The Role of Synthetic Data in Educational Research: A Systematic Review

Ziyaeddin Halid İpek; Erol Poyraz; Gökhan Yigit

doi:10.3991/ijim.v20i16.62224

Authors

Ziyaeddin Halid İpek Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1313-7770
Erol Poyraz Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6617-0692
Gökhan Yigit Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7381-0731

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v20i16.62224

Keywords:

Synthetic Data, Artificial Intelligence, Educational Research, Systematic Literature Review, Learning Analytics, Data Privacy, Data Augmentation, Generative AI

Abstract

The primary aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive and structured synthesis of existing research to understand how synthetic data is conceptualized, generated, and utilized within educational contexts. By analyzing 29 peer-reviewed articles, the research identifies seven primary dimensions of application: privacy and data sharing, data augmentation, NLP/ text generation, predictive modeling, pedagogical design, methodological analysis, and synthetic data in mobile, interactive, and adaptive learning systems. A significant finding is the increasing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning technologies, such as generative adversarial networks (GANs) and large language models (LLMs), which are now central to generating high-fidelity artificial records and augmenting qualitative datasets. Across these analytical, predictive, and pedagogical domains, synthetic data offers a viable response to persistent challenges related to data scarcity, privacy constraints, and limited data accessibility in education. The findings indicate a growing reliance on synthetic generation as an emerging methodological response to data-intensive demands. While synthetic data supports advanced modeling, adaptive learning systems, and instructional design, its epistemological legitimacy and methodological robustness remain contingent on rigorous validation practices. The study concludes that the field currently lacks standardized validation protocols, particularly regarding subgroup equity and fairness. Establishing transparent, equity-aware frameworks remains essential for the future integration of synthetic data into applied educational systems.

Author Biographies

Ziyaeddin Halid İpek , Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey

Ziyaeddin Halid İpek is a researcher at Educational Administration Department, Dede Korkut Faculty of Education, Kafkas University, Türkiye. His research interests include mindfulness and AI in education

Erol Poyraz , Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey

Erol Poyraz is a researcher at ELT Department, Dede Korkut Faculty of Education, Kafkas University, Türkiye. His interests include parental involvement in language education, linguistics.

Gökhan Yigit, Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey

Gökhan Yigit is a researcher at ELT Department, Dede Korkut Faculty of Education, Kafkas University, Türkiye. His interests include second language teacher education, affective factors in language teaching and AI in education.

References

[1] Long, P., & Siemens, G. (2014). Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(3), pp. 132–137.

[2] Baker, R. S., & Inventado, P. S. (2014). Educational data mining and learning analytics. In J. A. Larusson & B. White (Eds.), Learning Analytics: From Research to Practice (pp. 61–75). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3305-7_4

[3] Hansen, A., & Machin, D. (2018). Media and Communication Research Methods. Bloomsbury Publishing.

[4] Bellovin, S. M., Dutta, P. K., & Reitinger, N. (2019). Privacy and synthetic datasets. Stanford Technology Law Review, 22(1), pp. 1–52. https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Bellovin_20190129.pdf

[5] Chen, R. J., Lu, M. Y., Chen, T. Y., Williamson, D. F. K., & Mahmood, F. (2021). Synthetic data in machine learning for medicine and healthcare. Nature Biomedical Engineering, 5, pp. 493–497. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-021-00751-8

[6] Koul, A., Duran, D., & Hernandez-Boussard, T. (2025). Synthetic data, synthetic trust: Navigating data challenges in the digital revolution. The Lancet Digital Health, 7(11).

[7] Drechsler, J. (2011). Synthetic Datasets for Statistical Disclosure Control: Theory and Implementation. Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0326-5

[8] Rankin, D., Black, M., Bond, R., Wallace, J., Mulvenna, M., & Epelde, G. (2020). Reliability of supervised machine learning using synthetic data in health care: Model to preserve privacy for data sharing. JMIR Medical Informatics, 8(7), Article e18910. https://doi.org/10.2196/18910

[9] Iloh, D., Olayinka, O. T., Iyere, F., & Chilakala, S. (2025). Generative private synthetic student data for learning analytics: An empirical study. IEEE Access.

[10] Zhan, C., Deho, O. B., Zhang, X., Joksimovic, S., & de Laat, M. (2023). Synthetic data generator for student data serving learning analytics: A comparative study. Learning Letters, 1, pp. 5–5. https://doi.org/10.59453/KHZW9006

[11] Farhood, H., Joudah, I., Beheshti, A., & Muller, S. (2024). Advancing student outcome predictions through generative adversarial networks. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100293

[12] Khalil, M., Vadiee, F., Shakya, R., & Liu, Q. (2025). Creating artificial students that never existed: Leveraging large language models and CTGANs for synthetic data generation. In Proceedings of the 15th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (pp. 439–450).

[13] Gursoy, M. E., Inan, A., Nergiz, M. E., & Saygin, Y. (2016). Privacy-preserving learning analytics: Challenges and techniques. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 10(1), pp. 68–81.

[14] Williamson, B. (2017). Big Data in Education: The Digital Future of Learning, Policy and Practice. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529714920

[15] Kieser, A., Müller, S., & Weber, P. (2023). Synthetic datasets for reproducibility in educational research: A methodological framework. Educational Research Review, 39, Article 100521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100521

[16] Kapania, S., Ballard, S., Kessler, A., & Vaughan, J. W. (2025). Examining the expanding role of synthetic data throughout the AI development pipeline. In Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 45–60).

[17] Nikolenko, S. I. (2021). Synthetic Data for Deep Learning (Vol. 174, p. 348). Springer.

[18] Kesgin, K. (2025). FairSYN-Edu a diffusion-based model for fair and private educational data synthesis. Discovery Education, 4, pp. 336–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00743-9

[19] Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele University Technical Report, 33(2004), pp. 1–26.

[20] Mustafa, M. Y., Tlili, A., Lampropoulos, G., et al. (2024). A systematic review of literature reviews on artificial intelligence in education (AIED): A roadmap to a future research agenda. Smart Learning Environments, 11, pp. 59–83. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00350-5

[21] Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. John Wiley & Sons.

[22] Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, pp. 333–339.

[23] Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), Article e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

[24] Esen, M., Bellibas, M. S., & Gumus, S. (2020). The evolution of leadership research in higher education for two decades (1995–2014): A bibliometric and content analysis. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 23(3), pp. 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2018.1508753

[25] Kuzhabekova, A., Hendel, D. D., & Chapman, D. W. (2015). Mapping global research on international higher education. Research in Higher Education, 56(8), pp. 861–882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-015-9371-1

[26] Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), pp. 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

[27] Abdullah, D., Aziz, M. I. A., & Ibrahim, A. L. M. (2014). A "research" into international student-related research: (Re)visualising our stand? Higher Education, 67(3), pp. 235–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2018.1508753

[28] Liu, Q., Shakya, R., Jovanovic, J., Khalil, M., & de la Hoz-Ruiz, J. (2025). Ensuring privacy through synthetic data generation in education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(3), pp. 1053–1073. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13576

[29] Bonnéry, D., Feng, Y., Henneberger, A. K., Johnson, T. L., Lachowicz, M., Rose, B. A., & Zheng, Y. (2019). The promise and limitations of synthetic data as a strategy to expand access to state-level multi-agency longitudinal data. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 12(4), pp. 616–647. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2019.1631421

[30] Teker, G. T. (2019). Coping with unbalanced designs of generalizability theory: G String V. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 6(5), pp. 57–69. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.658747

[31] Martin, P. P., & Graulich, N. (2024). Navigating the data frontier in science assessment: Advancing data augmentation strategies for machine learning applications with generative artificial intelligence. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100265

[32] Stanja, J., Dannemann, S., Krugel, J., & Hoppe, A. (2025). Investigating evidence-oriented generation of synthetic text data with a generative large language model in science education. International Journal of Science Education, pp. 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2025.2538834

[33] Misiejuk, K., López-Pernas, S., Kaliisa, R., & Saqr, M. (2025). Mapping the landscape of generative artificial intelligence in learning analytics: A systematic literature review. Journal of Learning Analytics, 12(1), pp. 12–31. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2025.8591

[34] Shabnam, A. S., Ramachandriah, T., & Haladappa, M. S. (2025). Predictive model to analyze real and synthetic data for learners' performance prediction using regression techniques. Online Learning, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v29i1.4390

[35] Sajja, R., Sermet, Y., Cwiertny, D., & Demir, I. (2025). Integrating AI and learning analytics for data-driven pedagogical decisions and personalized interventions in education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, pp. 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-025-09897-9

[36] Dunn, P. K. (2024). The impact of using artificial data in undergraduate statistics students' projects due to COVID-19 lockdowns. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 55(8), pp. 1759–1768. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2022.2056095

[37] Liu, J. (2025). AI-driven knowledge discovery: Developing a human–machine collaborative framework for learning Japanese sentence patterns. Education and Information Technologies, 30(9), pp. 12413–12446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13267-w

[38] Kaplan, D., & McCarty, A. T. (2013). Data fusion with international large scale assessments: A case study using the OECD PISA and TALIS surveys. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 1(1), p. 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-0739-1-6

[39] Bethencourt-Aguilar, A., Castellanos-Nieves, D., Sosa-Alonso, J. J., & Area-Moreira, M. (2023). Use of generative adversarial networks (GANs) in educational technology research. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 12(1), pp. 153–170. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2023.1.1231

[40] Liu, Y., Bhandari, S., & Pardos, Z. A. (2025). Leveraging LLM respondents for item evaluation: A psychometric analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(3), pp. 1028–1052. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13570

[41] Bäumer, F. S., Schultenkämper, S., Geierhos, M., & Lee, Y. S. (2024). Mirroring privacy risks with digital twins: When pieces of personal data suddenly fit together. SN Computer Science, 5(8), Article 1109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-024-03413-z

[42] Brothers, T., Adhikari, K., Ramazani, M., Imtiaz, A., & Al-Mamun, M. (2026). Synthetic data-augmented machine learning for 30-day readmission prediction in patients with chronic conditions: A retrospective real-world study. BMJ Open, 16(4), e108273.

[43] Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michalany, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, Article 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274

[44] Floridi, L., & Chiriatti, M. (2020). GPT-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. Minds and Machines, 30(4), pp. 681–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09548-1

[45] Fuchs, S., Werth, A., Méndez, C., & Butcher, J. (2025). Leveraging AI-generated synthetic data to train natural language processing models for qualitative feedback analysis. Journal of Engineering Education, 114(4), e70033. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.70033

[46] Ehrett, C., Hegde, S., Andre, K., Liu, D., & Wilson, T. (2024). Leveraging open-source large language models for data augmentation in hospital staff surveys: Mixed methods study. JMIR Medical Education, 10, e51433.

[47] Fahd, K., & Miah, S. J. (2025). Enhanced predictive performance: A comparative analysis of ML and DL models using on augmented LMS interaction data. Contemporary Educational Technology, 17(4), ep606. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/17453

[48] Hooshyar, D. (2024). Temporal learner modelling through integration of neural and symbolic architectures. Education and Information Technologies, 29(1), pp. 1119–1146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12334-y

[49] Xu, L., Skoularidou, M., Cuesta-Infante, A., & Veeramachaneni, K. (2019). Modeling tabular data using conditional GAN. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32. https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.00503

[50] Nicholas, I., Kuo, H., Perez-Concha, O., Hanly, M., Mnatzaganian, E., Hao, B., & Barbieri, S. (2024). Enriching data science and health care education: Application and impact of synthetic data sets through the health gym project. JMIR Medical Education, 10(1), e51388.

[51] Zama, F. (2024). An introduction to modelling through a microbial interaction application. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 55(2), pp. 340–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2023.2249465

[52] Surendran, D., Arulkumar, V., Aruna, M., Sangamithrai, K., & Thangadurai, N. (2024, February). Improving the quality of education through data analytics and big data contributions. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2742, No. 1, p. 020001). AIP Publishing LLC.

[53] Romero, C., & Ventura, S. (2020). Educational data mining and learning analytics: An updated survey. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 10(3), Article e1355. https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1355

[54] Chachoui, Y., Azizi, N., Hotte, R., & Bensebaa, T. (2024). Enhancing algorithmic assessment in education: Equi-fused-data-based SMOTE for balanced learning. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100222

[55] Zhang, L., Lin, J., Sabatini, J., Borchers, C., Weitekamp, D., Cao, M., & Graesser, A. C. (2025). Data augmentation for sparse multidimensional learning performance data using generative AI. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 18, pp. 145–164. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2025.3526582

[56] Kieser, F., Wulff, P., Kuhn, J., & Küchemann, S. (2023). Educational data augmentation in physics education research using ChatGPT. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 19(2), 020150. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020150

[57] López-Pernas, S., Misiejuk, K., Kaliisa, R., & Saqr, M. (2025). Capturing the process of students' AI interactions when creating and learning complex network structures. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2025.3568599

[58] Sanders, J., Mobley IV, J., Miller, I., Sochacka, N. W., Jensen, P. A., & Jensen, K. J. (2026). Affordances and limitations of using large language models to generate qualitative data about mental health perceptions in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 115(1), e70037. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.70037

[59] Chen, X., Xie, H., Zou, D., Xu, L., & Wang, F. L. (2025). Automatic classification of Chinese programming MOOC reviews using fine-tuned BERTs and GPT-augmented data. Educational Technology & Society, 28(1), pp. 230–249.

[60] Dunn, M. C., Kadane, J. B., & Garrow, J. R. (2003). Comparing harm done by mobility and class absence: Missing students and missing data. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 28(3), pp. 269–288. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986028003269

[61] Wu, S., Wang, J., & Zhang, W. (2023). Contrastive personalized exercise recommendation with reinforcement learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 17, pp. 691–703. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2023.3326449

[62] Miranda, E., Aryuni, M., Rahmawati, M. I., Hiererra, S. E., & Sano, A. V. D. (2024). Machine learning's model-agnostic interpretability on the prediction of students' academic performance in video-conference-assisted online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100312