高等教育中的AI适应差距：学生、教师与行政人员
The AI Adaptation Gap in Higher Education: Students, Faculty, and Administrative Staff
浏览论文内容
中文总结 AI 辅助
本研究以某师范大学2121名师生行政人员为对象，通过问卷与多种统计方法，发现不同群体间存在AI适应差距，揭示了AI使用、态度的差异及影响信任的关联因素。
中文摘要 AI 辅助
本研究旨在分析一所大型师范类大学的学生、教师及行政人员使用人工智能（AI）的模式与对AI的态度。分析样本包含1809名学生、250名教师及62名行政人员，总样本量N=2121。三份适配不同角色的75项问卷涵盖AI使用频率与场景、感知有用性、信任与控制、学术诚信顾虑、负责任使用规范、机构政策清晰度及产出质量感知提升情况。数据分析采用描述性统计、Welch组间比较、混合普通最小二乘（OLS）模型、观测指标的信度与维度检验，以及仅针对学生的探索性K均值聚类。结果显示，不同大学群体间存在显著的AI适应差距：学生报告的当前AI使用强度及感知有用性高于教师与行政人员，而教师与行政人员则报告更强的学术诚信顾虑，且更认可负责任使用规范。在混合OLS信任模型中，感知有用性与对AI的信任呈最强标准化正相关（β=0.402）；机构政策清晰度也呈正相关但关联较弱（β=0.223）。学生报告的感知政策清晰度高于教师，而两组与行政人员均无显著差异。探索性聚类显示学生在经验、能力、有用性、信任及控制方面存在异质性，但未建立跨大学群体的潜在类型学。该横断面自我报告数据显示的是关联与群体差异，而非对学习或客观结果的因果效应。
英文摘要
The purpose of this study was to analyze patterns of artificial intelligence (AI) use and attitudes toward AI among students, faculty, and administrative staff at a large university specializing in teacher education. The analytical sample comprised 1809 students, 250 faculty members, and 62 administrative staff members (N = 2121). Three role-adapted 75-item questionnaires covered the frequency and contexts of AI use, perceived usefulness, trust and control, academic integrity concerns, responsible-use norms, institutional policy clarity, and perceived improvement in output quality. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, Welch group comparisons, pooled ordinary least squares (OLS) models, reliability and dimensionality checks for observed indices, and exploratory student-only K-means clustering. The results revealed a pronounced AI adaptation gap across university groups. Students reported higher current AI-use intensity and perceived usefulness than faculty and administrative staff, whereas faculty and administrative staff reported stronger academic integrity concerns and greater endorsement of responsible-use norms. In the pooled OLS trust model, perceived usefulness had the strongest standardized positive association with trust in AI (beta = 0.402); institutional policy clarity also had a positive but weaker association (beta = 0.223). Students reported higher perceived policy clarity than faculty, while neither group differed significantly from administrative staff. Exploratory clustering indicated heterogeneity among students in experience, competence, usefulness, trust, and control, but did not establish a latent typology across university groups. The cross-sectional, self-reported data show associations and group differences rather than causal effects on learning or objective outcomes.
