A Study of Research Gaps and Trends in AI Literacy in Higher Education Across Regional and National Contexts: A Bibliometric Analysis of Scopus-Indexed Publications (2020–2025)
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study aims to analyze the distribution and developmental trends of research on AI literacy in higher education from a geographical perspective, revealing disparities and the factors influencing knowledge production in this rapidly growing field. A bibliometric analysis methodology was employed, using the R/Bibliometrix tool to examine data retrieved exclusively from the Scopus database, covering the period 2020–2025, and including a total of 46 eligible publications. The findings revealed significant geographical disparities. Developed countries accounted for 76.10% of the research output, while developing countries contributed only 23.90%. A shift in research focus was also observed — from an initial emphasis on digital literacy to more in-depth studies of modern artificial intelligence tools, such as ChatGPT, in recent years. Key factors contributing to these disparities included the availability of technological infrastructure, research funding support, and national-level AI policies. Furthermore, the relatively low rate of international collaboration (17.39%) highlighted significant opportunities to build global academic networks for knowledge sharing and to reduce research inequalities.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
ข้อเขียนหรือบทความใดๆ ที่ตีพิมพ์เผยแพร่ในวารสารวิจัยและพัฒนาอนุภูมิภาคลุ่มน้ำโขง (Online) ฉบับนี้ เป็นความคิดเห็นเฉพาะส่วนตัวของผู้เขียนและกองบรรณาธิการไม่จำเป็นต้องเห็นด้วย และวารสารวิจัยและพันาอนุภูมิภาค ลุ่มน้ำโขง (Online) ไม่มีข้อผูกพันธ์ประการใดๆ อนึ่งกองบรรณาธิการวารสารยินดีรับพิจารณาบทความจากนักวิชาการ นักศึกษา ตลอดจนผู้อ่าน และผู้สนใจทั่วไป เพื่อนำลงตีพิมพ์ สำหรับบทความจะผ่านการพิจารณาจากผู้ทรงคุณวุฒิสาขาวิชาที่เกี่ยวข้องทั้งภายในและภายนอกสถาบัน
References
Aria, M. and Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
Biagini, G. (2025). Towards an AI-literate future: A systematic literature review exploring education, ethics, and applications. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 35(1), 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-025-00466-w
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Harvard University Press.
Chen, K., Tallant, A. C. and Selig, I. (2025). Exploring generative AI literacy in higher education: Student adoption, interaction, evaluation and ethical perceptions. Information and Learning Sciences, 126(1–2), 132–148. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-07-2024-0095
Chiu, T. K. F. (2024). Future research recommendations for transforming higher education with generative AI. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100147
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business School Press.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N. and Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4
Holmes, W., Bialik, M. and Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
Jin, Y., Yan, L., Echeverria, V., Gašević, D., & Martinez-Maldonado, R. (2025). Generative AI in higher education: A global perspective of institutional adoption policies and guidelines. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 8, 100348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100348
Kim, J., Yu, S., Detrick, R. and Li, N. (2025). Exploring students’ perspectives on generative AI-assisted academic writing. Education and Information Technologies, 30(1), 1265–1300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12345-6
Kong, S. C. and Abelson, H. (Eds.). (2022). Computational thinking education in K-12: Artificial intelligence literacy and physical computing. MIT Press.
Laupichler, M. C., Aster, A., Schirch, J. and Raupach, T. (2022). Artificial intelligence literacy in higher and adult education: A scoping literature review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100101
Lee, K. (2019). Is IPR a facilitator of, or a barrier to, catch-up by latecomers? Intellectual Property, Innovation and Economic Inequality, 106, 45–62. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788977989.00009
Long, D. and Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–16). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727
Lundvall, B. A. (1992). User–producer relationships, national systems of innovation and internationalisation. In B. A. Lundvall (Ed.), National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning (pp. 45–67). Pinter Publishers.
Mah, D. K. and Groß, N. (2024). Artificial intelligence in higher education: Exploring faculty use, self-efficacy, distinct profiles, and professional development needs. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00458-7
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56
Moorhouse, B. L., Yeo, M. A. and Wan, Y. (2023). Generative AI tools and assessment: Guidelines of the world's top-ranking universities. Computers and Education Open, 5, 100151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100151
Moral-Muñoz, J. A., Herrera-Viedma, E., Santisteban-Espejo, A. and Cobo, M. J. (2020). Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up-to-date review. El Profesional de la Información, 29(1), e290103. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03
Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W. and Qiao, M. S. (2021). Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041
Pelletier, K., McCormack, M., Muscanell, N., Reeves, J., Robert, J. and Arbino, N. (2024). 2024 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report: Teaching and Learning Edition. EDUCAUSE.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. In L. Crothers & C. Lockhart (Eds.), Culture and politics: A reader (pp. 223–234). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-62397-6_12
Southworth, J., Migliaccio, K., Glover, J., Reed, D., McCarty, C. and Thomas, A. (2023). Developing a model for AI across the curriculum: Transforming the higher education landscape via innovation in AI literacy. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, 100127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100127
Wang, C., Chen, X., Hu, Z., Jin, S. and Gu, X. (2025). Deconstructing university learners' adoption intention towards AIGC technology: A mixed‐methods study using ChatGPT as an example. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 41(1), e13117. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.13117
World Bank. (2023). World Bank country and lending groups. https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M. and Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education—Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
