational achievements.
This helps to improve data privacy and security, and reduces the risk of data breaches and other security threats [136].
In the area of verification and credentialing, blockchain can provide a secure and reliable way of tracking and verifying
educational achievements through the use of digital credentials that are immutable and easily verifiable [137]. This not only
helps to ensure the authenticity of educational credentials but also provides a streamlined way for individuals to demonstrate
their qualifications and skills to potential employers or further educational institutions.
Furthermore, blockchain technology has the potential to increase access to education by enabling the creation of decentralized
educational platforms [138]. These platforms can provide accessible, affordable, and equitable education for all, regardless of
their location or financial background. This can help to address the issue of unequal access to education and provide opportunities
for individuals to learn and grow.
Another important aspect of blockchain technology is its ability to increase transparency and accountability in the education
sector [139]. This can help to build trust between educators, students, and other stakeholders by providing a clear understanding
of the educational landscape. This increased transparency and trust can also help to improve the overall quality of education
by enabling stakeholders to make informed decisions based on accurate and up-to-date information.

E. Big Data Analytics

Big data analytics refers to the use of advanced data processing and analysis techniques to extract valuable insights from large
and complex data sets. Educational process information analysis and decision-making processes in areas including academic
success, faculty effectiveness, organizational expansion, and technical efficiency are being transformed by big data [140].
At the moment, AIEd uses learning analytic and data mining to provide social, cognitive, or emotional views to comprehend
the cognitive changes in collaborative learning [75].By analyzing data from various sources, such as student test scores,
attendance records, and demographic information, educators can gain insights into what factors contribute to student success
and identify areas where they need to focus their efforts to improve student outcomes [141]. Big data analysis can help teachers
understand each student’s strengths, weaknesses, and learning preferences, allowing them to provide customized educational
experiences and improve student engagement to improve personalizing learning [142]. Recently big data analytics using to
enhance research and gain insights into learning patterns and educational outcomes, which can inform the development of new
teaching methods and educational technologies. To improve administrative processes big data analytics streamline administrative
processes, such as student enrollment, scheduling, and data management [143]. Porter’s value chain model is described by
Ghazwan H [144] as a useful tool for pinpointing chances for big data analisys to enhance the higher education value chain
and explained how big data analitics enhance the production of value in higher education. Using a partial data analysis model,
Wanli X et al. [145] presented research using the social cognitive theory to pinpoint potential environmental, individual, and
behavioral elements that influence students’ usage of data. In order to extract education behavior from large-scale student
open-ended answers and to verify the convergent validity of the results by comparing them with theory-driven, Bilge G. et al
[146] provide a latent Dirichlet allocation topic modeling study along with a visualization tool.

F. Gamification
Game-based learning is designed to make learning more interactive and engaging by incorporating elements of games such
as points, leaderboards, and rewards. This can help increase student motivation and engagement, as well as improve learning
outcomes. Additionally, game-based learning can promote problem-solving and critical thinking skills, which are important
21st-century skills. Furthermore, game-based learning can be personalized to the needs of individual students, this allows for
students to work at their own pace and on their own level, which can help improve learning outcomes for all students, regardless
 15

Fig. 7. Illustration of Big data analytics in education system.

of their ability level. Moreover, game-based learning can be used to create immersive and interactive learning experiences that
can help students visualize and understand difficult concepts, this can be especially effective in STEM subjects.
There are several research papers that have studied the effectiveness of game-based learning in education.
For example, a study published in the Journal of Computer Assisted Learning found that game-based learning can improve
student motivation, engagement, and learning outcomes in science education. The study showed that students who used game-
based learning in a science classroom had a better understanding of the subject matter and were more motivated to learn.
Another study published in the Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange found that game-based
learning can help improve problem-solving and critical-thinking skills in students. The study showed that students who used
game-based learning had better problem-solving and critical thinking skills compared to students who did not use game-based
learning.
Research conducted by the International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning found that game-based learning can
create immersive and interactive learning experiences that can help students visualize and understand difficult concepts. The
study showed that students who used game-based learning in a mathematics classroom had a better understanding of the subject
matter and were more motivated to learn.

G. Insight and Lesson Learned

Gamified learning of game-based learning is a crucial requirement for Education 5.0 because it can help increase student
motivation, engagement, and learning outcomes, promote problem-solving and critical thinking skills and create immersive
and interactive learning experiences that can help students visualize and understand difficult concepts. In conclusion, existing
research has shown that game-based learning can improve student motivation, engagement, and learning outcomes, promote
problem-solving and critical thinking skills, and create immersive and interactive learning experiences that can help students
visualize and understand difficult concepts. These findings support the idea that game-based learning is a crucial requirement
for Education 5.0.
Moreover, the recent shift towards Generative AI like ChatGPT and similar chatbots can provide instant, personalized
support to students. Using AI and natural language processing, ChatBots can quickly answer questions, provide feedback
on assignments, and even suggest resources to help students better understand the material. This can help students who are
struggling to keep up with the pace of the course or who have special needs outside of class. Additionally, Chatbots can help
create more engaging and interactive learning experiences. For example, a ChatBot can be a virtual tutor or mentor, guiding
students through interactive learning activities and providing feedback on their progress. This makes learning more fun and
engaging for students and allows for more individualized attention.
Finally, the metaverse could also significantly impact on the way current education systems are operating. For instance,
injecting VR/AR into the classroom has improved the learning experience and make it more interesting and playful in contrast
to the traditional teaching methods.

V. C URRENT STATE - OF - THE - ART AND F UTURE ROADMAP

The existing benchmarks for AI in Education 5.0 are described from three perspectives. The first perspective is centered on
students, the second on instructors, and the third on institutions.
 16

A. Student-focused AI in education 5.0

A small digression is required before analyzing the different benchmarks and modern tools of student-focused AI in education,
i.e., AI-assisted tools expressly developed to aid students. Not all AI-assisted technology utilized by students have been intended
for students. Instead, these technologies have been "repurposed" for educational purposes. Typically, these technologies are
not considered purely to assist students, but they must be accounted for in any exhaustive overview of student-focused AI in
education. Google’s suite of collaborative tools, which includes Google Docs [147], is probably the most powerful AI-assisted
technology that has been repurposed for education. In addition, social networking services such as WhatsApp [148], ZOOM
[149], and content-sharing platforms such as YouTube [150] are increasingly being utilized to promote student learning in a
variety of ways (a trend that escalated during recent pandemic lockdowns across the globe). The following benchmarks for
student-focused AI in education are described in detail.
1) Smart teaching systems : Smart teaching systems (STS) that are increasingly advanced are the most widespread and
undoubtedly best-funded AI deployments in education. Typically, they deliver computer-based, step-by-step instruction across
topics in clearly delineated, organized courses. An STS provides a variety of individualized instruction, tasks, and assessments
to each learner. While the learner participates in a certain activity, the system collects many points, such as what is viewed,
what is written, which objectives have been successfully completed, and any misunderstandings that have been exhibited.
This data is analyzed based on artificial intelligence training models to identify the next information, activity, and quiz to be
supplied, thus creating a personalized track through the content to be taught. The process is then [Link] contains a
teacher dashboard that helps to assess student outcomes accurately. As an example iTalk2Learn [151] is a project developed
in Europe; the developers of the system require that machine learning is used to compile personal lesson plans.
2) AI based Applications : There is a rapidly expanding collection of commercially accessible AI-assisted educational
applications in the top online services. There are, for instance, increasingly amazing AI-assisted mathematics applications,
such as Photomath [132], which some predict could make mathematics education to a new horizons. These apprehensions
resemble those that accompanied the introduction of calculators in schools roughly five decades ago: if the tool can do it
(automatically calculate a basic arithmetic, automatically translate between languages, or instantly determine solutions), there
may be no need for children to learn how to do it, thereby impacting learning. Prahani [152] creates artificial intelligence-based
solutions for K-12 and higher education organizations. Additionally, it is used in corporate training situations. One of Prahani’s
most important AI tools is its virtual learning assistant, which uses conversational technology to aid students in formulating
open-format replies and enhancing their critical thinking abilities. In addition, the virtual assistant delivers tailored one-on-one
teaching and real-time feedback for each student.
3) VR/AR/Mr based learning : Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) simulation models and virtual games-based
learning are regularly integrated with artificial intelligence machine learning, computer vision, and natural language processing
and are increasingly employed in educational contexts. The advancement of AI-assisted display technologies, virtual reality
(VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR) have been extensively used in thoracic surgery to convert 2D images
into 3D models, which aids surgical education, planning, and simulation [153]. Google has created over a hundred VR and AR
Expeditions appropriate for academic contexts. Likewise, digital games-based learning (DGBL) is progressively using artificial
intelligence (AI) technology to personalize gaming to each learner [154].
4) AI-based Education 5.0 for People with Disabilities: Education 5.0 is concentrated on the application of AI techniques
for the identification of learning disorders such as ADHD (e.g., [155]), dyslexia [156], and dysgraphia [157].In addition,
a substantial study has been conducted on using robots in education 5.0 , particularly to assist youngsters on the autistic
spectrum [158]. Several predominant AI technologies, such as text-to-speech applications and automated image tagging, have
been reconfigured for kids with learning disabilities, along with a limited number of specialized AI-assisted apps, such as those
that automatically interpret for children with hearing impairments.
5) Advance Generative Pre-trained Transformers for learners : The introduction of Chat GPT [159] can be mile stone
towards education 5.0. Globally, essays continue to be a vital part of educational evaluation, however, plagiarism has been a
widespread practice for centuries. With online essay mills selling customized writings on any subject, the Internet has facilitated
this process with chat GPT alike tools. Recent AI advancements known as ’big language models,’ such as the GPT-3 [160]
from Open AI outlined above, are set to have an even larger effect (GPT-3, 2020). There are currently a number of commercial
companies that provide students with automated essay writing (AEW) systems that, in response to a stimulus such as an essay
question, may write single paragraphs or full articles. Numerous companies now provide students with automated essay writing
(AEW) programs that can automatically write individual paragraphs or full compositions in response to a topic such as an
essay question. Despite the fact that the writing created by AEW is sometimes shallow and illogical, it is often impossible to
discern whether the content was generated by a chatbot or a human. It is uncertain if AEW tools promote or hinder student
learning. Nevertheless, because of their rising complexity and what might be defined as a rivalry among AEWs and AEW
analyzers, they are likely to have an effect on how we evaluate learners [161].
6) Automated Formative Assessment Model for Learning: Automated formative assessment in education 5.0 employs natural
language processing, semantic processing, and other AI-assisted approaches to deliver meaningful feedback on learner outputs.
There are fewer researched and commercial automated formative assessment programs that exist despite their promise to
promote student learning; this is likely due to the challenges associated with automatically giving accurate and useful feedback
 17

[162]. Principally, no AI algorithm is now capable of the level of comprehension or accuracy of assessment that an instructor
can provide, rather depending on the superficial characteristics of the writing. Research conducted at Stanford University
examined an auto grader automated formative assessment system that offered feedback on coding assignments by 12,000
computer science students. Approximately 98 percent of programmers agreed with the provided comments, somewhat higher
than their acceptance of instruction from human teachers [163].

B. Teachers focused Eduction 5.0

Many student-centered education, particularly STS, provide portals or dashboards for instructors, often based on open
learner models, that provide a dynamic depiction of what individual learners and groups of learners have accomplished or
their mistakes [164].One innovative method involves the use of augmented reality (AR) spectacles used by the instructor to
overlay dashboard-like statistics over the heads of their learners as the students participate in an STS [165].Although amazing,
this is an example of employing an AI technology to solve a problem produced by an AI technology (in this case, to address
the fact that when students are using an STS, their instructor cannot readily see what they are doing and hence cannot give
proper assistance).Regardless, STS and other dashboard-enabled AI in education 5.0 are primarily designed with the student in
mind. In fact, if we disregard overlaps for the sake of study, there are few instances of truly teacher-focused AI in education
5.0. Here, we consider six contentious prospects: plagiarism identification, intelligent curation of learning resources, classroom
supervision, automated summative evaluation, AI teaching assistants, and classroom coordination.
1) Detection of plagiarism: Educators make extensive use of commercially accessible plagiarism detection technologies,
for which machine learning techniques have been extensively adopted in the recent year. The teachers and institutions widely
uses Turnitin [166] an AI driven plagiarism detector. Education 5.0 greatly focuses on detection as there are widely available
GPTs which are trained on internet data proned to hugely plagiarised data.
2) Pedagogical supervision: AI-assisted pedagogical supervision technologies that have been researched, developed, and
made commercially accessible are becoming more [Link] instance, AI-assisted video apps have been designed to monitor
where a student is looking, allowing the system to determine whether or not the student is concentrating on the instructor or
the job at hand [167].Students are being requested to wear portable EEG (electroencephalography) headsets to monitor their
cognitive function, which is potentially even more [Link] many academic institutions, AI-assisted technologies are
also used to track a student’s campus activities (often through a mobile app), what they obtain from the online learning system,
and what they purchase at campus book shops and cafeteria [105].
3) AI based smart grading: There has been anticipation for a long time that AI would help instructors save time and increase
productivity the tedious and expensive task of grading student projects, tests, and other tasks [168]. AI based auto-graders
have been introduced for the assessment of student written tasks [169].Some state-of-the-art autograders additionally conclude
to identify the nature of the issue and propose to the learner how to remedy it, while others, dependent on the discipline, offer
to evaluate student responses with approximately 90 percent reliability [170].
4) Technology enhanced classroom orchestration: Orchestration is an approach to Technology Enhanced Learning that
focuses on the issues of integrating technology into the classroom, with a special emphasis on strengthening instructors’
[Link] still in its infancy, research into the ways in which AI may aid classroom orchestration is expanding
[171].To assist the instructor in orchestrating such a complicated curriculum design, we designed a tablet application that
enabled the teacher to observe the real-time status of the class, regulate the flow of activities, and know when and where he
was required within the flow of class activities. The tablet used a collection of specifically created real-time software agents
to handle student interactions in real time, allowing for the dynamic coordination of student groups, material distribution, and
instructor alerts [172].

C. Institution focused education 5.0

Institutional priorities in education 5.0 include technology that facilitate the distribution of financial assistance, curriculum,
scheduling, and work scheduling, and the identification of dropouts and students at risk, as well as the quality of education
and learning [173].These technologies have a distinct administrative purpose and have many similarities with business-oriented
Artificial Intelligence. In light of this, we will only discuss two essential and contentious institution-focused education topics:
admissions (one of the high-risk use cases outlined in the proposed EU AI Act) and web security for educational institutions.
1) Admissions: Not without controversy, many institutions of higher education, mostly in the United States, employ
commercially accessible AI-assisted admissions software to help their admissions procedures. The objective is to minimize
expenses and improve the fairness of the admissions process by removing invisible human biases (such as groupthink and
racial and gender prejudices) that might influence decision-making [174].
2) Web security for institutions: Early on in the COVID-19 epidemic, a substantial amount of instruction and assessments
went online, resulting in the explosive growth of various exam-monitoring and web-security organizations [175]. Web security
strives to ensure academic integrity by employing AI-assisted cameras and microphones to automatically monitor students
taking an online test by scanning their faces and recording their keystrokes and mouse movements [176].They are suspected of
interference, incompetence, prejudice, stopping students from taking tests, and aggravating mental health issues. In reality,web
 18

security is one of the most egregious instances of employing AI to automate ineffective pedagogical techniques rather than to
build creative alternatives.

VI. C HALLENGES
Education 5.0 is a concept that refers to the next generation of education, which is characterized by a more personalized,
learner-centric approach that utilizes technology to enhance the learning experience. It is based on the idea that education
should be flexible, adaptable, and responsive to the needs of individual learners [177], [178]. Some of the major challenges of
Education 5.0 are explained below.
One of the major challenges for Education 5.0 is implementation cost. To implement a personalized, technology-enabled
education system, schools and colleges must invest in new technologies such as learning management systems, digital content,
and hardware [1], [179]. This can be a huge financial burden for schools and colleges with limited budgets. The cost of
maintaining and upgrading these technologies over time can also be high. This can make it difficult for schools and universities
to implement Education 5.0 fully. This is especially true in developing countries with limited resources.
Another major challenge for Education 5.0 is the lack of teacher training [180]. To effectively implement a personalized,
technology-enabled education system, teachers must be trained to use new technologies and teaching methods. This can be a
major challenge, especially in developing countries with limited resources. Additionally, many teachers are resistant to change
and may not be comfortable using new technology in the classroom [130]. Without proper training, a teacher may not be able
to effectively use the core technology and teaching methods of her Education 5.0.
The digital divide is also a big challenge for Education 5.0 [181], [182]. Not all students have access to the same technologies
and resources. This can create a digital divide where some students have access to the latest technology and resources while
others do not. This could further widen the gap between students from different socioeconomic backgrounds. This can make it
difficult for educators to provide personalized, technology-enabled education for all students, regardless of background. Limited
resources for content creation are also a challenge in implementing Education 5.0 [183]. Developing interactive and personalized
learning materials can be a time-consuming and expensive process and can be a barrier for schools and colleges with limited
resources. Additionally, the lack of standardization in the technologies and platforms used by educational institutions can make
resource sharing and exchange difficult.
Privacy and security are also major challenges for Education 5.0 [184]. Privacy and security concerns are becoming more
and more important as personal and sensitive information is shared and stored online. This can be a major challenge for
schools and colleges that need to ensure the safety and security of student data. The threat of cyberattacks and data breaches
is becoming more prevalent, and schools and colleges must take the necessary steps to protect student data [185].
Another challenge is the limited research on the effectiveness and impact of Education 5.0 [186]. As a relatively new concept,
research on its efficacy and impact is still limited. This makes it difficult for educators and policymakers to make informed
decisions about its implementation. Moreover, without proper research, it is difficult to determine the best way to implement
Education 5.0 and measure its success.
One of the hot technology nowadays is Metaverse [187]. Implementing the Metaverse in education requires a significant
investment in technical infrastructure, including high-speed internet access, powerful servers, and hardware devices such as
VR/AR headsets. Developing educational content that is suitable for the Metaverse can be a complex and time-consuming
task. Teachers and educators need to be trained on how to create and deliver content in a virtual environment. Not all students
have access to the necessary technology and devices to participate in the Metaverse. This can create a digital divide, where
some students have an advantage over others. The Metaverse raises concerns about security and privacy, as personal data and
sensitive information may be at risk of being hacked or stolen.
The Metaverse is a complex and rapidly evolving technology, and there is a lack of standardization and interoperability
between different platforms and devices [131], [188]. The Metaverse can be difficult to scale, as the number of users and
devices increases [131], [186]. This can lead to technical challenges such as latency, bandwidth constraints, and server overload
[131], [188]. Providing an intuitive and seamless user experience is crucial to the success of the Metaverse. The Metaverse
should be easily navigable and engaging, with minimal lag or glitches.
Finally, balancing online and offline learning is also a challenge for Education 5.0 [189]. It can be difficult to find the right
balance between online and offline learning, as too much online learning can lead to isolation and lack of social interaction,
while too much offline learning can limit the use of technology and personalization.

A. Summary and Insights

In conclusion, Education 5.0 is a promising concept that can enhance the learning experience for students, but it also comes
with a set of challenges. These challenges include implementation cost, lack of teacher training, digital divide, limited resources
for content creation, privacy and security concerns and limited research on the effectiveness and impact of Education 5.0. To
overcome these challenges, schools and colleges need to invest in new technologies, provide proper training for teachers,
and ensure that all students have access to the necessary technology and resources. Additionally, proper research needs to be
conducted to determine the best ways to implement Education 5.0 and measure its success. Furthermore, steps must be taken
 19

TABLE III
S UMMARY OF CHALLENGES IN THE REALIZATION OF E DUCATION 5.0 AND OPEN QUESTIONS .

Ref. Challenges Possible Solutions Open Questions

[182], Implementation cost Investing in new technologies How to implement Education 5.0 with limited budgets? How to
[181] maintain and upgrade the technologies over time?
[188] Lack of teacher training Providing teacher training How to provide teacher training in developing countries with
limited resources? How to overcome resistance to change among
teachers?
[131] Digital divide Providing equal access to technology How to address the digital divide in education? How to ensure
and resources for all students that all students have access to the necessary technology and
resources?
[186] Limited resources for con- Developing interactive and personalized How to make resource sharing and exchange easier? How to de-
tent creation learning materials velop interactive and personalized learning materials with limited
resources?
[179] High implementation cost Investing in new technologies How to implement Education 5.0 with limited budgets? How to
maintain and upgrade the technologies over time?
[180] Lack of teacher training Providing teacher training How to provide teacher training in developing countries? How
to provide teacher training in developing countries with limited
resources? How to overcome resistance to change among teachers?
[130] Limited research on the ef- Conducting more research How to determine the best way to implement Education 5.0? How
fectiveness and impact of to measure its success?
Education 5.0
[131] Privacy and security Ensuring the safety and security of stu- How to protect student data from cyberattacks and data breaches?
dent data How to address privacy concerns in a technology-enabled educa-
tion system?
[131] Implementing the Investing in technical infrastructure and How to provide an intuitive and seamless user experience? How
Metaverse in education training teachers to overcome the digital divide in the Metaverse? How to ensure
the security and privacy of personal data in the Metaverse?
[189] Balancing online and offline Finding the right balance between on- How to ensure social interaction while providing online learning?
learning line and offline learning How to use technology and personalization in offline learning?
[186] Limited resources for con- Developing interactive and personalized How to make resource sharing and exchange easier? How to de-
tent creation learning materials velop interactive and personalized learning materials with limited
resources?
[188] Privacy and security Ensuring the safety and security of stu- How to protect student data from cyberattacks and data breaches?
dent data How to address privacy concerns in a technology-enabled educa-
tion system?
[131] Implementing the Investing in technical infrastructure and How to provide an intuitive and seamless user experience? How
Metaverse in education training teachers to overcome the digital divide in the Metaverse? How to ensure
the security and privacy of personal data in the Metaverse?
[189] Balancing online and offline Finding the right balance between on- How to ensure social interaction while providing online learning?
learning line and offline learning How to use technology and personalization in offline learning?

to ensure the privacy and security of student data, and to address any ethical concerns that may arise. Overall, Education 5.0
has the potential to revolutionize education, but it requires careful planning, implementation, and ongoing evaluation to ensure
its success. Table III summarizes the different challenges that can potentially make barriers while implementing Education
5.0 systems. We identify the possible solution based on the current state-of-the-art and envision open questions and research
direction to address that particular challenge.

VII. C ONCLUSION
In this survey, we have exhibited the concept of Education 5.0, a futuristic term for the next revolution in Education. The
evolution of Education by the gradual integration of ICT and AI technologies which paved the way for Education 5.0 has been
exhibited. We proposed a conceptual 2D architecture to emphasize on the goal and requirements while the need for technology
on the other end to complement the goal. The current state-of-the-art which lead to the idea of Education 5.0 is elucidated
while some of the crucial challenges are identified to complete the study. We aim that this survey will cover a base for the
realization of Education 5.0, as the next big wave in education.

R EFERENCES
[1] M. Al-Emran, S. I. Malik, and M. N. Al-Kabi, “A survey of internet of things (iot) in education: Opportunities and challenges,” Toward social internet
of things (SIoT): Enabling technologies, architectures and applications: Emerging technologies for connected and smart social objects, pp. 197–209,
2020.
[2] A. Zhamanov, Z. Sakhiyeva, R. Suliyev, and Z. Kaldykulova, “Iot smart campus review and implementation of iot applications into education process
of university,” in 2017 13th International Conference on Electronics, Computer and Computation (ICECCO). IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–4.
[3] M. ur Rahman, V. Deep, S. Rahman, et al., “Ict and internet of things for creating smart learning environment for students at education institutes in
india,” in 2016 6th International Conference-Cloud System and Big Data Engineering (Confluence). IEEE, 2016, pp. 701–704.
[4] A. D. Lantada, “Engineering education 5.0: Continuously evolving engineering education,” International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 36,
no. 6, pp. 1814–1832, 2020.
[5] N. N. Mustafa Kamal, A. H. Mohd Adnan, A. A. Yusof, M. K. Ahmad, and M. A. Mohd Kamal, “Immersive interactive educational experiences–
adopting education 5.0, industry 4.0 learning technologies for malaysian universities,” in Proceedings of the International Invention, Innovative &
Creative (InIIC) Conference, Series, 2019, pp. 190–196.
 20

[6] J. Aston, E. Davies, M. Guijon, K. Lauderdale, and D. Popov, “The education technology market in england: Research report: November 2022,” 2022.
[7] R. Sharma and M. Mohan, “Artificial intelligence and e-learning: Best practices across the globe,” in Adoption and Implementation of AI in Customer
Relationship Management. IGI Global, 2022, pp. 1–25.
[8] B. Means, Y. Toyama, R. Murphy, and M. Baki, “The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature,” Teachers
College Record, vol. 115, no. 3, pp. 1–47, 2013.
[9] B. Quadir, N.-S. Chen, and P. Isaias, “Analyzing the educational goals, problems and techniques used in educational big data research from 2010 to
2018,” Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 1539–1555, 2022.
[10] K. R. Green and H. L. Chewning, “The fault in our systems: Lms as a vehicle for critical pedagogy,” TechTrends, vol. 64, pp. 423–431, 2020.
[11] N. S. Raj and V. Renumol, “A systematic literature review on adaptive content recommenders in personalized learning environments from 2015 to
2020,” Journal of Computers in Education, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 113–148, 2022.
[12] X. Li and Q. Heng, “Design of mobile learning resources based on new blended learning: a case study of superstar learning app,” in 2021 IEEE 3rd
International Conference on Computer Science and Educational Informatization (CSEI). IEEE, 2021, pp. 333–338.
[13] L. Major, G. A. Francis, and M. Tsapali, “The effectiveness of technology-supported personalised learning in low-and middle-income countries: A
meta-analysis,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 1935–1964, 2021.
[14] O. Tapalova and N. Zhiyenbayeva, “Artificial intelligence in education: Aied for personalised learning pathways.” Electronic Journal of e-Learning,
vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 639–653, 2022.
[15] Z. Chen and C. Demmans, “Csclrec: Personalized recommendation of forum posts to support socio-collaborative learning.” International Educational
Data Mining Society, 2020.
[16] K. Ofosu-Ampong, “The shift to gamification in education: A review on dominant issues,” Journal of Educational Technology Systems, vol. 49, no. 1,
pp. 113–137, 2020.
[17] G. Lampropoulos, E. Keramopoulos, K. Diamantaras, and G. Evangelidis, “Augmented reality and gamification in education: A systematic literature
review of research, applications, and empirical studies,” applied sciences, vol. 12, no. 13, p. 6809, 2022.
[18] E. F. Barkley, “Student engagement techniques: A handbook for college faculty,” Jossey-Bass, 2010.
[19] T. L. Friedman, The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011.
[20] M. Warschauer and T. Matuchniak, Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide. MIT Press, 2000.
[21] M. Warschauer, New Technology and Digital Worlds: Analyzing Complex Issues. Teachers College Press, 2002.
[22] R. M. Felder and L. K. Silverman, “Learning and teaching styles in engineering education,” Engineering education, vol. 78, no. 7, pp. 651–664, 1988.
[23] R. M. Felder and J. E. Spurlin, “Reaching the second tier: Learning and teaching styles in college science education,” Journal of college science
teaching, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 62–66, 2005.
[24] D. R. Garrison and T. Anderson, Technology, Pedagogy, and Education. Taylor & Francis, 2009.
[25] V. Dočekal and H. Tulinská, “The impact of technology on education theory,” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 174, pp. 3765–3771, 2015.
[26] S. D. B. Erişti, A. A. Kurt, and M. Dindar, “Teachers’ views about effective use of technology in classrooms,” Turkish online journal of qualitative
inquiry, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 30–41, 2012.
[27] P. Vassilakopoulou and E. Hustad, “Bridging digital divides: a literature review and research agenda for information systems research,” Information
Systems Frontiers, pp. 1–15, 2021.
[28] O. Dakhi, J. JAMA, D. IRFAN, et al., “Blended learning: a 21st century learning model at college,” International Journal Of Multi Science, vol. 1,
no. 08, pp. 50–65, 2020.
[29] J. Traxler, “Distance learning—predictions and possibilities,” Education sciences, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 35, 2018.
[30] H. Jeong, “Cognitive mechanisms of collaborative learning and technology supports,” Korean Journal of Cognitive Science, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 1–30,
2019.
[31] A. Anggriani, S. Sarwi, and M. Masturi, “The effectiveness of guided discovery in distance learning to improve scientific literacy competencies of
primary school students,” Journal of Primary Education, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 454–462, 2020.
[32] I. Blau, T. Shamir-Inbal, and O. Avdiel, “How does the pedagogical design of a technology-enhanced collaborative academic course promote digital
literacies, self-regulation, and perceived learning of students?” The internet and higher education, vol. 45, p. 100722, 2020.
[33] Z. Yurtseven Avci, F. Ergulec, O. Misirli, and I. Sural, “Flipped learning in information technology courses: benefits and challenges,” Journal of Further
and Higher Education, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 636–650, 2022.
[34] E. Dimitriadou and A. Lanitis, “A critical evaluation, challenges, and future perspectives of using artificial intelligence and emerging technologies in
smart classrooms,” Smart Learning Environments, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–26, 2023.
[35] H. Xie, H.-C. Chu, G.-J. Hwang, and C.-C. Wang, “Trends and development in technology-enhanced adaptive/personalized learning: A systematic
review of journal publications from 2007 to 2017,” Computers & Education, vol. 140, p. 103599, 2019.
[36] H. Al-Samarraie, A. Shamsuddin, and A. I. Alzahrani, “A flipped classroom model in higher education: a review of the evidence across disciplines,”
Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 68, pp. 1017–1051, 2020.
[37] A. Van Leeuwen and J. Janssen, “A systematic review of teacher guidance during collaborative learning in primary and secondary education,” Educational
Research Review, vol. 27, pp. 71–89, 2019.
[38] A. Nguyen, L. Gardner, and D. Sheridan, “Data analytics in higher education: An integrated view,” Journal of Information Systems Education, vol. 31,
no. 1, p. 61, 2020.
[39] H. Peng, S. Ma, and J. M. Spector, “Personalized adaptive learning: an emerging pedagogical approach enabled by a smart learning environment,”
Smart Learning Environments, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2019.
[40] H. M. Network, A. C. H. Association, et al., “The impact of covid-19 on college student well-being,” 2020.
[41] S. Rani, R. K. Mishra, M. Usman, A. Kataria, P. Kumar, P. Bhambri, and A. K. Mishra, “Amalgamation of advanced technologies for sustainable
development of smart city environment: a review,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 150 060–150 087, 2021.
[42] P. Bhaskar, C. K. Tiwari, and A. Joshi, “Blockchain in education management: present and future applications,” Interactive Technology and Smart
Education, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2021.
[43] V. Vikhman, “Technological trends of industry 4.0 in education: Opportunity navigator,” Professional education in the modern world, vol. 12, no. 1,
pp. 29–36, 2022.
[44] D. Shawky and A. Badawi, “Towards a personalized learning experience using reinforcement learning,” Machine learning paradigms: Theory and
application, pp. 169–187, 2019.
[45] F. Orji and J. Vassileva, “Using machine learning to explore the relation between student engagement and student performance,” in 2020 24th International
Conference Information Visualisation (IV). IEEE, 2020, pp. 480–485.
[46] J. Parmar, S. Chouhan, V. Raychoudhury, and S. Rathore, “Open-world machine learning: applications, challenges, and opportunities,” ACM Computing
Surveys, vol. 55, no. 10, pp. 1–37, 2023.
[47] D. Shawky and A. Badawi, “A reinforcement learning-based adaptive learning system,” in The international conference on advanced machine learning
technologies and applications (AMLTA2018). Springer, 2018, pp. 221–231.
[48] J. Garzón and J. Acevedo, “Meta-analysis of the impact of augmented reality on students’ learning gains,” Educational Research Review, vol. 27, pp.
244–260, 2019.
[49] T. Yuliono, P. Rintayati, et al., “The promising roles of augmented reality in educational setting: A review of the literature,” International Journal of
Educational Methodology, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 125–132, 2018.
 21

[50] J. Egger and T. Masood, “Augmented reality in support of intelligent manufacturing–a systematic literature review,” Computers & Industrial Engineering,
vol. 140, p. 106195, 2020.
[51] R. Al-Azawi, A. Albadi, R. Moghaddas, and J. Westlake, “Exploring the potential of using augmented reality and virtual reality for stem education,” in
Learning Technology for Education Challenges: 8th International Workshop, LTEC 2019, Zamora, Spain, July 15–18, 2019, Proceedings 8. Springer,
2019, pp. 36–44.
[52] M. A. Rojas-Sánchez, P. R. Palos-Sánchez, and J. A. Folgado-Fernández, “Systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis on virtual reality and
education,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 155–192, 2023.
[53] S. H. Hassan Al-Taai, H. A. Kanber, and W. A. Mohammed al Dulaimi, “The importance of using the internet of things in education.” International
Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, vol. 18, no. 1, 2023.
[54] A. Razzaque and A. Hamdan, “Internet of things for learning styles and learning outcomes improve e-learning: A review of literature,” in Proceedings
of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Computer Vision (AICV2020). Springer, 2020, pp. 783–791.
[55] P. Abichandani, V. Sivakumar, D. Lobo, C. Iaboni, and P. Shekhar, “Internet-of-things curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment for stem education: A
review of literature,” IEEE Access, 2022.
[56] I. H. Sarker, A. I. Khan, Y. B. Abushark, and F. Alsolami, “Internet of things (iot) security intelligence: a comprehensive overview, machine learning
solutions and research directions,” Mobile Networks and Applications, pp. 1–17, 2022.
[57] L. Zhang, J. D. Basham, and S. Yang, “Understanding the implementation of personalized learning: A research synthesis,” Educational Research Review,
vol. 31, p. 100339, 2020.
[58] L. Zheng, M. Long, L. Zhong, and J. F. Gyasi, “The effectiveness of technology-facilitated personalized learning on learning achievements and learning
perceptions: A meta-analysis,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 11 807–11 830, 2022.
[59] B. Kye, N. Han, E. Kim, Y. Park, and S. Jo, “Educational applications of metaverse: possibilities and limitations,” Journal of educational evaluation
for health professions, vol. 18, 2021.
[60] H. Zhong, “Application of quaternion instructional design mode in higher education based on personalized algorithm,” in Application of Big Data,
Blockchain, and Internet of Things for Education Informatization: Second EAI International Conference, BigIoT-EDU 2022, Virtual Event, July 29–31,
2022, Proceedings, Part I. Springer, 2023, pp. 216–224.
[61] K. C. Margot and T. Kettler, “Teachers’ perception of stem integration and education: a systematic literature review,” International Journal of STEM
education, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2019.
[62] D. Herro, C. Quigley, J. Andrews, and G. Delacruz, “Co-measure: developing an assessment for student collaboration in steam activities,” International
journal of STEM education, vol. 4, pp. 1–12, 2017.
[63] K. Mrklas, J. Boyd, S. Shergill, S. Merali, M. Khan, L. Nowell, A. Goertzen, L. Pfadenhauer, K. Paul, K. Sibley, et al., “Tools for assessing health
research partnership outcomes and impacts: a systematic review,” Health Research Policy and Systems, vol. 21, no. 1, p. 3, 2023.
[64] W. Shi and J. Hargis, “Bridge the gap—incorporating classroom response systems for classroom-embedded formative assessment,” Open Access Library
Journal, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1–19, 2023.
[65] C. Ydesen, A. L. Milner, T. Aderet-German, E. G. Caride, and Y. Ruan, “Assessment and inclusive education in the twenty-first century: Transversal
connections in an interdisciplinary field,” in Educational Assessment and Inclusive Education: Paradoxes, Perspectives and Potentialities. Springer,
2023, pp. 317–340.
[66] A. Alam, “Cloud-based e-learning: Scaffolding the environment for adaptive e-learning ecosystem based on cloud computing infrastructure,” in Computer
Communication, Networking and IoT: Proceedings of 5th ICICC 2021, Volume 2. Springer, 2022, pp. 1–9.
[67] A. D. Wulandari and D. Setiawan, “The complexity of implementing inclusive education in elementary schools in era 5.0: A case study,” Jurnal
Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 613–620, 2023.
[68] T. Q. Hai and T. M. Nguyen, “Determinants in student satisfaction with online learning: A survey study of second-year students at private universities
in hcmc,” Available at SSRN 4116107, 2022.
[69] X. Zhou, Y. Yan, and Y. Zhang, “Analysis of learners’ satisfaction with online teaching in applied universities,” in Advances in Artificial Systems for
Medicine and Education VI. Springer, 2023, pp. 457–467.
[70] D. H. Rose and A. Meyer, Universal Design for Learning in the Classroom: Practical Applications. Guilford Press, 2002.
[71] L. Zhang, R. A. Carter Jr, J. D. Basham, and S. Yang, “Integrating instructional designs of personalized learning through the lens of universal design
for learning,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1639–1656, 2022.
[72] G. Radjabova, “Improving the performance management of the higher education system,” Publishing House “Baltija Publishing”, 2023.
[73] B. S. Fornauf and J. D. Erickson, “Toward an inclusive pedagogy through universal design for learning in higher education: A review of the literature.”
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 183–199, 2020.
[74] M. W. Ok, K. Rao, B. R. Bryant, and D. McDougall, “Universal design for learning in pre-k to grade 12 classrooms: A systematic review of research,”
Exceptionality, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 116–138, 2017.
[75] S. Caspari-Sadeghi, “Learning assessment in the age of big data: Learning analytics in higher education,” Cogent Education, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 2162697,
2023.
[76] R. G. Rivera Baiocchi et al., “Exploring data driven youth character education frameworks: A systematic literature review on learning analytics models
and participatory design,” ESE. Estudios sobre educación, 2019.
[77] E. Kurilovas, “On data-driven decision-making for quality education,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 107, p. 105774, 2020.
[78] S. Ganahl, C. Ploder, T. Spiess, T. Dilger, and R. Bernsteiner, “How data-driven decision-making can be optimized by linking crm and erp data-a
teaching case,” in INTED2023 Proceedings. IATED, 2023, pp. 127–132.
[79] L. D. Taylor Jr, “Neoliberal consequence: Data-driven decision making and the subversion of student success efforts,” The Review of Higher Education,
vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 1069–1097, 2020.
[80] M. Botvin, A. Hershkovitz, and A. Forkosh-Baruch, “Data-driven decision-making in emergency remote teaching,” Education and Information
Technologies, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 489–506, 2023.
[81] J. Park, “From big data to blockchain: Promises and challenges of an all-encompassing technology in education,” Digital Communication and Learning:
Changes and Challenges, pp. 383–397, 2022.
[82] S. M. Nair, V. Ramesh, and A. K. Tyagi, “Issues and challenges (privacy, security, and trust) in blockchain-based applications,” in Research Anthology
on Convergence of Blockchain, Internet of Things, and Security. IGI Global, 2023, pp. 1101–1114.
[83] J. Vaiopoulou, S. Papadakis, E. Sifaki, M. Kalogiannakis, and D. Stamovlasis, “Classification and evaluation of educational apps for early childhood:
Security matters,” Education and Information Technologies, pp. 1–32, 2022.
[84] F. A. Shaikh and M. Siponen, “Information security risk assessments following cybersecurity breaches: The mediating role of top management attention
to cybersecurity,” Computers & Security, vol. 124, p. 102974, 2023.
[85] P. J. Nirmala, P. Sivakumar, S. Selvakumar, and R. Daphine, “Efficacy of technology enabled learning in science at diploma in teacher education level,”
Education and Information Technologies, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 10 665–10 680, 2022.
[86] A. Gogus and Y. Saygın, “Privacy perception and information technology utilization of high school students,” Heliyon, vol. 5, no. 5, p. e01614, 2019.
[87] A. Haleem, M. Javaid, M. A. Qadri, and R. Suman, “Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review,” Sustainable Operations
and Computers, 2022.
[88] B. Williamson, “Policy networks, performance metrics and platform markets: Charting the expanding data infrastructure of higher education,” British
Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 2794–2809, 2019.
 22

[89] T. Vaivada, N. Sharma, J. K. Das, R. A. Salam, Z. S. Lassi, and Z. A. Bhutta, “Interventions for health and well-being in school-aged children and
adolescents: a way forward,” Pediatrics, vol. 149, no. Supplement 6, 2022.
[90] G. V. Ryan, S. Callaghan, A. Rafferty, M. F. Higgins, E. Mangina, and F. McAuliffe, “Learning outcomes of immersive technologies in health care
student education: systematic review of the literature,” Journal of Medical Internet Research, vol. 24, no. 2, p. e30082, 2022.
[91] F. C. Sloane and A. E. Kelly, “Issues in high-stakes testing programs,” Theory into practice, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 12–17, 2003.
[92] J. A. Fredricks, A. L. Reschly, and S. L. Christenson, “Interventions for student engagement: Overview and state of the field,” Handbook of student
engagement interventions, pp. 1–11, 2019.
[93] A. E. Russell, E. Curtin, E. Widnall, S. Dodd, M. Limmer, R. Simmonds, and J. Kidger, “Assessing the feasibility of a peer education project to
improve mental health literacy in adolescents in the uk,” Community Mental Health Journal, pp. 1–13, 2023.
[94] Y. Demetriou, F. Gillison, and T. L. McKenzie, “After-school physical activity interventions on child and adolescent physical activity and health: a
review of reviews,” Advances in Physical Education, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 191–215, 2017.
[95] W. C. McGaghie, S. B. Issenberg, E. R. Petrusa, and R. J. Scalese, “A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003–2009,”
Medical education, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 50–63, 2010.
[96] A. Kirkwood and L. Price, “Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: what is ‘enhanced’and how do we know? a critical
literature review,” Learning, media and technology, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 6–36, 2014.
[97] M. Papastergiou, “Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation,”
Computers & education, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2009.
[98] H. Hosseini, M. Hartt, and M. Mostafapour, “Learning is child’s play: Game-based learning in computer science education,” ACM Transactions on
Computing Education (TOCE), vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 1–18, 2019.
[99] M.-T. Cheng, W.-Y. Huang, and M.-E. Hsu, “Does emotion matter? an investigation into the relationship between emotions and science learning
outcomes in a game-based learning environment,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 2233–2251, 2020.
[100] L. Deng, S. Wu, Y. Chen, and Z. Peng, “Digital game-based learning in a shanghai primary-school mathematics class: A case study,” Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 709–717, 2020.
[101] M. Hartt, H. Hosseini, and M. Mostafapour, “Game on: Exploring the effectiveness of game-based learning,” Planning Practice & Research, vol. 35,
no. 5, pp. 589–604, 2020.
[102] I. S. M. Ramli, S. M. Maat, and F. Khalid, “Enhancing student self efication in mathematics by using game-based learning,” International Journal of
Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 318–323, 2020.
[103] I. Celik, “Towards intelligent-tpack: An empirical study on teachers’ professional knowledge to ethically integrate artificial intelligence (ai)-based tools
into education,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 138, p. 107468, 2023.
[104] U. Arun Kumar, G. Mahendran, and S. Gobhinath, “A review on artificial intelligence based e-learning system,” Pervasive Computing and Social
Networking, pp. 659–671, 2023.
[105] A. Alam, “Employing adaptive learning and intelligent tutoring robots for virtual classrooms and smart campuses: Reforming education in the age of
artificial intelligence,” in Advanced Computing and Intelligent Technologies. Springer, 2022, pp. 395–406.
[106] D. Schiff, “Education for ai, not ai for education: the role of education and ethics in national ai policy strategies,” International Journal of Artificial
Intelligence in Education, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 527–563, 2022.
[107] Q. Xia, T. K. Chiu, M. Lee, I. T. Sanusi, Y. Dai, and C. S. Chai, “A self-determination theory (sdt) design approach for inclusive and diverse artificial
intelligence (ai) education,” Computers & Education, vol. 189, p. 104582, 2022.
[108] A. Y. Huang, O. H. Lu, and S. J. Yang, “Effects of artificial intelligence–enabled personalized recommendations on learners’ learning engagement,
motivation, and outcomes in a flipped classroom,” Computers & Education, vol. 194, p. 104684, 2023.
[109] X. Chen, D. Zou, H. Xie, G. Cheng, and C. Liu, “Two decades of artificial intelligence in education,” Educational Technology & Society, vol. 25,
no. 1, pp. 28–47, 2022.
[110] S. Maghsudi, A. Lan, J. Xu, and M. van Der Schaar, “Personalized education in the artificial intelligence era: what to expect next,” IEEE Signal
Processing Magazine, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 37–50, 2021.
[111] M. N. Nguyen, S. R. Pandey, T. N. Dang, E.-N. Huh, N. H. Tran, W. Saad, and C. S. Hong, “Self-organizing democratized learning: Toward large-scale
distributed learning systems,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2022.
[112] A. Bhutoria, “Personalized education and artificial intelligence in united states, china, and india: A systematic review using a human-in-the-loop model,”
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, p. 100068, 2022.
[113] L. S. Iyer, S. Bharadwaj, S. H. Shetty, V. Verma, and M. Devanathan, “Advancing equity in digital classrooms: A personalized learning framework for
higher education institutions,” in Socioeconomic Inclusion During an Era of Online Education. IGI Global, 2022, pp. 225–245.
[114] T. Peng, Y. Luo, and Y. Liu, “Ai-based equipment optimization of the design on intelligent education curriculum system,” Wireless Communications
and Mobile Computing, vol. 2022, 2022.
[115] W. Xu and F. Ouyang, “A systematic review of ai role in the educational system based on a proposed conceptual framework,” Education and Information
Technologies, pp. 1–29, 2022.
[116] A. K. Alhazmi, F. Alhammadi, A. A. Zain, E. Kaed, and B. Ahmed, “Ai’s role and application in education: Systematic review,” Intelligent Sustainable
Systems: Selected Papers of WorldS4 2022, Volume 1, pp. 1–14, 2023.
[117] J. Wang, S. Wang, and Y. Zhang, “Artificial intelligence for visually impaired,” Displays, p. 102391, 2023.
[118] S. Malakul and I. Park, “The effects of using an auto-subtitle system in educational videos to facilitate learning for secondary school students: learning
comprehension, cognitive load, and satisfaction,” Smart Learning Environments, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2023.
[119] J. Southworth, K. Migliaccio, J. Glover, D. Reed, C. McCarty, J. Brendemuhl, A. Thomas, et al., “Developing a model for ai across the curriculum:
Transforming the higher education landscape via innovation in ai literacy,” Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, p. 100127, 2023.
[120] S. Gul, M. Asif, S. Ahmad, M. Yasir, M. Majid, M. S. A. Malik, and S. Arshad, “A survey on role of internet of things in education,” International
Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 159–165, 2017.
[121] M. Kassab, J. DeFranco, and P. Laplante, “A systematic literature review on internet of things in education: Benefits and challenges,” Journal of
computer Assisted learning, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 115–127, 2020.
[122] L. Ling, N. Yelland, M. Hatzigianni, and C. Dickson-Deane, “The use of internet of things devices in early childhood education: A systematic review,”
Education and Information Technologies, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 6333–6352, 2022.
[123] G. Siemens and P. Long, “Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education.” EDUCAUSE review, vol. 46, no. 5, p. 30, 2011.
[124] K. Zeeshan, T. Hämäläinen, and P. Neittaanmäki, “Internet of things for sustainable smart education: An overview,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 7, p.
4293, 2022.
[125] P. Dillenbourg, Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches. advances in learning and instruction series. ERIC, 1999.
[126] D. W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson, Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Interaction book company, 1991.
[127] J. Wang, M. K. Lim, C. Wang, and M.-L. Tseng, “The evolution of the internet of things (iot) over the past 20 years,” Computers & Industrial
Engineering, vol. 155, p. 107174, 2021.
[128] S. Strauß and N. Rummel, “Promoting interaction in online distance education: designing, implementing and supporting collaborative learning,”
Information and learning sciences, vol. 121, no. 5/6, pp. 251–260, 2020.
[129] N. Hernández-Sellés, P.-C. Muñoz-Carril, and M. González-Sanmamed, “Computer-supported collaborative learning: An analysis of the relationship
between interaction, emotional support and online collaborative tools,” Computers & Education, vol. 138, pp. 1–12, 2019.
 23

[130] K. P. Gupta and P. Bhaskar, “Teachers’ intention to adopt virtual reality technology in management education,” International Journal of Learning and
Change, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 28–50, 2023.
[131] H. Lin, S. Wan, W. Gan, J. Chen, and H.-C. Chao, “Metaverse in education: Vision, opportunities, and challenges,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.14951,
2022.
[132] K. Saundarajan, S. Osman, J. Kumar, M. Daud, M. Abu, and M. Pairan, “Learning algebra using augmented reality: A preliminary investigation on
the application of photomath for lower secondary education,” International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), vol. 15, no. 16, pp.
123–133, 2020.
[133] J. Leng, W. Sha, B. Wang, P. Zheng, C. Zhuang, Q. Liu, T. Wuest, D. Mourtzis, and L. Wang, “Industry 5.0: Prospect and retrospect,” Journal of
Manufacturing Systems, vol. 65, pp. 279–295, 2022.
[134] I. Ahmad, S. Sharma, R. Singh, A. Gehlot, N. Priyadarshi, and B. Twala, “Mooc 5.0: A roadmap to the future of learning,” Sustainability, vol. 14,
no. 18, p. 11199, 2022.
[135] P. B. Prasad, N. Padmaja, B. S. Kumar, and A. Aravind, “Industry 4.0: Augmented and virtual reality in education,” in Innovating with Augmented
Reality. Auerbach Publications, 2021, pp. 29–52.
[136] T. Arndt, “An overview of blockchain for higher education.” KMIS, pp. 231–235, 2019.
[137] A. Savina, L. Malyavkina, and I. Sergeeva, “Trends and perspectives of using blockchain technology in the digital transformation of the education
system,” in International Scientific and Practical Conference on Digital Economy (ISCDE 2019). Atlantis Press, 2019, pp. 286–292.
[138] F. Þ. Hjálmarsson, G. K. Hreiðarsson, M. Hamdaqa, and G. Hjálmtỳsson, “Blockchain-based e-voting system,” in 2018 IEEE 11th international
conference on cloud computing (CLOUD). IEEE, 2018, pp. 983–986.
[139] J. Park, “Promises and challenges of blockchain in education,” Smart Learning Environments, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2021.
[140] T. Y. Khaw and A. P. Teoh, “The influence of big data analytics technological capabilities and strategic agility on performance of private higher
education institutions,” Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, no. ahead-of-print, 2023.
[141] A. Klašnja-Milićević, M. Ivanović, and Z. Budimac, “Data science in education: Big data and learning analytics,” Computer Applications in Engineering
Education, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1066–1078, 2017.
[142] M. Attaran, J. Stark, and D. Stotler, “Opportunities and challenges for big data analytics in us higher education: A conceptual model for implementation,”
Industry and Higher Education, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 169–182, 2018.
[143] M. Aseeri and K. Kang, “Organisational culture and big data socio-technical systems on strategic decision making: Case of saudi arabian higher
education,” Education and Information Technologies, pp. 1–26, 2023.
[144] G. Hassna, “Big data and analytics to transform higher education: a value chain perspective,” Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education,
pp. 1–9, 2022.
[145] W. Xing and X. Wang, “Understanding students’ effective use of data in the age of big data in higher education,” Behaviour & Information Technology,
vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 2560–2577, 2022.
[146] B. Gencoglu, M. Helms-Lorenz, R. Maulana, E. P. Jansen, and O. Gencoglu, “Machine and expert judgments of student perceptions of teaching behavior
in secondary education: Added value of topic modeling with big data,” Computers & Education, vol. 193, p. 104682, 2023.
[147] C. Zioga and K. Bikos, “Collaborative writing using google docs in primary education: development of argumentative discourse,” Turkish Online
Journal of Distance Education, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 133–142, 2020.
[148] L. Cetinkaya, “The impact of whatsapp use on success in education process,” International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,
vol. 18, no. 7, 2017.
[149] A. Stefanile, “The transition from classroom to zoom and how it has changed education,” Journal of social science research, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 33–40,
2020.
[150] M. C. M. Margallo, C. N. P. Mariano, K. N. F. L. Martinez, R. L. T. Mariano, L. M. L. Maramag, A. A. C. Mariano, R. C. L. Mapue, E. R. C.
Maturan, and R. L. E. Chua, “Characterizing effective teaching in nursing pharmacology youtube videos: A mixed methods study,” Nurse Education
Today, vol. 120, p. 105624, 2023.
[151] B. Grawemeyer, M. Mavrikis, W. Holmes, S. Gutiérrez-Santos, M. Wiedmann, and N. Rummel, “Affective learning: improving engagement and
enhancing learning with affect-aware feedback,” User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, vol. 27, pp. 119–158, 2017.
[152] B. K. Prahani, I. A. Rizki, B. Jatmiko, N. Suprapto, and T. Amelia, “Artificial intelligence in education research during the last ten years: A review
and bibliometric study.” International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, vol. 17, no. 8, 2022.
[153] H. Mumtaz, M. Saqib, F. Ansar, D. Zargar, M. Hameed, M. Hasan, and P. Muskan, “The future of cardiothoracic surgery: Artificial intelligence?”
Annals of Medicine and Surgery, p. 104251, 2022.
[154] Z. Zhan, Y. Tong, X. Lan, and B. Zhong, “A systematic literature review of game-based learning in artificial intelligence education,” Interactive Learning
Environments, pp. 1–22, 2022.
[155] J. Anuradha, V. Ramachandran, K. Arulalan, and B. Tripathy, “Diagnosis of adhd using svm algorithm,” in Proceedings of the Third Annual ACM
Bangalore Conference, 2010, pp. 1–4.
[156] M. Nilsson Benfatto, G. Öqvist Seimyr, J. Ygge, T. Pansell, A. Rydberg, and C. Jacobson, “Screening for dyslexia using eye tracking during reading,”
PloS one, vol. 11, no. 12, p. e0165508, 2016.
[157] T. Asselborn, M. Chapatte, and P. Dillenbourg, “Extending the spectrum of dysgraphia: A data driven strategy to estimate handwriting quality,” Scientific
Reports, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 3140, 2020.
[158] A. Alabdulkareem, N. Alhakbani, and A. Al-Nafjan, “A systematic review of research on robot-assisted therapy for children with autism,” Sensors,
vol. 22, no. 3, p. 944, 2022.
[159] M. FIRAT, “How chat gpt can transform autodidactic experiences and open education?” 2023.
[160] N. Dehouche, “Plagiarism in the age of massive generative pre-trained transformers (gpt-3),” Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, vol. 21, pp.
17–23, 2021.
[161] N. Selwyn, Should robots replace teachers?: AI and the future of education. John Wiley & Sons, 2019.
[162] S. Foster, “What barriers do students perceive to engagement with automated immediate formative feedback.” Journal of Interactive Media in Education,
vol. 2019, no. 1, 2019.
[163] C. Metz, “Who is making sure the ai machines aren’t racist,” The New York Times, vol. 15, 2021.
[164] R. Bodily and K. Verbert, “Review of research on student-facing learning analytics dashboards and educational recommender systems,” IEEE Transactions
on Learning Technologies, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 405–418, 2017.
[165] K. Holstein and S. Doroudi, “Equity and artificial intelligence in education: Will" aied" amplify or alleviate inequities in education?” arXiv preprint
arXiv:2104.12920, 2021.
[166] A. Mphahlele and S. McKenna, “The use of turnitin in the higher education sector: Decoding the myth,” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 1079–1089, 2019.
[167] M. Muzammul, “Education system re-engineering with ai (artificial intelligence) for quality im-provements with proposed model,” ADCAIJ: Advances
in Distributed Computing and Artificial Intelligence Journal, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 51–60, 2019.
[168] A. Watters, Teaching machines: The history of personalized learning. MIT Press, 2023.
[169] D. Ramesh and S. K. Sanampudi, “An automated essay scoring systems: a systematic literature review,” Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 55, no. 3,
pp. 2495–2527, 2022.
 24

[170] S. Hsu, T. W. Li, Z. Zhang, M. Fowler, C. Zilles, and K. Karahalios, “Attitudes surrounding an imperfect ai autograder,” in Proceedings of the 2021
CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2021, pp. 1–15.
[171] Y. Song, “A review of how class orchestration with technology has been conducted for pedagogical practices,” Educational Technology Research and
Development, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 1477–1503, 2021.
[172] M. Tissenbaum and J. Slotta, “Supporting classroom orchestration with real-time feedback: A role for teacher dashboards and real-time agents,”
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, vol. 14, pp. 325–351, 2019.
[173] K. Kitto, N. Sarathy, A. Gromov, M. Liu, K. Musial, and S. Buckingham Shum, “Towards skills-based curriculum analytics: Can we automate the
recognition of prior learning?” in Proceedings of the tenth international conference on learning analytics & knowledge, 2020, pp. 171–180.
[174] W. Holmes and I. Tuomi, “State of the art and practice in ai in education,” European Journal of Education, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 542–570, 2022.
[175] A. Nigam, R. Pasricha, T. Singh, and P. Churi, “A systematic review on ai-based proctoring systems: Past, present and future,” Education and Information
Technologies, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 6421–6445, 2021.
[176] Y. Chen and W. He, “Security risks and protection in online learning: A survey,” The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed
Learning, vol. 14, no. 5, 2013.
[177] S. Elayyan, “The future of education according to the fourth industrial revolution,” Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, vol. 4,
no. 1, pp. 23–30, 2021.
[178] R. Huang, A. Tlili, H. Wang, Y. Shi, C. J. Bonk, J. Yang, and D. Burgos, “Emergence of the online-merge-offline (omo) learning wave in the
post-covid-19 era: a pilot study,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 6, p. 3512, 2021.
[179] F. Corbett and E. Spinello, “Connectivism and leadership: harnessing a learning theory for the digital age to redefine leadership in the twenty-first
century,” Heliyon, vol. 6, no. 1, p. e03250, 2020.
[180] S. M. Ayyoubzadeh, T. Baniasadi, M. Shirkhoda, S. Rostam Niakan Kalhori, N. Mohammadzadeh, K. Roudini, R. Ghalehtaki, F. Memari, and
A. Jalaeefar, “Remote monitoring of colorectal cancer survivors using a smartphone app and internet of things–based device: Development and usability
study,” JMIR cancer, vol. 9, p. e42250, 2023.
[181] W. Gan, M. S. Dao, K. Zettsu, and Y. Sun, “Iot-based multimodal analysis for smart education: Current status, challenges and opportunities,” in
Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Workshop on Intelligent Cross-Data Analysis and Retrieval, 2022, pp. 32–40.
[182] K. Kumar and A. Al-Besher, “Iot enabled e-learning system for higher education,” Measurement: Sensors, vol. 24, p. 100480, 2022.
[183] J. Ejaz and M. A. Shah, “Real-time analysis of student’s behavioural engagement in digital smart classrooms using fog computing and iot devices,”
2022.
[184] J. R. Reidenberg and F. Schaub, “Achieving big data privacy in education,” Theory and Research in Education, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 263–279, 2018.
[185] N. Torres-Hernández and M.-J. Gallego-Arrufat, “Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of data protection in primary education,” Contemporary Educational
Technology, vol. 15, no. 1, p. ep399, 2023.
[186] R. Shah, Y. Chen, and J. Kan, “User experience in the metaverse: challenges and solutions,” International Journal of Technology in Education, vol. 12,
no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2021.
[187] A. Abraham, B. Suseelan, J. Mathew, P. Sabarinath, and K. Arun, “A study on metaverse in education,” in 2023 7th International Conference on
Computing Methodologies and Communication (ICCMC). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1570–1573.
[188] W. Hyun, “Study on standardization for interoperable metaverse,” in 2023 25th International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology
(ICACT). IEEE, 2023, pp. 319–322.
[189] S. Lee, Y. Seo, K. Lee, P. Abbeel, and J. Shin, “Offline-to-online reinforcement learning via balanced replay and pessimistic q-ensemble,” in Conference
on Robot Learning. PMLR, 2022, pp. 1702–1712.