Promovido por:
https://orcid.org/0009-0001-7419-6080
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3751-7479
La rápida adopción de la inteligencia artificial generativa (IAG) está transformando profundamente las prácticas de enseñanza en la educación superior. Este estudio presenta el desarrollo y validación del Cuestionario de Competencias Docentes para la IAG (CCDGAI) y analiza empíricamente los perfiles de competencia del profesorado en tres dimensiones: tecnológica, pedagógica y ética. Se adoptó un diseño cuantitativo, no experimental y transversal con N=410 docentes universitarios de una institución de educación superior de gran escala. La validez de contenido se evaluó mediante el coeficiente V de Aiken con intervalos de confianza al 95% según el método de intervalo de Penfield & Giacobbi (2004) obtenido de un panel de cinco jueces expertos (V media=.91; rango .84–1.00). La consistencia interna resultó excelente (α total=.973; IC95: .968–.976). El análisis factorial exploratorio confirmó la estructura trifactorial (KMO=.968; Bartlett p<.001). Mediante análisis de conglomerados jerárquico-k-medias se identificaron tres perfiles diferenciados: alta competencia (n=139; 33.9%), competencia media (n=163; 39.8%) y baja competencia (n=108; 26.3%), con validación estadística sólida (silueta=.378; ARI-bootstrap=.821; η²>.67). La competencia ética resultó la más desarrollada; las dimensiones tecnológica y pedagógica evidencian las brechas formativas más pronunciadas. Los hallazgos ofrecen un diagnóstico basado en evidencia para orientar el desarrollo profesional docente diferenciado y las estrategias institucionales de gobernanza de la IAG.
Aiken, L. R. (1985). Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164485451012
Ayyoub, A. M., Khlaif, Z. N., Shamali, M., Abu Eideh, B., Assali, A., Hattab, M. K., Barham, K. A., & Bsharat, T. R. K. (2025). Advancing higher education with GenAI: Factors influencing educator AI literacy. Frontiers in Education, 10, Article 1530721. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1530721
Baig, M. I., & Yadegaridehkordi, E. (2025). Factors influencing academic staff satisfaction and continuous usage of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22, Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00506-4
Belkina, M., Daniel, S., Nikolic, S., Haque, R., Lyden, S., Neal, P., Grundy, S., & Hassan, M. (2025). Implementing generative AI (GenAI) in higher education: A systematic review of case studies. Computers & Education: Artificial Intelligence, 8, 100407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100407
Burneo-Arteaga, P., Lira, Y., Murzi, H., Balula, A., & Costa, A. P. (2025). Capability-based training framework for generative AI in higher education. Frontiers in Education, 10, Article 1594199. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1594199
Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024). Chatting and cheating? Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148
Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence in higher education: The state of the field. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, Article 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8
Deng, R., Jiang, M., Yu, X., Lu, Y., & Liu, S. (2024). Does ChatGPT enhance student learning? A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies. Computers & Education, 227, 105224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105224
DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). SAGE.
Dringó-Horváth, I., Rajki, Z., & T. Nagy, J. (2025). University teachers' digital competence and AI literacy: Moderating role of gender, age, experience, and discipline. Education Sciences, 15(7), Article 868. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15070868
EDUCAUSE. (2025a). 2025 EDUCAUSE AI landscape study: Into the digital AI divide. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2025/2/2025-educause-ai-landscape-study
EDUCAUSE. (2025b). 2025 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report: Teaching and learning edition. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2025/3/2025-educause-horizon-report-teaching-and-learning
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall.
Garzón, J., Patiño, E., & Marulanda, C. (2025). Systematic review of artificial intelligence in education: Trends, benefits, and challenges. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 9(8), Article 84. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti9080084
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.
Hwang, G.-J., Xie, H., Wah, B. W., & Gašević, D. (2020). Vision, challenges, roles and research issues of artificial intelligence in education. Computers & Education: Artificial Intelligence, 1, 100001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100001
Inter-American Development Bank. (2025). AI and education: Building the future through digital transformation (IDB-TN-3122). https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/AI-and-Education-Building-the-Future-Through-Digital-Transformation.pdf
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2025). Literacy in the time of artificial intelligence. Reading Research Quarterly, 60(1), e591. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.591
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Lee, D., & Palmer, E. (2025). Prompt engineering in higher education: A systematic review to help inform curricula. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22, Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00503-7
Liang, J., Stephens, J. M., & Brown, G. T. L. (2025). A systematic review of the early impact of artificial intelligence on higher education curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Frontiers in Education, 10, Article 1522841. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1522841
Liu, D. Y. T., & Bates, S. (2025). Generative AI in higher education: Current practices and ways forward. APRU. https://www.apru.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/APRU-Generative-AI-in-Higher-Education-Whitepaper_Jan-2025.pdf
Mah, D.-K., & 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), Article 58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00490-1
Miao, F., & Cukurova, M. (2024). AI competency framework for teachers. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000391104
Milligan, G. W., & Cooper, M. C. (1987). Methodology review: Clustering methods. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11(4), 329–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168701100401
Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021). AI literacy: Definition, teaching, evaluation and ethical issues. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 58(1), 504–509. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.487
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
OECD. (2025). What should teachers teach and students learn in a future of powerful AI? OECD. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/what-should-teachers-teach-and-students-learn-in-a-future-of-powerful-ai_ca56c7d6-en
Penfield, R. D., & Giacobbi, P. R. (2004). Applying a score confidence interval to Aiken's item content-relevance index. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 8(4), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327841mpee0804_3
Redecker, C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu (Y. Punie, Ed.; EUR 28775 EN). Joint Research Centre, European Commission. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC107466
Rousseeuw, P. J. (1987). Silhouettes: A graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 20, 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-0427(87)90125-7
Sireci, S. G., & Faulkner-Bond, M. (2014). Validity evidence based on test content. Psicothema, 26(1), 100–107. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2013.256
Steinley, D. (2004). Properties of the Hubert-Arabie adjusted Rand index. Psychological Methods, 9(3), 386–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.3.386
Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
UNESCO. (2024). UNESCO AI competency frameworks for students and teachers [Brief]. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/what-you-need-know-about-unescos-new-ai-competency-frameworks-students-and-teachers
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., Vandenbroucke, J. P., & STROBE Initiative. (2007). The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. PLoS Medicine, 4(10), e296. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296
Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58(301), 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1963.10500845
Weng, X., Xia, Q., Gu, M., Rajaram, K., & Chiu, T. K. F. (2024). Assessment and learning outcomes for generative AI in higher education: A scoping review. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 40(6), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.9540
Xia, Q., Weng, X., Ouyang, F., Lin, T. J., & Chiu, T. K. F. (2024). A scoping review on how generative artificial intelligence transforms assessment in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21, Article 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00468-z
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & 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, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
Promovido por:
English
Português
