Evaluating the impact of educational management systems based on artificial intelligence: a mixed method approach
Document Type : Scientific research
Author
Master's student in Educational Psychology, Payam Noor University, Tabriz, Iran
Abstract
Using a mixed method approach, this research examines the impact of artificial intelligence-based educational management systems on administrative efficiency, personalized learning, and overall education results. Quantitative data from questionnaires and qualitative data from interviews with administrators, teachers and students were analyzed for a comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness and usability of these systems. The findings show high user satisfaction with artificial intelligence systems, especially among managers who reported a significant reduction in their administrative workload. Also, AI-based personalized learning platforms have been found to improve student engagement and learning outcomes. However, this study emphasizes the need for extensive training and addressing ethical concerns related to data privacy. Combining quantitative and qualitative data provides valuable insight into the practical implications of AI technologies in educational administration. Recommendations for future research include conducting longitudinal research, expanding research to diverse educational fields, and developing ethical guidelines for using artificial intelligence in education. The findings of this research provide policymakers and educators with practical strategies to optimize the implementation of artificial intelligence-based systems to ensure their effectiveness, ethics, and universality.
Keywords
Subjects
Baker, T., & Smith, L. (2019). Educ-AI-tion rebooted? Exploring the future of artificial intelligence in schools and colleges. NESTA.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97-113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058877
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage Publications.
Chen, L., Chen, P., & Lin, Z. (2020). Artificial intelligence in education: A review. IEEE Access, 8, 75264-75278. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2988510
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
Greene, J. A., Oswald, C. A., & Pomerantz, J. (2019). Predictors of retention and achievement in a massive open online course. American Educational Research Journal, 52(5), 925-955. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215584621
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2019). Statistical analysis with missing data (3rd ed.). Wiley.
Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Pearson Education.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Resnik, D. B. (2018). The ethics of research with human subjects: Protecting people, advancing science, promoting trust. Springer.
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147-177. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147
Selwyn, N. (2019). Should robots replace teachers? AI and the future of education. Polity.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Williamson, B., & Eynon, R. (2020). Historical threads, missing links, and future directions in AI in education. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3), 223-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1798995
Woolf, B. P. (2010). Building intelligent interactive tutors: Student-centered strategies for revolutionizing e-learning. Morgan Kaufmann.
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(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
Volume 1, Issue 4 - Serial Number 4
Spring 2024Pages 55-84
- Receive Date 03 April 2024
- Revise Date 23 April 2024
- Accept Date 13 June 2024