Inteligencia Artificial Generativa en la Educación: Transformación del aprendizaje, la evaluación y la ética académica
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70577/cieninter.v4i3.131Palabras clave:
inteligencia artificial generativa, IA agentiva, educación superior, evaluación educativa, ética académica, aprendizaje personalizado, integridad académica, gobernanza institucional, alfabetización algorítmica.Resumen
Los resultados revelan que la IAG potencia la personalización del aprendizaje, la retroalimentación inmediata y el acceso democratizado al conocimiento; no obstante, introduce desafíos críticos en la evaluación auténtica, la propiedad intelectual y la equidad digital. Se identifican cinco dimensiones de transformación: (1) pedagogía adaptativa mediada por IAG, (2) reconfiguración de los instrumentos evaluativos, (3) nuevos paradigmas de ética académica, (4) brechas de acceso y alfabetización algorítmica, y (5) la emergencia de la IA agentiva y la gobernanza institucional. La evidencia más reciente muestra que el uso estudiantil de IAG pasó de una adopción emergente (alrededor del 50 % en 2023) a una situación de práctica universalidad (92-95 % en el Reino Unido y cifras similares en Estados Unidos hacia 2026), lo que ha desplazado el debate institucional de la detección hacia el diseño de evaluaciones resilientes y la 'fluidez en IA' como resultado de aprendizaje. El estudio concluye que la integración efectiva de la IAG en la educación superior requiere marcos regulatorios flexibles y actualizables, desarrollo de competencias críticas en estudiantes y docentes, y el diseño de evaluaciones auténticas centradas en procesos cognitivos de orden superior. Se propone un Modelo de Gobernanza Educativa de la IAG (MGE-IAG), ampliado en esta edición con un quinto subsistema agentivo, para orientar políticas institucionales y prácticas pedagógicas en el contexto posdigital.
Descargas
Citas
Adel, A., & Kandil, M. A. (2024). ChatGPT in education: A systematic review of empirical research. Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(2), ep520. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/14505 DOI: https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/14850
Baidoo-Anu, D., & Ansah, L. O. (2023). Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. Journal of AI, 7(1), 52-62. https://doi.org/10.61969/jai.1337500 DOI: https://doi.org/10.61969/jai.1337500
Bastani, H., Bastani, O., Sungu, A., Ge, H., Kabakcı, Ö., & Mariman, R. (2024). Generative AI can harm learning. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4895486 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4895486
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of FAccT 2021, 610-623. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
Biesta, G. J. J. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Paradigm Publishers.
Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arber, S., von Arx, S., ... & Liang, P. (2021). On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258.
Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Students' voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(43). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2023). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/mrz8h
Dahlke, J. A., Croco, K., Kotturi, Y., Klemmer, S. R., & West, J. D. (2024). How are instructors adapting to ChatGPT and other generative AI tools in their teaching? arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.06702.
Dai, W., Lin, J., Jin, F., Li, T., Tsai, Y. S., Gasevic, D., & Chen, G. (2023). Can large language models provide feedback to students? A case study on ChatGPT. Proceedings of ICALT 2023, 323-325. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT58144.2023.00103 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT58122.2023.00100
Doshi, A. R., & Hauser, O. P. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence enhances creativity. Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 24-075. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4535536
Eke, D. O. (2023). ChatGPT and the assessment of learning outcomes. Information, 14(2), 123. https://doi.org/10.3390/info14020123 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/info14020123
Engageli. (2026, 13 de junio). 25 AI in education statistics to guide your learning strategy in 2026. https://www.engageli.com/blog/ai-in-education-statistics
Flaherty, C. (2025). Survey: Most college students use AI for coursework. Inside Higher Ed.
Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., ... & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People — An ethical framework for a good AI society. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689-707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5
Freeman, J. (2025). Student Generative AI Survey 2025. HEPI–Kortext. https://www.hepi.ac.uk/reports/student-generative-ai-survey-2025/
Hirabayashi, K., et al. (2024). Undergraduate AI use at Harvard, Spring 2024 [informe institucional].
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2023). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign. DOI: https://doi.org/10.58863/20.500.12424/4276068
Hu, K. (2023). ChatGPT sets record for fastest-growing user base — analyst note. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/technology/chatgpt-sets-record-fastest-growing-user-base-analyst-note-2023-02-01/
International Center for Academic Integrity. (2021). The fundamental values of academic integrity (3ª ed.).
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 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Liang, W., Yuksekgonul, M., Mao, Y., Wu, E., & Zou, J. (2023). GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers. Patterns, 4(7), 100779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100779 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100779
Lockwood, C., Munn, Z., & Porritt, K. (2015). Qualitative research synthesis: Methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 179-187. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000062 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000062
Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727
Mignolo, W. D. (2009). Epistemic disobedience, independent thought and decolonial freedom. Theory, Culture & Society, 26(7-8), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409349275 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409349275
Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. Sage Publications. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985000
OpenAI. (2023). GPT-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774.
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Policy Options / IRPP. (2026, 12 de junio). AI is forcing Canadian universities to rethink student assessment. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2026/06/ai-university-assessment/
Sallam, M., Salim, N. A., Barakat, M., & Al-Tammemi, A. B. (2023). ChatGPT applications in medical, dental, pharmacy, and public health education. Narra J, 3(1), e103. https://doi.org/10.52225/narra.v3i1.103 DOI: https://doi.org/10.52225/narra.v3i1.103
Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individuals' cognition: A dynamic interactional view. En G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions (pp. 111-138). Cambridge University Press.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10.
Stokel-Walker, C. (2023). ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: Many scientists disapprove. Nature, 613, 620-621. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00107-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00107-z
Sullivan, M., Kelly, A., & McLaughlan, P. (2023). ChatGPT in higher education: Considerations for academic integrity and student learning. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.17 DOI: https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.17
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
TEQSA — Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. (2026). Gen AI – academic integrity and assessment reform. https://www.teqsa.gov.au/guides-resources/higher-education-good-practice-hub/gen-ai-knowledge-hub/gen-ai-academic-integrity-and-assessment-reform
Turnitin. (2026, 4 de marzo). AI-native academic integrity trends and impact. https://www.turnitin.com/blog/are-universities-ready-for-ai-native-academic-integrity
UNESCO. (2025). Encuesta a instituciones de educación superior sobre lineamientos de IA [informe institucional].
UPCEA. (2026, 8 de enero). The rise of the agentic AI university in 2026. https://upcea.edu/the-rise-of-the-agentic-ai-university-in-2026/ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landig.2026.101010
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, 30, 5998-6008.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Woolf, B. P. (2009). Building intelligent interactive tutors. Morgan Kaufmann.
Yeadon, W., Inyang, O. O., Mizouri, A., Peach, A., & Testrow, C. (2024). The death of the short-form physics essay in the forthcoming AI era. Physics Education, 59(2), 025028. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ad1ee8
Yilmaz, R., & Yilmaz, F. G. K. (2023). The effect of generative artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool use on students' computational thinking skills, programming self-efficacy and motivation. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, 100147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100147 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100147
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2026 Andrea Tatiana Cabezas Reyes, Mayra Alejandra Fiallos Sánchez, Paulina Iveth Vizcaíno Zúñiga, Israel Alejandro Maldonado Palacios, Germania Margarita Maldonado Palacios
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-CompartirIgual 4.0.
