De la educabilidad a la Aceptación de la tecnología y alfabetización en Inteligencia Artificial: validación de un instrumento

  1. Cristina Galván Fernández
  2. Diego Calderón-Garrido
Journal:
Digital Education Review

ISSN: 2013-9144

Year of publication: 2024

Issue: 45

Pages: 8-14

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: Digital Education Review

Abstract

In the first wave of AI, Susan Leigh Star made visible how the development of AI was done without social consensus by considering Davis' studies in relation to the acceptance of technology in the world of work. The conclusions derived, known as the Durkheim test, respond to the antonyms that are being formulated during the settlement of AI in educational discourses. Recognising that the act of educating today is nourished from the most libertarian pedagogies to those more driven by political agendas, there are multiple educational perspectives in relation to AI. In this diversity, the different fields of educational action may or may not adopt AI from an instrumental and/or social perspective. Despite the topicality of the subject, researchers are still lacking instruments to analyse the positions of the educational community in general and of the student stratum in particular. For this reason, the aim of this article is to adapt and validate two surveys that have shown excellent results in their original versions, as well as to analyse the relationship between the two. For this purpose, the adaptation of the technology acceptance survey and the AI literacy survey has been applied to a sample of 134 students from different Masters in Education programmes. The exploratory factor analysis and the subsequent confirmatory factor analysis have shown the validity of the adapted instrument.

Bibliographic References

  • Antonietti, C., Cattaneo, A. & Amenduni, F. (2022). Can teachers’ digital competence influence technology acceptance in vocational education?. Computers in Human Behavior, 132, 10726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107266
  • Aselmeier, U. (1983). Antropología biológica y pedagogía. Alhambra.
  • Comenius, J. A. (1971). Didáctica Magna. Reusda.
  • Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R. i Warshaw, P. (1989). User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.
  • Davis, F.D., & Venkatesh, V. (1996). A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: three experiments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45(1), 19-45. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1996.0040.
  • Durkheim, E. (2012). La división del trabajo social. Biblioteca Nueva.
  • Fullat, O. (2015). Homo educandus: Antropología filosófica de la educación. UIA Puebla.
  • Giussani, L. (2012). Educar es un riesgo. Apuntes para un método educativo verdadero. Encuentro.
  • Käser, T.; Schwing, A.; Hazan, T. & Gross, M. (2014). Computational education using latent structured prediction. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, Iceland, 540–548. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v33/kaser14.html
  • Lévinas, E. (1991). Ética e infinito. Visor.
  • Lovelace, A. A. (1843). Scientific Memoirs Selected from the Transactions of Foreign Academies of Science and Learned Societies. Richard and John E. Taylor.
  • Ng, D. T. K., Wu, W., Leung, J. K. L., Chiu, T. K. F., & Chu, S. K. W. (2023). Design and validation of the AI literacy questionnaire: The affective, behavioural, cognitive and ethical approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 00, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13411
  • Ouyang, F., & Jiao, P. (2021). Artificial intelligence in education: The three paradigms. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100020
  • Riedl, M. O. (2019). Human-centered artificial intelligence and machine learning. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1(1), 33–36.
  • Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1996). “Learning in Wonderland: What Computers Really Offer Education. En Kerr, S. (ed.). Technology and the Future of Education. University of Chicago Press, 111-130.
  • Star, S.L. (1989). The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Distributed Problem Solving. In L. Gasser & M. N. Huhns (Ed.), Distributed Artificial Intelligence (pp. 37-54). Morgan Kauffman.
  • Turing, A. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59, 433-460.
  • UNESCO (2019). Artificial Intelligence in education: Challenges and opportunities for sustainable development. https://en.unesco.org/news/challenges-and-opportunities-artificial-intelligence-education.
  • UNESCO (2022). Recomendación sobre la ética de la inteligencia artificial. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137_spa
  • Venkatesh, V. & Davis, F.D. (1996)A Model of the Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use: Development and Test. Decision Sciences, 27(3), 451-481.
  • Massumi, B. (2007). Parables for the virtual. Movement, Affect, Sensation. Duke University press.
  • Yang, S. J., Ogata, H., Matsui, T., & Chen, N. S. (2021). Human-centered artificial intelligence in education: Seeing the invisible through the visible. Computers & Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, Article 100008.
Data source: Dialnet