{"title":"编制教育恐惧症量表并研究其心理测量特征","authors":"Deniz Mertkan Gezgin, Tuğba Türk Kurtça","doi":"10.1007/s10639-024-12984-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The purpose of this research is to create a reliable and valid scale to assess AIlessphobia in Education (the fear of being without Artificial Intelligence in education) among university students. In three phases, a sample of 1378 undergraduate students from different faculties at a public university participated in the reliability and validity investigations of the scale during the academic year 2023–2024. Expert comments were obtained to assess the scale's face validity and content validity. The first group sample (<i>n</i> = 420) underwent exploratory factor analysis (EFA), the second group sample (<i>n</i> = 510) underwent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and the third group sample (<i>n</i> = 448) underwent criterion-related validity testing. EFA revealed that the scale had a two-factor structure with 18 items that explained 56.23% of the total variance. The CFA analysis verified the scale's two-factor structure and produced good fit values (χ2/df = 2.25, CFI = .99; TLI = .99; NFI = .98; IFI = .99; SRMR = .049; RMSEA = 0.050 [0.42–0.57]). The first factor's analysis showed acceptable values for Guttman's lambda (λ = 0.930–0.948), McDonald's omega (ω = 0.923–0.929), and Cronbach's alpha (α = 0.925–0.935). Similarly, the second factor's analysis also showed acceptable values for these measures (λ = 0.851–0.880, ω = 0.850–0.879, α = 0.847–0.877). Overall, the entire scale demonstrated acceptable values for Cronbach's alpha (0.925–0.935), McDonald's omega (0.922–0.942), and Guttman's lambda (0.940–0.942). Additionally, the scale exhibited a positive and statistically significant correlation with the Fırat Netlessphobia Scale, indicating satisfactory criterion validity. Cross-gender invariance analysis was also performed, showing that gender invariance was achieved. The results indicate that this scale is valid and reliable for university students. In conclusion, the scale fills a critical gap in educational research by providing a reliable tool to measure students' fears and anxieties about the absence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in their learning experiences. By accurately assessing this unique form of anxiety, educators and policymakers can develop targeted interventions to better understand and mitigate students' fears and support the integration of AI in education, thereby enhancing its constructive contribution to learning.</p>","PeriodicalId":51494,"journal":{"name":"Education and Information Technologies","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Developing the AIlessphobia in education scale and examining its psychometric characteristics\",\"authors\":\"Deniz Mertkan Gezgin, Tuğba Türk Kurtça\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10639-024-12984-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The purpose of this research is to create a reliable and valid scale to assess AIlessphobia in Education (the fear of being without Artificial Intelligence in education) among university students. In three phases, a sample of 1378 undergraduate students from different faculties at a public university participated in the reliability and validity investigations of the scale during the academic year 2023–2024. Expert comments were obtained to assess the scale's face validity and content validity. The first group sample (<i>n</i> = 420) underwent exploratory factor analysis (EFA), the second group sample (<i>n</i> = 510) underwent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and the third group sample (<i>n</i> = 448) underwent criterion-related validity testing. EFA revealed that the scale had a two-factor structure with 18 items that explained 56.23% of the total variance. The CFA analysis verified the scale's two-factor structure and produced good fit values (χ2/df = 2.25, CFI = .99; TLI = .99; NFI = .98; IFI = .99; SRMR = .049; RMSEA = 0.050 [0.42–0.57]). The first factor's analysis showed acceptable values for Guttman's lambda (λ = 0.930–0.948), McDonald's omega (ω = 0.923–0.929), and Cronbach's alpha (α = 0.925–0.935). Similarly, the second factor's analysis also showed acceptable values for these measures (λ = 0.851–0.880, ω = 0.850–0.879, α = 0.847–0.877). Overall, the entire scale demonstrated acceptable values for Cronbach's alpha (0.925–0.935), McDonald's omega (0.922–0.942), and Guttman's lambda (0.940–0.942). Additionally, the scale exhibited a positive and statistically significant correlation with the Fırat Netlessphobia Scale, indicating satisfactory criterion validity. Cross-gender invariance analysis was also performed, showing that gender invariance was achieved. The results indicate that this scale is valid and reliable for university students. In conclusion, the scale fills a critical gap in educational research by providing a reliable tool to measure students' fears and anxieties about the absence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in their learning experiences. By accurately assessing this unique form of anxiety, educators and policymakers can develop targeted interventions to better understand and mitigate students' fears and support the integration of AI in education, thereby enhancing its constructive contribution to learning.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51494,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Education and Information Technologies\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Education and Information Technologies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12984-6\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Education and Information Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12984-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Developing the AIlessphobia in education scale and examining its psychometric characteristics
The purpose of this research is to create a reliable and valid scale to assess AIlessphobia in Education (the fear of being without Artificial Intelligence in education) among university students. In three phases, a sample of 1378 undergraduate students from different faculties at a public university participated in the reliability and validity investigations of the scale during the academic year 2023–2024. Expert comments were obtained to assess the scale's face validity and content validity. The first group sample (n = 420) underwent exploratory factor analysis (EFA), the second group sample (n = 510) underwent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and the third group sample (n = 448) underwent criterion-related validity testing. EFA revealed that the scale had a two-factor structure with 18 items that explained 56.23% of the total variance. The CFA analysis verified the scale's two-factor structure and produced good fit values (χ2/df = 2.25, CFI = .99; TLI = .99; NFI = .98; IFI = .99; SRMR = .049; RMSEA = 0.050 [0.42–0.57]). The first factor's analysis showed acceptable values for Guttman's lambda (λ = 0.930–0.948), McDonald's omega (ω = 0.923–0.929), and Cronbach's alpha (α = 0.925–0.935). Similarly, the second factor's analysis also showed acceptable values for these measures (λ = 0.851–0.880, ω = 0.850–0.879, α = 0.847–0.877). Overall, the entire scale demonstrated acceptable values for Cronbach's alpha (0.925–0.935), McDonald's omega (0.922–0.942), and Guttman's lambda (0.940–0.942). Additionally, the scale exhibited a positive and statistically significant correlation with the Fırat Netlessphobia Scale, indicating satisfactory criterion validity. Cross-gender invariance analysis was also performed, showing that gender invariance was achieved. The results indicate that this scale is valid and reliable for university students. In conclusion, the scale fills a critical gap in educational research by providing a reliable tool to measure students' fears and anxieties about the absence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in their learning experiences. By accurately assessing this unique form of anxiety, educators and policymakers can develop targeted interventions to better understand and mitigate students' fears and support the integration of AI in education, thereby enhancing its constructive contribution to learning.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Education and Information Technologies (EAIT) is a platform for the range of debates and issues in the field of Computing Education as well as the many uses of information and communication technology (ICT) across many educational subjects and sectors. It probes the use of computing to improve education and learning in a variety of settings, platforms and environments.
The journal aims to provide perspectives at all levels, from the micro level of specific pedagogical approaches in Computing Education and applications or instances of use in classrooms, to macro concerns of national policies and major projects; from pre-school classes to adults in tertiary institutions; from teachers and administrators to researchers and designers; from institutions to online and lifelong learning. The journal is embedded in the research and practice of professionals within the contemporary global context and its breadth and scope encourage debate on fundamental issues at all levels and from different research paradigms and learning theories. The journal does not proselytize on behalf of the technologies (whether they be mobile, desktop, interactive, virtual, games-based or learning management systems) but rather provokes debate on all the complex relationships within and between computing and education, whether they are in informal or formal settings. It probes state of the art technologies in Computing Education and it also considers the design and evaluation of digital educational artefacts. The journal aims to maintain and expand its international standing by careful selection on merit of the papers submitted, thus providing a credible ongoing forum for debate and scholarly discourse. Special Issues are occasionally published to cover particular issues in depth. EAIT invites readers to submit papers that draw inferences, probe theory and create new knowledge that informs practice, policy and scholarship. Readers are also invited to comment and reflect upon the argument and opinions published. EAIT is the official journal of the Technical Committee on Education of the International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP) in partnership with UNESCO.