Social Sciences, Humanities and Education Journal (SHE Journal)

Volume 5 (2) 309 – 321, May 2024 | ISSN: 2720-9946 (Online)

The article is published with Open Access at: http://e-journal.unipma.ac.id/index.php/SHE

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Literacy and Academic

Performance of Tertiary Level Students: A
Preliminary Analysis

John Mark R. Asio ; Gordon College, Olongapo City, Philippines.

Abstract: This study intends to analyze the level of AI literacy among college students and its
relationship to their academic performance. This investigation used a cross-sectional
research design to address the research objective of the study. Eight hundred sixty-nine
(869) college students served as participants in the investigation using an adapted
instrument to measure AI literacy. Data from the respondents underwent statistical analysis,
such as frequency, percentage, mean, independent t-test, Analysis of Variance, and Pearson-r
Moment of Correlation. Results show that college students have a moderately high AI literacy
level, and their academic performance was also highly satisfactory. The study also found
significant differences in AI literacy in terms of college and gender and academic
performance in terms of college, year level, and age. As for the relationship, there was a weak
positive relationship between AI literacy and the academic performance of college students.

Keywords: Artificial Intelligence (AI) literacy, Academic performance, College students,

Higher education institutions, AI perception

 [email protected]

Citation: Asio, J.M.R. (2024). Artificial Intelligence (AI) Literacy and Academic Performance
of Tertiary Level Students: A Preliminary Analysis. Social Sciences, Humanities and Education
Journal (SHE Journal), 5(2), 309 – 321.

Copyright ©2020 Social Sciences, Humanities and Education Journal (SHE Journal)
Published by Universitas PGRI Madiun. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

309
Asio SHE Journal

INTRODUCTION was like an anthropomorphic

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged technology with cognitive qualities like
as a technologically transformative force humans.
remodeling different aspects of our AI literacy refers to the
lives. AI is revolutionizing industries and understanding and fluency in the
driving advancements at an fundamental concepts, applications, and
unprecedented pace. In a previous paper implications of artificial intelligence.
by Crompton and Burke (2023), they According to a recent article, AI literacy
mentioned in their review that intends to narrow the gap between
undergraduate students were the most research and practical knowledge
studied aspect of AI in higher education. transfer of AI-related skills (Velander et
The application of AI has become part of al., 2024). However, Bearman and
our social and personal lives. Some colleagues (2023) argued that their
schools have integrated AI-enabled discourse analysis identified few
technologies in education to leverage confusing definitions and little overt
students' personalized learning and reference to AI as a research object. By
reduce teachers' administrative tasks fostering AI literacy among college
(Ng et al., 2022). As AI continues to gain students, we prepare them with the
prominence, it becomes crucial for skills and knowledge necessary to
individuals to develop AI literacy, explore the AI-driven landscape,
particularly college students, who are contribute to its development, and make
the future leaders and professionals of informed decisions that shape its future
our rapidly evolving world. Ng et al. trajectory. In order to accomplish this
(2023) stated that there are already task, they need to train and improve the
global interventions to include AI teachers’ capacity and capability of
literacy in the current educational utilizing AI. A past study from China
standards and strategic plans. However, showed that teachers' AI literacy level
Zhang et al. (2023) stated that educating was above the neutral point (Zhao et al.,
young learners to become AI-literate 2022).
citizens poses several challenges. At the Moreover, AI literacy enables
same time, a paper also presented how college students to critically analyze and
the concept of AI readiness among evaluate the information and data they
educators is essential in practice and encounter in their academic pursuits. A
profession (Luckin et al., 2022). Based previous paper by Herawati et al. (2024)
on the discussion, they focused on AI indicated positive perspectives on the
readiness within the education and use of AI in learning among students in
training sectors. They developed a Malaysia. They perceived AI as a tool
seven-step framework for being an AI- that enriches their learning experience
ready educator. However, in the words and increases access to educational
of Cope et al. (2021), AI will never take resources. With the proliferation of
over the teacher role because how it online resources and information
works and what it does is so profoundly overload, the ability to discern reliable
different from human intelligence. Chan sources, detect biases, and understand
and Tsi (2023) also suggested that the algorithms that shape content
although some believe that AI may recommendations becomes crucial.
replace teachers, a majority still argue Cardon and colleagues (2023) also
that human teachers possess unique mentioned that one perceived
qualities that make them irreplaceable. disadvantage of AI is less critical
Regarding student perception, Mertala thinking and authentic writing capacity.
and colleagues (2022) suggested that AI AI literacy empowers students to

310
Asio SHE Journal

differentiate between credible learning styles, ultimately leading to

information and misinformation, improved academic outcomes.
promoting intellectual rigor and Furthermore, as AI continues to
fostering a research-oriented mindset. disrupt various industries, college
Thus, AI education can be taught in students with a strong foundation in AI
classrooms as an extension of computer literacy are better positioned for future
science, which requires teachers to have career opportunities. In a conference,
a solid knowledge base in coding, data, Wilton and colleagues (2022) reiterated
AI technologies, and ethical issues (Kim the call from researchers of many
& Kwon, 2023). In the same aspect, disciplines to address the need to
technical and teacher support mediate promote AI literacy, especially those
to enhance AI literacy among college with or without technical backgrounds.
students (Shen & Cui, 2024). Proficiency in AI concepts and tools
Nevertheless, in a local study by Chua opens doors to diverse fields such as
and colleagues (2023), they intend to data science, machine learning, robotics,
call for an ethical, safe, and regulated and AI ethics. As stated in a local study
use of AI in the Philippines. As part of from Bancoro (2024), AI tools offer
their proposal, enhancing AU personalized learning experiences
governance, establishing an AI ethics among students; however, further
committee, and promoting AI literacy growth and improvement are necessary
and upskilling programs are vital to to embrace this new perspective. By
fulfilling a regulated AI in education. developing AI literacy early on, students
One area where AI literacy holds can acquire the skills increasingly
immense potential is enhancing sought after by employers across
academic performance among college industries, giving them a competitive
students. One benefit can be the edge in the job market. However, in the
efficiency and better idea generation in Philippines, policymakers should
writing (Cardon et al., 2023). As reassess their stance regarding AI's
educational institutions increasingly increasing presence in the educational
integrate AI technologies into their system (Giray et al., 2024).
systems, students with a solid Finally, AI literacy is becoming
understanding of AI can leverage these essential for college students in our AI-
tools to optimize their learning driven world. Nevertheless, based on the
experiences and excel in their studies. In literature review, there still needs to be
local literature, Asirit and Hua (2023) a gap in the prevalence of AI literacy
found that college students’ AI among college students and its impact
familiarity depended on age, academic on their academic performance.
year, and field of study. Thus, AI- Additionally, in the Philippines, although
powered educational platforms can there is a proliferating trend when it
deliver personalized content, adaptive comes to researching Artificial
assessments, and intelligent tutoring Intelligence, there needs to be more that
mechanisms that serve individual mainly focuses on the impact of AI
student needs. However, a scoping literacy on academic performance. This
review by Laupichler et al. (2022) realization prompted the investigator to
indicated that research on AI literacy is investigate the said phenomenon, and
still young and needs further refinement thus, this study proceeded forward.
regarding definition in adult education The main objective of this
and the contents that need to be taught investigation is to explore the AI literacy
to non-experts. By leveraging AI, college and academic performance of selected
students can receive tailored feedback, college students from a tertiary
identify learning gaps, and access education institution. At the same time,
resources that align with their unique the relationship between AI literacy and

311
Asio SHE Journal

the participants' academic performance came from the CCS (f=324) than from
should be analyzed. The result of this CEAS (f=289) and CAHS (f=256). In
study has several implications, terms of year level, there were more
especially for students, faculty, the first-year level respondents (f=352) as
school administration, and the compared to second-year (f=260), third-
institution itself. At the same time, it can year (f=139), and fourth-year (f=118)
also be part of the growing local levels. As for the age of the respondents,
literature for AI-related studies for those less than 20 dominated the rest of
future researchers. the groups, with a frequency of 541. This
result is followed by the age bracket 21-
METHODS 25 years old with a frequency of 292,
Research Design then by the age bracket 26-30 years old
The investigator used a and 31 years old and above with a
descriptive–correlation study with an frequency of 18 apiece. As for gender,
online survey via Google form as the there were more females (f=472) than
primary data-gathering tool in this males (f=380) and those who preferred
study. The study aims to explore the not to say (f=17).
relationship between students' AI
literacy and academic performance and TABLE 1. Demographic characteristics
analyze variance in the level of AI Characteristics f %
literacy among the students. Therefore, College
the said research design was applicable CAHS 256 29.5
to current endeavors. CCS 324 37.3
CEAS 289 33.3
Year Level
Respondents
First Year 352 40.5
This study's population Second Year 260 29.9
consisted of college students from a Third Year 139 16.0
local tertiary education institution Fourth Year 118 13.6
located in Olongapo City, Philippines. Age
Eight hundred sixty-nine (869) students < 20 years old 541 62.3
voluntarily participated in the online 21-25 years old 292 33.6
survey spearheaded by the investigator 26-30 years old 18 2.1
from August to September 2023, during > 31 years old 18 2.1
the first semester of the academic year Gender
Female 472 54.3
2023-2024.
Male 380 43.7
The study's investigator used Prefer not to say 17 2.0
purposive sampling to gather enough Total 869 100.0
respondents. Also, to be part of the
survey, the respondents must possess Instrumentation
the following criteria: 1) bona fide To obtain the necessary data for
student of the participating institution, the study, the investigator adapted an
2) currently enrolled within the instrument by Carolus et al. (2023) from
semester of the academic year, 3) has an their paper MAILS-Meta AI literacy
internet connection and gadget, and 4) scale: Development and testing of an AI
willing to participate in the online literacy questionnaire based on well-
survey. Table 1 displays the summary of founded competency models and
the descriptive characteristics of the psychological change and meta-
participants for the study. competencies. In the adaptation, the
Table 1 depicts the frequency investigator considered the AI literacy
and percentage distribution of the aspect only, wherein three (3) sub-
students' demographic characteristics. variables focused on the use and
In terms of college, more respondents

312
Asio SHE Journal

application of AI (six items), knowledge Items Mean Interpretation

and understanding of AI (six items), and Use and Apply 3.09 Moderately High
ethics of AI (three items). After this AI
consideration, the investigator pilot- Know and 3.28 Moderately High
tested the modified instrument first and Understand AI
subjected it to Cronbach Alpha AI Ethics 3.30 Moderately High
reliability analysis, wherein it yielded an AI Literacy 3.22 Moderately High
overall coefficient of .980, higher than Legend: 1.00-1.79=Very low; 1.80-2.59=Low;
the benchmark score of .70 for reliability 2.60-3.39=Moderately High; 3.40-4.19=High;
acceptance (Taber, 2018). 4.20-5.00=Very High
Table 2 presents the mean
Statistical Analysis scores and descriptive interpretations of
In determining the statistical different aspects of artificial intelligence
analysis for the research, the (AI) literacy. The results indicate that
investigator used descriptive and the respondents have demonstrated
inferential statistics with the software moderately high proficiency and
Statistical Package for Social Science understanding in various AI-related
(SPSS) Package version 23. This
domains. In terms of using and applying
software helped the investigator
AI, the mean score is 3.09, suggesting
calculate the following statistical
treatments: frequency and percentage that respondents possess a moderately
distribution for the demographic high ability to utilize and implement AI
characteristics and mean distribution technologies. Similarly, the mean score
for AI literacy. On the other hand, the for knowing and understanding AI is
computation also employed Analysis of 3.28, indicating a moderately high level
Variance (ANOVA) for the test of of knowledge and comprehension of AI
difference for the respondents' AI concepts. The aspect of AI ethics also
literacy and academic performance and received a moderately high mean score
Pearson-r Moment of Correlation for the of 3.30, indicating a sound
test of the relationship between AI understanding of ethical considerations
literacy and academic performance.
associated with AI applications. Overall,
Furthermore, the respondents
AI literacy, as reflected by the mean
employed a five (5) point Likert scale
response for answering the online score of 3.22, is also moderately high.
survey. The numerical values have the These findings suggest that the
following corresponding descriptive respondents possess a solid foundation
interpretation: 1-very low; 2- low; 3- of AI literacy, enabling them to
moderately high; 4-high; and 5-very effectively engage with and navigate AI
high. technologies and related ethical
considerations.
RESULT
TABLE 3. Academic performance of the
This study analyses the perceived level
respondents
of Artificial Intelligence (AI) literacy and
academic performance of college Grade f Interpretation
students from a local tertiary education 75-79% 23 Satisfactory
institution. After careful data analysis, 80-84% 152 Good
the following tables present the study's 85-89% 374 High Satisfactory
results. 90-94% 294 Very Good
> 95% 26 Excellent
TABLE 2. Artificial intelligence (AI) literacy Average 1.89 High Satisfactory
(85.5%)

313
Asio SHE Journal

Table 3 presents the according to college. For the variable

respondents' academic performance "use and apply AI," a significant
based on their Grade Point Average difference is found between groups
(GPA). The table includes the frequency since the study got F(2, 866) = 17.084,
of respondents in each GPA range and p= .000. Similarly, for the variable "AI
provides an interpretation for each ethics" and "AI literacy," the study also
range. Among the respondents, 23 obtained significant findings and
individuals achieved a GPA between 75- garnered the following values, F(2,
79%, indicating a "Satisfactory" level of 866)= 5.433, p= .005 and F(2, 866)=
performance. A larger group of 152 8.404, p= .000 respectively. The
individuals obtained a GPA ranging from probability values obtained were
80-84%, indicating a "Good" level of significant at a .05 alpha significance
performance. The most common GPA level. Thus, it is safe to assume that
range was 85-89%, with 374 individuals significant differences exist when we
falling within this range, signifying a group the variables according to college.
"High Satisfactory" level of performance. However, in the case of "know and
Additionally, 294 individuals achieved a understand AI,” there was no significant
GPA between 90-94%, indicating a "Very difference since F(2, 866)= 2.739, p=
Good" level of performance. A smaller .065, wherein the p-value was higher
group of 26 individuals obtained a GPA than the alpha significance level of .05.
of 95% or above, denoting an Moreover, for the variable
"Excellent" level of performance. The "academic performance," a significant
average GPA for all respondents was difference is found between groups,
1.89, equivalent to 85.5% on a wherein the study generated F(2, 866)=
percentage scale. This average GPA falls 24.901, p= .000. These findings suggest
within the "High Satisfactory" range. significant differences in AI literacy and
These findings suggest that most of the academic performance among students
respondents demonstrated satisfactory when grouped according to their
to excellent levels of academic colleges. Further investigation may be
performance, with the most common necessary to explore the factors
performance level being "High contributing to these variances and their
Satisfactory." consequences for AI education and
academic outcomes within different
TABLE 4. Differences in the AI literacy and college settings.
Academic Performance of the Students when
grouped according to college TABLE 5. Differences in the AI literacy and
Variables F Sig. academic performance of the students when
Use and Apply AI 17.08* .000 grouped according to year level
Know and Understand AI 2.74 .065 Variables F Sig.
AI Ethics 5.43* .005 Use and Apply AI 3.00* .030
AI Literacy 8.40* .000 Know and Understand AI 1.39 .244
Academic Performance 24.90* .000 AI Ethics 1.04 .374
Note: *p < .05; df1=2; df2=866 AI Literacy 2.08 .102
Academic Performance 12.28* .000
Table 4 presents the results of Note: *p < .05; df1=3; df2=865
the result of ANOVA assessing the
differences in AI literacy and students' Table 5 demonstrates the results
academic performance when grouped of the ANOVA computation analyzing

314
Asio SHE Journal

the differences in AI literacy and the “know and understand AI,” the
students' academic performance when computation yield F93, 865)= 1.847, p=
grouped according to year level. The .137. Regarding “AI ethics,” it generated
table shows that only the “use and apply F(3, 865)= 0.388, p= .762. Lastly, the “AI
AI” garnered a significant finding based literacy” generated F(3, 865)= 1.315, p=
on the computation. The study obtained .268. All the probability values
F(3, 865)= 3.000, p= .030, wherein the generated during the computation were
probability value was significant at the insignificant at a .05 Alpha significance
.05 alpha significance level. As for the level. Thus, it is safe to assume that
remaining sub-variables of the A there was no substantial evidence to
literacy, the following values were F(3, prove variations in the students'
865)= 1.392, p= .244 for the “know and perceptions.
understand AI,” F(3, 865)= 1.040 for the However, for the variable
“AI ethics,” and F(3, 865)= 2.077, p= "academic performance," the study
.102 for the overall “AI literacy” variable. found a significant difference between
For the variable "academic age groups since F(3, 865)= 2.899, p=
performance," the obtained a significant .034. These findings imply that while
difference between groups since F(3, there are no significant differences in AI
865)= 12.283, p= .000. These findings literacy and specific aspects of AI
suggest that while AI literacy and knowledge and understanding across
specific aspects of AI knowledge and different age groups, there is a
understanding do not vary significantly significant difference in academic
across different year levels, there are performance.
significant differences in academic
performance. TABLE 7. Differences in the AI literacy and
academic performance of the students when
TABLE 6. Differences in the AI literacy and grouped according to gender
academic performance of the Students when Variables F Sig.
grouped according to age Use and Apply AI 10.89* .000
Variables F Sig. Know and Understand AI 5.91* .003
Use and Apply AI 2.02 .109 AI Ethics 5.07* .003
Know and Understand AI 1.85 .137 AI Literacy 8.79* .000
AI Ethics 0.39 .762 Academic Performance 0.41 .662
AI Literacy 1.32 .268 Note: *p < .05; df1=2; df2=866
Academic Performance 2.90* .034
Note: *p < .05; df1=3; df2=865 Table 7 represents the results of
the Analysis of Variance examining the
Table 6 depicts the Analysis of differences in AI literacy and students'
Variance (ANOVA) calculation results academic performance when grouped
examining the differences in AI literacy according to gender. In general,
and students' academic performance significant findings were produced by
when grouped according to age. the statistical treatment. In particular,
Generally, it is easy to decipher that the variable "use and apply AI" got a
there were no particular differences in significant difference with a result of
the students' perception of AI literacy. F(2, 866)= 10.889, p= .001. Similarly, the
The table showed the following results: variable "know and understand AI" also
for the "use and apply AI," the study produced a significant difference, with
produced F(3, 865)= 2.021, p= .109. For F(2, 866)= 5.912, p= .003. In the case of

315
Asio SHE Journal

"AI ethics," the variable also shows a .003). Furthermore, a weak positive
significant difference between genders correlation is observed for the variable
since it generated F(2, 866)= 5.067, p= "AI Literacy" (r = .096, p = .004). These
.003. Regarding "AI literacy," a findings suggest a slight positive
significant difference was detected relationship between AI literacy and
between genders due to F(2, 866)= academic performance, indicating that
8.786, p= .001. The associated individuals with higher AI literacy tend
probability values were all lower than to have slightly better academic
the .05 alpha significance level. Hence, it performance. However, the weak
is safe to assume that in terms of gender, correlations indicate that AI literacy
the study found significant differences in alone may not be the sole determinant
the students' AI literacy. However, the of academic performance, and other
table showed no significant difference factors might also contribute. Further
between genders for the "academic research is needed to explore the
performance" variable since the study complex relationship between AI
found F(2, 866)= 0.412, p= .662. These literacy and academic performance
results propose significant differences in further.
AI literacy among genders and specific
AI knowledge and understanding DISCUSSION
aspects. However, there is no significant
difference in academic performance The central aspect of this study is for the
between genders. investigator to determine AI literacy
among college students and its
TABLE 8. Relationship between AI Literacy relevance to their academic
and academic performance performance. From the generated
Variables Academic results of the study, the investigator
Performance provided some exciting and thought-
Use and Apply AI .053 provoking findings that can benefit
.121 individuals at the forefront of education.
Know and Understand AI .107* The study's findings regarding
.002 AI literacy among college students were
AI Ethics .101* unprecedented. Each latent variable of
.003 AI literacy, namely use and apply AI,
AI Literacy .096* know and understand AI, and AI ethics,
.004 generated scores corresponding to
Note: *p < .05 moderately high levels of perception
among college students. About the
Table 8 presents the relationship current findings, Zhao et al. (2022) and
between AI literacy and the Obenza et al. (2024) also generated
respondents' academic performance. almost a similar mean score from their
For the variable "Use and Apply AI," a study (above the neutral score). Another
article from Wood and colleagues
weak positive correlation is observed
(2021) disclosed that students and
with academic performance (r = .053, p
faculty reported limited AI literacy. Also,
= .121). Similarly, a weak positive Manrique and Palomares (2024) found
correlation is found for the variable that their study's respondents are highly
"Know and Understand AI" (r = .107, p = familiar with AI's ease of use and
.002). The "AI Ethics" variable also usefulness. In addition, in a literature
shows a weak positive correlation with review, ethics in AI is the least noted
academic performance (r = .101, p = term for FATE (Fairness, Accountability,

316
Asio SHE Journal

Transparency, and Ethics). They the study found a credible answer for
considered ethics a relatively broad and the study's primary aim: whether there
an umbrella term in most studies is a relationship between AI literacy and
(Memarian & Doleck, 2023; Chounta et the academic performance of college
al., 2022). There were also some students. Although it is still too early to
potential challenges for teachers, such argue the relevance of such findings, the
as vague and unclear protocols in policy current study finally laid its foundation
and curriculum, a need for more for future exploration by other
understanding of AI and its limitations researchers interested in exploring
and the emotional aspects relative to an artificial intelligence (AI) literacy. In
individual's preconception (Velander et particular, two latent variables in the
al., 2024). As for the general academic study yielded similar results regarding
performance of the respondents in the the overall AI literacy outcome. Knowing
study, most of them have relatively high and understanding AI, as well as AI
satisfactory marks. This result coincides ethics, also produced weak and positive
with the previous finding of local relationships with the academic
literature wherein students' academic performance of college students.
performance was above average These exciting findings provided
(Bancoro, 2024). an essential and vital foundation for
To make the study even more understanding students' perceptions of
interesting, variance was generated Artificial Intelligence (AI). The results
among the groups when the investigator can also be leveraged so that students
tried to group the respondents based on can consider enhancing their
their demographic characteristics. For capabilities and raising their literacy
instance, for use and applying AI, levels in this technologically diverse and
college, year level, and gender generated driven educational system.
significant differences. For the know and
understand AI, only gender yields
significant results. As for AI ethics, CONCLUSION
college and gender were the significant
findings. Moreover, for the overall AI The study revealed a moderately high
literacy, the study generated significant level of AI literacy among the
variations in college and gender respondents. The investigator also
groupings among the respondents. A observed the same AI use and
previous paper by Asirit and Hua (2023) application level, knowledge and
revealed that college students' understanding, and AI ethics. Regarding
familiarity with AI depends on age, the respondents' academic performance,
academic year, and field of study. they generally have a high satisfaction
Finally, for the relationship rate based on their grade point average
between the two variables in the study, (GPA). When the study grouped the
in general, there was a weak positive respondents according to college and
association. This result somehow gender, statistical differences were
disagreed with the findings of Bancoro found in AI literacy. As for academic
(2024), wherein the investigator found performance, the study observed
no significant association between variance in college, year level, and age.
students' academic performance and AI In general, AI literacy and the
use. However, a later study by Lestari respondents' academic performance had
and colleagues (2021) found a a weak positive association.
significant relationship between skills Furthermore, the same result was
achievement and AI use. Alshater (2022) observed for knowing and
also agrees that AI tools can significantly understanding AI and AI ethics.
enhance academic performance. Thus,

317
Asio SHE Journal

Based on the preceding results of

the study, the investigator at this Asirit, L. B. L., & Hua, J. H. (2023).
moment suggests the following essential Converging perspectives:
recommendations: Assessing AI readiness and
• Students are encouraged to promote utilization in Philippine higher
general awareness and appropriate education. Polaris Global Journal of
artificial intelligence (AI) use. Scholarly Research and
Technology-based learning is Trends, 2(3), 1-50.
already available to every student, https://doi.org/10.58429/pgjsrt.v
and even the younger generations 2n3a152
can adapt to current trends
regarding AI usage in learning. Thus, Bancoro, J. C. M. (2024). The
providing them with proper Relationship Between Artificial
knowledge and guidance is a must. Intelligence (AI) Usage and
• Essential upskilling and retooling Academic Performance of
are necessary for the faculty to keep Business Administration
abreast of the fast-paced changes in Students. International Journal of
the educational landmark. Proper Asian Business and
training and skills development are Management, 3(1), 27-48.
vital to help one decide suitable https://doi.org/10.55927/ijabm.v
measures and techniques using AI in 3i1.7876
education.
• For the school administration, Bearman, M., Ryan, J., & Ajjawi, R.
although AI is slowly making its way (2023). Discourses of artificial
into college students' learning intelligence in higher education: A
process, it is still equally important critical literature review. Higher
to understand and conduct a more Education, 86(2), 369-385.
in-depth analysis of how to regulate https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-
these different tools for the benefit 022-00937-2
of both students and faculty. Sound
decision-making with a win-win Cardon, P., Fleischmann, C., Aritz, J.,
situation can be employed. Logemann, M., & Heidewald, J.
• For the institution, prior to (2023). The Challenges and
implementing rules and regulations Opportunities of AI-Assisted
for the proper use of AI technologies Writing: Developing AI Literacy
and tools, a credible and reliable for the AI Age. Business and
investigation can support the Professional Communication
institution's general perspective Quarterly, 86(3), 257-295.
regarding the use of AI in the https://doi.org/10.1177/232949
students' learning experience. 06231176517

Carolus, A., Koch, M. J., Straka, S.,

REFERENCES Latoschik, M. E., & Wienrich, C.
(2023). MAILS-Meta AI literacy
Alshater, M. (2022). Exploring the role scale: Development and testing of
of artificial intelligence in an AI literacy questionnaire based
enhancing academic performance: on well-founded competency
A case study of ChatGPT. Available models and psychological change-
at SSRN 4312358. and meta-competencies.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4 Computers in Human Behavior:
312358 Artificial Humans, 1(2), 100014.

318
Asio SHE Journal

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2 Chua, E., Santiago, C., & Ulanday,

023.100014 M. L. (2024). Use and Impact of
Artificial Intelligence in Philippine
Chan, C. K. Y., & Tsi, L. H. (2023). The AI Higher Education: Reflections
revolution in education: Will AI from Instructors and
replace or assist teachers in Administrators. Internet Reference
higher education? arXiv preprint Services Quarterly, 1-24.
arXiv:2305.01185. https://doi.org/10.1080/108753
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2 01.2024.2352746
305.01185
Herawati, A. A., Taufik, A., Ilfiandra, I., &
Chounta, I. A., Bardone, E., Raudsep, A., & Habibi, A. S. Y. (2024). Exploring
Pedaste, M. (2022). Exploring the Role of Artificial Intelligence in
teachers’ perceptions of artificial Education: Students Preferences
intelligence as a tool to support and Perceptions. AL-ISHLAH:
their practice in Estonian K-12 Jurnal Pendidikan, 16(2), 1029-
education. International Journal of 1040.
Artificial Intelligence in https://doi.org/10.35445/alishla
Education, 32(3), 725–755. h.v16i2.4784
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-
021-00243-5 Kim, K., & Kwon, K. (2023). Exploring
the AI competencies of elementary
Chua, L., Aquino, F. I., Ligot, D. V., school teachers in South
Santiago, S. A., Ato, N. B., Bawagan, Korea. Computers and Education:
P., & Cuevas, E. (2023). Public Call Artificial Intelligence, 4, 100137.
on Ethics, Safety, and Governance https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2
of AI in the Philippines. Safety and 023.100137
Governance of AI in the Philippines
(May 12, 2023). Laupichler, M. C., Aster, A., Schirch, J., &
https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4 Raupach, T. (2022). Artificial
461284 intelligence literacy in higher and
adult education: A scoping
Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., & Searsmith, D. literature review. Computers and
(2021). Artificial intelligence for Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3,
education: Knowledge and its 100101.
assessment in AI-enabled learning https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2
ecologies. Educational philosophy 022.100101
and theory, 53(12), 1229-1245.
https://doi.org/10.1080/001318 Lestari, S., Usadiati, W., & Misrita, M.
57.2020.1728732 (2021). The correlation between
students’ artificial intelligence and
Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2023). their English reading skills
Artificial intelligence in higher achievement. Bahasa: Jurnal
education: the state of the Keilmuan Pendidikan Bahasa Dan
field. International Journal of Sastra Indonesia, 3(2), 103-111.
Educational Technology in Higher https://doi.org/10.26499/bahasa.
Education, 20(1), 22. v3i2.110
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-
023-00392-8 Luckin, R., Cukurova, M., Kent, C., & Du
Boulay, B. (2022). Empowering
Giray, L., De Silos, P. Y., Adornado, A., educators to be AI-
Buelo, R. J. V., Galas, E., Reyes- ready. Computers and Education:

319
Asio SHE Journal

Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100076. classrooms (pp. 9-19). Cham:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2 Springer International Publishing.
022.100076 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
031-18880-0_2
Manrique, P. C. J., & Palomares, N. R.
(2024). Embracing the future: Obenza, B., Go, L., Francisco, J. A., Buit, E.
exploring teachers’ perspective E., Mariano, F. V., Cuizon, H.,
and readiness for integrating Cagabhion, A.J., & Agbulos, K. A. J.
artificial intelligence (AI) in (2024). The Nexus between
Mathematics classroom in Cognitive Absorption and AI
selected public and private senior Literacy of College Students as
high school. Ignatian International Moderated by Sex. American
Journal for Multidisciplinary Journal of Smart Technology and
Research, 2(5), 2654-2675. Solutions, 3(1), 32–39.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo. https://doi.org/10.54536/ajsts.v3
11393926 i1.2603

Memarian, B., & Doleck, T. (2023). Shen, Y., & Cui, W. (2024). Perceived
Fairness, Accountability, support and AI literacy: the
Transparency, and Ethics (FATE) mediating role of psychological
in Artificial Intelligence (AI), and needs satisfaction. Frontiers in
higher education: A systematic Psychology, 15, 1415248.
review. Computers and Education: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.20
Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100152. 24.1415248
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2
023.100152 Taber, K.S. (2018). The Use of
Cronbach’s Alpha When
Mertala, P., Fagerlund, J., & Calderon, O. Developing and Reporting
(2022). Finnish 5th and 6th grade Research Instruments in Science
students' pre-instructional Education. Research in Science
conceptions of artificial Education, 48, 1273–1296.
intelligence (AI) and their https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-
implications for AI literacy 016-9602-2
education. Computers and
Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, Velander, J., Taiye, M. A., Otero, N., &
100095. Milrad, M. (2024). Artificial
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2 Intelligence in K-12 Education:
022.100095 eliciting and reflecting on Swedish
teachers' understanding of AI and
Ng, D. T. K., Lee, M., Tan, R. J. Y., Hu, X., its implications for teaching &
Downie, J. S., & Chu, S. K. W. learning. Education and
(2023). A review of AI teaching Information Technologies, 29(4),
and learning from 2000 to 4085-4105.
2020. Education and Information https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-
Technologies, 28(7), 8445-8501. 023-11990-4
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-
022-11491-w Wilton, L., Ip, S., Sharma, M., & Fan, F.
(2022, July). Where is the AI? Ai
Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Su, M. J., Yim, I. literacy for educators. In
H. Y., Qiao, M. S., & Chu, S. K. W. International Conference on
(2022). AI education and AI Artificial Intelligence in Education
literacy. In AI literacy in K-16 (pp. 180–188). Cham: Springer

320
Asio SHE Journal

International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
031-11647-6_31

Wood, E. A., Ange, B. L., & Miller, D. D.

(2021). Are We Ready to Integrate
Artificial Intelligence Literacy into
Medical School Curriculum:
Students and Faculty Survey.
Journal of Medical Education and
Curricular Development, 8.
https://doi.org/10.1177/238212
05211024078

Zhang, H., Lee, I., Ali, S., DiPaola, D.,

Cheng, Y., & Breazeal, C. (2023).
Integrating ethics and career
futures with technical learning to
promote AI literacy for middle
school students: An exploratory
study. International Journal of
Artificial Intelligence in
Education, 33(2), 290–324.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-
022-00293-3

321