Inteligencia artificial generativa y pensamiento crítico en la educación superior: Implicaciones éticas, académicas y sociales
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.68503/2j0es841Keywords:
inteligencia artificial, sesgo algorítmico, funcionamiento diferencial del ítem, psicometría, aprendizaje automático, evaluación educativaAbstract
La finalidad de la presente investigación fue el estudio de la relación entre el uso de inteligencia artificial generativa y el pensamiento crítico en los estudiantes de educación superior; en este sentido se abordaron los aspectos éticos, académicos y sociales implicados. Fue un estudio de tipo cuantitativo, no experimental, transversal, de tipo descriptivo-correlacional. La muestra estuvo conformada por 185 estudiantes universitarios seleccionados mediante muestreo no probabilístico por conveniencia. Se utilizó para la investigación un cuestionario adecuado y con escala tipo Likert estructurada, de 28 ítems, organizadas en 4 dimensiones: uso académico de IA generativa, pensamiento crítico, percepción ética e implicaciones sociales. Se obtuvo un Alfa de Cronbach para el coeficiente de confiabilidad general del instrumento de 0,88. Entre los resultados se encontró que el 65,4 % de los estudiantes utilizaban IA generativa diariamente o semanalmente a la hora de escribir borradores, buscar información inicial y organizar ideas. Asimismo, se logró motivar una correlación positiva moderada entre el uso académico de IA generativa y el pensamiento crítico (rho = 0,46; p < 0,01); así como entre el pensamiento crítico y la percepción ética (rho = 0,52; p < 0,01). La IA generativa puede fomentar el aprendizaje universitario desde el momento en que se use de una forma reflexiva, ética o pedagógicamente orientada.
References
1. Baker RS, Hawn A. Algorithmic bias in education. Int J Artif Intell Educ. 2022;32(4):1052-1092. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00285-9.
2. von Davier AA, Mislevy RJ, Hao J. Statistical applications in educational measurement. Annu Rev Stat Appl. 2021;8:439-461. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-statistics-042720-104044.
3. Tay L, Woo SE, Hickman L, Booth BM, D'Mello SK. A conceptual framework for investigating and mitigating machine-learning measurement bias (MLMB) in psychological assessment. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci. 2022;5(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211061337
4. Johnson MS, Liu X, McCaffrey DF. Psychometric methods to evaluate measurement and algorithmic bias in automated scoring. J Educ Meas. 2022;59(3):338-361. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12335.
5. Belzak WCM. The multidimensionality of measurement bias in high-stakes testing: using machine learning to evaluate complex sources of differential item functioning. Educ Meas Issues Pract. 2023;42(1):24-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12486.
6. Loukina A, Madnani N, Zechner K. The many dimensions of algorithmic fairness in educational applications. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications. Florence: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2019. p.1-10. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W19-4401
7. Gardner J, Brooks C, Baker RS. Evaluating the fairness of predictive student models through slicing analysis. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge. New York: ACM; 2019. p.225-234. https://doi.org/10.1145/3303772.3303791
8. Mehrabi N, Morstatter F, Saxena N, Lerman K, Galstyan A. A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Comput Surv. 2021;54(6):115. https://doi.org/10.1145/3457607.
9. Tabassi E. Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0). Gaithersburg: National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2023. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1
10. Huggins-Manley AC, Booth BM, D'Mello SK. Toward argument-based fairness with an application to AI-enhanced educational assessments. J Educ Meas. 2022;59(3):362-388. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12334.
11. Johnson MS, McCaffrey DF. Evaluating fairness of automated scoring in educational measurement. In: Yaneva V, von Davier M, editors. Advancing Natural Language Processing in Educational Assessment. New York: Routledge; 2023. p.142-164. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003278658-12
12. Jiang W, Pardos ZA. Towards equity and algorithmic fairness in student grade prediction. In: Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. New York: ACM; 2021. p.608-617. https://doi.org/10.1145/3461702.3462623
13. Li L, Sha L, Li Y, Raković M, Rong J, Joksimovic S, et al. Moral machines or tyranny of the majority? A systematic review on predictive bias in education. In: LAK23: 13th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference. New York: ACM; 2023. p.499-508. https://doi.org/10.1145/3576050.3576119
14. D'Urso ED, De Roover K, Vermunt JK, Tijmstra J. Scale length does matter: recommendations for measurement invariance testing with categorical factor analysis and item response theory approaches. Behav Res Methods. 2022;54:2114-2145. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01690-7.
15. Teresi JA, Wang C, Kleinman M, Jones RN, Weiss DJ. Differential item functioning analyses of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures: methods, challenges, advances, and future directions. Psychometrika. 2021;86(3):674-711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-021-09775-0.
16. Rezai A. Fairness in classroom assessment: development and validation of a questionnaire. Lang Test Asia. 2022;12:17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-022-00162-9.
17. Gohar U, Cheng L. A survey on intersectional fairness in machine learning: notions, mitigation, and challenges. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2023. p.6619-6627. https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2023/742
18. Mitchell M, Wu S, Zaldivar A, Barnes P, Vasserman L, Hutchinson B, et al. Model cards for model reporting. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. New York: ACM; 2019. p.220-229. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287596
19. Raji ID, Smart A, White RN, Mitchell M, Gebru T, Hutchinson B, et al. Closing the AI accountability gap: defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. In: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. New York: ACM; 2020. p.33-44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372873
20. Zhai X, Chu X, Chai CS, Jong MSY, Istenic A, Spector M, et al. A review of artificial intelligence (AI) in education from 2010 to 2020. Complexity. 2021;2021:8812542. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8812542.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Katiuska Adelaida Bastidas González, Segundo Alexander Rosado Martínez, Giovanni Juan Maldonado Aguirre (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
