Bridging the Divide: An Empirical Investigation of Artificial Intelligence and Generative Artificial Intelligence Integration Across Genders, Disciplines and Academic Roles

Gesser-Edelsburg, Anat; Hijazi, Rana; Eliyahu, Ester; Tal, Amir

doi:10.2478/eurodl-2024-0008

Abstract

The burgeoning role of artificial intelligence (AI) and Generative AI (GenAI) in academia signifies a transformative shift in educational methodologies and research practices. This mixed-methods cross-sectional study investigates the differential familiarity, usage and attitudes towards AI and GenAI among 704 students and lecturers, supplemented by in-depth interviews with 12 industry and academic professionals. Findings indicate minimal familiarity with AI tools and low use, primarily attributing this to a lack of knowledge. Notably, despite a reported higher familiarity among men than women, actual usage rates did not significantly differ. Discrepancies were also observed between students and lecturers in familiarity and usage, with institutional factors and generational divides impacting AI integration. The study underscores the necessity for academia to bridge these gaps through targeted AI literacy initiatives, fostering equitable access and integrating AI into curriculum and training.

References

Andrew, S., & Halcomb, E. J. (2009). Mixed methods research for nursing and the health sciences. Blackwell Pub.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Banh, L., & Strobel, G. (2023). Generative artificial intelligence. Electronic Markets, 33(1), 63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-023-00680-1
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bonsu, E. M., & Baffour-Koduah, D. (2023). From the consumers’ side: Determining students’ perception and intention to use ChatGPT in Ghanaian higher education. Journal of Education, Society & Multiculturalism, 4(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.2478/jesm-2023-0001
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Chiu, T. K. F. (2023). The impact of generative AI (GenAI) on practices, policies and research direction in education: A case of ChatGPT and Midjourney. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2253861
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Correll, S. J. (2001). Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self assessments. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1691–1730. https://doi.org/10.1086/321299
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dahlkemper, M. N., Lahme, S. Z., & Klein, P. (2023). How do physics students evaluate artificial intelligence responses on comprehension questions? A study on the perceived scientific accuracy and linguistic quality of ChatGPT. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 19(1), 010142. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.010142
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dimla, C. Y., Sumaway, M. D., Torres, J. M. T., & Dela Cruz, C. A. B. (2024). The role of artificial intelligence in personalized learning: Enhancing student engagement and academic performance. International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 4(4), 8495-8505.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., …& Wright, R. (2023). Opinion Paper: “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ehrlinger, J., & Dunning, D. (2003). How chronic self-views influence (and potentially mislead) estimates of performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Feuerriegel, S., Hartmann, J., Janiesch, C., & Zschech, P. (2024). Generative AI. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 66(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-023-00834-7
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Haensch, A.-C., Ball, S., Herklotz, M., & Kreuter, F. (2023). Seeing ChatGPT through students’ eyes: An analysis of TikTok data.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Huang, C. (2013). Gender differences in academic selfefficacy: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0097-y
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Idowu, J. A. (2024). Debiasing education algorithms. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-023-00389-4
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jordan, M. I, & Mitchell, T. M. (2015). Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects. Science, 349(6245), 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa8415
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kohnke, L., Moorhouse, B. L., & Zou, D. (2023). Exploring generative artificial intelligence preparedness among university language instructors: A case study. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5(2), 100156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100156
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kurtz, G., Amzalag, M., Shaked, N., Zaguri, Y., Kohen-Vacs, D., Gal, E., …& Barak-Medina, E. (2024). Strategies for integrating generative AI into higher education: Navigating challenges and leveraging opportunities. Education Sciences, 14(5), 503. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14050503
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Malik, T., Dettmer, S., Hughes, L., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2024). Academia and generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) SWOT analysis – Higher education policy implications. In S. K. Sharma, Y. K. Dwivedi, B. Metri, B. Lal, & A. Elbanna (Eds.), Transfer, diffusion and adoption of next-generation digital technologies (pp. 3–16). Springer Nature Switzerland.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mao, J., Chen, B., & Liu, J. C. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence in education and its implications for assessment. TechTrends, 68(1), 58–66. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11528-023-00911-4
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Marengo, A., Pagano, A., Pange, J., & Soomro, K. A. (2024). The educational value of artificial intelligence in higher education: A 10-year systematic literature review. Interactive Technology and Smart Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-11-2023-0218
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mathew, R., & Stefaniak, J. E. (2024). A needs assessment to support faculty members’ awareness of generative AI technologies to support instruction. TechTrends, 68, 773–789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-024-00964-z
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ooi, K.-B., Tan, G. W.-H., Al-Emran, M., Al-Sharafi, M. A., Capatina, A., Chakraborty, A., …& Wong, L.-W. (2023). The potential of generative artificial intelligence across disciplines: Perspectives and future directions. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2023.2261010
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Padgett DK. (2012). Qualitative and mixed methods in public health. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/doi:10.4135/9781483384511
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pallier, G. (2003). Gender differences in the selfassessment of accuracy on cognitive tasks. Sex Roles, 48(5), 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022877405718
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pedró, F., Subosa, M., Rivas, A., & Valverde, P. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Challenges and opportunities for sustainable development.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ravi Kumar, V. V., & Raman, R. (2022). Student perceptions on artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education. 2022 IEEE integrated STEM education conference (ISEC) (pp. 450-454).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sáinz, M., Fàbregues, S., & Solé, J. (2020). Parent and teacher depictions of gender gaps in secondary student appraisals of their academic competences. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 573752. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.573752
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Saks, M., & Allsop, J. (2013). Researching health: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods (2nd ed.). SAGE London.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publications.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Turing, A. M. (2009). Computing machinery and intelligence. In R. Epstein, G. Roberts, & G. Beber (Eds.), Parsing the Turing test: Philosophical and methodological issues in the quest for the thinking computer (pp. 23–65). Springer Netherlands.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., …& Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wang, L., & Yu, Z. (2023). Gender-moderated effects of academic self-concept on achievement, motivation, performance, and self-efficacy: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1136141. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1136141
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zou, B., Liviero, S., Hao, M., & Wei, C. (2020). Artificial intelligence technology for EAP speaking skills: Student perceptions of opportunities and challenges. In M. R. Freiermuth & N. Zarrinabadi (Eds.), Technology and the psychology of second language learners and users (pp. 433–463). Springer International Publishing.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Bridging the Divide: An Empirical Investigation of Artificial Intelligence and Generative Artificial Intelligence Integration Across Genders, Disciplines and Academic Roles

Abstract

Paradigm

My account