From Educability to Technology Acceptability and Artificial Intelligence Literacy: Validation of an Instrument
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2024.45.8-14Keywords:
artificial intelligence, technology acceptation, digital literacy, educability, higher educationAbstract
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.
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.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Cristina Galván, Diego Calderón-Garrido
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication.
- The texts published in Digital Education Review, DER, are under a license Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4,0 Spain, of Creative Commons. All the conditions of use in: Creative Commons,
- In order to mention the works, you must give credit to the authors and to this Journal.
- Digital Education Review, DER, does not accept any responsibility for the points of view and statements made by the authors in their work.
